Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Iraqi Bomb Penetrates Challenger 2

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Lone Wolf, Apr 23, 2007.

  1. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    This is being reported as very significant as it is the first time that a bomb has got through a Challenger 2's armour.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6583607.stm

    Mind you - it looks like the reporter has made the usual mistake of confusing details of the Challenger 1 with the Challenger 2.
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    It is significant - but not necessarily surprising. The M1A3 has been penetrated prviously in Iraq, so it was only a matter of time until the Challenger II was as well.
     
  3. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes but the Abrams penetration was made by an RPG, as were the Merkava losses in Lebanon...

    This appears to be a homemade IED which penetrated the tank :-?
    Very worrying
     
  4. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I only thought that the M1 had been penetrated by RPG's not IED's and through the back and possably side

    the Challanger had it's nose take off alledegly taking off the drivers legs which hints at a strike to the front or front side which will be the most armoured section.

    Although it could be a mine strike through the floor.

    Did you see what they do to the scimiters and warriors? Nasty stuff.

    FNG
     
  5. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    there was a news footage on SBS here ,reporting the event ,
    I don't know if the picture was accurate but the tank was sitting in a crater of nearly its own length ,
    if it's the proper picture he must have its belly riped out

    .
     
  6. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    AFAIK only one crew member was injured (albeit seriously).

    I think the main impact of this incident on the forces our there will be the realisation that they're not safe patroling the streets in anything (let's face it - if your not safe in a Challenger 2 then you're not safe in anything) - bad for morale.
     
  7. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    yep , I checked on the ministry of defense site
    ,http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/Archive

    under the headings "It is with deep sadness that the Ministry of Defence must confirm the death of "
    there is no recorded fatality for the 22 or 23 of april
    the warriors vehicles are mentionned often enought , it could be because they are more used ( and more useful ) and a frequent target

    on the sad irony of thing , I just saw the latest fatality for the 1st of may
    a serviceman died in a bicycle accident at basra station :roll:
    it would prove that basra station is safe enought from hostiles but not from irakis drivers

    .
     
  8. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Latest info seems to be that a massive shaped charge managed to penetrate the front of the tank from underneath were it is more vulnerable - injuring only the driver. This being the case - it is probably fair to say that the Challenger 2's main anti-tank weapon defeating armour remains unpenetrated (a technicality that will be of little comfort to the injured soldier I'm affraid).
     
  9. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    is there such a thing as "racial design memories " :D

    The british tanks seems to me to always favor armor rather that the other characteristics like nibleness , gun punch or range


    .
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The cruiser tank series went for mobility rather than punch or armour, and IIRC Chieftain was designed for gun/ armour/ mobility in that order.
     
  11. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Not sure where you get that from, Jaegeur. Challenger 2 has armour, gun & mobility. The only one that's relevant to this topic, though, is armour.
     
  12. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    I'm thinking of the most used british tank of ww2 , the churchill . with a tiny gun carried by a 38t machine ,
    the cruiser tanks were not exactly a sucess , they were used by default of anything better ,
    the challenger has a very impressive armor , and chobham is a british invention I believe , :D
    as for guns , 120mm smoothbore is pretty much the standard in the west now , is there a NATO standard for it ?

    .
     
  13. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Churchill went from 2 pr to 6 pr to 75 mm in the course of its career - not too shabby.
    If not the guns themelves, although the UK is now supposedly planning on switching to the Reinmetall 120 (and, I heard a couple of weeks ago, giving Germany the order for any future Brit tanks since the closure of Barmbow etc. :eek: ), but the ammo (except the rifled guns on ChallY of course) is pretty much interchangable.
    Isn't the 120 on M1 based on the Rheinmetall weapon?
     
  14. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, it is. The M-256 is a licensed version of the Rheinmetall design manufactured in the US.
     
  15. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Only until the end of WW2.
     

Share This Page