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.
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.
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
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
. 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 .
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.
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 .
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).
. is there such a thing as "racial design memories " The british tanks seems to me to always favor armor rather that the other characteristics like nibleness , gun punch or range .
The cruiser tank series went for mobility rather than punch or armour, and IIRC Chieftain was designed for gun/ armour/ mobility in that order.
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.
. 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 , as for guns , 120mm smoothbore is pretty much the standard in the west now , is there a NATO standard for it ? .
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. ), 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?