flamingknives Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Probably really only relevant when (if?) BFC decide to do a British Module for CM:SF, but interesting nonetheless. http://www.mod.uk/publications/other.htm Currently at the top. The most significant findings seem to be: * The destroyed Challenger was not penetrated. The damage was done by a HESH round hitting the open commander's hatch * The low resolution of thermal sights at range. The CR 2 commander that fired thought that he was targetting an MTLB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Tragic. Fascinating document. What does MTLB stand for again? Thanks, Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 One of these 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Ah! I had forgot all about the workhorse MT-LB! I wonder if that vehicle's going to end up in CMSF. BFC has advised they're not planning to 'spoiling' us like they did with all those vehicles in CMBB, but then they list all the cool stuff that's going to make it into the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Originally posted by MikeyD: Ah! I had forgot all about the workhorse MT-LB! I wonder if that vehicle's going to end up in CMSF. BFC has advised they're not planning to 'spoiling' us like they did with all those vehicles in CMBB, but then they list all the cool stuff that's going to make it into the game. Globalsecurity doesn't list any MT-LBs in Syria's inventory. Iraq had/has a bunch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 MT-LB Mangy Tractor - Loosy Body. Other versions please, best one wins a prize. Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Massively Tempting Left Buttock 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFE Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Mother's Terrible Little Boy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Modernizirovanniy Transportyer Legkoi Brony? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 "Mighty Tiny Little Bastard" is what they called them at NTC. The opfor used them. Very fast and very low profile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renaud Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 According to one inspector who examined the remains, the total loss was caused when 120mm charges ignited and burning rapidly, leading to ignition of everything else. It seems the Challenger has a rotating 'wheel' on the turret floor beneath the main gun which functions as a sort of ready-rack for 'charges'. (I guess the Challenger uses 2-part ammunition?). This ready ammunition is apparently unprotected. I can't tell from the document if that was the cause of death for the 2 crew members inside the tank, but I didn't see any mention of exposed ammo as a factor in the findings or recommendations. A hit like this would not have destroyed an abrams, assuming the crew had the ammo door shut (like it is supposed to be!!). Whether the HESH hitting the hatch still would have killed the crew is arguable. I personally would not feel comfortable with 120mm propellant charges stored unprotected in the turret. A challenger just doesn't look much like an MTLB to me, but things can get pretty blobby in the old generation thermals depending on conditions. This brings up another question for me: is this a challenger 2E with the new thermals (like M1A2 SEP thermals) or the older one with old generation thermals (like M1/M1A1 original thermals). Supposedly the new thermals have much higher resolution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 Originally posted by Renaud: According to one inspector who examined the remains, the total loss was caused when 120mm charges ignited and burning rapidly, leading to ignition of everything else. Not so. The suspected cause of the secondary fire/explosion was ignition and subsequent detonation of HESH projectiles stored within the fighting compartment. It seems the Challenger has a rotating 'wheel' on the turret floor beneath the main gun which functions as a sort of ready-rack for 'charges'. (I guess the Challenger uses 2-part ammunition?). This ready ammunition is apparently unprotected. I can't tell from the document if that was the cause of death for the 2 crew members inside the tank, but I didn't see any mention of exposed ammo as a factor in the findings or recommendations. Challenger does use two part ammunition, but propellant charges are not stored in an exposed position, projectiles, apparently are. Whether this is standard practice is not covered. There is a current trend towards insensitive ammunition, that would not have exploded in this manner, exposed or not. Regarding the crew, the report has this to say on the matter: The damage is consistant with a single strike by a UK 120mm HESH projectile, which would have been instantly fatal to crewmen in or on the vehicle(para 65) Fairly clear, I would have thought. A hit like this would not have destroyed an abrams, assuming the crew had the ammo door shut (like it is supposed to be!!). Whether the HESH hitting the hatch still would have killed the crew is arguable. I personally would not feel comfortable with 120mm propellant charges stored unprotected in the turret. Crew fatalities are not arguable, given the expert opinion in para 65. A challenger just doesn't look much like an MTLB to me, but things can get pretty blobby in the old generation thermals depending on conditions. This brings up another question for me: is this a challenger 2E with the new thermals (like M1A2 SEP thermals) or the older one with old generation thermals (like M1/M1A1 original thermals). Supposedly the new thermals have much higher resolution. The Challenger 2E mounts a Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), like the M1A2 SEP, but the 'E' is not in service with any army. Challenger 2s Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight (TOGS), which is used by both commander and gunner, is a second generation thermal imager like that used on the M1A2. IIRC, of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.