Talk:Challenger 2

The Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II (TOGS II)

I am a Control Equipment technician in the British Army and have taken the full CR2 course and have worked on them for 2-3 years. TOGS was the term for the system used on the CR1. TI is controled by the Thermal Imaging Prosessing Unit (TIPU) and the Thermal Imaging Sensor Head (TISH). This image is fed into the Gunners Primary Sight (GPS) and the Commanders Primary Sight CPS). Both are controlled by electronic units. The CPSEU and the GPSEU. Its also important to know that the gunner and commander do not have separate TI like on some other MBT. The TISH is on top of the gun.

Lopex

Copyright Problem

The basis for this article was originally [1] Some sentences are still directly or neerly completely copied from the article. I almost listed this as a copyright problem but thought best of it since it has changed so much. Rewrite this article or it will have to deleted. BrokenSegue 14:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Things are happening GraemeLeggett 13:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rate of Fire

If possible, please include the initial and sustained rates of fire. I'd help, but most of my sources here are badly outdated. I imagine rates of fire with the separate/semifixed ammo aren't the greatest? -L 4 April 2005

The bagged charge system is not at an disadvantage here. Rates of fire are in the region of 10/12 rounds per minute.

It is often the case that tanks using loaders (manual loading) can fire more quickly and sustain that rate for longer than tanks with auto-loaders. Rob cowie 12:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked around and some suggest that russian autoloaders are capable of about 8 rounds per minute.Rob cowie 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that the operational limit on rate of fire is accurate laying of the gun, and it is rare for the loading to cause delay. Having been a commmander of one of these, I doubt that a rate of fire of much over 6 rounds a minute could be achieved even on a range Busted Flush 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Busted Flush Any rate of fire above 6 rnds per min is unrealistic , particuarly when on a range (and therefore not short cutting handling drills) soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

Slew Rate

It would be great to see slew rates listed for the main turret on all of the MBT articles in wikipedia. Elevation/depression rates would be icing on the cake. -L 4 April 2005

The Slew Rate for one complete traverse is 12 seconds +-2 seconds

Elevation rate is not tested and is difficult to ascertain as there are limit switches in the elevation gearbox which operate under certain critea. Its quick enough to crush your head though.

soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

Challenger 2E

The article seems to say the 2E is superior (fire control and power pack) to the original. It also says it's an export-only version? Is the armor the same, worse, or better?

Better.--MWAK 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's my U.S. bias to be surprised at the export version possibly being better (in the U.S., the government almost never allows export of a version that's superior to what the U.S. military has). Call us paranoid. We may want to reconsider that policy in order to keep important and expensive weapons systems in continued factory production for longer periods, in these days of rising weapons systems costs and harder to find money in defense budgets. Still, it would be terribly galling to one day get shot at by people with stuff better than our own, and stuff that we sold to them. In short, it would be a boon to the defense industry, a political nightmare domestically, and at the minimum infuriating for the troops. -L 4 April 2005

Remember that the original Shir-2 was developed for Iran and that the British would have been unable to fit any tanks with Chobham if development and production of the ceramic modules hadn't been funded by the Shah :o). Also remember that the Americans didn't develop Chobham. :>}--MWAK 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I read anywhere (including the Alvis Vickers site) mentioned that the 2E was "export only". Indeed, everything I read said that the 2E is superior to the 2, although I would think the armour is probably the same. I have therefore altered the article to reflect this. If anyone (e.g. a Vickers employee!) can confirm the facts it would be great. As a side note, I suspect if the British Army could afford to replace all the Challenger 2s they just got to the 2E, then they would. Bobbis 17:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the armour on the 2E is identical to that of the 2. Of course, if the customer is willing to pay, applique armour kits could be fitted as standard to the 2E, but the underlying armour is Chobham. Rob cowie 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. New forms of ceramic composites are developed constantly. But the British army obviously can't afford completely refitting their existing tanks constantly; they slowly use up available stock, replacing the modules when on major overhauls they are discovered to be fractured beyond an acceptable limit. That stock is then replenished with new types. So it can take a while before new armour reaches the tanks themselves. A completely new export version would however be offered with the best armour. This doesn't mean that the actual prototype of the 2E is fitted with it, but that is immaterial. It is the virtual 2E that matters. :o)--MWAK 18:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ton or 1000 kg

This is a very minor point, but I notice GraemeLeggett changed 62,500 kg to 62.5 t. The reason I changed this in the first place was because the ton/tonne is a bit ambigious (see the Ton entry and this page). The metric ton is not a true SI unit, although I appreciate it is widely treated as such. Just thought I would explain my reasoning, but I am perfectly happy to go with the majority opinion on this. Bobbis 18:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its not an SI unit, but it is the common use unit, and worthy if only for ease of readability. The diferrence between the Imperial ton and metric makes little difference when dealing with a large vehicle, especially in this case as the actual weight could vary depending on loading with stores, ammunition, fuel, crew etc. GraemeLeggett 08:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Compare to the M1 Abrams?

How does it compare to the M1 Abrams? Which is better?

It lost several competitions agains M1(AFAIK M1A2) and some more against Leopard 2 (AFAIK Leo2 A6). --Denniss 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A brief conversation with a few friends of mine who operate these things yielded only surprise at this statement. Any details would be appreciated as we cannot think of any competition ever lost by British Army tank crews. Rob cowie 12:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly lost out in several competitions for various NATO and foreign armies looking to buy new tanks. The usual reason was the 120mm rifled gun - NATO standard is a smoothbore - and not any inferiority of the tank in terms of reliability or battleworthyness. As for which is better the M1 or the Challenger then there's no question that the Challenger is more survivable, its gun is more versatile (though not quite as good at firing APFSDS as the smoothbore on the M1) and its diesel engine has some advantages over the M1's too (uses less fuel and doesn't fry any infantryman who gets too close not to mention shining like a beacon to anyone with a thermal imager). Of course the M1 is probably cheaper because the yanks have turned out many more of them and when you're looking for a new tank for your army price is always important.

True: there are many who think that the use of a gas turbine in the M1 was a mistake. The point about the gun is an interesting one; there has always been disagreement amongst experts about the smoothbore/rifled question. The British Army chose it primarily (I think) to allow accurate firing of HESH rounds. Rob cowie 14:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So far as I have been able to work out it is substantially tougher than an Abrams, easier to support logistically due to eating less fuel, shows up less on IR and the rifled gun with HESH rounds is much better for breaking up fortifications or blowing apart Russian tanks at long range. On the other hand the Abrams is subsantially cheaper, its smoothbore gun has better armour penetration at short to medium ranges, and it goes a LOT faster. Different design philosophies, if you have the logistics (and American does) then for taking on an equivelent technology enemy in large scale manouver warfare Abrams are no doubt wonderful, for taking on lower tech enemies while supplied with less extravagent support and smaller numbers Challenger II's seem better suited. Of course for situations like Iraq I would -definitely- prefer Challengers. They seem to be immune to older man portable anti tank weapons and speed is not so important for urban warfare.

Problem is you really can't look at two tanks and say "which one is better", its rather like looking at two different plates of food and saying "that one is better". Its really down to personal taste and individual requirements. Whilst one may have more technical equiptment and higher performance from a tank - it may as a result be much heavier than ones operational requirements allow and so a lighter more reduced model is needed. However I think one can say that the Challenger 2 MBT can be considered to be either 'the' or one of 'the best' tanks in the world taking into account things such as its weight, NBC, speed and weaponry performance. NATO tests are not conclusive of which tank is 'better' because they themselves look for specific features, one of which is price - and of course the challenger 2 is immensley expensive as tanks go. Its safe to say its also one of the most expensive tanks available. But it fits in with the british design philiosophy of a small but elite group of units rather than massed numbers of cheaper inferior models.

Thats a very good point. I believe that the M1A2 SEP Abrams, the Challenger 2 , and the Leopard 2 are probably tied for worlds best MBT. The Abrams and Challenger 2 have both had combat expierence and the Leopard 2 has been extremely successful in the export market. To the point were the manufacturers are calling it the Euro Leopard. I can't say the Leclerc because it hasn't been around very long and has seen no combat or export success -jnunn2

Safe Cracking.

As far as the story about blowing open a safe is concerned it is eiter false or falsely reported. The British army does not field a HEAT round for the challenger - as far as I'm aware there isn't a 120mm HEAT round available for the 120mm rifled gun. The British Army uses the more versatile HESH round.

The story is from the Brainac series on SkyOne, I believe it was a sabot round, or at least reported as such.

I agree, the ammunition was a discarding sabot round of unidentified warhead. Likely a dud if I remember correctly. A highly dubious source either way for accurate information.

Yeah the safe story is true ive seen that episode like 10000489375934759437502042 times.

Armament

The article mentions that the Challenger 2 fires; "Around 50 rounds can be carried from a selection of APFSDS, HESH or smoke." - I was under the impression that APFSDS stood for Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot - with the main gun being rifled, what exactly is the point of fin stabilising your shell? I thought the whole point of rifling the barrel was to increase the accuracy especially at range? Please forgive my ignorance. 58.7.210.43 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

APFSDS is correct. Spin is actually bad for APFSDS rounds (for fairly complex reasons), which is why most other tanks use smoothbore guns. Additionally friction from the rifling reduces the muzzle velocity of the round to 1530 m/s compared with 1700 m/s for most other smoothbore 120 mm APFSDS rounds. The British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them. The rifled APFSDS rounds features some kind of anti-rifling jacket that stops the rounds spinning with the rifling in the barrel - so the rounds leave the barrel with either no spin, or a relatively low rate of spin. Google "APFSDS and Rifled" for more information. Megapixie 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to fire a HEAT round through a rifled barrel as the spinning of the round prevents the penetrative jet from forming when it impacts the target.

It has a negative effect on penetration; nevertheless all postwar rifled tank guns had HEAT-rounds developed for them.--MWAK 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that HESH rounds need rifling is due to the fact they are centrifugally armed. soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

off-road speed

the article mentions the on road speed of the challenger 2, but it does not mention the off road speed which in many ways is more important. i was under the impression the over rough terrain the challenger 2 was the fastest MBT in the world, but i could be wrong.

Pratj 23:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell what the offspeed road is - but I would have thought it unlikely that the Challenger 2 is the fastest simply because it weighs 62 tons - there are a lot of 40 to 50 ton tanks with similar powerpacks - see T-80, T-90 or 50 to 60 tons tanks with more power Leclerc, and 60 ish ton tanks with the same or greater power - i.e. M1 Abrams, Merkava (III).

The lighter tanks with similar or better hp/ton are probably going to be the fastest over true rough ground simply because they weigh less and are less likely to bog down (lower ground pressure). Megapixie 00:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoted figures of "off-road speed" don't mean much anyway. There isn't a single kind of off-road terrain, and I've seen no published standards on how to measure it consistently.

Power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure help determine an AFV's off-road performance, as well as the strength of its components. I think most modern MBTs have their top speed governed, to prevent excessive wear or failure of the drivetrain, suspension, and track. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 00:20 Z

i know this is a crap source but i was watching re runs of the TV show top Gear in which he was being chased by a challenger 2 in a range rover sport. and he said that the challenger 2 was the fastest tank in the world over rough terrain.

Pratj 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

over some terrain yes, soft mud/grass i believe. but judging off-road performance from speeds taken at different tests in different countries is hopelessly inacurate. - steve

---

"Most heavily armoured"

It was previously stated on the Royal Army website that it was the most heavily-armoured tank in NATO, as it was always intended to be. It was (unoficially) designed to be a better version of the M1A2, and, in 198 out of 232 trials, it was. The Ministry of Defence has since changed their web-page and reduced the amount of history available about the Challenger 2 and, as such, I cannot offer proof any longer. 194.80.32.8 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please provide a citation for this:

“ The Challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western made tank ”

It's becoming slightly onerous to keep reverting rather questionable edits to a rather contentious assertion that has no supporting evidence when I can't tempt user 68.66.105.9, who seems to have the biggest problem with it, to discuss his/her changes.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript, I've tracked down the initial assertion to an undocumented change made by an unregistered AOL user, so my inclination is that it probably should be removed...
—Chris (blather • contribs) 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You see, I don't want someones elses opinion on whether or not someone thinks it's the most heavily armored tank. According to this site:

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

The M1a2 sep is slighty better protected.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, someone's personal website isn't a reliable enough source ("Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources"). However, since the original claim seems to have been rather arbitrary, I'm going to change it back to the original wording until some further evidence materialises.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 08:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see some proof that the challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured western tank.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.105.9 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC).

As have I, which is why the article no longer claims that it is. I would be quite interested to find out one way or the other, though, if anybody knows anything more.
—Chris (blather • contribs) 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That claim probably comes from the fact alot of online articles claim it is the best protected tank fielded by a NATO member. I dont know if this is true but going by its performance in Gulf war 2 (3 if you say iran/iraq war was gulf war 1) I would say it is likely to be true. It is much more durable than the abrahms variant the yanks are using there. There was a case of one being mobility killed, and then barraged by 30 something RPG-7VLs, a considerable number of RPG-22 warheads (cant remember which varient though) and 1 Russkie made ATGM and surviving (they were stuck for a while). It was then relieved by another platoon of challengers. I would have a look around the internet for more accurate info (The weapons that were fired on it I have remembered properly, just possibly not the amounts of them fired on it. I do know it was a bizzarely large amount though. When I saw about it on tv I was surprised it survived it all) but I cant be bothered.

I remember seeing a similar claims made during the Challenger 2 episode of the TV series "Mean Machines of War" shown on Channel 5 in the UK. Certainly the Challie 2 is widely credited as being the best protected tank in NATO, not least upon account of it's alledged use of the highly Classified "Dorchester" armour. Apparently this is an improved form of Chobham armour which has not (yet) been adopted by other nations. Getztashida 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A contact in Scots DG, who shall remain nameless, informed me that the ATGM in question was a 3rd generation MILAN obtained from a WMIK vehicle captured from 3 Commando Brigade in southern Iraq. The "mobility kill" was in fact result of the driver reversing into a ditch/trench causing the tank to get thoroughly stuck. First assertion is unconfirmed fact (and not likely to be confirmed by MoD anytime soon), the second is made by crewmember in question from the abovementioned CR2 documentary. See Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqaVIcUafgE (Part 1) - and subsequent parts.

Perhaps I can give some rough impression of the situation as regards the relative protection values. The early Challenger 1 was at the moment of its introduction certainly the best protected tank. After all it was basically still a Chieftain, complete with the Chieftain's cast armour; and added to this a very fat layer of Chobham. The M1 at the time had only a cheap alumina version of the Chobham, Burlington, as basically its only armour. So the Challenger was far better protected against KE-ammunition and considerably better against hollow charge attack. Now the original Leopard 2 equalled the Challenger 1 in KE-protection — but the Challenger 1 had inherited the old Chieftain trick of reclining the armour in a hull-down position giving it an extra 140mm and of course even without this its HEAT-protection was much better as the Leopard had no real Chobham.

Now today things have changed a lot. The M1A2 is far better protected than its forefather. However it is according to official sources equipped with a relatively cheap uranium mesh, which would have a mass equivalency of about two, whereas the Dorchester armour of the Challenger 2 is widely assumed to consist of an expensive titanium-tungsten system, which should have a mass equivalency of over three. The inevitable conclusion seems to be that the Challenger 2 is the better protected tank. Now the Leopard 2A5 also has a tungsten system, but instead of a Chobham outer layer it uses a spaced armour appliqué, which to the British mind is simply cheating — why, it is nothing more than air isn't it? So the Brit might well feel justified in thinking he has the best protected tank. Alas, an unexpected contender has in the meantime arrived: the French Leclerc. As its armour modules are a third thicker than those of the other tanks, its titanium system is superior to both Challenger and Leopard 2 against KE; so thick in fact it needs neither Chobham nor spaced armour to be safe against hollow charges.--MWAK 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately these things are difficult to quantify without getting varuiuos interesting guns and missiles to hand and actually testing them against tanks. the term "heavily armoured" doesn't really do modern armour systems justice - it presumably dates from the time when you could measure the armour proteciton on a ship or vehicle by how much it weighs. GraemeLeggett 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and even then it would not be easy to give an exact number with real meaning, as most weapons simply do not penetrate. So, as the joke goes, the protection equivalence value is "impenetrable" :o). In any case not less than 1400 mm against KE for the European types.--MWAK 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I ask where you got all that info from?

CRARRV / CHARRV

I have edited the article to reflect the proper terminology for the Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CRARRV). This is as the official abbreviation for the Challenger 2 is CR2. The CHARRV was the Chieftan ARRV, which still remains in use by some Specialist and Territorial Army Units, but is being gradually phased out. REME_Bod

Best protected?

According to http://fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm, "The Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in NATO". I'd include this, but not sure of the reliability of the source. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.13.131 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Update for "Operational use"?

Hello, today I found this note in the RPG-29 article, maybe it's worth incorporating:

"In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal explosive reactive armour (ERA) of a top-of-the-line Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 Link denoted with [2] is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

Maybe some regular contributors to this article might update it if they find it's a noteworthy information.84.166.248.187 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Best protected" ERA-equipped NATO tank penetrated frontally by 105mm DC-HEAT with claimed penetration of only 750mm!! :-o So much for the "chobham invulnerability" myth. Latest generation western armor is soooo overrated. 195.98.64.69 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. Single Challenger 2 MBTs have taken dozens of hits from RPGs (including the RPG-29) in past engagements and drove off with little damage. Hell one Challenger 2 survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs. An extremely lucky shot that managed to penetrate the ERA and the hull means very little. At worst there is a minor design flaw in the hull resulting in a weak point. Another possible explanation is that there was a flaw in the hull of this specific Challenger. This is just like that time a RPG-7V hit a weak point on the side of an Abrams and penetrated the hull. Notice that since this event no more Challenger 2s have been seriously damaged by RPG-29s. Don't you try to argue that Russian tanks have no weak points because with their production quality we know that is not true. No tank design is ever perfect anyway.

Western armor is not "soooo overrated." Chobham and Dorchester have been proven very effective. There are many examples of the Abrams taking multiple hits from RPGs and recoilless rifles and surviving. It has survived hits from the limited amount of high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had too. Russian armor is junk besides for their heavy ERA which still can be penetrated by the latest HEAT and KE ammo. ERA does not provide protection from multiple hits anyway. --68.118.179.186 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Survivability per se (esp. after penetration) has nothing to do with armor quality/effectiveness (!). "...survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs" - so what, there are incidents where elderly T-72s also took multiple RPG hits and survived - it was achieved because of functional (unlike 1st Chechnya campaign) ERA bricks and ammunition limited to carousel only (another western myth says that autoloader is the case of "russian tank exploding on any penetration" - the cause of trouble is not autoloader, but extra ammo stocked in fighting compartment). And even don't mention to me much weaker recoilles rifles.

2. I said only about latest (ie details still being unknown) armor as overrated. See, RPG-29 has only 750mm claimed penetration behind ERA, while Chally lower front hull is generally estimated (by western experts) being 860mm equivalent vs HEAT (and thats at perfect perpendicular angle of engagemet, I bet typical angles would be something like 15-40 degs, making for even stronger protection due to increase in LOS thickness). Plus lower front hull on Challenger 2 is plain simple straight plate without any weak spots, and I seriously doubt about any major flaws in such a simple object, it isn't cast steel armor after all. :-)

3. Btw, side non-penetrating hits don't tell much about armor (sides are weak, and probability of penetration is very angle-dependent in this case). But successful frontal penetration definitely means much. ;-)

4. Please enlighten me, what "high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had". I bet you mean just anything besides steel penetrators (and the same 1970s old stuff anyway). Modern russian tanks can withstand same iraqi rounds just as fine, but there is nothing to be proud of. And modern "high quality" russian APDSFS rounds are as good as the western ones (except for just a bit stronger US M829A3), and HEAT ammo is even better. And since one Challenger already had succesfully killed another, you can deduce the rest. ;-)

5. Latest ERA is in fact somewhat "reusable" and can withstand a few hits, not just one. By the way, extensive use of ceramics in western armor has its own problems - it's prone to shatter on impact (even non-penetrating one) losing integrity (even though other, non-ceramic, layers will hold it in place), and also must be replaced/repaired in the workshop (if not factory) to restore original protection level. ERA bricks are much easier to "repair". IMO modular armor (ERA in particular) is the future of AFV protection.

6. There is no way to tell exactly what RPGs were fired on the tank, esp. to the crewmen in the heat of battle. And there aren't many RPG-29s in Iraq, only those smuggled across the border, unlike huge local stocks of older RPG-7s (besides British are stationed in calmest parts of the country, Abrams is not as lucky as Challenger). Attributing opponent success only to latest technology (while in the same time bashing same latest tech in case of his older tech failure) is a long tradition in the West - most laughable example which i remember was not long ago when russian sub suddenly popped up out of nowhere in the middle of NATO ASW exercise (!) asking to take care for a crewman suffering appendicitis; Western press of course reported about the undetected sub being latest and quietest Akula class, while in fact it was 1970s era Victor II, long time considered "very noisy, as all other russian junk" by the so-called experts (sorry for the offtopic). :-D 195.98.64.69 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You would be very surprised at what a small flaw in some important metal or ceramics could do. Also note how the only part of the article that claims the frontal armor was penetrated was that little side drawing. It may have easily have been the frontal side hull that was penetrated! That news source just seems to have guessed, and you know that the British press loves to bash military equipment right? They will gladly take a minor thing such as this and make it seem huge. Again note how since that date RPG-29s have done nothing serious to other Challenger 2s. In Lebanon despite the propaganda saying that all of the tanks destroyed were Merkava 4s some of the photos acually show those Merkavas being Magach 7s. Also most of the tanks that were disabled or destroyed were hit in the side or rear.

ERA is not reusable, once a panel is hit that panel is gone. While the rest of the ERA is fine and the panel or panels that were hit can be replaced once a panel is detonated it is gone. Yes repeated hits from heavy KE and CE weapons can break the ceramic plates but this problem is not unique to advanced Western composite armors. If the ERA is defeated and the tanks standard armor is hit but not fully penetrated on a Russian tank that armor is also going to need to be repaired to restore the original protection level. This applies to just about any tank although the latest designs with modular armor are easier to repair. These days the Russians rely primarily on heavy ERA for their protection and we rely on advanced composite armor sometimes with additional light ERA for our protection. Both seem impressive and unless World War III begins we won't know which is better.

Ah the Russians can be so stubborn, they think their planes are better, they think they tanks are better, and they think their subs are better among other things. Of course we think the same things about our own equipment unless your the media looking for a good story. That ASW event may have happened but there are plenty of embarrassing Cold War stories on both sides. We made a sport of seeing how long we could follow Russian subs without them noticing. :) 68.118.179.186 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1. There is more info on the net besides that article. And just how many RPG-29s (not RPG-7s) are in Iraq - who knows?

2a. As I wrote, latest generation ERA is reusable. It is not in general service yet, but already thoroughly tested and approved.

2b. Ceramic shatters @ very first, not "repeated" strong hits. Shattering is integral part of "defeating the projectile" process. With ERA, there is a good chance that fixed (& not easy to repair) armor will suffer only light damage (or none). Even more, on some armor schemes found on russian tanks stuck penetrators can actually add to protection level!

3. The problem is, western experts tend to compare the same systems existing on both planes/subs/vehicles/etc (stating that western counterparts are superior), happily omitting those systems which don't have western equivalent. In case of subs, while western sonars and computers may be superior, soviet/russian answer was lurking below kilometer in absolute silence, using trace detectors besides sonar, targeting rocket torpedoes onto unsuspecting gadgetry-filled western sub and be ready to outrun any return-fire torps. ;-) Just a simple example of my point. 195.98.64.69 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you trust everything on the internet? The basic design of ERA involves an explosive being detonated which is sort of a one shot deal. Unless you can stack several panels it is not really reusable. About the ceramics shattering it really depends on what is hitting the Chobham armor. A heavy KE penetrator will damage or break several ceramic tiles but you would need several hits in the same area before it becomes a real problem. Generally Chobham armor is more effective against CE weapons and when stopping those you don't have to worry about the ceramic tiles breaking. While a hit from a good sized APFSDS on Chobham armor does take plenty of time to repair new modular armor will make repairing and replacing the armor much easier in future designs and will provide other advantages. I don't know about Dorchester armor but other western armor such as that on the Leopard 2 is very effective against KE threats and can take many hits without the armor being weakened to any major extent.

One of the problems with relying on ERA for most of your tanks defense is that while it may normally stop a certain weapon there is a chance that it will fail and let that threat get by without much trouble. Then, if that tank's other armor is not up to the task you will lose an expensive MBT.

I don't feel like talking about subs right now but I think you are underestimating NATO submarine tactics. 68.118.179.186 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)