Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[Ironside]

Thinking about weapon development timetables, I was wondering if the UK Challenger 2 would be built in the V.1 history. As far as I know the decision to replace Challenger 1 seems to have been the result of the CAT 87 Gunnery trophy where the Challenger 1 came a poor last. Both the German Leopard 2 and the US Abrams M1A1 were examined for possible manufacture under licence, but in the end the UK government decided to install a new turret on the Challenger 1 chassis.

Given the circumstances in Westral's 'Storm in Germany', I think that it would be deemed more prudent for the UK to manufacture an already proven design, giving more commonality within NATO, than producing something untried during the increased East-West tension after the Danilov led coup.

I am biased towards the Abrams as I like it personally, but I was wondering what were the opinions of you guys?

[Legbreaker]

Take a look at tank development in WWII and get back to me....

I'm certain they would have pushed on with alternate designs, including the Challenger II. They already had the hulls in plenty, it seems that only the weapon and electronics were an issue.

The Challenger also fits the British concept of combat in Eruope a lot better than any other tank. Heavily armed and armoured, it might not be the fastest on the battlefield, but it can take the punishment others can't.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The Challenger also fits the British concept of combat in Eruope a lot better than any other tank. Heavily armed and armoured, it might not be the fastest on the battlefield, but it can take the punishment others can't.

Is it really all that better armored than the M1A1? The gun's more or less the same.

Anyway, I think political considerations (national pride & keeping manufacturing jobs in country, especially) would push the UK to opt for a locally designed and manufactured MBT as opposed to licence-building an American or German design.

The most recent precedent would be the L85. The first run was, by all accounts, pretty terrible. Instead of calling it quits and opting for the M-16 or G-36 or some other foreign designed and/or manufactured AR, they made some significant design and manufacturing changes and produced what is, by most accounts, a pretty decent AR. In the T2K timeline, there might not be enough time for this, but IRL, the UK chose to stick to its own guns rather than go abroad for them.

If the problems with the Challenger I were identified in '87 (and the '91 Gulf War?), there would be time to make quite a few IIs by mid-'97. The Challenger II has a place in my v1.0-based T2KU.

[Legbreaker]

Although much of the detail of modern AFVs is kept secret (and rightly so!), it is strongly believed that the Challenger is indeed more heavily armoured than an Abrams. If this is true or not I can't say, but the T2K designers thought it was in both versions.

Almost every country wants to produce their military hardware within their own borders, however cost and capability often prevent this. It's always better to be able to make your own weapons, ammo, etc than have to rely on somebody elsewhere in the world who may choose to cut supply, or have it cut by a third party.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Although much of the detail of modern AFVs is kept secret (and rightly so!), it is strongly believed that the Challenger is indeed more heavily armoured than an Abrams. If this is true or not I can't say, but the T2K designers thought it was in both versions.

Well, the US has lost several M-1s, but I have heard several stories of Challenger 2s in Iraq taking an incredible beating and coming out on the bright side. While the fact that the US military was in Iraq in far greater numbers than the rest of the "coalition of the willing" may account for the greater tank losses, I find the reports of the Challenger 2's armor believable.

[Legbreaker]

For me, sloped armour of any composition has to perform better than the basically upright slabs on the M1...

But that's just my opinion.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

For me, sloped armour of any composition has to perform better than the basically upright slabs on the M1...

Sounds like you're thinking of the Leopard II.

The Challenger II's armor has more of a slope than the Abrams' but it's not that great of a difference. Also- and this may be outdated info- AFAIK, the M1's "Chobham" armor was based on a British design also used in the Challenger I. Although the "recipe" of the composite armor on the M1 may have changed somewhat over the years, aren't the armors of both the M1 and the Challenger II more or less the same? More slope helps, but it's not like the II's armor is fundamentally different than the M1's. For all we know, it could be the exact same stuff.

As Paul pointed out, more M1s were engaged in Iraq at any given time than Challenger IIs and the M1s have been there a lot longer. So, yeah, there are going to be more M1 losses for those two reasons alone.

AFAIK, most of the M1 combat losses were due to engine fires and IEDs. Several M1s sustained multiple RPG hits without succumbing. Very few had their turret armor penetrated by AT shells or other ATWs. Most of the Challenger IIs were gone by the time really big IEDs started to make an appearance on the battlefield.

Using M1 losses in Iraq to crown the Challenger II a "better" tank is not fair. It may well be a better tank, but this is a misuse of statistics.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Ironside

Thinking about weapon development timetables, I was wondering if the UK Challenger 2 would be built in the V.1 history. [snip] I am biased towards the Abrams as I like it personally, but I was wondering what were the opinions of you guys?

As much as possible it has always been my practice to keep what is specifically written in canon and find reasons why what is in canon would be so. Canon (specifically the RDF Sourcebook) says the Brits had the Challenger II so in my T2K universe the Brits have the Challenger II.

[Ironside]

IIRC during WWII when the Allies invaded Sicily, the British left behind all their indigenous tanks with the exception of the Churchill. (Which does reinforce the point about heavy armour.) Also the majority of the tanks the British took to Normandy were American Shermans.

Given that we have our own 'not invented here' syndrome I do agree that it is far more probable that the V.1 canon Challenger 2 would be the tank of choice.

Thanks for all the input.