I am not doughting that am just add more proof that the document you uploaded there is infact from the segment in the MBT 80 document that goes on about how they were planning a concept tank for 1987 and that they were comparing their concept tank to a Challenger 1 MK1 !!
1 Like
What’s the proof it’s compared to the MK1?
Emm… the year challenger 1 Mk1 went into service in 1983 and MK2 s when into service in 1986 !!
Also get a picture of a challenger 1 MK1 and a Challenger 1 MK2 are Mk3 and look at the hull it gets significantly thicker on the mk2s compared to the mk1s !!
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for the armour changing between variants.
Note, in 1989(I’m presuming), Challenger 1’s hull was described as needing improvement. And a turret armour improvement was planned in future batches, and potentially for refit.
It could be possible that they could have retrofit mk2s down the lines and the mk3s could have been given upgraded armour ??
i doubt that, by that time Challenger replacement was in the works.
Regarding the in progress changes seen on the dev for the Challenger 1. The filling being missing is because its damage model is being updated and will be finished in time for the release of the major.
4 Likes
Am trying to get a hold of this document but it’s a bit out of my budget.
Replacement of Chieftain Tank (Future Main Battle Tank - MBT 80): policy (DEFE 70/207)
Price - £430…😬
So this is a list of documents that I think would be interesting to look at from the national archives !!
DEFE 48/1076 Cost effectiveness of Chieftain, Challenger and MBT 80 (Main Battle Tank 80)
DEFE 24/1686 Chobham Armour - commercial exploitation
DEFE 24/1369 Chieftain tank replacement (Main Battle Tank - MBT 80)
DEFE 70/143 Future Main Battle Tank (MBT 80): armament; Trilateral assessment
DEFE 70/207 Replacement of Chieftain Tank (Future Main Battle Tank - MBT 80): policy
DEFE 70/208 Replacement of Chieftain Tank (Future Main Battle Tank - MBT 80): policy
WO 194/1967 A development cost plan for a Main Battle Tank: Project - MBT 80
WO 194/1973 Main Battle Tank (MBT) 80 mobility study with various engines
WO 194/2001 The electrical system and electronic equipment for Main Battle Tank (MBT) 80
DEFE 15/2210 A joint UK / FRG study prepared by RARDE Fort Halstead and IABG Ottobrunn of a new German concept for a future Main Battle Tank
DEFE 48/240 Study of future main battle tank options to replace CHIEFTAIN
DEFE 48/161 Future main battle tank trial evaluation
DEFE 48/280 Future main battle tank parametric studies
DEFE 48/544 Future main battle tank parametric study: value of increased mobility
DEFE 48/545 Future main battle tank trial evaluation, part one: Federal Republic of Germany scenario with and without guided weapons
DEFE 48/546 Future main battle tank trial evaluation, part two: UK scenarios 1 and 3
DEFE 48/547 Future main battle tank trial evaluation, part three: UK scenario 4, the night battle
DEFE 48/548 Investigation of differences between Defence Operational Analysis Establishment and IABG results in the future main battle tank M48 trial guns
DEFE 13/1368 Main Battle Tank: Anglo-German collaboration
DEFE 13/1369 Chieftain tanks: engine problems and improvements; main battle tank armour development (Burlington) proposed collaboration with Germany
WO 194-1323 Feasibility study of Burlington (Chobham armour) fitted to Chieftain tank
4 Likes
I should do a trip down to Kew at some point and get copies, assuming they’re not still classified in any way of course.
Just have to explain to the wife while I need to go to London for a tank game 🤣
2 Likes
😂😂😂 lol, and most if not all of the documents should be declassified and open to the public by now !!
1 Like
We got a problem guys. Gaijin removed the composite from the UFP shoulders. Effectively removing ALL of its hull arc protection. Does anyone have any documents proving they had composite in them. Im 100% sure they are NOT hollow on Mk2s and Mk3s
1 Like
So the source that was submitted is an assumption that a self contained composite package couldnt have been in the partitioned shoulder armor because there are no NERA mounting points like the huge chobam pieces for the frontal glacis and turret. Its a picture of a challenger hull in production.
yeah, also the fact they were sealed before the special armour was added.
Where is this fact though?
My problem with that. Is Junkyard Challenger. Chobham is Classified still. And Junkyard challenger was completely stripped. If those are truly empty, then why does junkyard challenger have the covers removed, and the should armor emptied. If there wasnt anything in them, then they shouldnt have had the covers removed. But they are. Like the production photos are an assumption because a lack of conventional mounting points.
My proof of this is the turret sides clearly visible here. Non conventional mounting points compared to the turret and hull front. But composite was mounted to the turret sides
