there is actually
And that is challenger 2. Not Challenger 1.
yeah just grabbing the challenger 1 photo
I already posted 2 photos.
There arent conventional mounting rails like the front for the composite.
Its simply
Mounted in a different way.
JUST like the shoulder armor.
1 Like
Yeah, there are…
You can clearly see with the photos we have provided that there is not a conventional mounting point like the turret and hull front armors. You can obviously see that a mounting frame has been attached for the composite to then be mounted to. Unlike the frontal armor being bolted DIRECTLY to the base structures.
Which is again a different way to mount composite.
Im not sure why you are so against the challenger being allowed its correct composite coverage?
im not against it, infact i really do want it, but from what ive seen, the evidence suggests it doesnt have it…
not really understanding this
All based on n assumption that
“oh this partitioned side armor doesn’t have the EXACT same mounting points as the massive frontal array, so composite cannot possibly have been mounted any other way than THAT way, so the vehicle must not have had composite in there at all. Even when images of a decommissioned challenger have these covers cut off partitions and the composite removed when the armor is still classified”
The junk yard challenger turret sides do not have the same rail like composite mountings as the front, they have very large anchor points FOR the rail framework to be bolted to, to MOUNT the side armor composite.
No, it doesnt have ANY mounting points
Thats not known. We dont know if theres any at the bottom of the partition.
Just like there arent any mounting points visible for the fuel tanks in the partitions that run along the side of the hull. But that doesnt mean there isnt any, because we know fuel tanks go there.
The only difference here is we are talking about classified armor.
But it doesnt matter because we have arc protection values. And the lack of nera there affects arc protection values to a point its impossible that it CANT be equipped with the side
Armor composite.
This is a Shir 2 by the way.
Shir 2 had different turret side armor that was designed to protect against 84mm HEAT round at 90 degrees. Challenger 1 changed the side turret armor to give greater protection for the front 60 degree arc vs KE and HEAT projectiles, but was weaker vs 90 degree attack
This is really visible as the side turret armor of Shir 2 is two boxes each side of the tank
3 Likes
What document is that image from?
I found it from someone else posting. But seems legit. I think the form numbers are on the bottom of the page. I think it came from a successor document to challenger 1. Because it has a prototype dated 1987. I could be wrong though
Q. Do you have any plans for upgrades (like the T-64BV) that can maybe increase protection or defensive capabilities?
A. It is possible that the current tank will be upgraded to a Mk.3 standard. First of all this version is distinguished by the additional protection of its ammunition, wet stowage was eliminated and armoured boxes for the storage of charges and shells were introduced instead. We may also look at a defensive upgrade with an ERA kit and additional side skirt armour.
so Gaijin removed wet ammo storage
Rarde doc from the early 80’s iirc, cant remmeber where i found it from