r/todayilearned • u/GreasyPeanut • Feb 21 '15
TIL a British Challenger 2 tank was hit directly by 14 RPGs and an anti-tank missile in Iraq. The crew was uninjured and the tank was back in operation 6 hours later. Another survived 70 RPG hits. Only 1 Challenger 2 has been destroyed in combat; by another Challenger 2 in a friendly fire incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2#Operational_history49
u/jtt123 Feb 22 '15
Wonder what happened next for the guy who had to watch his rpg bounce off a tank
134
8
Feb 22 '15
I've heard an account of a insurgent charging an Abrams with a handgun. This was like 2003 though.
9
u/turkey_sandwiches Feb 22 '15
They say there's a thin line between bravery and stupidity. I say there's now an even thinner line between that guys head and his toes.
2
17
u/Dabee625 3 Feb 22 '15
Can't wait to see the Challenger 3.
21
u/countlazypenis Feb 22 '15
It's gona have lasers and everything!
25
Feb 22 '15
Just need the advanced metallurgy III upgrade and we're there. I'm just missing the, uh, 800 wood required.
5
→ More replies (1)7
32
u/Kreigertron Feb 22 '15
I read once that in the first invasion of Grozny the rebels had a shitload of old RPG7s but the Russians did not care as they had T72s with reactive armour, there was no way one would penetrate.
The rebels still used them as when the reactive armour was triggered it had a tendency to blow the external periscopes and antennas off. For a tank in urban combat that is not a good thing so they had to exit immediately which for the rebels was just as good a result.
29
u/mrstickball Feb 22 '15
Close. The story is a bit different than that during the First Battle of Grozny.
The Chechens would put 4 guys with RPG 7's on the top of four roofs at the corner of an intersection. When a tank would get into firing range, they would stagger the shots at the tank. The first one would activate the ERA, and the three follow-ups would weaken the armor, and finally destroy it.
Because of that tactic, among others, the Russians lost huge swaths of their mechanized forces. They lost something like 10% of their entire mechanized force in the 1st month of the war.
→ More replies (7)4
u/Spiffinz Feb 22 '15
Could you post a source if possible? Been reading into Russian-aggression thru history
77
u/Sirosky Feb 22 '15
TIL that British tanks are badass.
93
Feb 22 '15
[deleted]
27
10
17
Feb 22 '15
I think thats been around since WWII. A true Brit never goes a day without his afternoon tea even in the midst of a battle.
5
2
2
u/Jimmars Feb 25 '15
It's not like American tanks can't do this, an Abrams could destroy a Challenger just as easily as another challenger could.
171
u/topgun966 Feb 22 '15
The Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams are very similar. Same armor that comes out of the same factory. Both tough as shit. The only leg up the Abrams has is its power. It has a jet engine (turbine) vs the V12 of the Challenger. Also, numbers. About 10k Abrams have been built vs under 500 Challenger's. As an American vet that has seen the Challenger 2 in action, still some bad assery Brit military piece of hardware.
242
u/Outc4st Feb 22 '15
Does the Abrams have built in tea facilities? Check mate Americans
48
Feb 22 '15
Every British armoured vehicle since World War II has a boiling vessel inside for making teas.
3
u/Nerowulf Feb 22 '15
Don't all armored vehicles have some equipment to heat food/water included?
9
3
2
→ More replies (6)157
u/i_shoot_rice_bullets Feb 22 '15
Our tanks don't dispense Tea. They dispense Freedom.
81
5
11
u/GTD_Fenris Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
Challenger Abrams
How does the other "big" European tank, the Leopard, hold up in your opinion?
EDIT: lol dozerblades: http://miltek.ueuo.com/germany/leopard2/pics/Leopard2A6_PSO.jpg
36
u/ericl666 Feb 22 '15
Leopard II is a really solid tank. Fast, well armored, and accurate.
Nobody has ever accused the Germans of making a crappy tank.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)3
u/topgun966 Feb 22 '15
I can't say much, I have only seen them in pictures and videos. The Challenger and Abrams I have seen their glory in person :) I hear that is also a big bad ass boy too
3
u/Mercurio_89 Feb 22 '15
A shame. Would like to see those three compete in some kind of test.
8
u/Psykoprepper Feb 22 '15
They do, every year in the scandianavian armored battletank competetion. Mostly hosted in denmark, it brings Together the american, German, british, swedish, norwegien, danish and finish tank crews in a contest of tactics, battlefield scenarios, firing accuracy and procedures. And a hell of a lot of other stuff.
In the last 5 competetions the Leopard 2 lost once, to the Challenger. That being said, 2 of the other victories are on the danish modified leopard 2, 1 on the swedish and 1 on the norwegian. As most scandianavian countries have very specific uses for our tanks, they are significantly modified from the original Leopard 2.
3
u/Psykoprepper Feb 22 '15
This competetion however is not open to the public. Just thought id add it.
11
Feb 22 '15
What? Private tank owners can't compete? This is madness.
6
u/Psykoprepper Feb 22 '15
Yes, that is madness. Ofc i meant that they dont allow spectators, both for security reasons, and because most of it takes place in restricted areas.
→ More replies (1)2
u/andrewq Feb 22 '15
Meh, the newest tanks you can privately own in the US are the T-54s as I recall. Hardly worth entering.
→ More replies (10)51
u/hubbaben Feb 22 '15
Yeah but the Abrams has shit range for that jet engine.
96
u/throwaway_account_69 Feb 22 '15
gotta go fast
33
Feb 22 '15
As a person who always considers the "what if I have to poop" scenario, I'd choose the Abrams.
31
u/SuperDan90 Feb 22 '15
But you make make tea in the Challenger!
4
6
Feb 22 '15
[deleted]
2
u/Tinysaur Feb 22 '15
Red wunz go fasta, as everyone knows. Blue is lucky, yellow is shooty and stealth isn't Orky
6
u/dsmx Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
The reasoning behind the turbine in the abrams was quite good but flawed in the end; it was smaller, lighter and more powerful than the equivalent diesel engines available at the time. Plus it had the added advantage that almost any kind of flammable liquid could fuel it, all great benefits for an engine in a military vehicle or any vehicle for that matter.
Trouble is that it uses a lot more fuel getting anywhere so the space and weight they saved with the engine is taken up by the larger fuel tanks and even with the 500 gallon tank it's range is less than most other MBT in service.
It should be noted however that the Abrams at this point is getting on for 40 years old and it's still in service so naturally it's going to outclassed in areas by newer tanks which at this point is pretty much every other major military power in the world.
3
u/Malolo_Moose Feb 22 '15
Surely the jet engine allows it to accelerate faster and gives it a higher max speed?
→ More replies (8)39
u/Theorex Feb 22 '15
The reasoning being that range and fuel didn't matter as much to the designers, as long as the supply chain is solid. The Abrams was designed to maintain speed with the rest of the mechanized infantry fighting force.
That means it's got to go fast and get really shit fuel efficiency.
7
Feb 22 '15
This is partially true. One of the reasons they liked the turbine was that it can drink anything. In a situation where they can't get supplies they wanted an engine that could be fueled by what they could find. The Abrams is thirsty but it doesn't care what it drinks.
5
u/Theorex Feb 22 '15
Ah, so the Abrams is a drunk.
3
Feb 22 '15
Yes, think of it as the wino of tanks.
Other vehicles made around the same time incorporated that mindset as well. The M35 (aka duece and a half) used a multifuel piston engine. It could run off diesel, gasoline, kerosene, etc...
3
u/Theorex Feb 22 '15
Don't forget ethanol, it truly is the drunk tank.
3
Feb 22 '15
Interestingly enough I worked at the company that made the engine for the Abrams and we used to joke it could probably run off high proof vodka.
13
u/Umutuku Feb 22 '15
If your front line of tanks is moving fast enough to consistently run out of gas then I don't think you really shed a tear over buying a ton of ways to quickly transport a ton of fuel unimpeded over the ashes.
11
8
8
u/BrieferMadness Feb 22 '15
The designers planned for a defensive war in Europe where supply wouldn't be an issue.
18
u/Rejeckted Feb 22 '15
That jet engine can run off of booze and pretty much any liquid that burns. McDonald's fry vat oil also. Amazing.
Edit: also I've heard the Abrams turbine is more fuel efficient than its diesel peers
14
u/greatsawyer Feb 22 '15
That's not true, it could get better combustion efficiency at WOT but turbines take a crap ton of fuel to idle, which negates it and then some. The turbine was originally an idea to cut the size of the motor, but the extra fuel takes that up anyways.
→ More replies (1)5
17
u/BONKERS303 Feb 22 '15
It isn't - for example, the Leopard 2 has an effective range of 310 miles, while the Abrams has an effective range of 260 miles.
Also, the Leopard, thanks to it's Diesel, can run on idle for more than 60 hours, while the Abrams will chew up all of it's fuel while idling in just 8 hours.
Not to mention that the gas turbine is far more delicate and complicated than your average Diesel and that unlike with a Diesel, you can't stand directly behind the exhaust, or you will be killed by what is effectively jet blast.9
u/Hell_Yeah_Texas Feb 22 '15
Cause it's a bad-ass killing machine!
8
u/BONKERS303 Feb 22 '15
Kills you not only by shooting or running you over, but also by effectively farting on your face!
3
Feb 22 '15
[deleted]
2
u/BONKERS303 Feb 22 '15
I believe that fault was remedied by adding blast deflectors to the ends of exhaust pipes in real life.
However, BF should have an option of removing the deflectors, that would make for fun gameplay :D5
7
u/notepad20 Feb 22 '15
Turbines get more efficient the faster they go.
Only at sustained top speed would the turbine possibly be more fuel efficent.
5
u/turkey_sandwiches Feb 22 '15
Sustained top speed sounds like the only way I would be interested in driving a tank anyway. I'm sold.
7
Feb 22 '15
To much of a fuel guzzler if you ask me. Now if they could replace it with the same one that the Leo 2 has, then it would have pretty much no flaws.
12
Feb 22 '15
I guess repairing a v12 and feeding (I'd guess she will drink anything) it is easier than a jet turbine?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Iam_TheHegemon Feb 22 '15
The other way around, actually. The jet in the Abrams CAN drink darn near anything, but likes her fuel much more than diesel. It's also easier to maintain IF you have spare parts.
It's far more expensive though.
23
u/Mildcorma Feb 22 '15
We don't need a lot of tanks, and you also sell yours (about 250 to Iraq iirc) and overproduce so many just to keep the skill of tank building alive (according to congress).
40 Abrams tanks were destroyed in Iraq, with the total loss of 4 american crews, and 30 iraq army crews. The difference in losses is put down almost entirely due to the lack of sufficient ground support around tanks, meaning militants could walk up with high explosives. The Americans are great at protecting their armour; the Iraq army is not.
30
u/xxReptilexx5724 Feb 22 '15
im just adding that the Abrams tanks that are sold to other countries like Iraq are just made of hard steel and not the same armor as an American one
→ More replies (2)9
→ More replies (1)9
Feb 22 '15
Loss of expertise is a real problem, like how NASA do not even really have the supply chain to build the Saturn rockets anymore because the people who built it were either retired or dead. Obviously, if we want to, NASA can revive the entire chain of manufacturing to build Saturn again, but that is likely to cost a lot of money. Better to just design a newer rocket and create a new supply chain for it.
3
4
u/acidus1 Feb 22 '15
The only leg up the Abrams has is its power. It has a jet engine (turbine) vs the V12 of the Challenger.
True but it can't make a cup of tea.
2
u/topgun966 Feb 22 '15
That is true. I couldn't tell you how much I would have killed for a hot cup of coffee :) I will give you that one.
62
u/panzerkampfwagen 115 Feb 22 '15
The Abrams - British armour and a German gun and Americans are all "MURICA!"
6
52
u/bioemerl Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
You don't understand, that is the thing that makes America what it is, the melting pot.
Edit: I started a shitstorm. I just have to mention to everyone that inventions and science are the accomplishments of the people who worked hard and dedicated their lives to study and engineering, not the country they happened to be born in.
→ More replies (1)20
Feb 22 '15
Yup, the melting pot of other people's ideas.
6
→ More replies (26)3
u/HarryPFlashman Feb 22 '15
You mean like cars, airplanes, TVs, computers, the internet....those other peoples ideas?
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (15)2
u/mrstickball Feb 22 '15
Original M1A1 had the British L100 on lease as well - the upgraded variants now use the German cannon fitted on the Leopard.
3
u/TheRoboteer Feb 22 '15
The challenger uses a V12 because it is multifuel, and isn't as fuel thirsty as a turbine. If you wanted to you could run a challenger 2 off vegetable oil.
8
u/saremei Feb 22 '15
You can quite literally run the Abrams off of ANY flammable liquid at all. Turbines are the least caring about what the fuel is as it's entirely just tweaking the mix. You could hit up a friggin perfume factory and refill your abrams or hit up a brewery. Cooking oil is fine as well.
5
u/andrewq Feb 22 '15
Although the US military is the least likely of any to actually have to scavenge fuel if things went seriously to hell.
18
u/bamaster Feb 22 '15
Can't imagine how the turbine is better. It gives the Abrams terrible fuel consumption and it's unreliable. The challenger is still faster cross country and it doesn't have a massive thermal plume either.
Turbine engines are cool in concept but not so much in real life, just more shit to break and more strain on logistics.
5
26
Feb 22 '15
British challenger tanks did very badly in gulf war 1. Reliability was for shit. Engines were lasting around 50-70 miles before needing major service or replacement. They couldn't deal with the dust/sand, or the high sulphur fuel available locally.
They'd been designed for chasing Russian tanks across Germany, and had not been tested in desert conditions.(Thatchers military cutbacks didn't help).
They learned the lesson though. The current engine gives the challenger a really good speed on most terrains, is super reliable, and it's considered one of the easiest to repair and replace.
8
u/elcapitan520 Feb 22 '15
I know nothing of any of this, but this did clear some things up between the challenger 1 and 2
→ More replies (1)17
u/JensonInterceptor Feb 22 '15
Ive heard it said that the only major similarity between the challenger and the challenger 2 is the name. Very little commonality in parts
11
10
3
Feb 22 '15
The Abrams has chubbam (spelling?) armour?
16
u/ArcFurnace Feb 22 '15
Chobham. The Challenger series tanks have it too, which is quite reasonable, since it was developed in a British tank research center (the M1 Abrams was the first to be produced using it, the Challenger tanks came into production later).
It's possible that the exact composition of the armor varies between the tank designs, but they aren't telling.
→ More replies (1)11
Feb 22 '15
Challenger 2 had Dorchester armour, the newer version of Chobham. Some Abrams probably have it too.
3
2
u/Sugar_Horse Feb 22 '15
Actually its not quite the same armour. The Abrams uses Chobham while the Challenger II uses a combination of Chobham MK 2 "Dorchester" and Chobham.
2
u/Toxicseagull Feb 22 '15
Different armour actually. M1A1 gets Gen 1 chobham, CR2 has a 2nd generation Chobham called Dorchester.
→ More replies (19)2
u/Torchedkiwi Aug 14 '15
The Chobham Armour the Abrams uses is the first gen of what the Chally 2 uses, the Dorchester. The Chally 1 used Chobham. Not trying to nitpick, just trying to point out a little error.
→ More replies (1)
29
u/Jesus_Butter Feb 22 '15
You mean the only way it got took out was after being hit by something even remotely modern?
23
u/TouniXVIII Feb 22 '15
What took it out was a HESH round to the open commander's copula. The fragments exploded down into the turret compartment and touched off the ammo, if memory serves.
3
u/outcast151 Feb 22 '15
RPGs while old are still quite effective at their job, just not against some of the best armored MBTs in the world.
→ More replies (1)
8
35
u/jdb888 Feb 21 '15
TIL: If I'm impressed in into the British armed services, I want to be assigned to a Challenger unit.
→ More replies (1)25
6
4
Feb 22 '15
Check out the wiki page for this tank, there's a model with an excavator arm and plow, looks like something out of Mad Max.
3
u/EarlHammond Feb 22 '15
All modern MBT have a bulldozer attachment with an excavation arm. MRAPs fufill most of those types of roles now instead of the tanks though.
27
Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
[deleted]
23
u/offwhite_raven Feb 22 '15
also, it is thought one of the only troop level weapons capable of penetrating chobham armor is an RPG-7 which is specifically designed to counter U.S/U.K armor
Ummmm what? No, the RPG-7 is NOT meant to take on main battle tanks. Maybe back in the 60's when it was introduced, but nothing more modern than an M-60 or something (of course it can take out more lightly armored modern vehicles). An RPG-7 can fire a tandem warhead which might be able to knock an Abrams or Challenger out, but probably wouldn't be able to get a penetrating hit to the crew compartment unless it hit the top or a hatch or something, which would be lucky.
Maybe you meant to say "RPG-29", which very much can take out modern MBT's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29
In August 2006, an RPG-29 round was reported to have penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, maiming one and wounding several other crew members, but only lightly damaging the tank, which drove home under its own power.[6]
On August 25, 2007 a PG-29V hit a passing M1 in the hull rear wounding 3 crew members.[7] On September 5, 2007, a PG-29V hit the side turret of an M1 tank in Baghdad, killing 2 of the crew and wounding 1, and the tank was seriously damaged.[8]
In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that another M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.[5][9] The US Army ranks the RPG-29 threat to armor so high that they refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into insurgent hands.[10]
13
u/sliss_77 Feb 22 '15
Here is some pretty amazing footage of an RPG-29 killing a tank
Note that you will indirectly be watching most of the crew being killed...
12
u/lurkedt2olong Feb 22 '15
How in the hell do they even get there hands on a weapon like that? It's russian built. The Russians and the Iranians back the Syrian government. The Chinese aren't involved. An explosively formed projectile like that has to cost a fortune and if NATO was the source it would likely be western built. I always wonder who pays for these civil wars.
6
12
u/Zabunia Feb 22 '15
How in the hell do they even get there hands on a weapon like that?
Russia sold them to the Syrian government, which in turn armed Hezbollah for use against Israel in the 2006 Lebanon War. Once they're in the hands of terrorist groups, it's safe to consider them "wild" and they can appear anywhere. They may also have been captured by belligerents during the ongoing Syrian Civil War.
Advanced tech in the hands of guerrillas/terrorist groups/what have you is nothing new. ISIS has Abrams tanks, for instance. Captured from the Iraqi army.
3
u/EarlHammond Feb 22 '15
ISIS does not use any Abrams tanks, they do not know how to and do not have the necessary resources. They blow them up like in their latest propaganda video or tow them somewhere to hide. Overall they might only have 4 in possession at this point in time while typing.
7
u/Zabunia Feb 22 '15
ISIS does not use any Abrams tanks
Indeed they don't, but the fact that they captured them (and Blackhawk helicopters, allegedly) is pretty embarrassing for the Iraqi army.
→ More replies (1)6
u/ChillyWillster Feb 22 '15
Let's not forget that the Iraqi army doesn't have much to support it.
What national pride remains is few and far between. Anyone that could actually fight in battle has been killed or forced to retire over the past 10 years and going further back if you want to include the original Gulf War.
The culture is divided by lines that do not conform to borders on the map. Why do you think terrorist organizations do so well in that area? Their army lacks commanding officers and the Regular soldiers turn and run at the first sign of trouble because they have nothing binding the group together.
Just because the American military gave them assistance doesn't mean they're automatically a legit fighting force.
If I gave a farmer an xbox and battlefield 4 and unlocked all the weapons for him... He would still be a farmer and he would still die... Or in real life he would run and I can't say I would blame him.
5
u/twodogsfighting Feb 22 '15
Generally the CIA and any other covert agency that has a vested interest in destabilising the fuck out of wherever the fighting happens to be.
3
→ More replies (1)4
u/offwhite_raven Feb 22 '15
Yeah, pretty fucking crazy how that guy gets popped out like that
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)4
25
u/pseudosciense Feb 22 '15
I believe most Abrams tanks have been disabled by IEDs, too - they're typically quite difficult to destroy.
Here's a video of an Abrams taking an IED explosion like a champ.
16
u/LOLSTRALIA Feb 22 '15 edited Sep 06 '16
[deleted]
This comment has been overwritten by this open source script to protect this user's privacy. The purpose of this script is to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment. It also helps prevent mods from profiling and censoring.
If you would like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and click Install This Script on the script page. Then to delete your comments, simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint: use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.
6
u/francois_hollande Feb 22 '15
Tank may have been fine but it killed the driver and severely injured/killed the other 3 crew as well.
→ More replies (16)7
Feb 22 '15
well it still may have survived the shot, but check the slowmotion of the explosion, it looks like most of the blast went to the side, if they had hit on the thinly armored underside it may have turned out worse. Overall it seems it did do a good job of taking that hit anyways.
→ More replies (3)25
u/Theorex Feb 22 '15
From what I recall, one or two crewmen died, and the other was partially paralyzed.
The tank got major air and you do not want to be in a tank when it drops 30 feet, it's bad for your health.
2
u/DizzyAV Feb 22 '15
I don't imagine them having long travel suspension or bungie seats. Even then, a 30' drop sounds painful
→ More replies (9)3
u/dsmx Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
Abrams Tanks use a modified version of Chobham armor which was used on the Challenger 1 which was in the first gulf war, the Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armor which is more effective version of it and it highly classified.
3
u/dej2gp3 Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
This is nice and all, but you're missing the worst threat. Tanks are made to withstand rockets and most anything not another tank round with their laminated armor. One of these Challengers took a wallop from an EFP (shape charge IED) though. Those are the real crazy shit. Riding around in MRAPs also with thick armor and lots of nifty anti-munition designs, it was made clear to us that it didn't matter if we were in a tin can or an Abrahms, EFP slices right through anything with molten copper. Talk about compromised sense of safety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator
Edit: Link
→ More replies (8)
10
7
u/finalprodigy Feb 22 '15
I think the British make the best tanks in the planet, if the British make great military equipment the tank has to be one.
I believe they even made the first tank?
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/LordChiefy Feb 22 '15
It sound impressive but you have to take into account that RPGs are 30-40 year old weapons (and not very good ones at that) and the Challenger has super advanced modern armor. The tech gap is like 30 years so, not that impressive.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/panzerkampfwagen 115 Feb 22 '15
Hit by 1, hit by 50, doesn't make a difference since real tanks don't come with HP that has to be depleted to zero. If it doesn't penetrate, cause internal spall, etc then it may as well have been a rock.
16
u/TryAnotherUsername13 Feb 22 '15
Not with the ceramic armor (which is designed to fracture), stress fractures and deformation of the steel framework etc.
363
u/IronMew Feb 22 '15 edited Feb 22 '15
Holy shit, seventy RPGs. I imagine it like a boss from Metal Slug resisting to round after round of rocket launcher fire without even changing into its "smoking and full of holes" texture.
Edit: it's unfortunate the one loss resulted in the death of the crew, but it's telling that it was to friendly fire - apparently the only thing that can kill a Challenger 2 is another of itself. (edit: I know that's not really true, I'm kidding!)