Matrix Games Forums

Hi, What be great if someone on the forum could explain to me the relatively low armour protection level of the Challenger (37) compared to the Leopard 2 A4 (41)

They both have advanced composite armour. The Challenger is intact 6 tons heavier and has sloped turret armour compared to the vertical Leopard frontal armour.

So I would actually of expected the values to be the other way round.

Would most appreciate a proper explanation as to why this is.

Many thanks.

Our numbers are based on the best estimations and non-classified info we can find. We skipping all of the math the real answer is composition and volume of protective material. From the front the Leo 2A4 has roughly 60mm or so of calculated additional protection (about 4 points in our system). Additional weight and sloping do not translate directly to better protection in modern tanks. Length of catch boxes, layering of materials, types of materials, all play a part. Hope that helps.

A quick back of the napkin calculation based on a technical paper on armor values hit 38 for Challenger 1 and 42 for Leo2A4. I'm probably a bit high in my frontal summations being away from home.

Hi,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I do understand it is a difficult task given the secrecy of data available.

Just thought that the Challenger 1 had at least as good protection as the Leopard 2A4.

Many thanks.

btw turret of Leopard 2A4 is actually sloped if you look front of it it is sloped sideways or at least 2/3 of the turret hit area is sloped sideways when round comes directly front of tank. It is just sloped differently than tanks witch are sloped from down to top.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2# ... tified.jpg

Here is pretty comprehensive data about protection rates of Leopard 2A4 armor ageinst different type of ammo. Data is from Steel Beast training simulator what many real world militaries use when they train their tank crews:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index ... eopard_2A4

Weak spots were fuel or ammo compartments are of the tank is also marked.

For comparsion purpose here is armor rates of T80U:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-80U

M1A1 Abrams:
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index ... 1_%28HA%29
Abrams seem to be pretty well protected against HEAT rounds but not againt kinetic energy rounds.

The front of the Challenger looks a lot more sloped than the Leopard, but then a previous post says that Sloped armour v modern weapons is not such a big factor ? So who knows!

Just seems that given the Challenger 1 weighs at least 6 tons more than the Leopard and the main design goal of the Challenger was armoured protection, that either the British did a bad job or the Germans a good one!

Added to the fact they the AP is only 28 compared to the Soviets 38 AP, the Challenger is a lot less impressive tank than I expected it to be.

Many thanks for all the replies to my question.

The sources I have show the Challenger armour to be at least equivalent to that of the Leo2.

Isby quotes in 'Armies of NATOs Central Front' that the Leo2 had an armour protection in the front of 33.75cm with the Chieftain having 45cm. Challenger protection exceeded that of Chieftain.

I have come across some websites that claim to show armour protection levels and ammo penetration ratings but how much you can trust them is open to debate. One site that was pretty comprehensive and seemed accurate was at: http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm , but that site was back in 2008 and had a lot of nasty viruses popup whenever I went there, so be warned. Not even sure if it's still there.

The best source I've come across for modern data is, in fact, in the FFOT3 ruleset. They give armour ratings for a vehicle at a specified time and do the same for ammo.

For the 1985 time frame they quote:
Vehicle, Armour Front, HEAT-mod, Side, Ammo Type, Pen rating, 'Real' ammo values
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-23, 14, 470mm at 2km 1983
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-33, 15, 550mm at 2km 1987
Leo2A4, 14, B, 8, DM-43, 15, 590mm at 2km 1994

Challenger 1, 13, D, 8, L23, 14, 450mm at 2km 1983
Challenger 1, 13, D, 8, L26, 15, 530mm at 2km 1991

M1A1, 12, E, 8, M827, 14, 450mm at 2km 1986
M1A1, 12, E, 8, M829, 15, 552mm at 2km 1988
M1A1, 12, E, 8, M829A1, 16, 610mm at 2km 1991

The values of 12 to 16 relate to FFOT3 game values that do relate to a real armour thickness range, eg 13 = 520 to 610mm. The pen ratings are adjusted up by a couple of values, so a pen rating of 16 = 610 to 710mm.
The Heat modifier is better the further down the alphabet you go, ie E is better than D.

So a Leo2A4 has better fin protection than a Chally1 but slightly worse additional HEAT protection but against HEAT Chally1 would have the thicker armour.

M1 didn't get as good armour until M1A1HA.

Hope this helps,

B

PS I wish this forum software wouldn't get rid of formatting [&:]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Yes the data you showed indicates that the Challenger 1 is not well represented in the game.

With soviet tanks having far superior AP value and many having at least equal or superior armour.

Is there a editor where you can change these values for the scenarios ?

Many thanks.

I'm not sure if you can change the values for the scenarios that come with the game but I think you can use the scenario editor to make your own version of the scenario and use the player editable spreadsheets that come with the game, and then point the edited scenario at those. Then you'd be free to edit the spreadsheet to whatever values you like and see what effect it has.

I've not done that myself yet but I'm sure others here can direct better than me if I'm mistaken.

Hope this helps,

B

Thanks for the info.

Don't want to be to geeky about this, so probably won't change the scenario values (where do I stop)

Just a shame that the Challenger values are what they are.

Especially the AP of 29 which is 32% less powerful than the soviet 38 AP value, that does not seem right.

Still appreciate the effort that has gone into designing this game.

It wouldn't be inconceivable that out of the thousands of pieces of data we collected that we got some wrong.

Of course, the one that will bother every gamer is if it affects 'their' own personal favorite.

Good Hunting.

MR

No it's not my personal favourite, it just looks incorrect.

The Leopard 2A4 is my favourite.

Even the FFOT data shows what we have is in the ballpark for the time frame for both armor and pen. If I get a few free minutes I'll post the data breakdowns I was talking about above. As for modding, you can use the User files to make your own changes and then your own scenarios.

Hi,

Yes that info would be good.

Thanks for your help.

Hi,

Sorry another question regarding the 120mm, given that the AP is relatively poor, would it not fire its HESH,HEAT ammunition first when meeting soviet tanks ?

Interestingly, that's exactly what British Challengers did during Operation Granby (Desert Storm). They found HESH was sufficiently destructive against the T-55s they encountered and obviously better against unarmoured targets than APFSDS, making it a much more versatile round to have in the breech. Unfortunately I can't remember the source - I've done a lot of reading on Challenger 1.

Yes I have read that to.

Is that what the game does ?

I can't answer that but Challengers during Operation Granby were issued with 12 depleted uranium L26A1 APFSDS rounds and an improved bagged charge specifically to tackle the T-72, if encountered. Crews were instructed not to use these rounds against any other targets. Given the tanks British forces would have faced in Northern Germany were primarily of T-64/T-80 type I don't think using APFSDS as default ammunition is problematic.

Also, the source for this and my previous post is Kagero's 'Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank, Volume II' by Robert Griffin.

It might not be problematic, but might make more sense to use HESH/HEAT instead of AP given the low AP value.

So my two questions are:

1) How does AI decide to use what ammunition ?

2) And is HESH modelled in the game for 120mm rifled gun ?

Many thanks.