Weapons Timelines for the Twilight War

[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]

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.

[Targan]

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.

[pmulcahy11b]

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]

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.

[Legbreaker]

Even if identical numbers were used for identical periods, there'd still be a few discrepancies. Unless tested under controlled conditions, there's really no way for anyone to know unless they have access to the vehicle specifications and test data.

Both tanks are also built for different battlefield philosophies. As far as I am aware (and this is really dumbing it down), the US are more offensively orientated, their tanks built more for speed while the British are conservative and build for defence. Both tanks are certainly better than almost everything they'll ever face, but head to head Who can tell

I still prefer the Challenger though.

[Rainbow Six]

Why would the French be shipping arms over to Scotland anyway What's in it for them

The UK is already in a world of hurt and arming the populace for whatever reason can only contribute to even more unrest. Sure Britain and France have been long time enemies up until the last centry or so, but if you feel France might be preparing to invade sometime in the next couple of decades, wouldn't arming the Scots be against the French best interests It means more people are arme when they make their move.

And of course there's also the difficulty of shipping them there. Even for a country like France, who's stayed mainly out of the war, fuel and other goods are sure to be in short supply. They haven't had anyone but their few scattered colonies to trade with (besides a few small exceptions). Just feeding, clothing and keeping warm the tens or millions of people within their own borders is going to be a struggle for at least a few years after the war.

I've been on holiday for two weeks without any internet access, hence the reason I couldn't reply to this sooner (although Mo actually gave almost exactly the reply that I would have done anyway - in fact his reply was probably even better than mine would have been, so merci beaucoup mon ami )

In my T2K World the French Government want to keep the UK destabilised for as long as possible without being drawn into open conflict with the British (I do not anticipate the French ever attempting any sort of invasion of the British Isles).

The French feel that a weakened UK is in their long term best interests. So a key part of French strategy is to supply covert assistance to various factions in the UK, most notably the Scots.

In my T2k World I have the British Government still retaining a large organised presence in the North east of England based around Catterick Garrison in Yorkshire. I also have the remaining RAF bases in Scotland at Lossiemouth and Kinloss still loyal to HMG and allied with the Highland Coalition, an alliance of various Highland towns centred around Inverness and Fort William. Whilst the Highland Coalition is not openly hostile to the Perth based Republic of Scotland, relations between the two are fairly cool.

Therefore the leadership of the Republic of Scotland has readily accepted French offers of aid, although the French Government are careful to ensure that the aid they provide cannot be linked directly back to France.

I am currently working on a draft piece on the Republic of Scotland which will go into much more detail on French involvement and the personalities and politics involved - I'll post it as soon as I can.

With regards to the Welsh and again in my T2K World, the French have made contact with the Welsh Government, but the Welsh have chosen to adopt an isolationist approach, so chose not to accept any assistance from the French at this time.

Cheers

[pmulcahy11b]

Even if identical numbers were used for identical periods, there'd still be a few discrepancies. Unless tested under controlled conditions, there's really no way for anyone to know unless they have access to the vehicle specifications and test data.

Both tanks are also built for different battlefield philosophies. As far as I am aware (and this is really dumbing it down), the US are more offensively orientated, their tanks built more for speed while the British are conservative and build for defence. Both tanks are certainly better than almost everything they'll ever face, but head to head Who can tell

I still prefer the Challenger though.

Here's something I've noticed about the Challenger, and I've never been able to find an answer: Why does the turret deck slope downwards from the right to the left I'm thinking it's maybe a weight-saving feature -- that maybe the turret didn't need to be as high on the left side, so they just made it slope to the left to save weight, and it would have an incidental effect of providing some additional protection against shots from that side of the turret due to the slope.

As for the Chobham armor, it was originally the same thing on the Challenger, Abrams, and Leopard 2. The US just called it Burlington armor instead of Chobham. Today, however, the armor has evolved, so there are now some differences between the three, and other countries have their own versions of composite armor. (Side note: original Soviet composite armor was an inferior version of Chobham. Their agents stole a sample and the plans for the early version of Chobham from a West German lab in the mid-1970s. They could not duplicate the technology properly at the time, so the first Soviet tanks with composite armor provided much inferior protection than a tank with an equal amount of Chobham.)

Clarification Note: The agents were East German, reportedly.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I can't seem to find any really clear photos of the turret to illustrate what you mean, I am thinking that it may be due to the commander's station being set higher than the loader's station and needing the room for the electronics to power the ancillary sights.

[Webstral]

If the Challenger II--IF--is able to take a measurably greater degree of punishment than the M1A1/2, this would serve the Brits well during the slog across Poland. I've been dabbling with some notes for a summary of the Polish campaign in 1997, based principally on the input from threads here. My principal foci have been trying to explain the apparent snail's pace of operations, how the pace fits in with Soviet intentions for the use of Poland in the bigger picture, and how NATO uses its particular advantages to adapt to the nature of the Pact defense by trading time and money for lives.

Ye gods, the prospect of having to live through the Brits crowing about how their tank philosophy was the best-suited NATO design for the European battlefield! It's just as well the world came to an end.

Webstral

[Raellus]

I saw a photo dated 2000 of a Challenger I in Kosovo or Bosnia so there must still have been quite a few of them around in the Twilight War.

Web, are you comparing the NATO campaign across Poland to the rapid U.S.-led coalition victories against Iraq in '91 and '03

IIRC, it tooks NATO about 7 months to fight its way across Poland and into Soviet territory. Although by no means Blitzkrieg, that's not too bad considering the stiff opposition. The fighting must have been brutal.

I'm looking forward to reading your campaign history.

[Webstral]

Web, are you comparing the NATO campaign across Poland to the rapid U.S.-led coalition victories against Iraq in '91 and '03

I am thinking about Operation Desert Shield. Obviously, there are staggering differences between the circumstances of Desert Storm and the 1997 NATO offensive in Poland. Nevertheless, I think the comparatively slow pace of the NATO advance deserves some attention. Even vis-a-vis the Anglo-American operation in East Germany, the Poland operation made slow progress. There's more to the story than just logistical problems. The pattern ties into the number of divisions the Soviets husbanded in Belarus while the fighting was raging in Poland. I'm not certain if the GDW authors saw things this way, but I see a clear intent to launch a mobile counteroffensive after the Polish Army and some-second string Soviet formations had bled the NATO invaders white in a mines-and-earthworks defense reminiscent of the Chinese defenses in Manchuria. I think Soviet nuclear use in the West initially was intended as a sort of set-up punch to soften the NATO forces for the main armored blow that would come from the husbanded armored forces in Belarus. The Soviets quickly discovered, though, that the NATO troops adapted the massive defensive belts for their own countermobility purposes. As a result, the counteroffensive that was supposed to carry the Soviets back to the Oder in a trice bogged down. The NATO troops fell back partially because the supply situation once again was intolerable but principally because the use of nukes had caused the civilian leadership in the West to abandon their plan of knocking the USSR out of the war and settle instead for reunifying Germany (and laying waste to Poland). But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Webstral