In other thread, user Scalieback wrote a bit untruth, so I will correct it.
The only thing to have destroyed a C2 is another C2, 'blue on blue'. M1's have been disabled by RPG's etc unlike C2's.
Corrections:
1) It is not true that only one Challgner 2 was destroyed in Friendly Fire incident. 2 more were at least heavy damaged. One by IED, and second by RPG-29 hit in front hull armor.
Important thing, there was not even single case where M1 tank front armor would be perforated by RPG-29 or any other anti tank weapon in Iraq.
Ok, so let's get back to RPG-29 incident first.
MoD kept failure of best tank quiet - Telegraph
RPG-29 hit a tank in lower front hull plate. It was perforated because in British designs this highly exposed plate is made from a simple RHA, not composite armor, while the upper highly inclined glacis plate, have small composite armor cavities.
This is how weak zones are placed on Challenger 2 front surfaces:
As we can see lower front hull plate of such design creates big and exposed weak zone. And this is very problematic, first there is a driver behind such plate, and what is worse, propelant charge bags in armored bins for ammunition are placed slightly behind his position, on the left and right. Later I will get back to the ammunition storage issue.
But as we can see, there is a problem, how it was solved initially?
That way, we can see that this area is protected by rather simple, light ERA ROMOR-A. It was just not enough to protect vehicle against RPG-29. So after incident designers developed a bolt on Dorchester composite armor module, to be installed in place of ROMOR-A ERA.
But why Challenger 2's had less losses than M1 tanks? There are two simple answers to this:
- British zone was less dangerous, calmer.
- British tanks from the start had up-armor kits protecting vurnable side hull armor.
Second point is very important. In all modern tanks, side hull armor is made only from RHA plates, and their thickness is max ~80mm. In most cases they are protected only by a simple ballistic skirts or non ballistic skirts. Take a notice on photos of Challenger 2 tanks and M1A1 tanks from that period. Americans recived first TUSK kits with additional side armor protection somewhere in 2005-2006, it was a long time, and there were losses, but not that big as some people try to say.
However there is a problem with Challenger 2 up armor kits, especially the latest one. We need to remember that Challenger 2 basic combat weight is 62,5 tons, and still it is a bit too much for it's 1200HP Diesel engine, we also need to remember that Diesel engines need to use approx 100HP for cooling (ventilators need power to work). So we have not 1200HP but 1100HP for example, that are used to move vehicle.
And now the big thing, Challenger 2 with latest up-armor kit weight
74 tons! 74 tons to be moved by such a weak engine that is allready underpowered for a 62,5 tons heavy vehicle! Not to mention that some former RAC tankers and guys close to the whole deal, also says the suspension barely holds such weight.
It is a good example of how not to improve vehicle protection. But of course with the latest uparmor kit, Challenger 2 have best side protection compared to other MBT's... question is it is worth to do it such way, it's not tank anymore but a mobile bunker with big gun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem is ammunition storage. How ammunition is stored in Challenger 2? Well it use a 3 piece ammunition (separate projectile, propelant charge and primer), projectiles (both APFSDS and HESH) are stored in simple unprotected/unisolated racks in turret and hull. propelant charges are stored in lightly armored containers.
Whole idea is good but... only on paper, why? It is overall not very smart to belive that some lightly armored container, with a extuinguish fuilds will prevent ammunition cook off. It will not work allways, especially in case of a propelant charge in combustible bag that will not isolate propelant material from fire in the same way as solid metal case. And yes, the whole idea seems to be based on experience with M4 Sherman tanks with wet ammunition storage. But M4's used one piece ammunition with solid metal cases. While of course the idea of bagged charges is from Royal Navy ships.
It was first introduced in Chieftain MBT and... I think it was not ery succesfull in reality. Just look at videos of Chieftains from Iran-Iraq war, where if Iran Chieftain took a hit, and started to burn, it mostly ended as a burning hull without a turret. There are photos in the internet, worth to search.
So, back to Challenger 2. There was a Friendly Fire incident when one Challenger 2 misidentified other one from different unit as a light armor or bunker, and fired HESH. HESH was fired at such angle it hit TC hatch and exploded setting something on fire (and killing one of two crew members sitting in tank, other two were several meters outside tank). Fire ignited ammunition (it is not know what exploded first, HESH rounds or propelant charges) and effect of flying turret known from soviet tanks occured.
What is interesting, very similiar method of ammunition storage is in Israeli Merkava tanks, armored ammunition containers. And how end hit in to ammunition storage area?
And it actually not matters what will hit tank and perforate it's armor igniting ammunition.
I think the main problem here is faith that ammo cook off might be prevented, IMHO it is a failed approach. Ok You can prevent it but how many times? How effective is this preventing? It seems that a much better idea to save crew life is to isolate ammunition in magazines with blow off panels that will vent energy of burning ammunition. It not prevent ammunition ignition, but protect crew.
This video shows tests of this solution in M1 tanks, as we can see, even if ammunition compartment is burning, crew compartment is safe. Also if there is no ammunition in crew compartment, even if armor is perforated, crew survivability increases. We could see this many times, when even if M1 was disabled or destroyed, crew was more or less safe, injured but living.
Ok, it's enough for now, I will add something more later.
However a small note, it is not attack on Challenger 2, only constructive criticism of it's design.