Path: spln!rex!dex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk Delivery-Date: Fri Jan 04 06:58:35 2002 Delivery-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 06:58:35 -0800 for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 06:58:34 -0800 (PST) id QQlwja10078 for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.uu.net>; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:41:24 GMT id 16MVX9-000ECT-0C for sci-military-moderated@moderators.uu.net; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:41:23 +0000 Message-ID: <USarCKJD7bN8EwzA@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:40:03 +0000 From: "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated Subject: Re: M113, was Re: RPG-7s How effective ? References: <mL930PkYY5M8Ew9c@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> <20020103213341.09738.00003424@mb-fm.aol.com> Organization: Wholesale Lunacy Content-type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Turnpike/6.00-S (<N6135gVRr04RwDCXYw4ARCickR>) To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: d4a5a1ee.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 1010161835 gemini.tycho.net 79560 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:41608 In article <20020103213341.09738.00003424@mb-fm.aol.com>, Jerry Miller <tanker06@aol.com> writes >>Challenger 1? Which did pretty well too... >Obviously I've never served in one, but I was told >by some of their crews that they were a bit on >the awkward side, as far as internal arrangements. Yep, the human factors of the turret left something to be desired. Not crippling, but enough to merit redesign when they moved up to Challenger 2. >>From all that I've heard and read, they did account >well for themselves, so that's a given. >Somebody told me (and I can't remember where, so >I'm just running on possibly-faulty braincells here) >that they had problems with the heat and/or sand >when they first deployed to the desert. Know >anything about this? Same as any large armoured vehicles. Challenger 1 got a bad reputation in the 1980s because of spares shortages (we lost a lot in a depot fire and as an 'economy measure' they were not replaced), but when properly supplied its reliability and availability were very good. >I know that with our M1s, we had to keep checking >the airfilters, but everything else worked fine. Challenger 2 is the same, as the recent exercise in Oman demonstrated - unusually fine dust caused some filter problems, but the rest of the tank worked fine. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam news@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk