# British tank design **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 22, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tank-design/691339 "2014-06-22T00:59:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tank-design/691339/1 "2014-06-22T00:59:38Z")
Basic facts, especially in the right column: > **[Leclerc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclerc)** > > Leclerc may refer to: > **[Leopard 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2)** > > The Leopard 2 is a third generation German main battle tank (MBT). Developed by Krauss-Maffei in the 1970s, the tank entered service in 1979 and replaced the earlier Leopard 1 as the main battle tank of the West German army. Various iterations of the Leopard 2 continue to be operated by the armed forces of Germany, as well as 13 other European countries, and several non-European states around the world, including Canada, Chile, Indonesia, and Singapore. Some operating states have licensed the L... > **[M1 Abrams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams)** > > The M1 Abrams (/ˈeɪbrəmz/) is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems) and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare and now one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 68 short tons (62 metric tons), it introduced several modern technologies to US armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate am The... > **[Challenger 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2)** > > The FV4034 Challenger 2 (MoD designation "CR2") is a third generation British main battle tank (MBT) in service with the armies of the United Kingdom, Oman, and Ukraine. > It was designed by Vickers Defence Systems (now BAE Systems Land & Armaments) as a private venture in 1986, and was an extensive redesign of the company's earlier Challenger 1 tank. The Ministry of Defence ordered a prototype in December 1988. Despite outward similarities to the Challenger 1, design and technological developm... We see that, except for the AMX Leclerc, tank tonnage is in the lower 60s. The power to weight ratio of the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams are both about 24HP/ton. The Challenger 2, however, is at 19hp/ton. This has been a trend in British tank design. Also, we can see that all but the British tank use a smoothbore cannon. This is because the British like to use HESH rounds which work better in rifled cannons. From what I’ve read, HESH rounds have rather easy counters in tank armor in the form of spall liners but they do quite well against fortifications. Yet, the priorities of a main battle tank are usually 1) take out other MBTs 2) Take out other armor 3) take out everything else. So, my questions are: 1. How come the British have historically preferred slower tanks? Do they have more armor than American and German tanks even if they weights are roughly the same? 2. How come the British prefer to use HESH rounds? 3. How come the Leopard 2, which uses a traditional diesel engine, is as powerful as the M1 Abrams turbine while both tanks weigh the same? What was the point of using a turbine engine in the US tank if the Leopard 2 gets the same power/weight ratio and goes a bit faster than the M1 Abrams? ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tank-design/691339/2 "2014-06-22T01:33:26Z")
A preference for slower tanks could be based in differences in tank doctrine, though I don’t know what those differences might be. Regarding the turbine on the Abrams, one of the advantages of it is that it could burn pretty much any sort of liquid fuel, from diesel to jet fuel to gasoline. A handy way of making logistics a bit easier, given that the Abrams has terrible gas mileage. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tank-design/691339/3 "2014-06-22T02:35:33Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Also, we can see that all but the British tank use a smoothbore cannon. This is because the British like to use HESH rounds which work better in rifled cannons. From what I’ve read, HESH rounds have rather easy counters in tank armor in the form of spall liners but they do quite well against fortifications. Yet, the priorities of a main battle tank are usually 1) take out other MBTs 2) Take out other armor 3) take out everything else. While the accuracy over long distance of modern smoothbores isn’t that much different from rifles, the Challenger 1 had the longest distance tank-on-tank kill in Desert Storm at 5,100 meters which seems to [still be the record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1). > [@](#): > > Challenger 1 achieved the longest confirmed kill of Gulf War 1, destroying an Iraqi tank with a DU round over a distance of 5,100 metres (over 3 miles)—the longest tank-on-tank killing shot ever. The priorities of main battle tanks can be taken too far in the direction of 1) other MBTs to the point of ignoring 3) everything else. This was a serious criticism of the M1A1 over the M1; the larger gun reduced the ammunition stowage from 65 to 42 rounds and the standard load out was almost all DS rounds, there was no dedicated HE round, just HEAT, and unlike the 105mm gun there was no canister round and no WP round. Even though it had been pointed out as a weakness since the M1A1 entered service, the M1028 120mm canister round had to be rushed into service in 2003 in postwar Iraq where there were no tanks for the Abrams to shoot at, but plenty of call for a dedicated anti-personnel round. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/british-tank-design/691339/4 "2014-06-22T04:20:38Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > So, my questions are: > > 1. How come the British have historically preferred slower tanks? Do they have more armor than American and German tanks even if they weights are roughly the same? British tank design has traditionally favored protection over speed, and this still shows through somewhat in the modern tanks. (as a point of comparison, German tanks had the opposite philosophy- mobility was the primary consideration.) > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > 1. How come the British prefer to use HESH rounds? They don’t necessarily use HESH rounds exclusively. They use APFSDS rounds a lot, but HESH rounds are very versatile- more so than HEAT, and since they’re not a KE round, they potentially can be longer ranged, especially out of a rifled gun. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > 1. How come the Leopard 2, which uses a traditional diesel engine, is as powerful as the M1 Abrams turbine while both tanks weigh the same? What was the point of using a turbine engine in the US tank if the Leopard 2 gets the same power/weight ratio and goes a bit faster than the M1 Abrams? Easy… even though the power to weight ratio is the same on the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams, the performance characteristics aren’t the same. The M1’s turbine flat out out accelerates the diesels on the Leopard 2. So while on flat ground, the M1 and Leopard have similar top speeds, the M1 accelerates a lot faster, which is a lifesaving and battle winning ability. Beyond that, the turbine is a multi-fuel device -it can run on diesel, gasoline, JP-8, kerosene, and probably bunker fuel, paint thinner or acetone if you could get enough of it. They’re also very reliable in practice and easily swapped for depot level repairs. The only big drawbacks are very high fuel consumption and really hot exhaust.