![]() In comparison, CR1 is steam-driven gunnery, not intuitive the fire control box is down on your right-hand side, and you need to be a contortionist to use it, whilst your head is in the gunsight tracking targets.įrom a maintenance perspective, by contrast, I found the CR2 hugely reliable. Whilst I’m oversimplifying it, CR2 is essentially PlayStation technology for firing the gun and using the tank so easy to assimilate for anybody under 30, which I expect most Ukrainian tank crews are. This was straightforward, and my own conversion took less than a day. Then, as second in command of the 2 nd Royal Tank Regiment, I converted 500 tank soldiers from CR1 to CR2. I converted from Chieftain to CR1 and from CR1 to CR2, so have a bit of experience here. This is far easier to do for CR2s than CR1s. CR2 can fire accurately on the move and at night, critical for ‘shock action’ to get behind Russian defences, something CR1 and most of the Russian tanks cannot do.Ĭrucial to getting Ukraine ready for an armoured thrust to encircle enemy forces is converting their tank crews to be able to use Western tanks. CR1 is in effect a Chieftain tank – 1950’s technology – with a decent engine and Chobham armour, the forerunner of the “secret” and impenetrable Dorchester armour. What has been successful in Ukraine is modern Western weaponry, like NLAW and HIMARS. With many thousands of hours in both CR1 and CR2, I judge opting for CR1s a distraction. On Monday, in this paper, it was suggested we should prioritise getting hold of the 400 or so Challenger 1s (CR1) being made obsolete by Jordan. No sooner did the long-awaited news break that Britain would be sending Challenger 2 (CR2) tanks to Ukraine, when some began to argue we were sending them the wrong tanks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |