bongbros i kneel

>UK reportedly considering sending 10 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.

Discussions have been taking place “for a few weeks” about delivering a number of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tank to the Ukrainian armed forces, a western source with knowledge of the conversations said. No final decision has yet been made by Rishi Sunak’s government, but if the UK did sign off on such a delivery it would become the first nation to respond to pleas from Ukrainian leaders to equip their military with powerful western tanks. The source said this in itself would not be a “game changer” but it would still be significant because the move would breach a barrier that has so far prevented allies from offering up western tanks to Ukraine for fear of being seen as overly escalatory by Russia.
source: https://news.sky.com/story/uk-considering-supplying-ukraine-with-challenger-2-tanks-to-fight-russian-forces-12783107

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like the UK is feeling a little left out after last weeks announcements. They know they have nothing relevant in the way of IFVs to provide so it would be nice if that Shane’s then into providing chally 2s

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If they just remove the turrets from the warrior it would make a pretty good APC.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >feeling left out

      Sorry we were busy supplying our weapons and training 20,000 troops before the war started and a further 10,000 troops every 120 days. We've done more than anyone else in Europe and we were doing it before anyone else in Europe.

      Plus we haven't had massive downsizing in our army like seen in Germany, we use most of our kit, it's not sitting doing nothing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not saying you are wrong but to the casual observer Germany looks like they are providing way more. IRS-T, Patriot, marders, pzh2000, and gephards.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          very small numbers of headline systems. The UK has provided large amounts of artillery, 105, 155 and GMLRS, more significantly it's been providing large stockpiles of ammunition, both of our own holdings and we've been doing regular C17 flights from Pakistan with brand new soviet calibre artillery ammunition. Other nations should rightfully be feeling pressures, Germany sat on their hands far too long, France still is.

          But the war started 11 months ago and the UK has more than pulled it's weight.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >very small numbers of headline systems
            We have a deal to sell them 100 pzh 2000

            In 2024

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >headline systems
            So yes, they are more visible in the media. UK's contribution has been and is great.

            But it hasn't been as flashy as some of the other minor contributions lately. Which is exactly what 10 Challengers would be. That's a pathetic number that wouldn't have much impact in a theater with thousamds of tanks, but what it would do is take away Germany's pissy excuse for not sending tanks, while making UK the first to do so

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Germany has pledged more and has overtaken UK military aid via these pledges, but this is a recent thing. It's still good but it's taken the Germans a lot of time to get to this point. Britain was much quicker off the mark and has mainly settled into its role as soldier trainer. Basically all training of Ukrainian soldiers, a good few thousand a month or something, is done in the UK, though small numbers are set to start training in Germany.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In total aid provided the UK is still significantly ahead of Germany. However it just does not have the stocks of heavy equipment to give away, so of course it won't be able to keep up in that avenue.

            Early on the war the UK purchased 20 SPG from a dealer in Belgium, did them up and provided them to Ukraine. Jordon is apparently getting rid of its Challenger 1 tanks. I hope the UK does the same thing with them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In total aid provided the UK is still significantly ahead of Germany. However it just does not have the stocks of heavy equipment to give away, so of course it won't be able to keep up in that avenue.

            Early on the war the UK purchased 20 SPG from a dealer in Belgium, did them up and provided them to Ukraine. Jordon is apparently getting rid of its Challenger 1 tanks. I hope the UK does the same thing with them.

            Considering the UK has probably the best trained infantry in the world, the training they're providing would be invaluable. Material support is obviously great, but the training isn't something you can get just anywhere

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Source? The finns, French, and Swedish are generally seen as having superior infantry than the british

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The finns, French, and Swedish are generally seen as having superior infantry than the british

                KEK what kinda bullshit is this? The finns train for very specific kind of warfare. The French? They have a lot of experience in africa etc so they're definitely top tier. Swedish? Idk where you get that from.

                Britain consistently proves they have most professional soldiers, it's why in private security circuit British officers are very sought after for training foreign militaries.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Don’t get mad it’s just the general consensus. May I see a source backing up what you said about the UK having the best infantry?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not the general consensus, it's the voices in your head. There is a reason militaries from around the world send their officers to be educated in Britain and why most special forces outfits around the world are based on Britains.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You literally made all of that up. Its never been the consensus.

                The French are very good sure and can compared to the bongs in good faith. But Sweden & Finland are neutral conscript forces with zero modern experience.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >source
                It was just an opinion based on observations, I don't have anything concrete really. I think it's fair to say other countries like the ones you mentioned may have them beat in specific areas, since different countries prioritize different roles for their infantry

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >UK
              >Best trained infantry
              Says who?

              America has the most experience and funding. garden gnomebros have all the most impressive special forces raids (can't beat raiding a military base with commercial airliners flying 50 feet off the deck, rescuing hostages while inflicting 53-1 losses, and destroying 31 MiGs on the ground to cover your escape).

              I would take US conventional, IDF urban (the professional parts anyhow, they do use a lot of conscripts to fill the force out).

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >American has more experience
                Starting from when? Because without expanding on that that's kinda wrong
                >Most funding
                Yeah, that's why they have the advantage of a fuck huge arsenal of tech, jets, arty, guided munitions etc on tap so they get away with 'good enough' infantry. Comparing them to the British infantry is stupid.
                >Israel being good at anything other than shooting protestors
                Yeah.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Says who?

                The Russians, and even the Americans most of the time.

                >As a recently retired officer from its planning directorate once said to me, with more enthusiasm than originality: “Britain has always had the best light infantry in the world, and the bastards get places faster than we would like.”

                >https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/19/nuclear-weapons-uk-defence-review-russia

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-backtracks-on-defense-spending-promise-warns-about-delays-ukraine-war/
          ok dennis
          Just stop being a bunch of cucks and keep sending the hardware.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Im sorry Mr Bong. You carried Ukraine enogh already. If not for British aid it would be very hard times for ukies at the start, since bongs were ones of the first that trusted in Ukraine and helped them.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair, Germany has no stockpile and I'm pretty sure if this Russian invasion hit Germany it would have collapsed before it could take advantage of its huge industrial advantage. It isn't a great comparison. And then France is being French about it and not giving shit.

        UK wins in Europe, but for their ability to pay Eastern Europeans have given a lot.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      sorry busy training everyone and giving the ukies APC's

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so it would be nice if that Shane’s then into providing chally 2s
      I can't quite make sense of this. Can someone clarify?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he probably meant "Shames" them, Anon

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The UK has been by far one of the biggest allies to Ukraine, only beaten by the US and Poland, and has been helping Ukraine since Russia seized Crimea, so its not really fair to act like Britain is trailing behind European nations.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >only beaten by the US and Poland
        Not even Poland.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They know they have nothing relevant in the way of IFVs
      What are you on the warrior is easily as capable if not definitely much better then a BMP.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We have 400, we use 220, we are only turning 150 into Challenger 3. Seems like a good opportunity to pass the leftovers onto Ukraine, the ongoing upgrade means there's very little to lose if Russia gets hold of one.

    While i'd like to see it i'm not convinced that western tanks will make much of an impact given

    1. the number of soviet tanks already donated/captured
    2. the prolific use of ATGM's
    3. the lack of air superiority.
    4. the small numbers of different types making logistics harder

    At the end of the day, it's gun will kill anything the Russians field and it's armour is good enough to stop most of what the Russians have when used correctly - from hull down positions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the UK was getting rid of all of its tanks

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No one is that stupid. Countries that sold their tanks for cheap are hiring their heads right now.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Netherlands sold theirs for peanuts and then immediately regretted it. Have these retards learned nothing from Chamberlain's error?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        source?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nope that was never happening in the short to medium term. Bong MOD does think that the day of the tank will soon by over though, so isn't keen to invest large amounts of money in replacements for Chally 2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We should be either scrapping the entire fleet or giving it to Ukraine and then buying Abrams instead.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and then buying Abrams instead
        ???????
        CR2 is literally the current best currently fielded. The only time a CR2 has been destroyed was due to friendly fire from another CR2.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It really isn’t that good. It just hasn’t seen a lot of combat. It’s never even killed an enemy tank, just a CR2

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Indeed, still seems better to send upgraded T-series tanks since they fit into the existing logistics and Ukrainians are trained on them. All Western tanks add is superior sensors, but can't those be bolted onto their existing slavshit tanks?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >there's very little to lose if Russia gets hold of one.
      The armor composition is still extremely classified

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The British army supposedly only has about 50 tanks operational at any one time, enough for the third mechanised division and not much else.
      Many of the ~150 mothballed are basically cannibalised for spares and couldn't be made ready again.
      British army Armor is basically Bundeswehr tier, except Germany can at least still build Leopard 2s.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        True, Britain is a third world country now, their tanks are only relevant because of armour invented in the 1960s. They've spent the last 40 years slacking and now they're paying the price.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          their armour is the same as US armour, the bongs literally sold it to you

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        True, Britain is a third world country now, their tanks are only relevant because of armour invented in the 1960s. They've spent the last 40 years slacking and now they're paying the price.

        Bad bait

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is Army 2020, though? I mean it’s understandable that the UK wants to specialize, but I am not really convinced that the proposed changes are sound.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They have no idea what they're doing. They just don't have any money so are trying to cut corners as much as possible. Functionality is an afterthought.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don’t get me wrong, it’s not the worst I have seen for reorganization ideas. Everytime I look at pic rel, I think some people should take a swim in Landwehrkanal. But I feel the UK is gimping its army too hard.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's also been completely justified by the Ukraine war. If you read the actual Strategy & defence review they called an awful lot of what we are seeing in Ukraine.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bait.

        True, Britain is a third world country now, their tanks are only relevant because of armour invented in the 1960s. They've spent the last 40 years slacking and now they're paying the price.

        Even bigger bait.

        https://i.imgur.com/GonaJxC.png

        Don’t get me wrong, it’s not the worst I have seen for reorganization ideas. Everytime I look at pic rel, I think some people should take a swim in Landwehrkanal. But I feel the UK is gimping its army too hard.

        What is Army 2020, though? I mean it’s understandable that the UK wants to specialize, but I am not really convinced that the proposed changes are sound.

        Their current orbat is pic related. Its literally the cutting edge of modern warfare and has been wholly justified by the way Ukraine has played out. They have 3rd division, an armored division that is focused on maneuver AND deep-fires. Basically, what we saw the Ukrainians do during the Kharkov offensive is they have been building their entire army around - distributed lethality, delivering deep fires with precision weapons to shape the battlefield, heavy armor to achieve a breakthrough, and then 1 Div (mainly wheeled) to exploit the fuck out the breakthrough.
        >its also why Ajax, a very weird vehicle, is a thing. Its basically a pillbox with big eyes and ears for the fires.

        Oh, and they have two brigades for world-police fuck-fuck games and an entire QRF brigade incase the world-police fuck-fuck games require backup.

        Its coherent. Its logical. Its pragmatic. Its cost-effective. It balances global light fighting with modern conventional needs. tl;dr: its dope as FUCK.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s literally the German ORBAT minus the mountain brigade. There are other minor details like number of tanks relative to number of IFVs in the spearhead formations but it is essentially identical.
          And it has what I would call the same structural defects with regards to organization. One of them would be how support is or isn’t integrated on brigade level. I think that this specific discussion is beyond the scope of this board and especially this thread. We either need a distinct thread for it which will likely be buried by spam, or leave it at this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      10 tanks. Game changer. We did it Ukiebros, this will change the war

      /k/opium mach ten incoming. They don't actually believe Russia has ATGm tech

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        10 Challenger 2s are worth 100 T-72s.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I agree, ignore the garden gnome gremlin.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russian ATGMs went up against western tanks in the middle east and failed. Maybe it'll be different this time, maybe it won't.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          when? Yom Kippur?

          10 Challenger 2s are worth 100 T-72s.

          /k/ope dialed max

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All of Americas recent sandbox adventures, plus Israels bullying of Palestinians. Can't say those conflicts don't count because the other side only had Russian gear when the argument is about the effectiveness of Russian gear.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) in particular has swatted a lot of blyatmissiles successfully.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i think if the 10 tanks are being concentrated on a narrow section of the front line, and used to gain local superiority, they'd cut through vatmorons like a warm knife through butter

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Challenger 2
    Are they even good?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They’re better than anything russia has. They’re a step below the leopard and abrams but they’re still solid tanks. They even have a fully stabilized main gun which is a luxury on a British armored vehicle

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If they just remove the turrets from the warrior it would make a pretty good APC.

        Looks like the UK is feeling a little left out after last weeks announcements. They know they have nothing relevant in the way of IFVs to provide so it would be nice if that Shane’s then into providing chally 2s

        Source on the superior oblique kits and thickness. Also why did you disregard the APS on abrams that challenger doesn’t have

        Are all bong posters this delusional? Or Is it really just one guy. This reads like the same posting style as that guy who bends over backwards trying to save face for starstreak as if it’s personal.

        >Same shitposting style
        >Same narratives every time
        >Tries to pin it on "one bong" when he's the one non stop shilling against pretty much anything british
        have a nice day warriortard, I hope a bong raped your behind to get you this seething mad.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I was just asking you to source your claim about the challengers armor being superior. Shouldn’t be too hard considering how sure you sounded about it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You should consider getting help.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      reletively, cant remember how good the APFSDS is but HESH will ruin older russian tanks and infantry at longer engagement ranges and the armour is extremely affective against HEAT

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Should win duels against most if not all tanks Russia is fielding and is far superior when used as intended, integrated into a combined arms mechanized formation.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >considering
    More like con-sneed-ering
    >Challenger 2
    How are they better than T-55?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >how are they better than T-55
      Modern gun
      Modern ammo
      Modern optics
      Vastly better armor
      Vastly superior mobility

      That’s like asking why a Halberd is better than a Bronze Age spear

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This happens and the Russians might seethe about Anglo-Saxons for another 1000 years

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, I'm considering sending ten nukes

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's so fucking big

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's the heaviest and best protected tank in the world, dunno what else you'd expect.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I love it
        imagine Russian mobiks would be shitting their pants seeing one of those coming their way

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >best protected tank in the world
        Isn't the Merkava supposed to be the best protected one?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/6uJmu6Y.jpg

          It's the heaviest and best protected tank in the world, dunno what else you'd expect.

          The sepv3 and sepv4 abrams are better protected than the challenger 2

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah. Not even close.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yea. Better frontal and side armor on the abrams sepv3s and the addition of APS. Bong tanks are way behind

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're deluded, challenger had larger LOS thickness armour on the front and especially the sides while using the same armour type but superior applique kits.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Source on the superior oblique kits and thickness. Also why did you disregard the APS on abrams that challenger doesn’t have

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Challenger has had front and side ERA and Composite applique armour since Challenger 1, Challenger 2 has been tested with soft and hard-kill APS systems and are available for theatre entry kits.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are all bong posters this delusional? Or Is it really just one guy. This reads like the same posting style as that guy who bends over backwards trying to save face for starstreak as if it’s personal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >starstreak bad
                I’m so tired of this meme. Sure it’s not as good as we thought it would be but it’s able to stand proud with the rest of big MANPADS.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nah. Not even close.

            Yea. Better frontal and side armor on the abrams sepv3s and the addition of APS. Bong tanks are way behind

            How do you guys even compare armor on modern tanks? It's all classified composites, pure material thickness means nothing

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Americans and Germans bought Chobham armour. UK Improved Chobham and created Dorchester armour for Challenger 2. Challenger 3 will use yet another brand new UK designed and owned armour package.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US has upgraded its super secret armor. Guaranteed to be better than what the British have done. Feel free to post a source proving me wrong tho

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Later Abrams probably have copied some Dorchester changes, but even with the same design they have less space to work with. You only need to look at combat weight to see which tank is more heavily armoured.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US uses depleted uranium and other proprietary ceramics. I’m not at all surprised the US developed a superior armor and needed less space as a result

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The UK has access to all the US's armour data just as the US had to the UK. The UK's armour data remains classified.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > The UK has access to all the US's armour data
                Will this finally be the claim you source or will you continue to make claims without being able to back them up

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dorchester uses DU too.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Show me a single source claiming the challenger 2 uses depleted uranium

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The weight gain, the scrapping of damaged vehicles over repair and the fact it's still classified.

                > Seen huge amounts of combat thanks, with no combat losses either.
                It’s only ever deployed in combat during iraq 2. It deployed in small numbers to a quiet AO. That’s not a lot of combat at all. Perhaps you were thinking of the challenger 1 and the gulf war

                >It deployed in small numbers to a quiet AO

                And got 300 odd AFV kills.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > The weight gain, the scrapping of damaged vehicles over repair and the fact it's still classified.
                So you don’t have a source confirming DU on challenger 2. I didn’t think you did when you made the claim. I’m glad I asked

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well shit I can’t find the source anymore but I’m pretty positive it does

                Bong posters ladies and gentlemen

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we're not all insuffereable gays, I have no idea where the current crop has come from, Reddit perhaps

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The 0.5 tonne of weight gain while Abrams gained 2 tons with the addition of DU to the front turret cheeks only?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >And got 300 odd AFV kills
                That isn’t a lot or an impressive target to kill. Maybe if it was and IFV getting hundreds of tank kills we would be impressed

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well shit I can’t find the source anymore but I’m pretty positive it does

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't. I have no idea where this myth comes from. First of all there is a large amount of traceability in the use of DU in the form of licensing of nuclear materials in both armor such as US Abrams, and projectiles such as both L26/L27, M829 series or 30mm DU round of the GAU-8. There is no such mention at all of DU being used in Challenger

                >protected vs 100mm full bore AP at most
                >no protection vs HEAT since even RPG-7s will go through it frontally
                Lmao.

                115mm steel APFSDS would hole Chieftain out to 1.6km. 125mm steel APFSDS would go through it at 3+km as shown in the Iran-Iraq war. Yeah, for a 60s tank Chieftain was poorly protected, especially for it's weight

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no such mention at all of DU being used in Challenger

                Because it's classified. Remember, you import our armour designs, we have never bought yours.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Depleted uranium isn’t used at all in British tanks. That info isn’t classified. The hard ceramic composition in the challenger 2 is what is classified

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Depleted uranium isn’t used at all in British tanks. That info isn’t classified.

                No, it's entire composition is classified.

                >And got 300 odd AFV kills
                That isn’t a lot or an impressive target to kill. Maybe if it was and IFV getting hundreds of tank kills we would be impressed

                It's an infinite K/D.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even if it's classified, it would mention that DU is used in it's armor array due to regulations on the use of nuclear materials needing it to be declared.
                The Abram's armour is also classified you dumb fuck, yet we still know it contains DU because it is a legal requirement to declare it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it would mention that DU is used in it's armor array due to regulations on the use of nuclear materials needing it to be declared.

                Yeah, no, our secrecy laws trump everything. The UK is Israel tier when it comes to military secrecy, we nuked and used chemical weapons on our own guys as a test and arrested them when they complained.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except the UK also declare that L26 and L27 are DU rods.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                DU being in our tank rounds isn't a military secret, we've been dumping it into targets all around the world for decades.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Isn’t ammo different than armor

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If both have DU, both would be declared to have DU (like Abrams)
                If one is declared to have DU and the other doesn't have any documentation on nuclear licensing (interesting note, the DU material stock for L26/L27 came from the US), well it's probably that the other one doesn't use DU.
                It's really that simple.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Im pretty sure that the US has different nuclear and military secrecy laws to the UK

                https://i.imgur.com/8wx8vZn.png

                Except the UK also declare that L26 and L27 are DU rods.

                declaring DU in rounds you are using constantly and are exposing people and the environment to, is different compared to armour that generally isnt being penetrated. But fair point, its either some autistic tungsten alloy or an autistic DU alloy, or both.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well theres almost no information publicly avaliable, and ive heard either that it uses DU or it uses some kind of tungsten alloy, but that it has protection vs KE superior to the US's chobham.

                https://www.defencetalk.com/military/forums/t/dorchester-armor.4620/
                Some guy who claims to have been peripherally involved with a german upgrade programme suggests that Dorchester is known to be stronger than the US's DU chobham .

                There was a UK parliament report on the continuing use of DU apfsds, the british army uses DU so theyre not exactly averse to using it, and the report mentions the long-term health risk to those crew operating in 'struck vehicles' from aerosolised DU, but it isnt clear if this is only for vehicles struck by friendly fire with DU munitions, or for vehicles struck in general.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Please take my third hand sources of people working at Nintendo as fact
                no

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If i had an actual source, and posted it, i'd get arrested. Thats already happened twice for warthunder, not doing it for PrepHole.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you understand why people are outright disregarding your posts then? If I make a claim saying the abrams can fly all I have to do is say it’s classified and I win?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You understand the difference between gleaning information on the most classified armour in the world, as being better than a different but extremely similar armour which uses the same design principles, and making an unrealistic and stupid statement that can be objectively proved or disproved?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Fourm posts and RUMINT
                Yeah, I shant be taking you seriously anymore.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's the opposite.A snippet of a British document posted online says the DU Abrams turret has better protection vs KE over a narrow frontal arc
                Col Dick Taylor in his CR2 Book gives a figure of the Abrams having 15% better performance vs KE but worse (no specified figure) vs HEAT

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Huh, from what i've read people seem to say the opposite of this, do you have a link or photo of this?
                Its frustrating that they still havent declassified the ke or cha values for even the ancient chobham from the late 70s, im not sure anyone still uses that, so i have little hope that dorchester will be declassified before we die.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Leopard 2 it is talking about is likely the pre-97th vehicle of the 6th Batch
                The 1988 RARDE report on Chieftain Replacement options and the Swedish document on their tank trails are good info on the protection levels of Western tanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, actually the chobham type 2 applique was declassified in its layout but not the values and not sure how far dorchester follows this or what materials it is made out of. I saw a report for the original chobham in the 1980s from an american source, but obviously this is the precursor to both and these are just rough estimates. The original does seem to be HEAT focused, but from what ive read dorchester seems to prioritise KE.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Was gonna post this but this the same document on Leclerc

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >same document on Leclerc
                Follow on document on Leclerc

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah im more inclined to believe that the challenger 1 has 500mm over its frontal arc than 435, as 435 wouldnt be any better than the chieftain. But that is an different armour and thickness to the burlington challenger 2. All we can know for now is that its going to be greater than 500mm. I do wonder for these if 500mm is the minimum for both the turret and the glacis, or is the maximum for the turret or the glacis. As the turret is typically much better armoured than the glacis on most NATO tanks, at least the ones which use a big blocky square layout, on account of the way chobham derived composite is installed.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Weight is one of the worst determinants of protection holy shit what a fucking brainlet take.
                By your logic M60 or Chieftain are more heavily protected then T-64 since they weight 15 tons more

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Chieftain is absolutely better protected than T64 but no, you're too dumb to be able to understand the comparison of weight from similar sized tanks of similar design using equally modern components in their manufacture. We're just better at tanks than you, they are our invention after all.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Chieftain
                >protected vs 100mm full bore AP at most
                >no protection vs HEAT since even RPG-7s will go through it frontally
                >T-64
                >glacis plate protected vs 105mm APDS at point blank
                >Protected to all but the heaviest of ATGMs at the time, and all tank-fired HEAT rounds
                Hmmm which one is better protected...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no protection vs HEAT since even RPG-7s will go through it frontally

                Nice fantasy, laughs in stillbrew.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stillbrew didn't begin being fitted until 1986 when T-80UD was entering service, and still weighed about 15 tons less while being far more protected.
                Stillbrew increased the Chieftains turret protection to just below Challenger 1 and Leopard 2A4 with C-Tech armor vs KE, but it was still far worse vs HEAT

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >protected vs 100mm full bore AP at most
                >no protection vs HEAT since even RPG-7s will go through it frontally
                Lmao.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Dorchester is a colloquialism for Chobham, which in itself is a blanket term for ceramic armor arrays developed in the Chobham Common. The US stopped using bong dev'd Chobham with the A1's rollout back in the late 80s and moved to domestically produced DU/ceramic composite armor arrays.

                The UK has access to all the US's armour data just as the US had to the UK. The UK's armour data remains classified.

                >The UK's armour data remains classified.
                So does the US"s. We only know they moved away from the original Chobham recipe to DU, not what that DU is specifically capable of in it's current iterations. The Abrams gets new armor arrays with every major update.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US stopped using bong dev'd Chobham with the A1's rollout back in the late 80s and moved to domestically produced DU/ceramic composite armor arrays.

                Yeah, when the UK stopped using Chobham and moved to Dorchester for Challenger 2. Yet another UK made armour kit for Challenger 3, we're world leaders in material science.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                My man, the Challenger 2 didn't roll out until the 1990s. The USA had already moved on from Chobham by then with the M1A1 in 88. The bongs weren't even the first people to use their own armor.

                Funnily enough open documents so far don't refer to Dorchester yet (we are talking 1987-1988). The Improved Challenger design studies all call it ICA - Improved Chobham Armor

                >Open documents so far don't refer to Dorchester yet
                I think it only came around as a name with the C2, though I have no idea where that name comes from because as far as I can tell it's used interchangeably with ICA.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Funnily enough open documents so far don't refer to Dorchester yet (we are talking 1987-1988). The Improved Challenger design studies all call it ICA - Improved Chobham Armor

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I live within earshot of Chobham common and am listening to tanks firing as I read this, comfy as fuck

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Feel free to post a source proving me wrong tho
                Not falling for that one again!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean it's bong super secret armour.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              They don’t. It’s either retards spouting BS or bad actors trying to bait morons into disclosing classified info. There is a famous example of someone posting classified armor info on a warthunder forum in a manipulated conversation to prove that he totally knew what he was talking about.
              It is obvious that a lot of the antagonistic threads are an attempt to recreate that success.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/dCm1PUz.png

                >Feel free to post a source proving me wrong tho
                Not falling for that one again!

                >less than 30 seconds apart

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What’s your point? That people are aware of what’s going on?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just a fun coincidence is all

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Unfortunately one has to remind the morons from time to time. Spreading the word might also actually improve board quality as people stop interacting with the bait content and instead steer the conversation to things more interesting. Like proper discussion of unclassified info or posting bananas.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its actually happened not once but six times, three of of them in the span of a single year.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which is why we should remind anons from time to time.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Most NATO projects share a lot of info, including composite design, and often offer it to one another. This is why the US was offered, and accepted, chobham design composite armour for the M1A1, among other armour design. Given that we do not know the actual specifications for modern armour, the only assumption we can make is that they are all roughly similar and offer similar ke protection for their LOS thickness and weight, and that no NATO country will have designed a composite several times better than the others without having shared or sold it.
              Therefore if a NATO tank has significantly more weight in armour, and the armour covers greater LOS thickness, then the armour is likely to offer more protection and the tank is likely to be more armoured than an equivalent NATO MBT with less weight in armour and less LOS thickness.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >For the M1A1
                The M1A1 was the first iteration to move away from bong designed Chobham. The M1 used it, the A1 was armored with domestically produced DU/ceramic arrays.

                >There is no such mention at all of DU being used in Challenger

                Because it's classified. Remember, you import our armour designs, we have never bought yours.

                >Depleted uranium isn’t used at all in British tanks. That info isn’t classified.

                No, it's entire composition is classified.

                [...]
                It's an infinite K/D.

                >Because it's classified
                All armor systems are classified. Hell, the silicon carbide systems the US was developing for the Pattons series back in the 50s is still classified. Does that mean you have to infer that it too uses DU in it's recepe?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Always remember that on this website you're one (1) click away from seeing chicks with dicks fuck each other and whatever cesspool /b/ is nowadays. Discussion on classified, or even most regular info here is just "oh, my country is the best because eeeeeh i feel like it"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          well their best enemy are kids with rocks

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I love the Merkava's aesthetics. Really captured that "land battleship," feel, especially with all the weaponry.

          But unfortunately, Israel has not seemed very hot on donating much to the war and it's a tank less well suited to Ukraine's battlefield than other wealthy nation's MBTs.

          Ukraine would probably better off with their new IFVs with the active protection and the sweet autonomous auto cannons.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >heaviest
        that's not a good thing
        >best protected
        Daily Mail Propoganda.
        Greek trials ranked the protection of as Leopard 2>M1A2>Cr2>Leclerc
        which is consistent with the order of the Swedish trials of Leopard 2>M1A2>Leclerc where we have some hard figures as well.
        internal British documents indicate that compared to the M1A2, Cr2 has worse protection on the front turret vs KE but better vs HEAT.
        So while not badly protected, it isn't the best protected by any means.
        Then there are the other factors, like the ammunition stowage is by far the worst of all the western tanks in terms of post penetration safety and the TOGS mounted on the mantlet is just jank.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Then there are the other factors, like the ammunition stowage is by far the worst of all the western tanks in terms of post penetration safety
          Not sure that's the case. In the FF incident a HESH shell exploded on the rim of the open commander's hatch (so as close to a detonation inside the tank as you can get) and the tank didn't cook off until well after the two surviving crew had escaped.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The tank cooked of a few seconds after it was hit. The reason only 2 crew died as because the other two were not in the tank.
            The incident inquiry report is online
            https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121109064050/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The tank cooked of a few seconds after it was hit

              Because there was a hesh round waiting to be loaded into the gun that blew up.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The screenshot from the report clearly states it was the HESH round stored on the turret floor, but okay you don't want to read.
                The projectile stowage on the turret floor of Challenger 2 is a 5 round rack on the floor at the rear of the floor and a 7 round rack towards the front of the floor underneath the gun

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The screenshot from the report clearly states it was the HESH round stored on the turret floor,

                They are stored in the turret, the fact it was on the floor means it was taken out of it's rack and waiting to be loaded.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong
                Pic related is the 7 round rack underneath the gun.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And pic related is from CR1 Mk 3 which has effectively the same hull stowage as CR2 where both hull floor projectile racks are visible

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Fair enough, I got bullshitted on that one then

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Greek trials ranked the protection of as Leopard 2>M1A2>Cr2>Leclerc
          CR2 was the only tank that the Greeks were going to be allowed to actually conduct their own live fire trials against though.
          All the others were just "trust me bro" from the manufacturers based on their own test regimes. So no direct comparative trials with a standardised method were carried out

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        lmaooo, imagine if British volunteers went with the tanks too

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the newest M1 is heavier, and it's definitely better protected with the brand new upgrades. Although the Merkava probably takes the cake for crew protection with the newest version. It looks impressive because of the extra volume for carrying infantry too.

        >best protected tank in the world
        Isn't the Merkava supposed to be the best protected one?

        Yes and no. The Merkava has the latest active protection systems used for the M1 and great armor, definitely top tier. It is safer for the crew, because they sit behind the engine and away from the munitions, which have blowout panels. Probably the best tank to be in if you get hit. But this design makes the tank more likely to be killed. In some cases you can have the crew killed or badly injured, but have a salvageable tank, or you can have a dead tank but a crew that is alive, relatively uninjured. Losing either is no good for a force, so it's a toss up.

        The Merkava is the tank you'd want to be in fighting in very urbanized areas where you're not going long distances. It is quite specialized for the type of fighting the IDF is likely to do. The mortar is a nice addition in that the best defense is one that can blow up an ambush team before they have a chance to fire, which drone spotters + mortar does quite well. The Merk also has an area for infantry to jump into if needed, a plus for urban enviornments.

        But other tanks have more versatility. New M1 is quite impressive but still suffers from its now antiquated base design. The thing is fucking horrendous on fuel, which has real implications if you're not the US.

        K2 is pretty sweet too.

        And honestly, if the T-14 wasn't all bullshit and did what they said it does, it would be an excellent tank. But it seems it was all smoke and mirrors.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that's what she said

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i remember pic related, brits were first to deliver shit to ukraine right before the invasion and it would be symbolic if they decided to deliver tanks first

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is that flight taking a detour above Holland?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Germany wouldn't allow overflights with weapons without permission and the permission form takes two weeks to process.

        A uniquely German problem.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Krauts were butthurt that their crack--I mean gas supplier would have NLAWs and Javelins pointed at them so those flights went over to make them feel better.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They've been doing their damnedest to prevent escalation since the beginning, but they finally caved when they realized NATO was going to support Ukraine with or without their help. The German government is unbelievably cucked
          https://www.npr.org/2022/12/20/1144315459/german-court-convicts-97-year-old-ex-secretary-at-nazi-camp

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Disregarding the burrhurt anti-German posters, teh reason was that German (and French) diplomats were still trying to convince Putin not to invade. Germany and France are generally big on the 'let's not have wars' thing.
        Even the French president went to Putin. Obviously, teh Russians lied to the diplomats and the French president.

        Personally, I hope the Brits do send MBTs. Then the Germans can start sending Leo2s and we can finally see if they work.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Macron and Scholz are the Chamberlain of the 21st century. Waving around the Minsk agreement while the Russians were already fueling up their jets. A complete political and intelligence failure for the entirety of western Europe. Only the UK/US were at least proactive, and not just slobbering Putin's cock for guarantees and muh gas.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Please, if the bongs don't fucking send them with L/44s the ukros are going to have so fucking hard times with supplies with all the kinds of shit they're getting.
    They already are going to get a supply line for 105 shells, we don't need one of 120mm rifled shells and one of 120 smoothbore shells on top of the 125mm line

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >L/44
      >circumcised american guns

      miss me with that short shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Please think of the dombass children, on how many could you kill if you sent the L/44 instead so you can use all of NATO's ammo

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ukraine has 0 western tanks. If it gets 10 Challengers or 10 Leopards it will be setting up a new logistics supply line - it would have to do this anyway if it got 10 leopards and 10 Abrams because they use different parts and spares.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            commonality is still prefferable in ammo, that's why the ukros modified all their 7.62*39 weapons into 5.45 after the dombabwe catastrophe

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Please think of the dombass children
          Ah yes the bajillion donbabweans that radioactive ukranian azov nazis killed with their bear hands.
          Comically russia killed far more donbabweans by forcing their "totally independant and not at all puppets who has no say unless kremlin says so" republics to conscript everytving that moved and using them as fodder.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > if the bongs don't fucking send them with L/44s
      What, you expect them to do a complete rebuild of the tank before sending them?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What are the laws governing supplying DU ammunition to a third country? Are there any nuclear proliferation issues?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its not fissible material so its fine

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >10
    I sleep.
    Bongs are worthless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's clearly about trying to prod the other big NATO peeps into giving tanks. Peeps like Germany and the US. It's clearly not meant to be a large functional delivery, it's like Poland or finland giving a couple of leopard tanks, it's about sending a message that NATO as a whole is ready to start delivering tanks to ukraine

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      everyone is waiting for others to make a move, it's political bullshit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Watch the jerries give the Ukies like 3 Leopards tho

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just bought the generational bottom of SOXS

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks England!

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you just send a company (-)? Bataillon or bust!
    Would be good news, though. Integrate with Bradleys and you have a really high performance combined arms batallion. I would really like to see that plus support go up against a russian BTG. I know it’s a unrealistic scenario, because that’s not how war works. Still an interesting thought.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >HESH
    yeah

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing says killing you with kindness like sending someone your shame tank.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger 2 is perfect for Ukraine because its light, extremely hard to spot and because of the small size is very hard to hit. Ambrams is the second best choice

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Since when did PrepHole become of the opinion that British gear is le bad

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      PrepHole has an obsession with sucking German and American cock. Chally 2 is the greatest tank in active service anywhere in the world.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just last year. It started with a guy who made a thread about the warrior IFV being shit and it is. It’s got a ton of problems. Normally that would be it but a small group of bongs got really upset that the warrior was exposed and would sperg in every thread about it. Naturally this led to more warrior threads and even copycat posters mocking the warrior. This coincided with the lackluster performance of starstreak in Ukraine and everybody kind of just hopped on the bong hate train.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's some of my fellow bongs losing their objectivity for no reason at all. It's a bit cringe. We're pretty good at this shit, so I don't see the need to become defensive dweebs when it comes to stuff that we don't do as well.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    """"""""""""""""""""considering"""""""""""""""""""

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So did they already train the crews or is this another one of those we'll train them for 3 months and then see how it goes announcements

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The new talk is that the counter-offensive comes during April, so clearly we are dealing with three-months training on new equipment, regardless of any previous training Ukes have had on any of these recently announced systems. All you would need is one of the systems to be completely new for the maths to add up favorably to putting off the counter-offensive though.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I’m so sick of people clowning on the crown when she’s down. Sure the warrior was a national embarrassment, who fucking cares it’s being replaced. Okay the starstreak turned out to struggle to keep pace with the older stingers in country but again who fucking cares. It’s still cool as shit. Mach 4 missile firing guided tungsten darts will never not be badass

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do you want the nuclear war? this is how you get the nuclear war

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      says who?

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was it Abrams or Leo that lost 10 tanks in like an hour to insurgents? i can't remember if it was turks or iraqi's, either way it wasn't a British tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >British tank sees virtually no combat
      yea we know

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Seen huge amounts of combat thanks, with no combat losses either. No awkward pictures of Challengers blown up by rag heads. Longest range tank kill too. Challenger 3 will be dope too, not only the best protected tank in the world but also the most lethal tank in NATO ad it's the only L55A1 gun that will be shooting DU rounds. cry about it.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Seen huge amounts of combat thanks, with no combat losses either.
          It’s only ever deployed in combat during iraq 2. It deployed in small numbers to a quiet AO. That’s not a lot of combat at all. Perhaps you were thinking of the challenger 1 and the gulf war

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger = WAR TANK
    Leopard = Show TANK that looks good in exercises and demonstrations

    #1 priority is crew survivability, when the men in the tank know they're the best protected on the battlefield it inspires confidence to act boldly.

    Brits are best at war, if our population was bigger you'd all be fucked.

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A single Challenger 3 tank would be able to liberate Ukraine.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    10 is literally not enough to be worthwhile.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a pro uke bong and this seems like a terrible idea.

    >10 hulls isn't enough to justify the logistical and training overhead.
    >The gun's rifled and so uses different 120 to all the other NATO tanks, so you don't even have that much cross compatibility going for you.
    >If it needs a major repair you need to get it onto a boat back to the UK

    Leopard 2 would be better for maintenance - just railway them back to poland/germany
    Abrams would be better for sheer number of hulls that can be sent+spare parts

    The only redeeming feature of the proposal is that it breaks the "taboo" about sending western MBTs. Germany will have to think of a new excuse. Probably that its wrong to send military goods too close to Valentines day or some such. Fucking krauts.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You still haven’t picked up on the political game being played?

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are bongloids like this?
    In fact, why are ALL armor artists like this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because Challenger 3 is due to be the best tank in NATO and it makes Lards and German/Turks furious.

      It also makes them furious that we know that we're better than them no matter how much they try to say otherwise. Anglos are gods people.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It also makes them furious that we know that we're better than them no matter how much they try to say otherwise.

        We've always had the best quality soldiers in the world, and when we get the best equipment it's just not fair. Simple. As.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Our equipment is also, almost always better than people give it credit for. We're like the top of the league team when everyone is desperate to pick apart random stats to try and make us seem like we're not top dog. Then we come and play your team away and shred them, we are excellent at war, the same not giving a shit what you think attitude we have on here translates to the battlefield.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > We've always had the best quality soldiers in the world, and when we get the best equipment it's just not fair.
          You’re describe the South Koreans

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Chally 3 is the Bong's Armata

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        chally 3 is not enough of an upgrade to keep parity with the best western MBT's. Yes we have the best soldiers, but the new tank is not that much of a leap, stop being a gay you're making us look bad

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Another bong has a meltdown thread. What’s the deal with British posters lately? Are they that upset about the Bradley and marder news

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like they knew not to even offer warrior. Why did the germs offer marder when the warrior could be considered on par or even have a slight edge over the marder

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We don't have warriors to offer we're using them, Germans probably have spares due to huge downsizing and low recruitment.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because Germany operated a giant Marder fleet in the Cold War, lots of them are in storage, they are being phased out and those in storage have been partially upgraded to levels that make them more than sufficient for the job at hand.
          There are a lot of certified training cadre and huge Cold War stocks of ammo.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldnt be surprised if they do, a lot are due to be retired soon

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What news is that? I genuinely don't pay attention to nations other than the UK.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Context clues anon. Germany is sending marders and the US is sending Bradleys.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Germany is sending marders and the US is sending Bradleys.

          Challenger 2 is better than both. Hell even warrior is better but we are using it. 30mm RARDEN would go through each end of both of those clumsy APC conversions.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Challenger 2 isn’t really comperable to IFVs. The warrior has a non stabilized gun and feeds from 3 round clips with no dual feed capability. It’s mogged by the Bradley

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              none of that matters, or dick is bigger and more lethal. you cant even fit enough guys in a Bradley

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >12 ready rounds
                >1 shorter ranges ATGM hastily slapped onto the turret where the gunner has to expose himself to even fire it
                Brits taking L after L and asking for more

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                kek I had to look this up. What a downgrade compared to the Bradley’s fully integrated TOW.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                MILAN is better than TOW, like a lot better.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It literally does not matter because both are overkill for all russian tanks in service.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                TOW is better because it has a much longer range. Having more standoff is important in a country as flat and open as Ukraine

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >shorter range than TOW
                >no top attack function like TOW
                >seen less combat than TOW
                Seething pretty hard are we

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's too easy to bait you, this is why i made you have a mental breakdown over starstreak.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >seethes hard
                >bring up completely unrelated MANPADS when discussing armored vehicles
                >I’m just baiting bro
                Are you ok

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you okay? You made a big deal about warrior not having an ATGM and now you look like a fool with your cope posts about it not counting lol. Remember, i own you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, but he is largely correct. The absence of an ATGM is not as big a deal as you think it is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > You made a big deal about warrior not having an ATGM
                What are you talking about. Could you please point out the post itt where someone claimed warrior didn’t have an ATGM

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you referring to this post?

                >12 ready rounds
                >1 shorter ranges ATGM hastily slapped onto the turret where the gunner has to expose himself to even fire it
                Brits taking L after L and asking for more

                No where does it say the warrior doesn’t have an ATGM, just that it’s ATGM and operating system is inferior to that of the Bradley

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You said it in previous threads and got shown up, just as happened with RARDEN tank kills, warrior surviveability and pretty much every subject you turn your little brain to.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Seek help. I was responding to presumably you when you said the warrior is nearly on par with Bradley. I never claimed the warrior didn’t have an ATGM option at all

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Warrior is better than Bradley, faster, better protected, more troops and a more lethal gun. Have you even seen pentagon wars?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s speed and armor are better for sure. Bradley is overall better because of the optics and armament. Brads got a better gun, better feeding system, better optics, and a much better atgm

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a shame the Desert Warrior, the export one with the Bradley turret wasn't just adopted by Britain.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It could have been a good one for sure. Although I think it was the LAV-25 turret

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I agree with everything you said but optics the warrior has gen 3 Thermals fitted to all vehicles In service the Bradley doesn't. I'm not sure the warrior has the hunter killer thing the Bradley does though.

                It could have been a good one for sure. Although I think it was the LAV-25 turret

                Yeh it's a LAV turret. Very poorly protected.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes but there are more Bradley’s fitted with gen-3s than warrior. There’s just so many more Bradley’s built than warrior

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fair point, how many have 3rd gen? Is it just the M2A3?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And m2a4. My guess is around 1200 although it’s hard to find exact numbers on what has been upgraded. A4s have 3rd gen gunner and commander sights

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeh that's alot a Bradley's lol I think we have like 800 Warriors on the up side.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Better in what sense though?
                Better as a tank destroyer maybe. It can remote fire two missiles, worse missiles perhaps, but its much easier to fire them and guide them compared to the single MILAN on the Warrior.
                Better as an IFV though? The Warrior is faster and better armoured. It also doesnt have a lot of dangerous missiles stored in the fighting compartment. And as an IFV, the 30mm HE is significantly more effective than the 25mm of the Bradley, true it has a ww1 tier firing rate, but against infantry targets fewer larger calibre rounds can be just as effective as more smaller calibre rounds. It is still very slow firing and the RARDEN is trash which shouldnt ever have been adopted, but it is good enough for infantry targets, and im not convinced that the bradley has an overall advantage in its intended role as an IFV.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Better as a fighting vehicle. It can do everything from transport troops, lay down a base of fire, to killing tanks.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Right but an IFV is not supposed to be a tank destroyer, it is an infantry fighting vehicle, its meant to be an effective battlefield transport and a mobile anti-infantry weapon. It has different priorities to a tank destroyer. If i was an infantryman id rather be in the better protected and faster IFV, and wouldnt care as much that it had nice missiles, actually id rather it not as a penetrating hit on the fighting compartment is likely to detonate a stored missile. While if my IFV was expected to take on tanks for some reason, which it shouldnt be doing, then i'd rather be in the one with missiles. Imo the Bradley is a mediocre IFV but a good tank destroyer, while the Warrior is a good IFV but a poor tank destroyer.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                MILAN is better than TOW, like a lot better.

                Stop being retarded. Bradly set-up is obviously better because of integration. The ATGM on the Warrior was put there for "in case of extreme emergency".

                The reason the brad has integrated ATGM systems and the Warrior does not is wholly because of doctrine. Warriors were designed to exclusively operate alongside tanks making ATGM's superfluous. Bradley was designed to do way more than conventional IFV jobs so it needed some extra punch.

                Stop being so fucking petulant, the both of you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Explain how
                Apart from penetration where both weapons are similar for similar generation weapons (though there is no Milan top attack like there is with TOW-2B
                TOW is faster then Milan (270m/s vs 200m/s)
                TOW is further ranged then Milan 3.75 to 4.5km vs 2 to 3 km depending on the variant

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maybe when it came out modern TOW is far better.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Brits taking L's
                No not really. Aside from the Bradly the Warrior is the only other IFV that has both seen use in a major conventional war (two of them) and not been a complete disaster.

                Quite good for a METAL BAWX made on the fucking cheap.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (YOU)

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What i find funny are the retards saying IFV's being shipped to Ukraine are a GAME CHANGER. They're bullet and ATGM magnets. They can't go on the offensive now. They can only hold onto the land they have now.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They can only hold onto the land they have now.
      Must be why Russia keeps losing turf they stole, lol.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're not.. Mobilized men are filtering into the front the whole time. They've got missiles and cheap Iranian drones to spare.

        Nevermind that this retarded fucking opinion has been proved wrong repeatedly.

        Nevermind that this retarded fucking opinion has been proved wrong repeatedly.

        Russia have addressed their frailty across the frontlines, they retreated from Kherson without any casualties. Ukraine says they had a great victory.. But all their advances were into places the Russians already left. Ukrainians are getting their shit pushed in right now around Bakhmut. Losing men and material at an alarming rate.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Look at this dumbass cunt, just saying shit that is blatantly wrong and that there is a mountain of visual evidence disproving, like anyone else is stupid or sycophantic enough to believe it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mountain of visual evidence disproving

            Lol this makes no sense, you think Ukrainians are videoing their soldiers getting blown to pieces? You have Russians flying over Bakhmut right now and you think Ukraine are winning hahaha

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pure fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I quite like it, because it means more Russian men die wailing in fear and pain.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty ironic that the WEBM you use is actually of a Ukrainian getting his legs turned to mincemeat haha.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nevermind that this retarded fucking opinion has been proved wrong repeatedly.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know what ukraine needs? CV90, not the pitiful export models but the big dick energy 40mm swedish ones.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Would be great to field test 3P ammo on something else other then mountain goatfuckers too.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The 40mm Bofors gun still feeds from clips like it's 1940

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And?

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is the bong screeching itt the same guy as the one in the marder thread arguing that having a stabilized gun is not an advantage?

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      By that logic, the USSR was losing all the way up until 1945

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Literally the opposite is true. If Ukraine was losing no one would throw good assets at a lost cause.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The cause isn't to make Ukraine win, it's to make Russia lose. When you look at it through that lens, a lot of things make more sense.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In no way, shape or form is allowing Ukraine to capitulate going to end with Russia losing. They simply have to convince Ukraine to agree to terms, practically any terms, and their spin doctors can turn it into the great patriotic war 2.0 complete with mongols hoisting the flag on the Reichstag.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank, Dick Wolf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is wolff on vatnik cash? Or is he just a dumbass like Jimmy Dore?

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you guys wanna know why western militaries aren't sending their modern shit, it's because it will be very embarrassing to see them getting blown up by 10,000 dollar plastic Iranian drones.

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >bad morning sirs

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    B- for effort. Minimal knowledge of bongland exposed.

    https://i.imgur.com/IXI6XfG.jpg

    Who? - a quick heavily armed win is better for everyone than a long drawn out slog.

    If you guys wanna know why western militaries aren't sending their modern shit, it's because it will be very embarrassing to see them getting blown up by 10,000 dollar plastic Iranian drones.

    The scale of this war means that's guaranteed regardless of how superior western tech might be. The actual concern is that that they don't want to escalate things to the extent that nukes being used becomes a possibility. So far every red line the Russians set for western support has been crossed, earliest and most often by the bongs. It looks like the bongs might push the envelope a bit again.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lol, Challenger 2 is big gay

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. jealous tanker who can't brew up a nice cuppa tea while murking ppl

  38. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Da, Da, Tovarisch Smith, I am in Coventry Oblast and I agree completely.

  39. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    0/10 your efforts are getting farcical at this point

  40. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Insanely insanely fucking based, I literally cum at the thought of the intense vatnik seething and asshurt the first footage of one of these bad boys taking out a T-72 would cause. The only downside is if this happens Gaijin will never ever buff or fix anything in the Britain tree anymore at all, they already curse it because of the Russian hatred of Britain lmao.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. the guy who leaked parts of the Challenger 2 manual to Gaijin on the forums

  41. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Would Warrior be better since they could be supplied in meaningful number, unlike the Challenger 2?

    If Leopard 2s were already on the way there'd be no reason to send any other type of Western tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. The rarden is ok but the gun is stabilized and it fires from a 3 round clip. The challenger would make a lot more of a difference.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But if the Challenger never arrives in meaningful numbers it could be more hassle logistically and training-wise than it's worth.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's worth comes from the politics around it rather than it's effect on the ground - if the UK becomes the first country to provide tanks it breaks the barrier to other countries doing so.

          FYI the news reports are quoting both Bong & Ukie officials. All the comments are in line with the above. Thinking is a few bong tanks = large amount of German tanks.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree, but lets say this causes the Germans to cave and at least allow other countries (Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Finland, etc, etc, etc) to send Lep 2s, then it might make more sense for the UK to now actually send Challengers in the end as it'd cause more harm than good.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stop being dumb. It’s already a done deal, but they need to bridge time for training with political blabbering. No use telling the Russians half a year in advance what you are going to do.

  42. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sending 10 tanks won't change shit. It just prolongs the war. Only the defense industry is profiting from that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I, Michail Windsorbloke of London oblast am demoralized. President Rishi Tunak Tun of royal duma will be notified to stop wasting monoey on nazi hoholstan. We need more funding for local gay orgy hut and top hat. I was so impoorverished without russian bear gas that i was not able to hot up my eel and kidney burrito.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If the war is prolonged enough russia will lose

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oi m8, me name's Chester Billingsford from Porkshire-on-Thames and I say we need to stop this war. I can't afford me beans on toast like this.

  43. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tank discussion actually reminds me...
    What happened to those ruskie tanks ukrainians captured? I have not seen any activity with those, and ruskies did leave shitton of those in fine condition just out of fuel at early on the war.

  44. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A WHOLE 10 TANKS OH MY GOD ITS OGRE FOR THE RUSSIANS WE DID IT REDDIT111!!!!1
    What's the fucking point of sending only 10 of the fucking things?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Political signaling only. Plus these aren't confirmed they're just thinking about it

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Virtue signalling, and encouraging the other NATO countries to send western tanks too, nobody has offered tanks yet. Could be that america decides to send 500 M1A2 after this, or germany allows leopard 2s to be sent.
      I'd also really like to see a Challenger 2 engage a T-72, and take a few hits, as then i can prove that its actually got armour on warthunder.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >consider

  45. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >10

  46. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I get that we have basically none to begin with but ten tanks seems just insulting

  47. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Chally 2 needs to see some action before retiring tbh. What a unit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was in the 2003 invasion and Kosovo performed well. Much like Challenger 1 it has an infinite K/D ratio.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Kosovo performed well
        Nato troops never saw any land action in Kosovo.
        What?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Challenger 2 has never faced off against tanks. It’s killed technicals in iraq

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Low iq

            Honestly, bong sending 10 challenger 2 will have the same impact as russian send all their t-14 armata to the frontline. Absolutely nothing. What about training?Spare part? Fuel? Integration to the currently used doctrine? WTF bong.

            It's to go first so the Leopard 2a4 hoard can be released, EU nations are outright scared to send stuff without the British going first that way they have the Bong backing if anything goes wrong for them.

            the real benefit is it might stop the rest of the EU beiung shy about sending tanks. But essentially we're too poor to send them anything, we barely have enough of our own

            >poor
            No
            >Dont have a enough of our own
            Yeh

  48. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this is reckless IMO. Russia should be bled to death in ukraine. Escalating and pushing too hard just makes it more likely they'll flip the board and do something nuclear. It'll cost more ukrainians but russia needs to be ended once and for all.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If they bleed slowly they will once again find a convenient scapegoat for how they actually didn’t lose the war at all. Russia needs to learn humility something they have forgotten post WW2. The average Vat needs to learn that their duct tape army isn’t the greatest in the world. They won’t be in the Rhine in 7 days, they won’t roll over NATO. They are a collapsing imperial power. They are Britain in the 1950s. The imperial cycle is coming to a final conclusion.

  49. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God just the fucking chance of seeing a Chally 2 turret toss a t90 has me diamonds

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're both late Cold War designs, so if they go toe to toe, you're likely to see turrets tossed on both sides.

  50. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, bong sending 10 challenger 2 will have the same impact as russian send all their t-14 armata to the frontline. Absolutely nothing. What about training?Spare part? Fuel? Integration to the currently used doctrine? WTF bong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the real benefit is it might stop the rest of the EU beiung shy about sending tanks. But essentially we're too poor to send them anything, we barely have enough of our own

  51. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i was concerned at first but now i think it's a good idea. does seem like our government is trying to play catch-up though - unironically there was comment in the media here that Macron has sort of "stolen" our thunder with Zelenskyy lel.

  52. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can't wait to see it get dabbed on by a £100 drone
    Tankchuds are a meme

  53. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone wanted to see who would go first. I would be surprised if an M1 announcement doesn't follow too soon after. I am less certain about Leopards and Leclercs but they are definitely a possibility.

    If they are announcing now they have probably been working on logistics for a bit.

    That said, with these defensive works, it would really be nice to see them get more planes and HARMs to help them use them, and then get them to be able to use the JDAMs they got more often. Blow a hole in the static line of contact with 1000lb bombs and have a spear point of Challengers and M1s go through? It would be glorious to see.

    Russian air defense is still a huge issue though so this will be tough. What they really need is the F-35 for both stealth and standoff targeting/range, but that seems like a non-starter.

    I wouldn't be totally shocked about some fighters though, and obviously not the tanks. They put the Patriots there for a reason, and I am guessing it is to defend NATO logistics for heavier equipment.

  54. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >powerful western tanks
    So are these tanks actually game changers as the media always seems to imply?

  55. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /k/ope and slide

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *