Also the never destroyed western tank, best kd Western tank, 2nd most tank on tanks kills Western tank, 2nd most deployed western tank etc etc. Funny how war thunder tier stats have little relevance in combat isn't it...kek you incels give me a chuckle everything xD
sorry but ^^ is firmly in the grasp of the germans, if you wanna go japanese you're looking for something like (>.>*) for the very basics or something more advanced like (*≧ω≦*)
Nonsense. Not because Russia will be competent but Ukraine has been literally driving MBTs upto trenches for photo ops and there's literally no way they won't do it with western MBTs too.
Plus as others have said, no amount of impenetrable frontal arc will save you from a 105/122/155mm arty landing directly on your roof and turning the tank inside out nor will it survive a Kornet up the ass, as we've seen with Abrams.
Stop pretending things are wunderwaffen just because the armies that use them normally operate to the vehicles advantages.
Challenger ate a Milan in Iraq to the turret iirc the addon armor kit doesn't effect the turret so...and it's likely that the images of the Challenger in Ukraine we saw won't be it's final form as to say
Challengers already ate kornets in Iraq without being badly damaged.
The kornet is not the javelin. It's not very good. I don't know why anons are hyping it so much.
They didn't it was a Milan. The Kornet is good, its killed nearly every modern western MBT and has a huge range. However its not been seen much in Ukraine and the Russians using them aren't exactly capable.
https://i.imgur.com/jGbZUb1.jpg
I'm not convinced at this point that Russia has any sort of anti tank capacity beyond shit from the 60s.
I haven't even seen widespread use of the RPG7 on the Russians side. That fricking video of the Tank just rolling over the trench with the infantry inside...one of them threw a hand grenade at it they were that desperate.
Eh, I think it's likely a few will be lost. It's not super tough to take out an MBT, the big reason for such low losses in Iraq was that the Iraqi Army in 2003 largely didn't show up to fight and used what resources it did have poorly. There was a huge fear of Iraqi artillery, but as AAR's of the 2003 invasion point out, the Iraqi artillery just never really was used in larger number.
Depends on how they're used. The biggest advantage western tanks have is probably their optics and electronics. If you use those advantages wisely you don't need to survive a hit because you don't get hit in the first place.
The basic b***h single stage RPG-7 warhead (PG-7VL) can go through the side of the un-improved challenger II basically anywhere, fired from reasonable angles.
The actual side hull protection of the Challenger II is only 50mm of RHA behind the skirts.
Used conservatively and prudently, they could last a while thanks to their good optics and frontal turret protection, but they are no stronger than any of the T-series tanks from the side, maybe just likely to result in catastrophic kill.
probably, but it would not be surprising for a tank to be very vulnerable on the sides, even if being THAT light sounds like bullshit
. . .
Yeah he IS pulling his shit from wart-hunder.
My guess is that it would be closer to the composite armor upgrade from the vidya game, since fricking composite armor is standard for them.
Vidya lists THAT as comparable to 150 RHA
>The actual side hull protection of the Challenger II is only 50mm of RHA behind the skirts.
You're talking out your ass.
The Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams can all be penetrated from the side from single charge RPG-7 without issue, this was the entire reason for the ERA and spaced armor kits used in Iraq and Afganistan.
This is also borne out in the Swedish tank trials testing.
The Abrams and Leopard II have 30mm of RHA side armor behind the skirts, The Abrams has thick (but not thick enough) skirts on the front portion of the tank.
If you have issues with the broadly accurate figures for steel armor in Warthunder you can write a bug report.
>If you have issues with the broadly accurate figures for steel armor in Warthunder you can write a bug report.
Oh jesus you actually are using WT aren't you lmao
Steel beasts is not very accurate at all (ironic considering it is supposed to be the serious sim) the hull armor is particularly egregious here, but the swedish trials also did not feature the DU package.
The M1A2 with DU supposedly had a slightly higher level of frontal protection than the CR2 turret, which according to british sources is around 650mm RHA equiv vs KE threats.
so ~650-700mm is probably accurate for the non gimped M1A2.
>steel beasts is not very accurate
It's the most accurate unclassified source on the subject, according to anyone that matters. Unless you'd like to provide some evidence to the contrary
1 year ago
Anonymous
Well it's completely contradicting the Hull armor figures from the swedish trials even though they should be the same armor package, so there you go.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>nuh uh, my source is right not yours
Again, steel beasts is accepted as the most accurate unclassified source on the subject. I don't know what to tell you, your shits wrong. Tandem or bust, rpg-7's are harassment weapons these days
uhh actually the Challenger II's side armor protection is classified, that means it could be 500mm thick, i mean the daily mirror said it was hit 70 times!
What's that? you can see how thick the plate is?
There just isn't the space inside based on internal pictures, you can see the hull plate from the inside. it would also be the only tank ever made to have such a feature, which would beggar belief.
The basic b***h single stage RPG-7 warhead (PG-7VL) can go through the side of the un-improved challenger II basically anywhere, fired from reasonable angles.
The actual side hull protection of the Challenger II is only 50mm of RHA behind the skirts.
Used conservatively and prudently, they could last a while thanks to their good optics and frontal turret protection, but they are no stronger than any of the T-series tanks from the side, maybe just likely to result in catastrophic kill.
That’s a bold claim though, since an arty round would definitely destroy one. And since we’ve seen moronic Arabs get them blown up due to piss poor planning and tactics. Not to imply that Ukies are anywhere near as dumb as ragheads. I predict exactly 14 Abrams destroyed by wars end, with 9 of them being mobility kills
Only if they're used smartly. Not even an abrams will survive an artillery shell landing directly on top of it.
Brave of you to declare that you think the Russians can hit something smaller and more maneuverable than an apartment complex with artillery.
Could get fricked by lucky arty.
It's easily the worst Western tank. I guarantee you that even the most premium tank will be lost to artillery barrages.
Also the never destroyed western tank, best kd Western tank, 2nd most tank on tanks kills Western tank, 2nd most deployed western tank etc etc. Funny how war thunder tier stats have little relevance in combat isn't it...kek you incels give me a chuckle everything xD
Is that with or without the Chobam armour?
Chobham is standard equipment, no?
It is.
Yet second best performing tank on earth.
Suck my balls mate
teammates now
I guarantee you that this poster is an Italian
Arieta is undefeated in combat.
Of course, it hasn't seen any fricking combat
Looks hot, like a mini challenger
A lucky artillery shell or grad rocket could still mobility or mission kill one.
Calling it now, one will get stuck in the mud and vatniks will claim it was a kill by them.
As better as they are to Russian armor, that's unrealistic. In a full scale war there's going to be some destruction of front line equipment
FRICK!
>Didn't post a combat loss
>Didn't say "ACK!"
9M133 kornet will deal with challenger*~~))
Kornet would deal with all tanks, as would a tomahawk whats your point? Wtf is *~~)
>he doesn't know anout russian smileys
What are you still doing on Ukrainian war board then?
English messaging boards require English smileys you foreign frick xD
It's a Japanese board so use Japanese smileys ^^
sorry but ^^ is firmly in the grasp of the germans, if you wanna go japanese you're looking for something like (>.>*) for the very basics or something more advanced like (*≧ω≦*)
Challenger already facetanked kornets in Iraq.
They'll probably dedicate Kalibr missiles just to knock them out lol
And they will hit a grocery store instead
Not a single will be lost to tan-to-tank combat but Ukrainians will drive 6 or so directly into mines
Almost inevitably some will be lost to mines, at least mobility kill.
Nonsense. Not because Russia will be competent but Ukraine has been literally driving MBTs upto trenches for photo ops and there's literally no way they won't do it with western MBTs too.
Plus as others have said, no amount of impenetrable frontal arc will save you from a 105/122/155mm arty landing directly on your roof and turning the tank inside out nor will it survive a Kornet up the ass, as we've seen with Abrams.
Stop pretending things are wunderwaffen just because the armies that use them normally operate to the vehicles advantages.
Why would Western trained crews do that?
good luck against the lancet.
>lancet strike videos
Oh noes, not video editing skills! Will you copy paste 3 explosions onto the Challengers?
Iancet is good enough against paper thin armor
chally will most likely just shrug it off
what was the point of releasing the footage of this one?
Monkey model.
>a single one gets lost
>gets spammed 500 times a day every day for months
Warriortard false flag thread
the Ukrainian offensive will finally make one of the sides shut up. my money is on Ukraine (to shut up)
You will be humiliated again. You probably got a taste for it in this war by now, given how much humiliation has been rammed down your throat.
These are all old units with everything advanced stripped off. What makes anyone think they’re invulnerable to Kornets and other ATGMs?
Challenger ate a Milan in Iraq to the turret iirc the addon armor kit doesn't effect the turret so...and it's likely that the images of the Challenger in Ukraine we saw won't be it's final form as to say
Challengers already ate kornets in Iraq without being badly damaged.
The kornet is not the javelin. It's not very good. I don't know why anons are hyping it so much.
They didn't it was a Milan. The Kornet is good, its killed nearly every modern western MBT and has a huge range. However its not been seen much in Ukraine and the Russians using them aren't exactly capable.
I haven't even seen widespread use of the RPG7 on the Russians side. That fricking video of the Tank just rolling over the trench with the infantry inside...one of them threw a hand grenade at it they were that desperate.
You're right. There's been a surprising lack of footage of the Russians using the RPG-7 or disposable anti-tank weapons.
Eh, I think it's likely a few will be lost. It's not super tough to take out an MBT, the big reason for such low losses in Iraq was that the Iraqi Army in 2003 largely didn't show up to fight and used what resources it did have poorly. There was a huge fear of Iraqi artillery, but as AAR's of the 2003 invasion point out, the Iraqi artillery just never really was used in larger number.
Nah, at least a few will pop to ATGM's.
People said the same shit years ago about Turkish Leo 2's in Syria and look how it went.
This is war, not a stats cardgame.
I'm not convinced at this point that Russia has any sort of anti tank capacity beyond shit from the 60s.
Depends on how they're used. The biggest advantage western tanks have is probably their optics and electronics. If you use those advantages wisely you don't need to survive a hit because you don't get hit in the first place.
The basic b***h single stage RPG-7 warhead (PG-7VL) can go through the side of the un-improved challenger II basically anywhere, fired from reasonable angles.
The actual side hull protection of the Challenger II is only 50mm of RHA behind the skirts.
Used conservatively and prudently, they could last a while thanks to their good optics and frontal turret protection, but they are no stronger than any of the T-series tanks from the side, maybe just likely to result in catastrophic kill.
*less likely to result in catastrophic kill.
>Challenger is only 50mm
Lol and you know this how? War thunder?
probably, but it would not be surprising for a tank to be very vulnerable on the sides, even if being THAT light sounds like bullshit
. . .
Yeah he IS pulling his shit from wart-hunder.
My guess is that it would be closer to the composite armor upgrade from the vidya game, since fricking composite armor is standard for them.
Vidya lists THAT as comparable to 150 RHA
The Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams can all be penetrated from the side from single charge RPG-7 without issue, this was the entire reason for the ERA and spaced armor kits used in Iraq and Afganistan.
This is also borne out in the Swedish tank trials testing.
The Abrams and Leopard II have 30mm of RHA side armor behind the skirts, The Abrams has thick (but not thick enough) skirts on the front portion of the tank.
If you have issues with the broadly accurate figures for steel armor in Warthunder you can write a bug report.
>If you have issues with the broadly accurate figures for steel armor in Warthunder you can write a bug report.
Oh jesus you actually are using WT aren't you lmao
>I know what the side armor of a tank is even though its classified
>if you don't believe me go ask warthunder
Bruh
This isn't sep
Not relevant to side armor protection.
Steel beasts is not very accurate at all (ironic considering it is supposed to be the serious sim) the hull armor is particularly egregious here, but the swedish trials also did not feature the DU package.
The M1A2 with DU supposedly had a slightly higher level of frontal protection than the CR2 turret, which according to british sources is around 650mm RHA equiv vs KE threats.
so ~650-700mm is probably accurate for the non gimped M1A2.
>steel beasts is not very accurate
It's the most accurate unclassified source on the subject, according to anyone that matters. Unless you'd like to provide some evidence to the contrary
Well it's completely contradicting the Hull armor figures from the swedish trials even though they should be the same armor package, so there you go.
>nuh uh, my source is right not yours
Again, steel beasts is accepted as the most accurate unclassified source on the subject. I don't know what to tell you, your shits wrong. Tandem or bust, rpg-7's are harassment weapons these days
It doesn't match base model a2 values
>The actual side hull protection of the Challenger II is only 50mm of RHA behind the skirts.
You're talking out your ass.
so the 70xRPG-7 that hit that one in Iraq all impacted the upper front turret?
yeah.
>can go through the side of the un-improved challenger II basically anywhere
In the game? Because reality says no fren
uhh actually the Challenger II's side armor protection is classified, that means it could be 500mm thick, i mean the daily mirror said it was hit 70 times!
What's that? you can see how thick the plate is?
Composite armor isn't welded internally dude
The only composite there is a kevlar spall liner
Got source for that? I don't think that was even in the leaked docs
There just isn't the space inside based on internal pictures, you can see the hull plate from the inside. it would also be the only tank ever made to have such a feature, which would beggar belief.
Hey are you
?
Here we go with the war thunder snippets, did you measure that with a tape too?
That’s a bold claim though, since an arty round would definitely destroy one. And since we’ve seen moronic Arabs get them blown up due to piss poor planning and tactics. Not to imply that Ukies are anywhere near as dumb as ragheads. I predict exactly 14 Abrams destroyed by wars end, with 9 of them being mobility kills
is that a fluted barrel