>challenger 2 top speed 37mph

>challenger 2 top speed 37mph
How is this acceptable? That’s like Bradley levels of slow. Leopards and abrams can hit 45-50mph. What is the tactical advantage of not being able to keep up with NATO armored assaults?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >bong armored vehicle is worse than other western armored vehicle
    This isn’t exactly news, the British have had a terrible track record designing modern armored vehicles

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >British have had a terrible track record designing modern armored vehicles
      >British have had a terrible track record designing vehicles

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Centurion was a solid and durable design. Didn't take them long to return to mediocrity with the Chieftain though.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Centurion was literally the basis of every MBT in existence

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and how long ago was that? bongs are resting on their laurels instead of innovating

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Friendly reminder that Leopard and Abrams use UK designed armour. The innovation continues though as the UK has two new domestically designed armour packs for Challenger 3, Epsom and Farnham replacing Chobham and Dorchester respectively.

          ATDU are god tier of armoured innovation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ATDU are god tier of armoured innovation.
            They just drive it around and test mobility. Development of armor is done by DSTL

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Friendly reminder that Leopard and Abrams use UK designed armour
            Apparently Leopand-2 ditched NERA sheets (Chobham) for domestically made ceramic armor.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Abrams uses domestically produced ceramic and DU armor as well.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                derived from Chobham

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you think that

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it's a fact. The UK gave Germany and the USA composite armour for tanks in the form of Chobham.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That was nearly 2 decades ago. The chobham armor has been abandoned by everyone except the UK

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody has abandoned Chobham armor when at its core it's just layers of metal-polymer-metal

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                layers of metal-polymer-meta
                completely wrong, bravo

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How about no. It's visible even in the Leopard 2A5 meme wedges

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the key component of chobham armour is ceramics

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This is definitely not the case for M1 -> M1A1, Challenger 1 and Leopard 2 with the B-Tech armor.
                All three had pure NERA arrays

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Source?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Stuff like the declassified CIA document on the Abrams armor (pic related) and RARDE 1987 report on Chieftain replacement

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This isn’t current

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I gave you an example of a current design (Leo 2A5) using a NERA array.
                They haven't gone away from it, nobody has. NERA is the base technology for all modern composite armor

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                chobham is modern composite armour, which includes a ceramic layer
                elastic layers are in there too of course but its the ceramic that defines it as chobham
                literal semantics, you were wrong and no amount of tangentially related images will change that

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Except the first documents on what would become Chobham Armor back in the 60s have 0 (zero) mention of any ceramics.
                The core component of Chobham armor is the metal-polymer-metal sandwhich

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not every western (+western aligned) tank uses ceramics in it's main armour array.
                Every western aligned tank uses NERA arrays or it's derivatives (NxRA/SLERA etc)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and those tanks that don't use ceramics also dont claim to use chobham armour
                so what is your point

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But you know who used a lot of ceramics in their tank armor?
                The Soviets

                Chobham is what the codename for what turned out to be NERA arrays.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                See

                https://i.imgur.com/kGgjEHK.gif

                Uh oh retard alert

                your out of your depth and have no idea what your talking about.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-72A, T-64B, T-80B, T-80U, T-80UD all had large use of cermic in their turret inserts
                T-72B used a NERA array

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >T-80U
                No. Its turret armor is type of nonexplosive materials reactive armor similar in principle to NERA armor. Confined cavities filled with pseudo liquid (solid polymer that under impact conditions flows like liquid). When penetrated by shaped charge jet it produces shockwaves that travel outwards reflect from steel wall and push polymer back into penetration channel forcing jet to penetrate material again and again as it pushed into channel. T-55M and T-62M add on "brow armor" uses same principle though arranged differently.

                T-80B - yes that is ceramic.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914718306068

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Akshually like i said Leopard-2 uses ceramic.
                >but my wedge
                Yeah add on wedge doesn't uses ceramic, turret and hull front armor does. Different armor on teh same tank.

                Also Leclerk uses ceramic as part of frontal armor, and that's Korean tank.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                People talk about muh ceramic, but every time a damaged Western tank has had its internal armour shown it's been seen to have a NERA array.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not the other anon but there's literally nothing about non explosive reactive armour that precludes the inclusion of ceramic, rubber/plastc, or any kind of metal.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >still doesn't have a clue what he's talking about

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well Leopard or Leclerc turret armors were not explosively disassembled up to this date yet.
                Abrams yeah, thats NERA

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Uh oh retard alert

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                In the same way the harrier was derived from the wright brothers plane

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can you please source this?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No you just have to believe

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Really? Tell me about the warrior...

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Riddled with design flaws, never exported without replacing the entire turret with an American one.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *whooosh*

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Riddled with design flaws, never exported without replacing the entire turret with an American one.

        Totally organic posting by a guy who's still mad about Bradley being slower than Challenger 2.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's supposed to be an absolute memebunker while engaging targets at long range. How that will actually play out against Russian anti-armour munitions in Ukraine remains to be seen.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Top speed doesn’t really matter because an armored assault is moving at around 10-15kph.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That’s not true I saw a video of a lone bmp storming a trench at atleast 25mph.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why would a lone IFV storm a trench? Why do you think that poor decision dictates how armored assaults are conducted?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's ukraine, anything goes in this war

          We've seen humvees charging fortified villages firing AT4s in lieu of cannon

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's true in my mind
        Abrams tanks were moving at 50kph through the deserts of Iraq in the Gulf War, quite literally right up until point of contact.

        any of you ever done offroading or ever even driven a fucking vehicle? these roads are bumpy as fuck and if you move off the terrain is not level full of small ditches and bumps you would be flying around in your seat if you move 50mph/80km/h

        not even talking about watching mines and scanning for IED and looking out for the enemy all at once

        get the fuck out with this no tank moves at 50mph offroad in a heavily contested sector

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >or ever even driven a fucking vehicle?
          there are a surprising number of people who don't live in places with ice and just do city commuting anon, so they won't know what you're talking about but will have the dunning-kruger of "yes i know how to drive!!!!"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So are you saying a vehicles top speed isn’t that relevant when it comes to assaulting?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not him but yes. It's relevant for quickly shifting from one location to another to plug holes in the front or support an offensive in a different location, not hauling ass towards the enemy while the crew is literally flying around the inside of the tank

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So a leopard would be better at quickly filling gaps than a chally? Makes sense, tanks are meant to plug gaps. I could see an IFV having a slower speed because they aren’t used to plug gaps like MBTs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Different anon but yes topspeed should/and will never matter when assaulting. What matters more is its ability ti withstand frontal attacks, mine resistance, armor, and crew survival in an assault. Nobody and I mean nobody trues to see who's the fastest when assaulting.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it is irrelevant over 20mph. In this thread people aren't even checking the cross-country top speed of the tanks (which btw the same for a leopard and the challenger 2) literal fucking reddit level people comparing tanks like in video games and tank cards.

            Not him but yes. It's relevant for quickly shifting from one location to another to plug holes in the front or support an offensive in a different location, not hauling ass towards the enemy while the crew is literally flying around the inside of the tank

            Different anon but yes topspeed should/and will never matter when assaulting. What matters more is its ability ti withstand frontal attacks, mine resistance, armor, and crew survival in an assault. Nobody and I mean nobody trues to see who's the fastest when assaulting.

            these guys get it

            So a leopard would be better at quickly filling gaps than a chally? Makes sense, tanks are meant to plug gaps. I could see an IFV having a slower speed because they aren’t used to plug gaps like MBTs.

            this guy if focused on some stupid concept he made up for himself so he can justify the money he spent on a Leopard miniature or whatever

            I am not shilling for bongfaces I couldn't care less about their fucking pudding and tea kettles. Comparing tanks on these stupid factory data sheets do not mean shit. In real life about 70% of how good a tank is depends on it's crew and the deployment circumstances.

            Most modern NATO and even russian tanks are actually pretty good and the on-pavement top speed or the top torque or the turret rotation speed or the exhaust gas temerature or the fucking reverse speed will not matter in actual combat these things are far less exciting and relevant as you guys would like but then you couldn't wank off on these stats and cards and data sheets for your video games or shit miniatures.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              But what’s next, anon? Are you going to tell me that doctrine also matters and that design criteria for equipment are often based on it? Or that none of the vehicles can be valued alone but only as a part of the well tuned machine that is the mechanized combined arms formation and its support elements?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Most modern NATO and even russian tanks are actually pretty good and the on-pavement top speed or the top torque or the turret rotation speed or the exhaust gas temerature or the fucking reverse speed will not matter in actual combat these things are far less exciting and relevant as you guys would like but then you couldn't wank off on these stats and cards and data sheets for your video games or shit miniatures.
              that sums up PrepHole threads on everything kek

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The only two things he's wrong about are torque and reverse speed. We've seen lots of T-72s get thwacked by ATGMs while reversing and torque is always a good thing in a tank.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it's true in my mind
      Abrams tanks were moving at 50kph through the deserts of Iraq in the Gulf War, quite literally right up until point of contact.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm talking about real peer war, not over matching some thirdie shit hole by 100 to 1

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Iraq was the top 4 military in the world at the time

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3rd military.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he actually believes this
            And I’m sure you also believe they could bake that many pizzas with that many ovens.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        37 mph > 50 kph

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ah yes, I knew bongs couldn't let their beloved infantry tank doctrine die

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All I'm hearing is jealousy over their precious HESH round.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are now aware that infantry and cruiser tanks were the meta of ww2. Churchill for supporting the infantry and engaging fortified positions, Cromwell/sherman etc for breakthroughs and fighting tanks.

        The doctrine is still in use today with MBT's and IFV's

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Relying on AT guns for taking out tanks seems
          like it was retarded though

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No it wasn't and it sucked and no it isn't because it sucked.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet everyone was doing it.

            >pz III anti tank high velocity AT gun
            >pz IV low velocity HE gun
            >roles reverse later in the war

            Until the widespread use of 100, 105, 120 and 125mm guns, the role of tanks required more than one type of gun, which required multiple types of tank. All tanks on all sides of WW2 spent more time fighting infantry positions than other tanks. The tanks that were best at this were not the tanks that were best suited to armoured assaults and breakthroughs.

            The most successful heavy/infantry tank of the war was the Churchill for this exact reason.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's an average speed moron. Meaning MBT's will be sprinting while going from cover to cover and between covering neighbouring units.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It really helped with the kharkiv collapse. Those scimitars were a perfect addition to all the tacticals.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Very impressive, now post Abrams and Leopard's off road top speed

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >please compare my on road top speed to faster tanks off road top speed
      No

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Challenger can do very close to its top speed off road due to the hydrogas suspension

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    report dennis smirnov to the authoritahs for breaking someone's window t b h

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think this is a Warriortard thread

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yup. He really is an unlovable cunt. The only way he'll not die a virgin is if he pays a hooker to take his cherry.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He genuinely has an illness, the amount of time he dedicates to this site is obscene. Incel is the word I think.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He genuinely has an illness, the amount of time he dedicates to this site is obscene. Incel is the word I think.

          You are both the same person, and you are both warriortard.
          You need serious fucking mental help.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You really are an unlovable cunt. The only way you'll not die a virgin is if you pay a lesbian chud hooker with a strapon to take your anal cherry.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Akshually low nominal speed is not a disadvantage in practice. In tank trials Challenger was able to keep up over cross country with much more faster on paper tanks. Same during Desert Storm , Challenger 1 had no problems keeping up with tempo pf advance.

    Because:
    1. Of hydrogas suspension that reduces shocks and resistance during moving over rough terrain.
    2. Nominal engine power doesn't account for losses of power in transmission and auxiliary mechanisms. Proper way of power is to measure power on the driving wheel but standard "table comparison" don't do that.

    Challenger 2 has huge problem with clunky outdated weak rifled cannon also with fire control but its chassis is not a problem.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >That’s like Bradley levels of slow.

    But still faster thanBradley. Over rough ground challenger is actully pretty quick, it's engine and gears are focused on torque not total horsepower, it gets going very well.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      2 mph faster is nothing. It’s so much slower than abrams and leopard

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2mph is huge given that one is a 80ton MBT and the other is a empty box.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >2mph is a huge difference because weight!!
          huh? That just means you have more maintence and fuel requirements. Challenger 2s are notoriously slow. Luckily they’ve only ever seen combat against t-55s in the second iraq war. Bradley has proven itself against much more capable tanks

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Challenger 2s are notoriously slow

            And yet still faster than Bradley, cry about it.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Barely, all while being way slower than modern western tanks

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And yet it's still faster than Bradley. Cope harder.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It’s faster than a pure fighting vehicle with hundreds of tank kills to its name
                >but slower than all modern western tanks
                it’s no wonder no one bought challengers

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Challenger 2 is faster than Bradley, i love how triggered you are about it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >my MBT is 2mph faster than your IFV
                >forget that it’s 10pm slower than your tank
                no

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but Bradley is possibly the slowest modern armoured vehicle on the planet. Even Challenger is faster than it. Cry about it more pls, it's delicious.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That didn’t stop it from earning an impeccable reputation during the largest armored assault in the last 50 years.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >impeccable reputation

                The dead crews and troops would disagree. Speaking of impeccable, how about Challenger 1&2 having 400 tank kills between them without a single loss to enemy action. Based infinite K/D. Almost as based as non Brits still getting upset about it.

                Few more years and Challenger 3 will comfortably be NATO's best protected and most lethal tank.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >see heavy combat
                >take minimal casualties
                >cause immense enemy casualties
                Still the best performing in combat IFV since the 1980s

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Still the best performing in combat IFV since the 1980s

                So what? Any IFV in US hands would have that record, which is why there are multiple better IFV's, personally i'm a CV90 fan. I genuinely don't give a shit about Bradley, i just know it upsets you to be reminded it's slower than Challenger 2.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think the main reason people are "upset" (laughing at you) is because you are trying to pad a mediocre tank with a stellar IFV, it would be like arguing the worst heavyweight boxer is in fact the best because he hits harder than the best lightweight - even though Abrempsey is waiting over in the corner to add him to his KO count
                if you want to call the Challenger 2 the best IFV ever then you can try to make an argument there, though troop carrying capacity is nil so it's already a leg down

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're trying to cope too hard, all i'm doing is saying Challenger 2 is faster than Bradley and you keep replying. I own you, i'm also much better at this than you.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Didn’t challenger 2 only have about a dozen t-55 kills? Why did you lump it with challenger 1

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                For the same reason you would lump M1A and M1A2. Remember yesterday when when you thought there were no Challenger 2 tank kills? egg all over your face mate, proper beaming you are.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm lost. Why are you comparing an MBT to an IFV for any reason, and why is the fact that an MBT is faster than an IFV important enough to be gloat-worthy? Is it a thing with the dude you're specifically replying to in order for the lulz?

                This shit has me more confused than the fucking MANPAD shitflinging.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because it makes warriortard SEETHE

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's limited to 37mph to extend the life of the transmission, brakes and minimise hull cracking, and that's with the engine at 1200bhp. Now they're up-rated to 1500bhp they can potentially do more when the limiter is taken off

    Value is just to say it can match road speed of Russian tanks, which also do 37mph (new T-90M is a bit faster according to Russia)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >37mph
      There was recent video of someone driving behind some ruskies tank and it was doing almost 80kmh.
      In all honesty 37 mph rated for that british turd is probably off road. Tanks can go significantly faster on paved roads.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so we moved from "bradley main gun can't pen t-72 armor" and "tows dont work half the time" to "bradley is slow"

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      People hate the top dog

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only reverse speed matters and ukies are subhuman that can't into tank tactics

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tanks that outrun their IFVs aren't worth very much, and IFVs are slow fat slow pieces of fat slow shit for obvious reasons and this was doubly true 30 years ago or whatever

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Leopards and abrams can hit 45-50mph.
    Reality. Challengers had to stop to wait for Abrams to catch up in Gulf War because burgers could not supply enough fuel their spearhead units.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if I say it it’s true

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that the ammo for the Challenger II is not a NATO standard 120mm round, and production was stopped years ago. There's even lack of ammo in the British army.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this gay again
      you got debunked in the last thread retard.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What? it's common knowledge, bri'ish army intended to restart production as far as I know.

        Tell me how is the 120mm rifle bong gun superior to the Über Rheinmetall 120mm? faster reload times? better accuracy?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ignore this gay, he dodges the question and changes the topic whenever you call him on it. in reality bae has been producing tank ammunition and other vehicle ammunition for the british army for years. he does not have a source for his claim that production has stopped.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Tell me how is the 120mm rifle bong gun superior to the Über Rheinmetall 120mm?

          One of them existed in the late 50's, the other didn't arrive until 1980.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and production was stopped years ago

      You really wana get BTFO on this again?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Funny how a £2.4b contract was signed in 2020 that included the manufacture for tank ammunition then huh
      https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W51/740884628

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't need to move fast when you've destroyed everything around you.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Brits sit and wait for the enemy.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Screencapping your own lame OP with no replies
      >iphone filename
      >bongs rent free in head
      >getting humiliated

      Yeah, checks out, warriortard was buck broken by starstreak.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fuck off Dennis

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thats like as slow as your IFV
    no, really?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >45-50mph
    >in combat
    >cross country

    More low effort bait from our resident Anglophobes

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hey, has Warriortard been promoted to Challengertard?

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >instant bong samefagging after being embarrassed by the warrior. It’s a national pastime at this point

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the tactical advantage of not being able to keep up with NATO armored assaults?
    Others die first. Bongs are more of a sea and sky nation anyway, nobody expects them to do much on the ground, especially when they insist on using their own technology.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here's an Idea;
    Lets post pictures of destroyed Abrams and Challenger 2's.
    Who will run out first?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Look! these lines must be polymer and metal and cannot possibly be ceramic despite the russians developing ceramic composite armour

      that would be very silly, given how far more abrams have seen service than challys

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >that would be very silly, given how far more abrams have seen service than challys
        You're right. I'll make it fair. 1:10.
        Post one destroyed Challenger 2 for every ten Abrams.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only 2 challengers?

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    keep posting your fucking turret and driver wedges when its the area where ceramic layers have the least effect, only really providing the abrasion properties

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WE MUSTN'T OUTPACE THE INFANTRY!!

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