>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?
>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?
>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
>British have had a terrible track record designing modern armored vehicles
>British have had a terrible track record designing vehicles
The Centurion was a solid and durable design. Didn't take them long to return to mediocrity with the Chieftain though.
The Centurion was literally the basis of every MBT in existence
and how long ago was that? bongs are resting on their laurels instead of innovating
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.
>ATDU are god tier of armoured innovation.
They just drive it around and test mobility. Development of armor is done by DSTL
>Friendly reminder that Leopard and Abrams use UK designed armour
Apparently Leopand-2 ditched NERA sheets (Chobham) for domestically made ceramic armor.
Abrams uses domestically produced ceramic and DU armor as well.
derived from Chobham
Why do you think that
Because it's a fact. The UK gave Germany and the USA composite armour for tanks in the form of Chobham.
That was nearly 2 decades ago. The chobham armor has been abandoned by everyone except the UK
Nobody has abandoned Chobham armor when at its core it's just layers of metal-polymer-metal
layers of metal-polymer-meta
completely wrong, bravo
How about no. It's visible even in the Leopard 2A5 meme wedges
the key component of chobham armour is ceramics
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
Source?
Stuff like the declassified CIA document on the Abrams armor (pic related) and RARDE 1987 report on Chieftain replacement
This isn’t current
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
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
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
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)
and those tanks that don't use ceramics also dont claim to use chobham armour
so what is your point
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.
See
your out of your depth and have no idea what your talking about.
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
>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.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914718306068
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.
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.
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.
>still doesn't have a clue what he's talking about
Well Leopard or Leclerc turret armors were not explosively disassembled up to this date yet.
Abrams yeah, thats NERA
Uh oh moron alert
In the same way the harrier was derived from the wright brothers plane
Can you please source this?
No you just have to believe
Really? Tell me about the warrior...
Riddled with design flaws, never exported without replacing the entire turret with an American one.
*whooosh*
Totally organic posting by a guy who's still mad about Bradley being slower than Challenger 2.
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.
Top speed doesn’t really matter because an armored assault is moving at around 10-15kph.
That’s not true I saw a video of a lone bmp storming a trench at atleast 25mph.
Why would a lone IFV storm a trench? Why do you think that poor decision dictates how armored assaults are conducted?
It's ukraine, anything goes in this war
We've seen humvees charging fortified villages firing AT4s in lieu of cannon
any of you ever done offroading or ever even driven a fricking vehicle? these roads are bumpy as frick 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 frick out with this no tank moves at 50mph offroad in a heavily contested sector
>or ever even driven a fricking 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!!!!"
So are you saying a vehicles top speed isn’t that relevant when it comes to assaulting?
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
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.
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.
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 fricking reddit level people comparing tanks like in video games and tank cards.
these guys get it
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 fricking 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 fricking 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.
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?
>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 fricking 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 /k/ threads on everything kek
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.
>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.
I'm talking about real peer war, not over matching some thirdie shit hole by 100 to 1
Iraq was the top 4 military in the world at the time
3rd military.
>he actually believes this
And I’m sure you also believe they could bake that many pizzas with that many ovens.
37 mph > 50 kph
ah yes, I knew bongs couldn't let their beloved infantry tank doctrine die
All I'm hearing is jealousy over their precious HESH round.
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
Relying on AT guns for taking out tanks seems
like it was moronic though
No it wasn't and it sucked and no it isn't because it sucked.
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.
That's an average speed moron. Meaning MBT's will be sprinting while going from cover to cover and between covering neighbouring units.
It really helped with the kharkiv collapse. Those scimitars were a perfect addition to all the tacticals.
Very impressive, now post Abrams and Leopard's off road top speed
>please compare my on road top speed to faster tanks off road top speed
No
Challenger can do very close to its top speed off road due to the hydrogas suspension
report dennis smirnov to the authoritahs for breaking someone's window t b h
I think this is a Warriortard thread
Yup. He really is an unlovable c**t. The only way he'll not die a virgin is if he pays a hooker to take his cherry.
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 fricking mental help.
You really are an unlovable c**t. The only way you'll not die a virgin is if you pay a lesbian troony hooker with a strapon to take your anal cherry.
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.
>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 mph faster is nothing. It’s so much slower than abrams and leopard
2mph is huge given that one is a 80ton MBT and the other is a empty box.
>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
>Challenger 2s are notoriously slow
And yet still faster than Bradley, cry about it.
Barely, all while being way slower than modern western tanks
And yet it's still faster than Bradley. Cope harder.
>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
Challenger 2 is faster than Bradley, i love how triggered you are about it.
>my MBT is 2mph faster than your IFV
>forget that it’s 10pm slower than your tank
no
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.
That didn’t stop it from earning an impeccable reputation during the largest armored assault in the last 50 years.
>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.
>see heavy combat
>take minimal casualties
>cause immense enemy casualties
Still the best performing in combat IFV since the 1980s
>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.
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
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.
Didn’t challenger 2 only have about a dozen t-55 kills? Why did you lump it with challenger 1
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.
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 fricking MANPAD shitflinging.
Because it makes warriortard SEETHE
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)
>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.
so we moved from "bradley main gun can't pen t-72 armor" and "tows dont work half the time" to "bradley is slow"
People hate the top dog
only reverse speed matters and ukies are subhuman that can't into tank tactics
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
>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.
>if I say it it’s true
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.
>this homosexual again
you got debunked in the last thread moron.
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?
ignore this homosexual, 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.
>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.
>and production was stopped years ago
You really wana get BTFO on this again?
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
Don't need to move fast when you've destroyed everything around you.
Brits sit and wait for the enemy.
>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.
Frick off Dennis
>thats like as slow as your IFV
no, really?
>45-50mph
>in combat
>cross country
More low effort bait from our resident Anglophobes
Hey, has Warriortard been promoted to Challengertard?
>instant bong samegayging after being embarrassed by the warrior. It’s a national pastime at this point
>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.
Here's an Idea;
Lets post pictures of destroyed Abrams and Challenger 2's.
Who will run out first?
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
>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.
Only 2 challengers?
keep posting your fricking turret and driver wedges when its the area where ceramic layers have the least effect, only really providing the abrasion properties
WE MUSTN'T OUTPACE THE INFANTRY!!