So how I find out the reveal has happened is a fricking warriortard thread
Honestly if you liked C2, you'll like C3 by the looks of it. Biggest change is new gun and the gunner's sight is above his position instead of over the cannon barrel
If you're going to add armor it should still go on the front. Drones and missiles are only defeated by active protection systems and doctrine, not millimeters of steel.
the loading is the best part of challenger's 2 piece ammo, lap loading makes it very fast
the problem is with the limited length of APFSDS projectiles, but that goes for autoloaded 2 piece ammo as well
So, since the last model
Quite a lot thicker UFP
Taller armor cheeks leading to a flatter roof
New mantle with no aux sight aperture
Gunner's day/thermal sight head moved forward?
Hard to tell from that image, but the turret side protection looks thicker too. Aux sight looks to be on the mantlet upper left from that image. Coax would be on the right where the loader can service it, in that image obscured by the gun.
Any particular reason why Europeans can't agree upon a single tank design and everyone makes their own? USA has the M1 Abrams, and that's it. They operate all over the world, in more extremely variant conditions than anything Europeans face.
you can naturally also produce spare parts under license idk where you got the idea from that you cant
also the Leo 2 is the only modern western tank actively being used at the front so we cant even tell if only germany is shit at supplying parts or if the west in general just doesnt have alot
Because countries want to maintain their own knowledge base?
This is how you end up with only 1 or 2 corporations in the world being able to make tanks in the West.
>picky french >german political nightmare >italian deadweight >spanish economy >poles will do anything but make their own >nords seem aight >low countries roleplaying a decent german military
>USA has the M1 Abrams, and that's it.
M1 Abrams is made to kill shitskins armed with rocks and then return to their designated fuel truck 50 miles in the back
The only place where you can deploy such vehicle are those where you already have almost absolute control over battlefield
I would call it a glorified SWAT truck but it is actually a clown car
>Other tanks were put out of action by engine fires when flammable fuel stored externally in turret racks was hit by small arms fire and spilled into the engine compartment.[61][62] By March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks had been forced out of action by enemy attacks
Were the tasks put in front of them harder than those for Abrams ?
I don't know
You don't know
The only way to value a tank behind a keyboard is by the raw tech spec numbers
I haven't red those or know where to get them
I haven't seen a single service record in my life (except for my car)
Europe/west needs to come up with a good armored vehicle with 120/140mm gun
Good= easy to service, maintain and learn if it wants to participate in any kind of bigger armed conflict
The Abrams was designed to counter attack the Soviet zerg rush through the Fulda Gap. The US BTFO out of the Iraqis so hard and the USSR collapsed so completely that everyone seems to have forgotten the late Cold War meta that lurked behind every other US procurement decision.
>The only place where you can deploy such vehicle are those where you already have almost absolute control over battlefield
Which is why the US and NATO invested so much in airpower and munitions specifically designed to eviscerate Soviet (Russian) armored rushes, as we've seen clearly in Ukraine.
Imagine Ukraine, except actually supplied and supported armor and mechanized units combined with actual air superiority
the UK is sitting on a bunch of these, so maye as well do one last upgrade and keep them going, There's no production line, no more will ever be made so this is the end of the challenger. I imagine some future leopard will replace it
>Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) has won a contract to deliver a new modular armour system for the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank for the British Army. >The contract was awarded to RBSL by Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), a trading entity and joint-defence organisation within the UK Ministry of Defence.
>Looks like the armor scheme will be a joint venture with the UK and Germany.
No, the armour composition is designed in-house by the UK MoD's science lab DSTL.
The contract RBSL has signed is for delivery of this armour after they developed and demonstrated the methods of integrating DSTL's armour on their new turret and processes to manufacture it at scale
> the armour composition is designed in-house by the UK MoD's science lab DSTL.
The contract RBSL has signed is for delivery of this armour after they developed and demonstrated the methods of integrating DSTL's armour on their new turret and processes to manufacture it at scale
Source?
https://des.mod.uk/des-awards-contract-to-fit-next-generation-modular-armour-on-challenger-3/?portfolioCats=1235%2C78%2C735%2C69%2C734 >Defence Equipment & Support has awarded a contract to DELIVER a new modular armour system for the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank to Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). >Designed by world leading armour experts at Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL)
Nobody else puts composites on the upper front hull either, though I suspect we might start seeing more of that with the proliferation of drones. IIRC the cutout is there to allow the driver to get out or turn out without the turret needing to be traversed/locked into position.
it IS a photoshop though... this is the original
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Front_views_of_tanks#/media/File:Challenger_2_-_Saber_Junction_2012.jpg
the so-called "cutout" meme you're trying desperately to force is due to ADDITIONAL armour layered on top of the front hull, creating bulging cheeks on either side of the driver's hatch
if anything these pics show how thickly-armoured the Challenger 3 is compared to the Abrams, but here you are trying to spin it as the opposite, you disingenuous c**t
are you moronic anon
the challenger uses a fundementaly different armor layout where the main hull armor is on the upper front plate, meaning they had to put a MASSIVE hole in the middle of it
vs the abrams that armors the lower front plate while angling the upper front plate at a sheer angle. without having a massive hole in the middle
there's hardly any difference in the angles of the upper hull as can easily be see in those photos you disingenuous c**t
not six inches of armour worth, that's for certain
looks nice. These are upgraded Challenger 2s though, not newly built tanks, right? Also, is it already decided that Trophy APS will be installed on them? And is there any info on what the UK plans on doing after the Challenger 3?
Turret is entirely new. Some less than extensive automotive and suspension upgrades in the hull and additional armour on the UFP
Further armour improvements to the hull protection will be from new appliqué armour kits similar to the Challenger 2's scalable OES armour
There are some things missing from the turret like the Trophy fit, and I imagine there's some various cladding and stuff to be added on top of the turret
I'd be interested to know if the base plating of the turret is still cast, or if it is welded now. One imagines too that the upgrade will include a full overhaul of the electric/hydraulics and shave off a few pounds with more modern stuff.
Any specifics on what the automotive upgrades consist of? I saw some vague suggestions about fuel injection a while back.
Yeah, Trophy's a done deal. Rafael's test rig even included a facsimile of the bigger UFP block seen on this prototype, which hadn't previously been revealed by RBSL on the tech demonstrator
>And is there any info on what the UK plans on doing after the Challenger 3?
The MoD officially considers tanks a 'sunset capability'. They don't believe they will still be a major element of land warfare in 20-40 years time. Lighter AFVs, IFV, longe range fires, EW, computing & drones are all much higher on the priority list as they don't see those capabilities disappearing.
They expect chally 3 to be the last manned vehicle of its type.
What's bad about having a more accurate gun?
Do you think it's a coincidence the most accurate gun, longest range kill and highest scores in tests are on a tank with a rifled gun?
[...]
There is no channel cut. It's the same armor, just the Chally 2 has bulges on either side.
https://i.imgur.com/BnXWeJl.jpg
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
the so-called "cutout" meme you're trying desperately to force is due to ADDITIONAL armour layered on top of the front hull, creating bulging cheeks on either side of the driver's hatch
if anything these pics show how thickly-armoured the Challenger 3 is compared to the Abrams, but here you are trying to spin it as the opposite, you disingenuous c**t
This is down to a design difference. The Challenger 2 has its composite layer on the upper frontal plate, whereas the Abrams has it on the lower plate. There are pros and cons to the layout in both instances: >UFP composites provide more protection in a hull-down position, as well as protection against smaller HEAT projectiles impacting from a near vertical angle (think DPICM). The disadvantage of that is, as noted, there needs to be a gap for the driver to egress. It also raises the profile of the hull slightly. In the Challenger 2 this is offset by not needing torsion bars filling hull space, as well as add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate. >LFP composites are generally more space and weight efficient, by allowing the composite to cover a greater area of the hull front with minimal added height. The downsides are that with this configuration you can't really up-armor the upper front plate without severely compromising gun depression, and it is left as bare RHA (albeit at an extreme angle). Far more efficient, but also more vulnerable to plunging fire and possibly more modern projectiles.
TL;DR its down to doctrine. Challenger 1 and 2 were designed with Cold War concepts of fighting from hull-down defensive positions, with the expectation that they'd be experiencing periodic showers of artillery whilst holding the line to buy time. Abrams was made for more maneuver based warfare when the time came for the cavalry to roll in and relieve the Challengers.
[...]
[...]
[...]
This is down to a design difference. The Challenger 2 has its composite layer on the upper frontal plate, whereas the Abrams has it on the lower plate. There are pros and cons to the layout in both instances: >UFP composites provide more protection in a hull-down position, as well as protection against smaller HEAT projectiles impacting from a near vertical angle (think DPICM). The disadvantage of that is, as noted, there needs to be a gap for the driver to egress. It also raises the profile of the hull slightly. In the Challenger 2 this is offset by not needing torsion bars filling hull space, as well as add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate. >LFP composites are generally more space and weight efficient, by allowing the composite to cover a greater area of the hull front with minimal added height. The downsides are that with this configuration you can't really up-armor the upper front plate without severely compromising gun depression, and it is left as bare RHA (albeit at an extreme angle). Far more efficient, but also more vulnerable to plunging fire and possibly more modern projectiles.
TL;DR its down to doctrine. Challenger 1 and 2 were designed with Cold War concepts of fighting from hull-down defensive positions, with the expectation that they'd be experiencing periodic showers of artillery whilst holding the line to buy time. Abrams was made for more maneuver based warfare when the time came for the cavalry to roll in and relieve the Challengers.
>cutout
it's not a fricking cutout, there's like six inches of armor on top of the hull >periscope
it's the driver's hatch you moron. holy shit you are dumb
[...]
[...]
[...]
This is down to a design difference. The Challenger 2 has its composite layer on the upper frontal plate, whereas the Abrams has it on the lower plate. There are pros and cons to the layout in both instances: >UFP composites provide more protection in a hull-down position, as well as protection against smaller HEAT projectiles impacting from a near vertical angle (think DPICM). The disadvantage of that is, as noted, there needs to be a gap for the driver to egress. It also raises the profile of the hull slightly. In the Challenger 2 this is offset by not needing torsion bars filling hull space, as well as add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate. >LFP composites are generally more space and weight efficient, by allowing the composite to cover a greater area of the hull front with minimal added height. The downsides are that with this configuration you can't really up-armor the upper front plate without severely compromising gun depression, and it is left as bare RHA (albeit at an extreme angle). Far more efficient, but also more vulnerable to plunging fire and possibly more modern projectiles.
TL;DR its down to doctrine. Challenger 1 and 2 were designed with Cold War concepts of fighting from hull-down defensive positions, with the expectation that they'd be experiencing periodic showers of artillery whilst holding the line to buy time. Abrams was made for more maneuver based warfare when the time came for the cavalry to roll in and relieve the Challengers.
>add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate
yep
and they added even more after the RPG-29 incident where the driver lost his foot
Warriorturd don’t look at the round thing seated in front of the glass thing. You’ll shit yourself
and then smell your shit on video for cash on OnlyFans
>we cut out a large chunk of the hull for doctrine
Lets hear your reasoning then. If you want to be an ass about it, it could be pointed out that ~40mm of naked RHA even at 80 degrees ain't stopping shit these days. Good for the 80s maybe, but time moves on.
They didn't cut it out. Rather it's that there is added armor on the ufp which is not normal on other mbts. This creates the illusion of a cutout but in reality the armor on the channel is about as thick and as angled as that above the driver in an Abrams.
I'm aware of this. The design decision does create a small weakness where the turret ring abuts the driver's periscope, but as suggested
[...] >Composite UFP with small weak spot is worse than entire UFP being a weak spot
Derp.
and
[...]
[...]
[...]
This is down to a design difference. The Challenger 2 has its composite layer on the upper frontal plate, whereas the Abrams has it on the lower plate. There are pros and cons to the layout in both instances: >UFP composites provide more protection in a hull-down position, as well as protection against smaller HEAT projectiles impacting from a near vertical angle (think DPICM). The disadvantage of that is, as noted, there needs to be a gap for the driver to egress. It also raises the profile of the hull slightly. In the Challenger 2 this is offset by not needing torsion bars filling hull space, as well as add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate. >LFP composites are generally more space and weight efficient, by allowing the composite to cover a greater area of the hull front with minimal added height. The downsides are that with this configuration you can't really up-armor the upper front plate without severely compromising gun depression, and it is left as bare RHA (albeit at an extreme angle). Far more efficient, but also more vulnerable to plunging fire and possibly more modern projectiles.
TL;DR its down to doctrine. Challenger 1 and 2 were designed with Cold War concepts of fighting from hull-down defensive positions, with the expectation that they'd be experiencing periodic showers of artillery whilst holding the line to buy time. Abrams was made for more maneuver based warfare when the time came for the cavalry to roll in and relieve the Challengers.
it is a design tradeoff intended to provide an overall greater scope of protection on the upper plate than could be accomplished with an M1 or Leo2 style design, albeit at the cost of being less weight-efficient overall.
They didn't cut it out. Rather it's that there is added armor on the ufp which is not normal on other mbts. This creates the illusion of a cutout but in reality the armor on the channel is about as thick and as angled as that above the driver in an Abrams.
Should've just adopted Abrams. Thatcher was a mistake.
I remember reading a long time ago about how the Canadians toyed with special ordering a version of the Cheiftain with the AVDS V12 engine from the M60 because the Leyland L60 engine was garbage. That project didn't go anywhere but the Brits then ended up experimenting with putting their own Rolls Royce V12 diesel in the Chieftain which wound up being exported. Wish we'd have seen a Chieftain with the cool M60 style engine deck.
I gotta say I like the simplified turret profiles, raising the cheeks and flattening the roof eliminates the (small but real) risk of a dart sailing through the roof's shallow slope.
I’m talking about getting your legs fricked up due to that nonexistent lower frontal plate armor, which happened in Iraq on two separate events
They could have fixed it in this upgrade, but chose not to
So, just to be clear you're making the following declarations:
1. Despite having no information about any changes to the hull of the tank. The hull armour is the same as it was on Challenger 2.
2. The prototype Challenger 3 is exactly what will go into combat, with 0 changes, additions or packages (Even though the prototype doesn't have APS fitted which has already been declared as something that will be added)
3. You're entirely unaware that they fixed that issue about 20 years ago with an armour package that has been in-use ever since, and will almost certainly be used on Challenger 3 to prevent the exact thing you just mentioned happening.
>you absolutely MUST have the armor incorporated all the time!
Why?
You do realise this isn't like warship citadels where the protection is structural, yeah?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Because if Challenger does it that way, it must be bad because Challenger is bad. I love to sniff farts.
How many Challenger 2s do you think we had in Iraq after 2003?
protip: it wasn't many
4 months ago
Anonymous
There were exactly 137 up-armour kits made in 2002, of the type used during the invasion of Iraq
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/12/030460.pdf
There is a similar number of OES improved side armour mounting kits that can accept the old 2002 up-armour kit or newer 2008 Rafael reactive armour. But there aren't anywhere near as many 2008 reactive armour kits or improved toe-plate armour modules to equip that number of CR2s.
i.e. there are only really enough "Dorchester" side armour and ROMOR front armour kits to equip the UK's active tank fleet, so not enough slack to donate them to Ukraine. And not enough of the improved armour kits in general
just like how the US did not send (redacted) IFVs with the full comms kit, a precaution that was justified beyond all doubt given the Russians have one sitting at home now
stuff being sent is a mixture of the good stuff (e.g. Patriot, Aster and CAMM) and previous-generation stuff, so the Russians and their new best buddies the Chinese don't get their hands on the latest kit
Most challenger 2s don’t have them
Fun Fact Of The Day: Did You Know? Most Challenger 2s are not actually in a combat theatre!
WOW!
We don't have OES kits for every Challenger 2, so giving the up-armour to Ukraine would degrade the readiness of our own fleet
We probably do, but just leave it off most of the time to save on wear and tear
>148 planned
Honestly, why bother? It would probably be cheaper just to buy from abroad rather than design and test for such a low number of tanks. If the shit ever really hit the fan 148 would be nowhere near enough. Buy some Leopards as a stop gap, and join the Franco-Kraut tank project. Or is this an elaborate employment/throw money at BAE scheme?
Wrong timeline anon.
In this timeline Challenger 2 has never been lost to direct enemy fire. However, Leopards died on mass in Syria against random sand people with RPGs.
>challenger 2 has never been lost to direct enemy fire
who wants to tell him >inb4 it doesn’t count that this challenger popped it’s turret and had the front fall off
[Senator Collins:] It’s a great pleasure, thank you. >[Interviewer:] This tank that was involved in the incident off Western Ukraine this week…
[Senator Collins:] Yeah, the one the front fell off? >[Interviewer:] Yeah
[Senator Collins:] That’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point. >[Interviewer:] Well, how is it untypical?
[Senator Collins:] Well, there are a lot of these tanks going around the world all the time, and very seldom does anything like this happen … I just don’t want people thinking that tanks aren’t safe. >[Interviewer:] Was this tank safe?
[Senator Collins:] Well I was thinking more about the other ones… >[Interviewer:] The ones that are safe,,,
[Senator Collins:] Yeah,,, the ones the front doesn’t fall off. >[Interviewer:] Well, if this wasn’t safe, why did it have 80 tonnes of armourl on it?
[Senator Collins:] Well, I’m not saying it wasn’t safe, it’s just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones. >[Interviewer:] Why?
[Senator Collins:] Well, some of them are built so the front doesn’t fall off at all. >[Interviewer:] Wasn’t this built so the front wouldn’t fall off?
[Senator Collins:] Well, obviously not. >[Interviewer:] “How do you know?”
[Senator Collins:] Well, ‘cause the front fell off, the fuel caught fire. It’s a bit of a give-away.” I would just like to make the point that that is not normal. >[Interviewer:] Well, what sort of standards are these tanks built to?
[Senator Collins:] Oh, very rigorous … military engineering standards. >[Interviewer:] What sort of things?
[Senator Collins:] Well the front’s not supposed to fall off, for a start.
4 months ago
Anonymous
What is this based off of?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>What is this based off of?
sketch from Australia in the 90's after a tanker broke up.
4 months ago
Anonymous
This has got to be a comedy sketch. Don't tell me shitposting is so ingrained in the Aussie that they do this unironically?
4 months ago
Anonymous
it is literally a comedy sketch
4 months ago
Anonymous
That's a Clark and Dawe sketch, they did a short bit like that at the end of the evening news every night for decades. Absolute classics, luv me Clark and Dawe.
https://youtu.be/DZYbF4p75CY?si=yl7UO9UDCH11s8Zj
4 months ago
Anonymous
It was a comedy sketch about a thing that really happened.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>sketch from the 90s
You need to be old enough to use the potty by yourself to post on this board.
4 months ago
Anonymous
what the hell are you talking about, you complete imbecile?
the sketch was performed in 1991. by Australians.
therefore, its "a sketch from Australia in the 90's"
As an example of a song I'm sure you've sang many times, ABBA's "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)" was recorded in 1979. It is a "song from the 70's"
Now frick off and go find another man for tonight.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Minister Shoigu, this tank that was involved in the incident in Eastern Ukraine this week... >The one the turret blew off?
Yeah >That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point
How is it untypical? >Well, there are a lot of these tanks going around Ukraine, and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don't want people thinking that our tanks aren't any good.
Was this tank any good? >Well, I was thinking more about the other ones.
The ones that are good. >Yeah, the ones that the turret doesn't come off.
If these tanks aren't any good, why did we build 25,000 of them? >Well, I'm not saying it wasn't any good, it's just not quite as good as some of the other ones.
Why? >Well, some of them are built so the turret doesn't come off at all.
Wasn't this built so the turret wouldn't come off? >Well, obviously not.
How do you know? >Well, 'cause the turret came off, and 2 mobiks flew into the sky and their bits caught fire. It's a bit of a giveaway. I would just like to make the point that that is not normal.
What sort of standards are these tanks built to? >Oh, very rigorous military procurement standards.
What sort of things? >Well the turret's not supposed to blow off for a start. They've got to have a radio. There's a minimum training requirement.
What's the number of days of training required? >Oh, one, I suppose.
So the allegations that they are just designed to bury NATO by weight of numbers and to hell with the casualties? >Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. These are very, very strong tanks.
So what happened in this case? >Well, the turret blew off in this case by all means, but that's very unusual.
But Minister Shoigu, why did the turret blow off? >Well, a rocket hit it.
A rocket hit it? >A rocket hit the tank.
Is that unusual? >Oh, yeah. During a war? Chance in a million.
Minister Shoigu, thanks for your time. >We're done? Oh, can you book me a cab.
But didn't you come in a government car? >Yeah, but the door handle came off.
>It would probably be cheaper
Narrator: But in fact, it was not. >If the shit ever really hit the fan 148 would be nowhere near enough
It's enough for the agreed-upon NATO commitment, which is one tank battalion of about 50 tanks available at all times. Italy has the same commitment. Germany and France, as the land-based powerhouses of West Europe, each intend to field two battalions of about 100 tanks in war, one battalion of 50 tanks in peacetime.
Holy shit is it really armatard?
I hope he's back, we've been having a drought of decent schizos on this board for a while now.
If only peak oil dude would come back now...
armatard if I cared what you thought I wouldn't have dug up all your forum accounts when you posted your Reddit account on /sfg/ all those years ago. remember, u/panzerfeist1, when you made your very own subreddit, something like r/PrepHolevsReddit? and it was just screen caps of your own posts?
go back to arguing that Afghans are white on spacepower you slavmutt haploautist vatnik
>don’t talk about these things or I’ll start dumping multiple social media posts I’ve compiled over the years from various sources and I’ll attribute them all to you, anonymous
the subreddit had a single poster with a username that was common across a dozen forums and after this was pointed up the Reddit user deleted his account. but tbqh everyone knows who you are armatard, you've never been subtle
I see they didn’t patch that large portion of hull that they bored through for the drivers hatch. What the frick krauts? You were supposed to unfrick this
That's due to the additional armor on top of the front plate (absent on other MBTs), hence the bulge either side of the hatch. What this highlights is how well armored the Challenger 3 is compared to other tanks.
This is incorrect. There is no additional armor, in fact there is less armor because the design has a channel cut into to accommodate a drivers hatch and periscope. Note that the periscope viewing sectors are severely limited
That is correct, actually. You can see there's like 6 inches of armor (composite) either side of the driver hatch. The "cutout" you're referring to is the standard layout for the top of the front hull you'd see on other other tanks like the Abrams, that armor either side however is in excess of what you'd find.
What you are swing as extra armor is actually just an optical illusion because of the large cutout in the frontal glacis. It’s a well known flaw of the defensive challenger tank.
Provide a source for your claim. It's well known that the Challenger has it's composite armor on the UFP rather than the LFP for doctrinal purposes, where the tank would be used hull down in a defensive position (note this isn't a vulnerability anymore due to additional armor packages for the LFP). Where as the Abrams went the other direction and had it's composite armor on the LFP and not the UFP.
Hence the bulge either side of the hatch where the composite arrays are while the "cutout" retains conventional protection like you'd find on an Abrams or other MBTs.
Note this has been posted much earlier in the thread when you tried this line of argument too. It seems you deleted most of your posts after this was pointed out to you, but now you're making these arguments again. Why?
Archive for those interested in said posts
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/60733692/
4 months ago
Anonymous
You’re going to have to source all of that. >don’t believe your lying eyes
4 months ago
Anonymous
Even the Challenger 1 had composite arrays (Chobham at the time) fitted to the UFP and turret front. Claiming they just randomly removed the composite arrays when building the Challenger 2 despite them clearly still being visible besides the turret hatch is laughable. Post a source confirming your claims.
4 months ago
Anonymous
it’s very noticeable that you still haven’t provided a reputable source for any of your ramblings you fricking weirdo
4 months ago
Anonymous
Here is a naked Challenger hull. You can clearly see the cavities for the composite installation, already with what appears to be a backing plate or possible weight simulator installed. This has been documented and well known since the 80s. Unless you mean to propose that this is where the crew store their kit-kats, your toasterbath awaits.
4 months ago
Anonymous
those are TLRDSBs anon >Tea Leaf Reserve Dry Storage Bins
This is incorrect. There is no additional armor, in fact there is less armor because the design has a channel cut into to accommodate a drivers hatch and periscope. Note that the periscope viewing sectors are severely limited
the moment he doesn't get engagement armatard just pretends to be another concerned citizen. lmao
It's amazing because the thread is absolutely packed with his deleted posts after the thread didn't go the way he wanted to. So of course after waiting for everyone who'd btfo'd him to get bored or go to sleep etc, he comes back to start samegayging again. It'd be funnier if it wasn't so pathetic.
“The Challenger 3 program will deliver the best tank in NATO ... and deliver a network enabled, digital main battle tank, providing the soldier with a step changing capability," said Rory Breen, strategy and future business director at RBSL.
“What we do for a prototype is take a bare chassis and trade about 50 percent of the LRU’s (Line Replaceable Units) … and everything else, except the turret ring, is brand new,” said Breen.
Please forget that the contract is to use the existing hulls.
its fine anon blocky tanks are the GOAT
feepeebeepee
I unironically love the return to the Cromwell's block & bolts aesthetic.
It's just a chally 2 with a different gun
So how I find out the reveal has happened is a fricking warriortard thread
Honestly if you liked C2, you'll like C3 by the looks of it. Biggest change is new gun and the gunner's sight is above his position instead of over the cannon barrel
I don't think that thicker frontal armor should be the priority for a new western tank.
Why not?
I like it. it looks like it was to frick shit it up.
If you're going to add armor it should still go on the front. Drones and missiles are only defeated by active protection systems and doctrine, not millimeters of steel.
>Tonk obr. Bog'd
Too much fish and chips
>Challenger 2, already the best tank in the world
>Even better
kino
>challenger 2 is better than black panther, swedish leopard, and type 99
no, manually loaded 2 piece ammo is stupid
the loading is the best part of challenger's 2 piece ammo, lap loading makes it very fast
the problem is with the limited length of APFSDS projectiles, but that goes for autoloaded 2 piece ammo as well
it's a tradeoff; it means that the charges are protected by wet bags and the Challenger has more ready rounds than the Leopard
Not the case with the Challenger 2. Chally 2 uses dry storage, its the Chally 1 that had wet storage.
I like the C2 but honestly in terms of its survivability, its arguably a step down.
So, since the last model
Quite a lot thicker UFP
Taller armor cheeks leading to a flatter roof
New mantle with no aux sight aperture
Gunner's day/thermal sight head moved forward?
Hard to tell from that image, but the turret side protection looks thicker too. Aux sight looks to be on the mantlet upper left from that image. Coax would be on the right where the loader can service it, in that image obscured by the gun.
Any provisions for drone proofing at all?
I don't like the obvious weakspot, but it's blocky as frick, it's so fricking stupid I love it
this fricking thing has got to have the worst economics of scale of any MBT
the numbers are so low it's like some weird handmade custom limited edition car line
Any particular reason why Europeans can't agree upon a single tank design and everyone makes their own? USA has the M1 Abrams, and that's it. They operate all over the world, in more extremely variant conditions than anything Europeans face.
I feel like Leopard 2's should be the standard.
>Dealing with German engineering, logistics, supply chains and beurocracy
No.
theres something called production under license
greece and some other countries do it
>Produce the entire supply chain under license
Biggets killer of Ukrainian Leo's is getting parts.
Thread about Chally
>HOMG Leo 2
>Over
>And
>Over
We get it.
you can naturally also produce spare parts under license idk where you got the idea from that you cant
also the Leo 2 is the only modern western tank actively being used at the front so we cant even tell if only germany is shit at supplying parts or if the west in general just doesnt have alot
it’s already got a German gun and American engine
All of the western tanks have German parts and leopard is the most popular Western export tank in existence.
Joint projects rarely end well and always turn into a clusterfrick. Plus having everyone just copy each other's homework is generally bad for R&D.
Because countries want to maintain their own knowledge base?
This is how you end up with only 1 or 2 corporations in the world being able to make tanks in the West.
>picky french
>german political nightmare
>italian deadweight
>spanish economy
>poles will do anything but make their own
>nords seem aight
>low countries roleplaying a decent german military
e-eire bros?
Oh god no, Ireland's government is terrible at military stuff.
>USA has the M1 Abrams, and that's it.
M1 Abrams is made to kill shitskins armed with rocks and then return to their designated fuel truck 50 miles in the back
The only place where you can deploy such vehicle are those where you already have almost absolute control over battlefield
I would call it a glorified SWAT truck but it is actually a clown car
>Other tanks were put out of action by engine fires when flammable fuel stored externally in turret racks was hit by small arms fire and spilled into the engine compartment.[61][62] By March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks had been forced out of action by enemy attacks
If you think that's bad, look how poorly the Leopard 2 did in Syria.
Were the tasks put in front of them harder than those for Abrams ?
I don't know
You don't know
The only way to value a tank behind a keyboard is by the raw tech spec numbers
Or, you know.. Service record?
I haven't red those or know where to get them
I haven't seen a single service record in my life (except for my car)
Europe/west needs to come up with a good armored vehicle with 120/140mm gun
Good= easy to service, maintain and learn if it wants to participate in any kind of bigger armed conflict
We have
Challenger 3.
Of which the abrams has a stellar record. Killing more enemy armor than all other western MBTs combined
The Abrams was designed to counter attack the Soviet zerg rush through the Fulda Gap. The US BTFO out of the Iraqis so hard and the USSR collapsed so completely that everyone seems to have forgotten the late Cold War meta that lurked behind every other US procurement decision.
>The only place where you can deploy such vehicle are those where you already have almost absolute control over battlefield
Which is why the US and NATO invested so much in airpower and munitions specifically designed to eviscerate Soviet (Russian) armored rushes, as we've seen clearly in Ukraine.
Imagine Ukraine, except actually supplied and supported armor and mechanized units combined with actual air superiority
>Leopard 2's
Why? It's the weakest NATO tank. The chally has proven itself to have better survivability.
>back to falseflagging again
Classic armatard
>moron reddit tourist thinks a vatnik shill would praise an Anglo tank.
NCD isn't sending their best.
Warriortard resorting to speaking absolute nonsense
>I feel like Leopard 2's should be the standard.
The worst western tank bar none should be the standard?
I mean I'd rather the Ariete at this point
*best
the UK is sitting on a bunch of these, so maye as well do one last upgrade and keep them going, There's no production line, no more will ever be made so this is the end of the challenger. I imagine some future leopard will replace it
>Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) has won a contract to deliver a new modular armour system for the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank for the British Army.
>The contract was awarded to RBSL by Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), a trading entity and joint-defence organisation within the UK Ministry of Defence.
Looks like the armor scheme will be a joint venture with the UK and Germany. Smart considering the success of the leopard 2
>Leo 2
>Leo 2
We get it. You can stop now.
Elaborate
>Looks like the armor scheme will be a joint venture with the UK and Germany.
No, the armour composition is designed in-house by the UK MoD's science lab DSTL.
The contract RBSL has signed is for delivery of this armour after they developed and demonstrated the methods of integrating DSTL's armour on their new turret and processes to manufacture it at scale
> the armour composition is designed in-house by the UK MoD's science lab DSTL.
The contract RBSL has signed is for delivery of this armour after they developed and demonstrated the methods of integrating DSTL's armour on their new turret and processes to manufacture it at scale
Source?
https://des.mod.uk/des-awards-contract-to-fit-next-generation-modular-armour-on-challenger-3/?portfolioCats=1235%2C78%2C735%2C69%2C734
>Defence Equipment & Support has awarded a contract to DELIVER a new modular armour system for the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank to Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).
>Designed by world leading armour experts at Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL)
Smart of the bongs to leverage the Germans knownhow from the leopard and kf-51 development
Nobody else puts composites on the upper front hull either, though I suspect we might start seeing more of that with the proliferation of drones. IIRC the cutout is there to allow the driver to get out or turn out without the turret needing to be traversed/locked into position.
i like the look of it
It’s hard to tell if the lower front glacis issue is fixed by this picture.
>smoothbore gun
Incredibly based
it was fixed on the last tank a long time ago
kek no it was not
>the additional armor package doesn't exist stop talking about it
No.
He cute
Reminds me of early 3D RTS aesthetics
>ugly
kys
Needs to be bigger.
>Thought it was a shitty photoshop
>Its real
Also just ousted yourself as a redditor
>making jokes is Reddit
No because all the photo's i can find are of it posted on plebbit
The Rules say Internets is SRS BSNS.
it IS a photoshop though... this is the original
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Front_views_of_tanks#/media/File:Challenger_2_-_Saber_Junction_2012.jpg
Certainly looks stupid but then again so did CR2
>lipstick on a pig
You are a bitter thirdie warriortard and your autism is ungovernable.
Huge letdown
This has to be one of the worst looking armored vehicles of all time
Hopefully the Germans did the FCS this time too.
>1992
So an early prototype Challenger 2 then? There's a reason these things go through trials before entering production.
The report says 1992.
Challenger 2 didn't even exist in 1992.
the so-called "cutout" meme you're trying desperately to force is due to ADDITIONAL armour layered on top of the front hull, creating bulging cheeks on either side of the driver's hatch
if anything these pics show how thickly-armoured the Challenger 3 is compared to the Abrams, but here you are trying to spin it as the opposite, you disingenuous c**t
God damn the abrams is a beautiful tank
are you moronic anon
the challenger uses a fundementaly different armor layout where the main hull armor is on the upper front plate, meaning they had to put a MASSIVE hole in the middle of it
vs the abrams that armors the lower front plate while angling the upper front plate at a sheer angle. without having a massive hole in the middle
there's hardly any difference in the angles of the upper hull as can easily be see in those photos you disingenuous c**t
not six inches of armour worth, that's for certain
you're wrong
>n-n-no u
>3 decade old tank receives much needed upgrade
always has been
i think it looks better than the chally 2
too bad the chally 1 mogs both in terms of aesthetics
There is no channel cut. It's the same armor, just the Chally 2 has bulges on either side.
>The abrams has armor there too
the Challenger just has more, creating the bulge you pretend not to understand
seethe and cope, fartsniffer
>if we cut a channel into the hull it’s actually more armor
>fartsniffer
Oh it’s just this schizo again
More pics
looks nice. These are upgraded Challenger 2s though, not newly built tanks, right? Also, is it already decided that Trophy APS will be installed on them? And is there any info on what the UK plans on doing after the Challenger 3?
Turret is entirely new. Some less than extensive automotive and suspension upgrades in the hull and additional armour on the UFP
Further armour improvements to the hull protection will be from new appliqué armour kits similar to the Challenger 2's scalable OES armour
There are some things missing from the turret like the Trophy fit, and I imagine there's some various cladding and stuff to be added on top of the turret
I'd be interested to know if the base plating of the turret is still cast, or if it is welded now. One imagines too that the upgrade will include a full overhaul of the electric/hydraulics and shave off a few pounds with more modern stuff.
Any specifics on what the automotive upgrades consist of? I saw some vague suggestions about fuel injection a while back.
It's pretty much guaranteed to be Trophy APS. They completed the assessment phase last year and will go into the demonstration phase this year.
Yeah, Trophy's a done deal. Rafael's test rig even included a facsimile of the bigger UFP block seen on this prototype, which hadn't previously been revealed by RBSL on the tech demonstrator
>And is there any info on what the UK plans on doing after the Challenger 3?
The MoD officially considers tanks a 'sunset capability'. They don't believe they will still be a major element of land warfare in 20-40 years time. Lighter AFVs, IFV, longe range fires, EW, computing & drones are all much higher on the priority list as they don't see those capabilities disappearing.
They expect chally 3 to be the last manned vehicle of its type.
first truly interesting post in the thread. I didn't know that. do they plan to shift to UGVs? if so, will chally3 eventually be optionally manned?
Looks like bolt on spaced armor for the hull top and some for thr front of the turret.. maybe similar to leo2 wedge, dart breaker.
might be integrated ERA , the visible surface is just a skin
why the frick did they design it like this
Decades of brain drain
Because it'll get addon armour.
You can see the nobs on the ufp where they can throw it on.
The lfp always had extra armour packages.
Cope Armor
>It's a flaw
But the periscope on the Abrams is not a flaw? It's an illusion you moron.
just a fine example of warriortard's twisting of facts, anon
ignore him
>it took britoids this long to admit that rifled guns are shit
I’ve always admitted they were shit. Sadly, some of my countryman can sometimes post with horse blinders on.
They loved their smashi smashi projectiles that need rifling.
we just had a fricking mountain of ammo to get through first
It’s okay. Now that theyve admitted they were wrong the healing process can begin
Why is it so important to you that "they admit" things?
kek I remember fondly bongs impotently trying to justify the rifles gun. Now that they just admitted their mistake it tastes that much sweeter
Why are you so obsessed with bongs? Why does their thoughts/feelings have such an impact on your life? You must have absolutely nothing going on.
What's bad about having a more accurate gun?
Do you think it's a coincidence the most accurate gun, longest range kill and highest scores in tests are on a tank with a rifled gun?
Also
>Reply to a post made over a day ago
>Near instant reply from it's likely author
Sad.
The Chally 2 periscope also sits above the armor in exactly the same way. By virtue of being: a periscope.
What is this fricking insanity.
legit can't tell if stupid or just trolling anymore. either way this is your final reply from me.
>no side armor
Is ammunition still stored in the balls?
This is down to a design difference. The Challenger 2 has its composite layer on the upper frontal plate, whereas the Abrams has it on the lower plate. There are pros and cons to the layout in both instances:
>UFP composites provide more protection in a hull-down position, as well as protection against smaller HEAT projectiles impacting from a near vertical angle (think DPICM). The disadvantage of that is, as noted, there needs to be a gap for the driver to egress. It also raises the profile of the hull slightly. In the Challenger 2 this is offset by not needing torsion bars filling hull space, as well as add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate.
>LFP composites are generally more space and weight efficient, by allowing the composite to cover a greater area of the hull front with minimal added height. The downsides are that with this configuration you can't really up-armor the upper front plate without severely compromising gun depression, and it is left as bare RHA (albeit at an extreme angle). Far more efficient, but also more vulnerable to plunging fire and possibly more modern projectiles.
TL;DR its down to doctrine. Challenger 1 and 2 were designed with Cold War concepts of fighting from hull-down defensive positions, with the expectation that they'd be experiencing periodic showers of artillery whilst holding the line to buy time. Abrams was made for more maneuver based warfare when the time came for the cavalry to roll in and relieve the Challengers.
>add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate
Theatre Entry Standard is so jacked it's almost ridiculous
>FEED ME T-72s
MEGATRON MY BELOVED
I see someone has been hitting the gym.
>we cut out a large chunk of the hull for doctrine
Did they?
According to this anon
That’s how the periscope channel came to be
That's not what it says. So, link?
>just link to someone else's post to claim it says something it doesn't
brilliant
>cutout
it's not a fricking cutout, there's like six inches of armor on top of the hull
>periscope
it's the driver's hatch you moron. holy shit you are dumb
>add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate
yep
and they added even more after the RPG-29 incident where the driver lost his foot
russian:
>an entire brigade has been lost
>send in the next one
western:
>a driver lost his foot
>UPARMOUR EVERY TANK
>periscope
>periscope
>periscope channel
imagine being so uninformed you mistake the driver's hatch for a periscope
neverserved eternally BTFO
>the Challenger has a cutout of the additional hull armor it has that other tanks don't
not the win you think it is
Warriorturd don’t look at the round thing seated in front of the glass thing. You’ll shit yourself
and then smell your shit on video for cash on OnlyFans
>we cut out a large chunk of the hull for doctrine
Lets hear your reasoning then. If you want to be an ass about it, it could be pointed out that ~40mm of naked RHA even at 80 degrees ain't stopping shit these days. Good for the 80s maybe, but time moves on.
They didn't cut it out. Rather it's that there is added armor on the ufp which is not normal on other mbts. This creates the illusion of a cutout but in reality the armor on the channel is about as thick and as angled as that above the driver in an Abrams.
I'm aware of this. The design decision does create a small weakness where the turret ring abuts the driver's periscope, but as suggested
and
it is a design tradeoff intended to provide an overall greater scope of protection on the upper plate than could be accomplished with an M1 or Leo2 style design, albeit at the cost of being less weight-efficient overall.
Good enough for the 80s so still about 30 years ahead of the Russians
See
>Composite UFP with small weak spot is worse than entire UFP being a weak spot
Derp.
>lied so much even janny got fed up
>I-I-I WAS JUST JOKING
Should've just adopted Abrams. Thatcher was a mistake.
>Should've just adopted Abrams
then the US cancels the program and tells you to go frick yourself
I remember reading a long time ago about how the Canadians toyed with special ordering a version of the Cheiftain with the AVDS V12 engine from the M60 because the Leyland L60 engine was garbage. That project didn't go anywhere but the Brits then ended up experimenting with putting their own Rolls Royce V12 diesel in the Chieftain which wound up being exported. Wish we'd have seen a Chieftain with the cool M60 style engine deck.
are those fricking rivets?
return to TOG
reject modernity return to Covenanter
It's where they'll put add on armour.
I gotta say I like the simplified turret profiles, raising the cheeks and flattening the roof eliminates the (small but real) risk of a dart sailing through the roof's shallow slope.
>have one chance at life
>assigned to be the driver on a challenger
You do realise the driver isn't sat behind the periscope like it's a window, right?
It's armatards latest maymay
I’m talking about getting your legs fricked up due to that nonexistent lower frontal plate armor, which happened in Iraq on two separate events
They could have fixed it in this upgrade, but chose not to
So, just to be clear you're making the following declarations:
1. Despite having no information about any changes to the hull of the tank. The hull armour is the same as it was on Challenger 2.
2. The prototype Challenger 3 is exactly what will go into combat, with 0 changes, additions or packages (Even though the prototype doesn't have APS fitted which has already been declared as something that will be added)
3. You're entirely unaware that they fixed that issue about 20 years ago with an armour package that has been in-use ever since, and will almost certainly be used on Challenger 3 to prevent the exact thing you just mentioned happening.
Not reading all of that
Armor packages are not a substitute for having good protection from the beginning.
Literally just add a composite/steel sandwich from the factory
>armor doesn't work if you add it afterwards
Actually, it does.
>you absolutely MUST have the armor incorporated all the time!
Why?
You do realise this isn't like warship citadels where the protection is structural, yeah?
Because if Challenger does it that way, it must be bad because Challenger is bad. I love to sniff farts.
>not reading that
Translation: you're seething because you have nothing to counter the other poster with. Embarrassing.
dynamic protection
UK
Soviets
I find it interesting that the Challies sent to Ukraine didn't have the TES package.
Most challenger 2s don’t have them
Every single CR2 in Iraq was up armoured.
How many Challenger 2s do you think we had in Iraq after 2003?
protip: it wasn't many
There were exactly 137 up-armour kits made in 2002, of the type used during the invasion of Iraq
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2003/12/030460.pdf
There is a similar number of OES improved side armour mounting kits that can accept the old 2002 up-armour kit or newer 2008 Rafael reactive armour. But there aren't anywhere near as many 2008 reactive armour kits or improved toe-plate armour modules to equip that number of CR2s.
i.e. there are only really enough "Dorchester" side armour and ROMOR front armour kits to equip the UK's active tank fleet, so not enough slack to donate them to Ukraine. And not enough of the improved armour kits in general
We don't have OES kits for every Challenger 2, so giving the up-armour to Ukraine would degrade the readiness of our own fleet
just like how the US did not send (redacted) IFVs with the full comms kit, a precaution that was justified beyond all doubt given the Russians have one sitting at home now
stuff being sent is a mixture of the good stuff (e.g. Patriot, Aster and CAMM) and previous-generation stuff, so the Russians and their new best buddies the Chinese don't get their hands on the latest kit
Fun Fact Of The Day: Did You Know? Most Challenger 2s are not actually in a combat theatre!
WOW!
We probably do, but just leave it off most of the time to save on wear and tear
Because it weighs like 87+ tonnes.
how does the thermal camoflauge covering feel to touch? it looks like some rough leather blanket
damn that driver is a massive bloke
>new gun
>same overall design
BAE are laughing all the way to the bank.
>same overall design
wrong
the turret is a total redesign, which is most of the cost of a new tank these days
it's not even finished yet, they only announced the contract for armour development the other day
that pic is just a test bed cr2 I'd wager
>Ugly
U r the big gay
>they kept the cutout
>he's still repeating the meme
>148 planned
Honestly, why bother? It would probably be cheaper just to buy from abroad rather than design and test for such a low number of tanks. If the shit ever really hit the fan 148 would be nowhere near enough. Buy some Leopards as a stop gap, and join the Franco-Kraut tank project. Or is this an elaborate employment/throw money at BAE scheme?
Leopards aren't good enough and have proven themselves incapable in combat.
Leopard's are great and you're a gay.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germany%E2%80%99s-leopard-2-tank-syria-was-beaten-badly-battle-why-78441
Suboptimal.
It's armatard stirring shit as usual. Just ignore him.
When crewed by Westerners and facing Slavic rust cans, they're more than good enough.
Same with challys. Sadly they didn’t survive their only engagement in Ukraine
Wrong timeline anon.
In this timeline Challenger 2 has never been lost to direct enemy fire. However, Leopards died on mass in Syria against random sand people with RPGs.
>challenger 2 has never been lost to direct enemy fire
who wants to tell him
>inb4 it doesn’t count that this challenger popped it’s turret and had the front fall off
>Direct enemy fire
>Mine
Did they throw the mine at it?
>mine
>pls believe me
There’s a video of an ATGM hitting jt
>There’s a video of an ATGM hitting jt
may i see it?
>noooooo it doesn’t count
>MODS delete this right now
[Senator Collins:] It’s a great pleasure, thank you.
>[Interviewer:] This tank that was involved in the incident off Western Ukraine this week…
[Senator Collins:] Yeah, the one the front fell off?
>[Interviewer:] Yeah
[Senator Collins:] That’s not very typical, I’d like to make that point.
>[Interviewer:] Well, how is it untypical?
[Senator Collins:] Well, there are a lot of these tanks going around the world all the time, and very seldom does anything like this happen … I just don’t want people thinking that tanks aren’t safe.
>[Interviewer:] Was this tank safe?
[Senator Collins:] Well I was thinking more about the other ones…
>[Interviewer:] The ones that are safe,,,
[Senator Collins:] Yeah,,, the ones the front doesn’t fall off.
>[Interviewer:] Well, if this wasn’t safe, why did it have 80 tonnes of armourl on it?
[Senator Collins:] Well, I’m not saying it wasn’t safe, it’s just perhaps not quite as safe as some of the other ones.
>[Interviewer:] Why?
[Senator Collins:] Well, some of them are built so the front doesn’t fall off at all.
>[Interviewer:] Wasn’t this built so the front wouldn’t fall off?
[Senator Collins:] Well, obviously not.
>[Interviewer:] “How do you know?”
[Senator Collins:] Well, ‘cause the front fell off, the fuel caught fire. It’s a bit of a give-away.” I would just like to make the point that that is not normal.
>[Interviewer:] Well, what sort of standards are these tanks built to?
[Senator Collins:] Oh, very rigorous … military engineering standards.
>[Interviewer:] What sort of things?
[Senator Collins:] Well the front’s not supposed to fall off, for a start.
What is this based off of?
>What is this based off of?
sketch from Australia in the 90's after a tanker broke up.
This has got to be a comedy sketch. Don't tell me shitposting is so ingrained in the Aussie that they do this unironically?
it is literally a comedy sketch
That's a Clark and Dawe sketch, they did a short bit like that at the end of the evening news every night for decades. Absolute classics, luv me Clark and Dawe.
https://youtu.be/DZYbF4p75CY?si=yl7UO9UDCH11s8Zj
It was a comedy sketch about a thing that really happened.
>sketch from the 90s
You need to be old enough to use the potty by yourself to post on this board.
what the hell are you talking about, you complete imbecile?
the sketch was performed in 1991. by Australians.
therefore, its "a sketch from Australia in the 90's"
As an example of a song I'm sure you've sang many times, ABBA's "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)" was recorded in 1979. It is a "song from the 70's"
Now frick off and go find another man for tonight.
Minister Shoigu, this tank that was involved in the incident in Eastern Ukraine this week...
>The one the turret blew off?
Yeah
>That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point
How is it untypical?
>Well, there are a lot of these tanks going around Ukraine, and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don't want people thinking that our tanks aren't any good.
Was this tank any good?
>Well, I was thinking more about the other ones.
The ones that are good.
>Yeah, the ones that the turret doesn't come off.
If these tanks aren't any good, why did we build 25,000 of them?
>Well, I'm not saying it wasn't any good, it's just not quite as good as some of the other ones.
Why?
>Well, some of them are built so the turret doesn't come off at all.
Wasn't this built so the turret wouldn't come off?
>Well, obviously not.
How do you know?
>Well, 'cause the turret came off, and 2 mobiks flew into the sky and their bits caught fire. It's a bit of a giveaway. I would just like to make the point that that is not normal.
What sort of standards are these tanks built to?
>Oh, very rigorous military procurement standards.
What sort of things?
>Well the turret's not supposed to blow off for a start. They've got to have a radio. There's a minimum training requirement.
What's the number of days of training required?
>Oh, one, I suppose.
So the allegations that they are just designed to bury NATO by weight of numbers and to hell with the casualties?
>Ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. These are very, very strong tanks.
So what happened in this case?
>Well, the turret blew off in this case by all means, but that's very unusual.
But Minister Shoigu, why did the turret blow off?
>Well, a rocket hit it.
A rocket hit it?
>A rocket hit the tank.
Is that unusual?
>Oh, yeah. During a war? Chance in a million.
Minister Shoigu, thanks for your time.
>We're done? Oh, can you book me a cab.
But didn't you come in a government car?
>Yeah, but the door handle came off.
No they're still going.
>It would probably be cheaper
Narrator: But in fact, it was not.
>If the shit ever really hit the fan 148 would be nowhere near enough
It's enough for the agreed-upon NATO commitment, which is one tank battalion of about 50 tanks available at all times. Italy has the same commitment. Germany and France, as the land-based powerhouses of West Europe, each intend to field two battalions of about 100 tanks in war, one battalion of 50 tanks in peacetime.
10/10 in bongland
Holy shit is it really armatard?
I hope he's back, we've been having a drought of decent schizos on this board for a while now.
If only peak oil dude would come back now...
Sorry that the challenger 3 reveal didn’t go the way you planned.
Oh man so it is you.
One would have thought you killed yourself after the Bradley vid
>makes moronic points
>gets btfo'd
>runs away
>comes back hours later to samegay incessantly
It's 100% armatard.
Thanks to the Germans, Britain finally has a decent tank.
>no integrated APS
Challenger 3 is planned to have APS. Trophy passed the assessment phase last year and is entering the demo phase this year.
>came back after being bullied out of his thread to repeat the same meme
>projects his thread on to me
kek what a psycho
>n-no that wasn't me
Kek what a homosexual, can't even own up to his own posts because they're too embarrassing.
armatard if I cared what you thought I wouldn't have dug up all your forum accounts when you posted your Reddit account on /sfg/ all those years ago. remember, u/panzerfeist1, when you made your very own subreddit, something like r/PrepHolevsReddit? and it was just screen caps of your own posts?
go back to arguing that Afghans are white on spacepower you slavmutt haploautist vatnik
>don’t talk about these things or I’ll start dumping multiple social media posts I’ve compiled over the years from various sources and I’ll attribute them all to you, anonymous
the subreddit had a single poster with a username that was common across a dozen forums and after this was pointed up the Reddit user deleted his account. but tbqh everyone knows who you are armatard, you've never been subtle
It’s funny that you post like this just because the chally is having a little fun poked at her
I see they didn’t patch that large portion of hull that they bored through for the drivers hatch. What the frick krauts? You were supposed to unfrick this
That's due to the additional armor on top of the front plate (absent on other MBTs), hence the bulge either side of the hatch. What this highlights is how well armored the Challenger 3 is compared to other tanks.
This is incorrect. There is no additional armor, in fact there is less armor because the design has a channel cut into to accommodate a drivers hatch and periscope. Note that the periscope viewing sectors are severely limited
That is correct, actually. You can see there's like 6 inches of armor (composite) either side of the driver hatch. The "cutout" you're referring to is the standard layout for the top of the front hull you'd see on other other tanks like the Abrams, that armor either side however is in excess of what you'd find.
What you are swing as extra armor is actually just an optical illusion because of the large cutout in the frontal glacis. It’s a well known flaw of the defensive challenger tank.
Provide a source for your claim. It's well known that the Challenger has it's composite armor on the UFP rather than the LFP for doctrinal purposes, where the tank would be used hull down in a defensive position (note this isn't a vulnerability anymore due to additional armor packages for the LFP). Where as the Abrams went the other direction and had it's composite armor on the LFP and not the UFP.
Hence the bulge either side of the hatch where the composite arrays are while the "cutout" retains conventional protection like you'd find on an Abrams or other MBTs.
Note this has been posted much earlier in the thread when you tried this line of argument too. It seems you deleted most of your posts after this was pointed out to you, but now you're making these arguments again. Why?
Archive for those interested in said posts
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/60733692/
You’re going to have to source all of that.
>don’t believe your lying eyes
Even the Challenger 1 had composite arrays (Chobham at the time) fitted to the UFP and turret front. Claiming they just randomly removed the composite arrays when building the Challenger 2 despite them clearly still being visible besides the turret hatch is laughable. Post a source confirming your claims.
it’s very noticeable that you still haven’t provided a reputable source for any of your ramblings you fricking weirdo
Here is a naked Challenger hull. You can clearly see the cavities for the composite installation, already with what appears to be a backing plate or possible weight simulator installed. This has been documented and well known since the 80s. Unless you mean to propose that this is where the crew store their kit-kats, your toasterbath awaits.
those are TLRDSBs anon
>Tea Leaf Reserve Dry Storage Bins
*driver hatch
Get a hobby you schizophrenic moron.
There is extra armour. RBSL even said them selves the base CR3 prototype vehicle currently weighs 66 tonnes.
the moment he doesn't get engagement armatard just pretends to be another concerned citizen. lmao
It's amazing because the thread is absolutely packed with his deleted posts after the thread didn't go the way he wanted to. So of course after waiting for everyone who'd btfo'd him to get bored or go to sleep etc, he comes back to start samegayging again. It'd be funnier if it wasn't so pathetic.
Looks really bad. Looks like it belongs in the 1970s
Looks great. But, I wish they'd do something more elegant with the smoke launchers than having them be these weird polyps stuck to the turret face.
It would look too similar to the Ariete then though
Who the frick cares? Only the UK uses it and they only run like 50 at best
Why bother? They're only going to update 148 and have no real stockpile or means to build new hulls.
EXTRA
THICK
BOY
>the tank is as thicc as the driver
“The Challenger 3 program will deliver the best tank in NATO ... and deliver a network enabled, digital main battle tank, providing the soldier with a step changing capability," said Rory Breen, strategy and future business director at RBSL.
“What we do for a prototype is take a bare chassis and trade about 50 percent of the LRU’s (Line Replaceable Units) … and everything else, except the turret ring, is brand new,” said Breen.
Please forget that the contract is to use the existing hulls.
>Fartsniffer having a mental breakdown from being BTFO in multiple threads
Love to see it