Challenger 3 Reveal

so challenger 3 is frick ugly
discuss

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its fine anon blocky tanks are the GOAT

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      feepeebeepee

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I unironically love the return to the Cromwell's block & bolts aesthetic.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's just a chally 2 with a different gun

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think that thicker frontal armor should be the priority for a new western tank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not?

      https://i.imgur.com/M0Q6nkR.jpg

      so challenger 3 is frick ugly
      discuss

      I like it. it looks like it was to frick shit it up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Tonk obr. Bog'd

    Too much fish and chips

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Challenger 2, already the best tank in the world
    >Even better
    kino

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >challenger 2 is better than black panther, swedish leopard, and type 99

      no, manually loaded 2 piece ammo is stupid

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's a tradeoff; it means that the charges are protected by wet bags and the Challenger has more ready rounds than the Leopard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Any provisions for drone proofing at all?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't like the obvious weakspot, but it's blocky as frick, it's so fricking stupid I love it

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this fricking thing has got to have the worst economics of scale of any MBT

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the numbers are so low it's like some weird handmade custom limited edition car line

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Dealing with German engineering, logistics, supply chains and beurocracy
      No.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        theres something called production under license
        greece and some other countries do it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Produce the entire supply chain under license
          Biggets killer of Ukrainian Leo's is getting parts.

          Elaborate

          Thread about Chally
          >HOMG Leo 2
          >Over
          >And
          >Over
          We get it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it’s already got a German gun and American engine

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        All of the western tanks have German parts and leopard is the most popular Western export tank in existence.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh god no, Ireland's government is terrible at military stuff.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you think that's bad, look how poorly the Leopard 2 did in Syria.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Or, you know.. Service record?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We have
                Challenger 3.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Of which the abrams has a stellar record. Killing more enemy armor than all other western MBTs combined

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Leopard 2's
      Why? It's the weakest NATO tank. The chally has proven itself to have better survivability.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >back to falseflagging again
        Classic armatard

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >moron reddit tourist thinks a vatnik shill would praise an Anglo tank.
          NCD isn't sending their best.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Warriortard resorting to speaking absolute nonsense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *best

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      Looks like the armor scheme will be a joint venture with the UK and Germany. Smart considering the success of the leopard 2

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Leo 2
        >Leo 2
        We get it. You can stop now.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Elaborate

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > 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?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Smart of the bongs to leverage the Germans knownhow from the leopard and kf-51 development

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    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.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i like the look of it

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s hard to tell if the lower front glacis issue is fixed by this picture.
    >smoothbore gun
    Incredibly based

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it was fixed on the last tank a long time ago

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        kek no it was not

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the additional armor package doesn't exist stop talking about it
          No.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He cute
    Reminds me of early 3D RTS aesthetics

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ugly
    kys

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Needs to be bigger.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Thought it was a shitty photoshop
      >Its real
      Also just ousted yourself as a redditor

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >making jokes is Reddit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No because all the photo's i can find are of it posted on plebbit

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Rules say Internets is SRS BSNS.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Certainly looks stupid but then again so did CR2

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >lipstick on a pig

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are a bitter thirdie warriortard and your autism is ungovernable.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Huge letdown

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This has to be one of the worst looking armored vehicles of all time

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hopefully the Germans did the FCS this time too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >1992
      So an early prototype Challenger 2 then? There's a reason these things go through trials before entering production.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The report says 1992.
      Challenger 2 didn't even exist in 1992.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    [...]

    [...]

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      God damn the abrams is a beautiful tank

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you're wrong

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >n-n-no u

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >3 decade old tank receives much needed upgrade

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    always has been

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i think it looks better than the chally 2
    too bad the chally 1 mogs both in terms of aesthetics

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    There is no channel cut. It's the same armor, just the Chally 2 has bulges on either side.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The abrams has armor there too
    the Challenger just has more, creating the bulge you pretend not to understand

    seethe and cope, fartsniffer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if we cut a channel into the hull it’s actually more armor
      >fartsniffer
      Oh it’s just this schizo again

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    More pics

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

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

      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?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        might be integrated ERA , the visible surface is just a skin

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why the frick did they design it like this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Decades of brain drain

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Cope Armor

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >It's a flaw
    But the periscope on the Abrams is not a flaw? It's an illusion you moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      just a fine example of warriortard's twisting of facts, anon
      ignore him

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it took britoids this long to admit that rifled guns are shit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I’ve always admitted they were shit. Sadly, some of my countryman can sometimes post with horse blinders on.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They loved their smashi smashi projectiles that need rifling.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we just had a fricking mountain of ammo to get through first

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s okay. Now that theyve admitted they were wrong the healing process can begin

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why is it so important to you that "they admit" things?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also
            >Reply to a post made over a day ago
            >Near instant reply from it's likely author
            Sad.

            kek I remember fondly bongs impotently trying to justify the rifles gun. Now that they just admitted their mistake it tastes that much sweeter

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Also
          >Reply to a post made over a day ago
          >Near instant reply from it's likely author
          Sad.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      legit can't tell if stupid or just trolling anymore. either way this is your final reply from me.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >no side armor
    Is ammunition still stored in the balls?

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >add-on armor kits to cover the RHA of the lower front plate
      Theatre Entry Standard is so jacked it's almost ridiculous

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >FEED ME T-72s

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        MEGATRON MY BELOVED

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I see someone has been hitting the gym.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >we cut out a large chunk of the hull for doctrine
    Did they?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      According to this anon

      [...]
      [...]
      [...]
      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.

      That’s how the periscope channel came to be

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's not what it says. So, link?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >just link to someone else's post to claim it says something it doesn't
        brilliant

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    [...]

    >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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      russian:
      >an entire brigade has been lost
      >send in the next one

      western:
      >a driver lost his foot
      >UPARMOUR EVERY TANK

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >periscope

    [...]

    >periscope

    According to this anon [...]
    That’s how the periscope channel came to be

    >periscope channel
    imagine being so uninformed you mistake the driver's hatch for a periscope
    neverserved eternally BTFO

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >the Challenger has a cutout of the additional hull armor it has that other tanks don't
    not the win you think it is

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    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

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good enough for the 80s so still about 30 years ahead of the Russians

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    See

    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.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Composite UFP with small weak spot is worse than entire UFP being a weak spot
    Derp.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >lied so much even janny got fed up
    >I-I-I WAS JUST JOKING

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Should've just adopted Abrams. Thatcher was a mistake.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Should've just adopted Abrams
      then the US cancels the program and tells you to go frick yourself

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    are those fricking rivets?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      return to TOG

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      reject modernity return to Covenanter

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's where they'll put add on armour.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >have one chance at life
    >assigned to be the driver on a challenger

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You do realise the driver isn't sat behind the periscope like it's a window, right?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's armatards latest maymay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not reading all of that

            https://i.imgur.com/Rza2f5O.jpg

            Armor packages are not a substitute for having good protection from the beginning.
            Literally just add a composite/steel sandwich from the factory

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >armor doesn't work if you add it afterwards
              Actually, it does.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >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?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because if Challenger does it that way, it must be bad because Challenger is bad. I love to sniff farts.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >not reading that
              Translation: you're seething because you have nothing to counter the other poster with. Embarrassing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              dynamic protection
              UK

              Soviets

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I find it interesting that the Challies sent to Ukraine didn't have the TES package.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Most challenger 2s don’t have them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every single CR2 in Iraq was up armoured.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How many Challenger 2s do you think we had in Iraq after 2003?
                protip: it wasn't many

              • 1 month 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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Because it weighs like 87+ tonnes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how does the thermal camoflauge covering feel to touch? it looks like some rough leather blanket

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              damn that driver is a massive bloke

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >new gun
    >same overall design
    BAE are laughing all the way to the bank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >same overall design
      wrong
      the turret is a total redesign, which is most of the cost of a new tank these days

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Ugly

    U r the big gay

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they kept the cutout

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he's still repeating the meme

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >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?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Leopards aren't good enough and have proven themselves incapable in combat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Leopard's are great and you're a gay.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/germany%E2%80%99s-leopard-2-tank-syria-was-beaten-badly-battle-why-78441

          Suboptimal.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's armatard stirring shit as usual. Just ignore him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        When crewed by Westerners and facing Slavic rust cans, they're more than good enough.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Same with challys. Sadly they didn’t survive their only engagement in Ukraine

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Direct enemy fire
              >Mine
              Did they throw the mine at it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >mine
                >pls believe me
                There’s a video of an ATGM hitting jt

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There’s a video of an ATGM hitting jt

                may i see it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >noooooo it doesn’t count
                >MODS delete this right now

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              [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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What is this based off of?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What is this based off of?

                sketch from Australia in the 90's after a tanker broke up.

              • 1 month 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?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it is literally a comedy sketch

              • 1 month 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

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It was a comedy sketch about a thing that really happened.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >sketch from the 90s

                You need to be old enough to use the potty by yourself to post on this board.

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month 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.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No they're still going.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    10/10 in bongland

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry that the challenger 3 reveal didn’t go the way you planned.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh man so it is you.
        One would have thought you killed yourself after the Bradley vid

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >makes moronic points
      >gets btfo'd
      >runs away
      >comes back hours later to samegay incessantly
      It's 100% armatard.

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Thanks to the Germans, Britain finally has a decent tank.

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >no integrated APS

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger 3 is planned to have APS. Trophy passed the assessment phase last year and is entering the demo phase this year.

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >came back after being bullied out of his thread to repeat the same meme

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >projects his thread on to me
      kek what a psycho

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >n-no that wasn't me
        Kek what a homosexual, can't even own up to his own posts because they're too embarrassing.

  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 1 month ago
        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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It’s funny that you post like this just because the chally is having a little fun poked at her

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You’re going to have to source all of that.
                >don’t believe your lying eyes

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it’s very noticeable that you still haven’t provided a reputable source for any of your ramblings you fricking weirdo

              • 1 month 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.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                those are TLRDSBs anon
                >Tea Leaf Reserve Dry Storage Bins

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *driver hatch

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Get a hobby you schizophrenic moron.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is extra armour. RBSL even said them selves the base CR3 prototype vehicle currently weighs 66 tonnes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  63. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Looks really bad. Looks like it belongs in the 1970s

  64. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would look too similar to the Ariete then though

  65. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who the frick cares? Only the UK uses it and they only run like 50 at best

  66. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why bother? They're only going to update 148 and have no real stockpile or means to build new hulls.

  67. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    EXTRA
    THICK
    BOY

    >the tank is as thicc as the driver

  68. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    “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.

  69. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Fartsniffer having a mental breakdown from being BTFO in multiple threads
    Love to see it

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