challenger

what does russia even have in its arsenal that can pen this?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the Challenger variant. If it's 2 with the upgrade packages... then not much. If it's just a basic bitch Challenger 2 (which I assume to avoid it falling into Russian hands) then lots of stuff.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    unlucky mobik with 10 kg of high explosive riding a motorcycle, battlefield style

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’d need more than 10 kg unless maybe said mobik got himself ran over. The US military tried firing 105mm HE howitzer shells at the side armor of Shermans during testing and they did almost nothing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The US military tried firing 105mm HE howitzer shells at the side armor of Shermans during testing and they did almost nothing.

        If they had instant detonation fuzes, of course nothing happend, if they had a slight delay, you have a semi-HESH shell and the sherman would have had a crater in the side armor and spall on the inside.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You’d need more than 10 kg unless maybe said mobik got himself ran over. The US military tried firing 105mm HE
        a 155mm shell tops out at around 9.8kg explosive mass

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >literally just two tanks sent to ukraine
    lmfao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >literally just two tanks
      Are you the retarded ESL who said 'Challenger 2 tanks' and think it's 2 tanks? It's 10.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I saw two tanks in another, but even 10 tanks is embarrassing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *another thread

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *another thread

          This is how NATO countries have been slowly escalating the whole time, for example, I remember
          >LOL! WHAT WILL TWO (2) HIMARS DO!!?!?!

          Not anything on the TES or in NATO inventory (that I am aware of)
          at most it would effect it by 10-20mm which would do practically nothing.
          The Russians and Ukrainians do have Kontakt-5 and Relikt which can affect KE from 100mm-250mm (though it is russian, take with grain of salt.)

          I cannot and have never found any information at all about the ERA the British use.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's a tank that can only engage targets within its line of sight. What do you honestly expect it to do?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Picrelated is ROMOR-A ERA that was initially mounted on the front

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Genuinely impressive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy can rob my house, he deserves it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Cyberpunk 2077

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That Buck is gonna break it’s ankles.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ghetto rangers ASSEMBLE

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the fug, that looks badass

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Nailing it in high heels
      I wish I was nailing him in his high heels if you know what I mean buck breaking bros.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Korenet-EM (Probably unlikely)
    Big Bomb from plane
    Big Bomb strapped to vatnik

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not even capping rn but did any allied tank even get shot with an iraqi tank gun in gulf war?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      T-72 shot an M1 at short range. Someone had to tell the crew over comms.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The entire hull frontally lol.
    Only the turret is a concern.
    I hope you know the Challenger 1/2 lower plate is only 70mm and can be penned by a ww2 gun.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Soft ERA
        try a kinetic penetrator through that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ERA helps defeat kinetic penetrators as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not anything on the TES or in NATO inventory (that I am aware of)
            at most it would effect it by 10-20mm which would do practically nothing.
            The Russians and Ukrainians do have Kontakt-5 and Relikt which can affect KE from 100mm-250mm (though it is russian, take with grain of salt.)

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Not anything on the TES or in NATO inventory (that I am aware of)

              Internal armor arrays in western tanks consists of non explosive reactive armor whose goal is to generate an elastic collision between a penetrator and the armor. This steals movement energy from the penetrator and also consumes the armor and the penetrator at the same time. Russian armor is the same except that its far poorer vs shaped charges. NERA is merely this idea applied into an external box.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There are Chobham blocks for the lfp too. You fit what's required. No good tank commander is exposing his lower Hull though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There are Chobham blocks for the lfp too. You fit what's required. No good tank commander is exposing his lower Hull though.
            How is this supposed to even work?
            >Be challenger 2 crew in ukraine, driving the most absolutely monstrous 72ton+ up armored challenger 2 configuration.
            >Get told to support infantry advancing on a town, terrain means you can only see 1km or so as you drive down the road.
            >Suddenly you encounter some mobiks in t-62s, obliterate the first one instantly, the second one aims center mass at the challenger 2 and manages to get one low quality 115mm steel AP round off.
            >The round lands slightly low due to poor accuracy impacting the absolutely huge LFP, the applique armor designed to defeat HEAT rounds does almost nothing and the round effortlessly penetrating the 80mm hull before detonating stored charges and HESH rounds in the hull.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You never expose your lfp, tanks don't fight on pool tables.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You never expose your lfp
                Yeah, that's not something you can help a lot of the time.
                The Challenger design has a lot of wierdness to it that leads to a large area of the front being significantly weaker then the strongest armor (the lower plate, the drivers periscope/hatch cutout and the mantlet)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Peak war thunder take, why would you speak about something you have 0 clue about? Kind of cringe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good job mentioning War Thunder since that was where the Chally 2 crewman leaked how the mantlet was badly armored to prove(?) his point how badly War Thunder portrayed it (as if 30mm -> 50mm would make a difference).
                Doesn't change the fact that a good 1/3 of the Cr2 from the front isn't well protected vs enemy tank/heavy ATGMs, The Challenger hull design is really inefficient in terms of front armor coverage compared to Abrams or Leopard 2

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean pic related and above you see how behind the drivers periscope the steel isn't that thick and while there is some armour behind that since the turret is "sunk" into the hull a bit, it's autocannon level of protection at most

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >applique armor designed to defeat HEAT rounds

              Chobham kits stop both.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A nation in decline.
      Its depressing how much they have reduced the army size, especially tanks.
      I want us to have tanks in the thousands.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In total this is enough tanks for about two-three months of serious fighting across a narrow front

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          blaze it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why would an island nation that operates within a large military alliance that emphasizes specialization on specific capabilities not operate a dozen armored spearhead brigades when that job is already assigned to other countries?
        Gee, anon. I really don’t know. I guess we should all surrender to mighty trad chad Russia so globohomo chud nazi garden gnomes don’t turn our frogs gay.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A nation in decline.
      Its depressing how much they have reduced the army size, especially tanks.
      I want us to have tanks in the thousands.

      https://i.imgur.com/RZ8eYrA.png

      In total this is enough tanks for about two-three months of serious fighting across a narrow front

      >a tiny island doesnt have loads of tanks
      FUCKIN SHOKKIN M8

      Meanwhile, more operational carriers than Russia and as many as China.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who said we need all the tanks for our island only?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They dont. But they know full well that 220 tanks is more than enough to smash the Jesus out of some 3rd world shithole. They also know full well that if they ever have to fight someone for whom 220 tanks is insufficient, it doesnt matter as they will be fighting as part of a larger coalition.

          Furthermore, when they fight it doesnt look like Ukraine where tanks die left right and center.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >220 tanks
            *148, minus however many you're shipping to ukraine
            At this rate, by next week the UK's armored forces will have an operational lifetime of 6 hours

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >At this rate, by next week the UK's armored forces will have an operational lifetime of 6 hours
              If they decide to fight like slavs, yes. Based on the kind of war they intend on fighting, no.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Read a book, nobody ever fights the war they "intended to fight"

                fyi, 386 Chally 2's were delivered to the Brits of which 227 are operational. If they cut down to 148 as they plan it means they can ship off 52 Chally 2's to Ukraine and still retain another 148 Chally 2's in reserve to make up potential losses in a conflict.

                So, yeah, cope I guess.

                >another 148 Chally 2's in reserve to make up potential losses in a conflict.
                Is that even enough tanks to bring the UK's armored units up to strength?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Read a book, nobody ever fights the war they "intended to fight"
                The did in GW1 and OIF and the Falklands.

                148 Chally 2's in reserve to make up potential losses in a conflict.
                >Is that even enough tanks to bring the UK's armored units up to strength?
                Its enough to maintain their armored division despite 100% casualties.

                https://i.imgur.com/RFpUM1K.png

                >We don't need to be good at anything because daddy will take care of us.
                Yes, this is what most nations start to say shortly before they stop existing entirely. Countless examples in history.

                Coalition warfare has been the British meta since the 1500's. Its why to this day the sun does not ever set on Britannia. Cope however the fuck you must.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, okay, fine. You're right. The british don't need to defend themselves. Everyone else will do everything for them. Somehow, despite being a tiny island nation which produces nothing and imports most of its food and population from abroad, you will continue to enjoy this luxury despite your economy and military shrinking every year. Don't do anything to reverse this. Just let yourselves slip into the sea while the better races administer your island for you.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >what is the Royal Navy
                Keep those copes rolling in.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >>what is the Royal Navy
                An underfunded embarrassment?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You don't think the royal navy is adequate to defend an island twice the size of texas? There's one carrier per texas

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >twice the size of texas
                What did he mean by this?

                Carriers aren't everything, you still need ashms and everything else, and it just so happens that the RN has been running low for decades.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Whoops, half the size, even. Makes my point twice as valid.
                We have plenty of modern destroyers, mobile AWACs, 5th gen fighters on carriers, submarines, nooks, and yes we've hilariously been low on anti ship missiles for a while, but this follows being extremely low on actual enemies with navies. We'll eventually sort that out and continue with our massively oversized naval force to patrol our tiny island with the sole threat being rusting slavshit. I don't really see your point, either you're russian in which case you're a complete irrelevance compared to the glittering prize that is our military and geopolitical history, or a yank (and we like yanks) who licenses technology from us. Either way the situation seems pretty much fine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/VeDbE53.png

                >twice the size of texas
                What did he mean by this?

                Carriers aren't everything, you still need ashms and everything else, and it just so happens that the RN has been running low for decades.

                Your country?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'll let you guess, it's not the UK, or any other commonwealth nation, it's not the US, or any EU country except Finland, it's not in Asia or Africa.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So, an irrelevant shithole with no navy. Gotcha.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yep. How's that relevant though?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Worry about your own country first.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why? We're soon in NATO and the condition or your armed forces will be our business too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The condition of their armed forces is better than the condition of yours. Without question. You share a land border with Russia and you have the SAME number of tanks as they do.

                As I said, worry about your own country.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The condition of their armed forces is better than the condition of yours. Without question. You share a land border with Russia and you have the SAME number of tanks as they do.
                No we don't, Russia still has a lot more. But in a couple of months we may very well have more tanks than they do.

                You're from Finland? Why are you dribbling on about our armed forces, we're bros and train together. Also you spend like a quarter of the amount we do, so we'll be carrying you anyway. Our armed forces are in pretty good shape for what we are specialised in doing, so all seems well. Good luck with your NATO bid

                >Also you spend like a quarter of the amount we do, so we'll be carrying you anyway
                Yes, precisely. And you need to spend more so that you can carry harder.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No we don't, Russia still has a lot more. But in a couple of months we may very well have more tanks than they do.
                Finland has 239 tanks, the UK 227. This is quite embarrassing because they sit on an island, behind the channel and the Royal Navy. While you sit squarely on the border with Russia.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You said "You share a land border with Russia and you have the SAME number of tanks as they do."
                Russia has thousands of tanks, but their quality is questionable.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So, if ~200 if sufficient for Finland (a country who's threat profile is a land war) then ~120 is more than enough for the UK (a country whos threat profile is a naval war).

                No?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not at all, because the UK has to carry Finland and all the other NATO minors.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Its a coalition dofus. There is no "carrying". All told there are ~5000 tanks in the EU member states alone, that number pretty much doubles when you count the Americans.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Finland has 4 million inhabitants, UK 70 million.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The UK has two carriers, 7 destroyers, 12 frigates, a whole smattering of nuke botes, and a fucking big airforce.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't really get the Hispanicy attitude. It's like arrogantly bragging about your own inferiority.
                "Ha, you think we're lame now? Wait until you start having to carry us". It's a new angle and I can admire the trolling potential

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm a professional NEET, I haven't even done my conscription, and if a war breaks out I'm not even at risk of being drafted thanks to countries such as UK being forced to carry us. It's a glorious situation all around. Wouldn't you agree?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not sure. It sounds like a craven, empty, miserly existence. Don't you get bored?

                I started a little consulting company and get to basically work part time but still have money and, y'know, options. And there is no conscription at all, so I probably get to spend as much time playing vidja as you do, won't have to fight in a war, but I get to play my games on a high end PC and all that. I mean you have a better metal scene so there's that, but I don't think I'd want to swap

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, I enjoy my life. But honestly, just between you and me, I'm actually considering getting myself a degree so that I could move away from this gynocentric shithole.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A hot tip I can give you is to find some kind of work that you can deliver via a laptop. I work in digital advertising and marketing, and whilst it's not super rewarding work, it's kinda easy, overpaid for the effort, and you can set up shop from anywhere in the world as long as you have a laptop and an internet connection. You can just learn as you go, fake it til you make it. My lowest paying clients send me about 60 Euros an hour, and that's really on the lower end... if you set up as an "agency" and use offshore pajeets to do the heavy lifting you can actually charge double that and you'll still be able to undercut other firms on price

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Solid advice, thanks for your effort. Problem is that I'm not really interested in anything IT related except possibly security, so becoming a medfag is likely my goal. Doctors are almost always in demand after all, and I'd have a good excuse to move to some rural islamic shithole, get a young pretty wife and try not to get myself killed in the process.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fair mang. Becoming a doctor is quite the undertaking. I'm fucking lazy and just want a chilled life but with money, lol. Good luck to you

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cheers luv, I'll do my utmost.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you don't seem like a happy person

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                he meant you have the same number of tanks as the UK, not Russia.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know, but he worded it poorly so I latched on to that.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're from Finland? Why are you dribbling on about our armed forces, we're bros and train together. Also you spend like a quarter of the amount we do, so we'll be carrying you anyway. Our armed forces are in pretty good shape for what we are specialised in doing, so all seems well. Good luck with your NATO bid

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is a certain fin on PrepHole who is fueled by nothing but hubris

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >slip info the sea
                >bettter races
                kek you sound like russian media but with none of the charisma or social skills. if the crippling autism wasn’t holding you back you could have had a cushy job.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons etc etc. We're fine. The main reason we had any tanks in any numbers at all was to defend Germany because they couldn't be bothered, we weren't intending to park them in Dover.

                "Everyone else will do everything for them", who is "everyone else"?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we are a leading aerospace and weapons manufacturer, a banking hub, and a high tech exporter/R&D hub. I mean every single phone/mobile chip licenses UK tech, all your in-flight refuelling systems come from us, the new engines for the B-52 comes from us, yadda yadda. We are, however, coming off being the biggest empire in the history of the world, so the decline is pretty much a constant fact of post-colonial life. Our military is a small, professional force with an emphasis on special operations, raiding forces, and so on. We're surrounded by water and won't be involved in defensive sweeping tank battles any time soon, so having a massive fleet of tanks serves no real purpose aside from occasionally merking slavshit in the sandbox.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know, but that is how many they wil upgrade to Challanger 3.
                Also, they have some number in storage in Germany at a place called Sennelager and they have 75 in 'long term storage'.

                I assume they'll use some of these for spare parts.
                But since they never sold any Challenger 2 they could refubish even the ones in long term storage and send them to Ukraine.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Remember, the "armored fist" the "steel wave" that broke the Russian lines and caused the rout in the Kharkov offensive was composed of: 15 tanks

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                UK has two armored brigades in their current force structure. There is an equivalent of 3 tank battalions which is ~150 tanks. They can replace 100% of their active force. Look up army 2020 ORBAT.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              fyi, 386 Chally 2's were delivered to the Brits of which 227 are operational. If they cut down to 148 as they plan it means they can ship off 52 Chally 2's to Ukraine and still retain another 148 Chally 2's in reserve to make up potential losses in a conflict.

              So, yeah, cope I guess.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the British are ever in a hot war then they've got the US backing them. If comes to that we've got more spare Abrams than the Brits have tank crews.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We don't need to be good at anything because daddy will take care of us.
                Yes, this is what most nations start to say shortly before they stop existing entirely. Countless examples in history.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Britain is practically a US vassal by this point anyway. Any remaining sovereignty is merely for show; essentially to keep the idiot masses subdued.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T. Russian

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, bong actually. Pro-Ukie too.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just like when the USA fought side by side Britain in the Falkla- oh wait. Nevermind.

                No I would rather we not rely on American "help". The Ukraine war is a textbook example of what American guarantees amount to.
                >we’ll give you a dozen howitzers, 50 IFVs, some tube artillery, and lots of thoughts and prayers.
                >please don’t strike enemy targets within Russia. ThAT miGHt PrOvOKE ThEm!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, NATO totally does not work! No one is sending help to Ukraine and there are no troops covering the partners in easter Europe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not talking about NATO, you strawmanning gay. I’m talking about American empty promises of protecting Ukraine and offering NATO membership. Ukraine has been strung along since 1997 with membership to NATO, back when Canada first tabled the proposal they should join. Imagine that, had the USA not hemmed and hawed for 20 years, back when that drunkard Yelstin was running the show, and the RuAF was in even worse shape than it is now, Ukraine wouldn’t have been destroyed.

                >US didn’t immediately directly intervene with force when R*ssia invaded a non-NATO member. This means they won’t help anyone!

                If the russhits had invaded say Poland or Lithuania and the US did nothing you’d have a legitimate point, but they didn’t so you have none.

                The USA guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty back in the 90’s. Don’t be a moron when people call out your government’s failure to protect Ukraine. If you want to play world police then act the part. Even the training mission prior to this latest round of fighting, from 2014-present day was anemic and halfhearted. 150 trainers? pffft. Now they expect us to get hyped about 50 Bradleys after a whole year of fighting?
                No, American promises really mean fuck all. In these past 20 years we’ve seen the USA throw Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine to the wolves, with many more examples before that. Fucking hell, the first thing the US did for Ukraine after pulling out its trainers?
                >you can come live in exile here in the US, Mr. Zelensky :^)
                So helpful.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why is the US obligated to give them anything? Let alone defend them. Or why are they obligated to even offer NATO membership?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >US didn’t immediately directly intervene with force when R*ssia invaded a non-NATO member. This means they won’t help anyone!

                If the russhits had invaded say Poland or Lithuania and the US did nothing you’d have a legitimate point, but they didn’t so you have none.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the British are ever in a hot war then they've got the US backing them. If comes to that we've got more spare Abrams than the Brits have tank crews.

                Brits rely on their navy/air force for defence, the tanks are purely for recreational offensive warfare

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the tanks are purely for recreational offensive warfare
                lmao, pretty much.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do the numbers keep getting larger as we go further back in time? What is happening?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They ditched the Army of the Rhine.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ever heard of the end of the cold war you massive troglodyte

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because the Brits used to have almost all of their tank force in Germany, and Chieftain was quite popular for export
          Tanks aren't much use to them at the far western edge of Europe

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          neoliberalism happened

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you have to be over 18 to post on PrepHole. Okay, guess this thread is dead now....

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Snow and high angled dirt piles

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      weeee

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like that Abrams could make it if it tried to get up the hill at an angle.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like that Abrams could make it if it tried to get up the hill at an angle.

      you can clearly see that the driver put on the brakes and then slid down

      also you can clearly see that that's not the first time they tried to clear the hill

      very likely that the problem there isn't traction so much as it is a lack of sufficient speed/inertia at the bottom of the hill - the snow is going to be compacted into ice under a vehicle that heavy pretty much regardless of the slope - pile up some near the bottom of the hill with a 'dozer Abrams and bam, crossing's easy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are those parade tracks / road tracks? They look very smooth.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Black driver? Woman driver? Asian driver? Can we take bets?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      These dummies didn't even put their grouses on.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DJI drones guiding Krasnopol shells and also Kornets, the latter has taken out Leopard 2s in Syria and Abrams in Yemen

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      challenger has chobham armor tho

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd imagine quite a few things. The question is how many of them do they have and will they be near any of the places the challengers will be.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By the time you can train hohols to use them effectively it won't matter.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1 year anniversary of the 3 day SMO soon comrade! How you will you celebrate?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think we will celebrate by sending a combined battalion with one company each of Callanger2, Leo 2A5 and M1A1. And just to annoy the vatniks it will get crews trained in every NATO country and swedish command.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >swedish command.

          Sweden and Finland are not part of NATO and will never be because of Turkey.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's not even that. slavs are shit operators with their idgaf soviet doctorine.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MBT APFSDS will go through the side trivially, and a couple spots on the front (lower glacis, driver hatch position).
    Tandem heat will pen more or less anywhere.
    Artillery can mission kill the same way it does T-72s all the time.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Literally a recorded loss of the tank being penetrated in the front plate by a RPG-29 wielded by an Arab.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It hit the bottom of the lower glacis (which is just 60mm RHA) and injured the driver. The tank drove away and returned to combat after minor repairs. Since that, operational entry standard includes a block of Dorchester armour over the lower glacis plate.

      https://i.imgur.com/tYFH9gL.jpg

      seen here

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fair enough. However, what I understand is that most losses of armor on either side of this war were inflicted by artillery, and in it's eyes all are equal. Or, am I wrong.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus fucking christ bongs the Chally 2 IS THE WORST TANK OF NATO.

    It's litterally designed to be a moving pillbox lobbing HE shells at infantry to help it's own infantry progress. You know the other way around all other tanks are designed.
    The minute he meets with an ATGM (that russians have in all sorts of flavors) it's deader than your Queen.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Challenger is slower than other tanks in good conditions but it can do close to its top speed over shit terrain due to the suspension setup, so its tactical mobility isn't appreciably worse. It's about as fast as the Bradley, so depsite the greater speed of the Abrams it's not like US manoeuvre formations can cover ground faster.

      Also, being a bit slower going forwards than a T-72 is a much smaller problem than Soviet tanks (less the T-80) having a reverse speed slower than most glaciers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you make of this (from wikipedia). Is this basically just a meme (IE, it was just base model RPG7's)? Is a MILAN vaguely comparable to modern ATGMs? Genuinely want to know if anyone with some knowledge on this shit can weigh in.

      "During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[43] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[44]"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Challenger is slower than other tanks in good conditions but it can do close to its top speed over shit terrain due to the suspension setup, so its tactical mobility isn't appreciably worse. It's about as fast as the Bradley, so depsite the greater speed of the Abrams it's not like US manoeuvre formations can cover ground faster.

        Also, being a bit slower going forwards than a T-72 is a much smaller problem than Soviet tanks (less the T-80) having a reverse speed slower than most glaciers.

        Jesus fucking christ bongs the Chally 2 IS THE WORST TANK OF NATO.

        It's litterally designed to be a moving pillbox lobbing HE shells at infantry to help it's own infantry progress. You know the other way around all other tanks are designed.
        The minute he meets with an ATGM (that russians have in all sorts of flavors) it's deader than your Queen.

        Has the Defence Ministry been asking one guy for tank designs since the fucking 1910s or am I missing something
        >Takes a lot of hits
        >Lobs HE at pillboxes
        >designed to work for the infantry rather than the other way around
        >designed for bad terrain
        It's literally a Churchill but faster. I surprised the challenger 3s don't have machine gun sponsons

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That lightning fast shift of goalposts
          LMAO, warriortard on suicide watch

          >designed to work for the infantry rather than the other way around
          That's the way it's supposed to be, Infantry is your most important asset, since only Infantry can stand on a street corner and eyeball the locals into submission. Absolutely everything is subordinate to getting him onto that street corner and keeping him there.
          There is literally nothing more important than Infantry in the entire armed forces. Everyone else is a supporting arm to help him close with and kill the enemy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>That lightning fast shift of goalposts
            >LMAO, warriortard on suicide watch
            I was asking a question about why the UK's tanks haven't changed in 100 years
            Who the fuck is warriorrtard
            >That's the way it's supposed to be, Infantry is your most important asset, since only Infantry can stand on a street corner and eyeball the locals into submission. Absolutely everything is subordinate to getting him onto that street corner and keeping him there.
            Okay but why do the tanks need to be able to support the infantry. Like American doctrine is more about keeping the two thing separate while UK doctrine seems pulled from WW1. The question is why has the Infantry tank doctrine survived over the cavalry tank doctrine.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              why are you even posting on PrepHole when you're this silly. Its like redditposting but Hispanicy

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Okay, so thats a conclusion drawn from your own opinions. Its a particularly idiotic opinion.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Like American doctrine is more about keeping the two thing separate while UK doctrine seems pulled from WW1
              It's not really, no manoeuvre warfare doctrine keeps the two separate. The German Panzergrenadiere/Soviet Motostrelki and mechanised infantry parts of the US ABCT system are all as integral to the operations of the tanks as the tanks are to the operations of the infantry.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > Combined arms doctrine is about keeping tanks and infantry seperate

              You have to go back

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The minute he meets with an ATGM
      You're not supposed to fight directly into ATGMs with tanks you non combined arms using vodka filled retard.
      turret_launch.mp4

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't know if they're any good but I always thought Bong post-war tanks look really cool.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > what does russia even have in its arsenal that can pen this?
    Literally every helicopter missile

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Have helicopters scored a single tank kill since the early war? Pop-up ATGM attacks have been virtually non-existent

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any semi-modern ATGM will likely wreck it, Russian DU will pen the sides or fuck the mantlet, RPG-29 would pen the sides.
    They have plenty that can kill it, the catch is can they see the Challenger before it sees them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >RPG-29 would pen the sides
      OES kit includes ERA on top of a composite applique kit. The tandem would beat the ERA but the composite backing plate would probably be able to stop the main charge since it's the same as the RPG-7.
      Dorchester isn't as dominant against KE though, at realistic combat ranges most modern APFSDS would have a very high kill probability even from the front.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They can use those thousands of NLAWs they captured from Ukrainians who were too stupid to use them correctly

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      NLAWs are single use.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          all women are sizequeens i knew it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >igh in.
          >"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[43] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[44]"

          Thats a swede and not an ukie

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the intial Milan variants that the Iraqis had
            >530mm penetration
            MILAN is not exactly a top of the line ATGM even for it's time

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I garunfuckintee you that if you hit a modern T-72 variant with a Milan, even an old one, you will get at least a mission kill.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-72A yes, T-72B, no unless you hit a weakspot like the gun mantlet/trunnion area, drivers periscope area and lower plate
                And if any have Kontakt-1 mounted, nope

                https://i.imgur.com/2J5Gmms.png

                Picrelated is ROMOR-A ERA that was initially mounted on the front

                And on the later ERA mounted on the hull sides, no hard figures but we know it is from Rafael and they also license Armor Shield-R for the Abrams (known as M19 ARAT). The bolts on both tanks look suHispaniciously similar to each other

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ft. Campbell Abrams course specifically includes that hill obstacle to train drivers so they are less likely to screw up when in Germany. The scary part is downhill.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have to question the value of fewer than a dozen tanks, requiring their own unique supply lines and crew training, that weigh in excess of 70 tons in a country with an awful mud season. This all on top of having the worst armor penetration performance of any NATO 120mm, a terminally underpowered engine for its weight, and being designed for the same defensive fighting as Chieftain. They might get some use out of it on the defensive, but expecting the most outdated tank in Western Europe to be a game changer for maneuver warfare will probably lead to disappointment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I expect them to end up parked in defensive reserve around Kyiv really, its just someone has to go first or the Germans get scared and will stop the Poles from doing it.

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