it brings the FCS and ammunition into NATO standards which chally 2 lagged behind before. It is still the least mobile by a wide margin.
many consider it the best protected NATO MBT which is kind of bullshit. Main armor array is probably the best but does not cover the whole frontal area - drivers hatch area has zero composite. In russian tanks this is considered a major design flaw but british tank - A OK! Leopard 2 does not have this problem.
Lower glacis also has no composite (fixable by bolting 9 tonnes of applique shit on and reducing your tank to the power/weight as a 1950s M48 - just lol)
Also very little info on the ready rack size or ammo storage situation. Not advertised which usually means not great since they now have to shoehorn much larger rounds into a hull not designed for them.
this is such a meaningless anecdote. Was it a first round hit? was it moving? was the firer moving? If i just sat on a range plinking at a bucket for hours before finally hitting it does that make my rifle amazing?
the ability to find and quickly service a target is far more important and is what is used in gunnery training/competition. No amount of spamming this shitty cope meme parroted by butthurt british tank commanders after getting fucking owned by older tanks so hard in CAT87 that they permanently quit and had to build a new tank (challenger 2) is going to change that.
it's better than the leopard and better than all but the most kitted out abrams. quit kidding. brits are delusional about their military might in basically every category, but the challenger really is a fantastic tank
Two piece ammo and subpar performance of CHARM-3 instantly makes it not the best. As far as I know the internal NERA array hasn't been upgraded. Meanwhile the abrams has four generations of armor development since the original Burlington arrays. Could mean that while good, the Dorchester armor is old and may not hold up to current threats. There's other issues that others will probably point out but those are two fairly big ones. Mainly the ammunition.
British tanks have had 120mm's since the 1950's. It's only very recently that 120mm rifled has started to show it's age and it's not mattered at all since they are still expecting to fight soviet shit. CR2 may only have a thermal built in for the gunner and night vision for the commander but it's been a non issue since pretty much all combat deployed Challenger 2's have been fitted with an RWS that includes a thermal sight.
>Lower hull is straight up homogenous RHA. >What is flank armour?
It's great if you have a compliant enemy that shoots at nothing but the front aspects of the turret. Sadly, IRL most shots come to the flanks, lower hull (mines) and shit gets ripped apart by artillery.
Currently? no because the current model is CR2, when CR3 arrives soon then yet it will be. This is due to the L55A1 gun with 20% more breach pressure than the regular L55 (and far more muzzle velocity than the L44). Combined with the fact the UK is fine shooting DU from tanks unlike German Leo's that get the same gun. It's already the best protected tank in NATO and it's getting a whole new generation of armour plus an APS. New generation of hydrogas suspension and increased power plus a whole new suite of sensors and systems for automatic spotting/tracking of targets.
CR3 is pretty much as good as current gen tanks will get before the arrival of the next wave of 130mm+ tanks gets here in a decade or two.
If you’re going to cope with that then I’d argue there isn’t a vast majority of western tanks. There’s really 4 relevant ones, and the challenger MIGHT be number 3.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>4 relevant ones
Abrahams, Leo, challenger and ??? K1?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Leo, Leo, Leo and Leo actually
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Possibly, yes, since the K1 is heavily based on the Abrams, which makes it based as fuck.
So. Is this thread full of tourists?
This is a warriortard thread. He has another two on the go as well.
Don't feed the tard. With a bit of luck he'll go away.
He’s on a rampage. He got really upset after getting BTFO in the falklands thread. He keeps trying to convince people that the falklands was more than just a small skirmish with less than 1,000 dead total. He is trying to shoehorn the conflict as being kino
>He’s on a rampage
Not the word I'd use. He's a sad, lonely, unlovable 'man', who's only interactions with women involve currency changing hands.
His whole life has been a waste of everyone's time.
Worse than that, one day he will realize this and top himself. And no one will even notice.
Not even here. Where (ironically) the only people who feel anything towards him reside.
Do you think shilling for British weapons all the time brings him peace? We should get the anti-warriortard dude who makes the threads detailing the problems of the warrior to stop posting for a while and see if warriortard can make his escape from here
Thats a Challenger 3, which isn't even in full production yet, let alone fielded.
Challenger 2, no. Its the worst of the M1, Leo 2 and Chally 2.
Heres your reminder that the Challenger 2 is overweight, underpowered, undergunned.
Two piece ammo, actually make that THREE piece ammo because you need a 12.7mm ignition charge.
Rifled barrel, which despite common belief, actually reduces the accuracy because Sabot rounds create their own spin with the fins and Sabot petal.
Also, ammo storage. Challenger 2 ammo is in wet stowage, exposed all around the tank.
Leopard 2 has 15 rounds protected by blowout panel and the rest exposed in the hull next to the driver.
M1 Abrams? All 42 rounds are protected by blow out panels, 35 rounds in bustle rack with blow out panels.
6 rounds behind Commander in a blow out panel compartment.
So no, Challenger 2 is not the best tank.
Would I rather be in a Challenger 2 than a Ukrainian T-64 though? Absolutely.
Forgot to mention the engine situation.
Regarding underpowered. M1 and Leo 2 both use 1500hp engines, with the Leo using Diesel and M1 Gas Turbine.
Challenger 2 uses a 1200hp diesel, despite being heavier than both Leo 2 and M1, Especially when you add ERA, Cage Armor etc etc.
ALSO, the Challenger 2 lower plate is 76mm thick, with no composite behind it.
M1 and Leopard 2 both have lower and upper front plate protection upwards of 400-500mm
Chally 2 Upper front plate is strong, but that lower plate weakness is not a joke.
>M1 Abrams? All 42 rounds are protected by blow out panels, 35 rounds in bustle rack with blow out panels.
6 rounds behind Commander in a blow out panel compartment.
People often overlook this. Thanks I will automatically focus on this and make a line of threads dedicated to this
Who cares? One thing for sure is that it's one beautiful-looking tank.
Reminder that the challenger 1 has the 2nd longest tank on tank gun kill in history, only bested by a UKranian t-64
Wasnt that T-64 used like a mobile artillery piece with spotters coordinating the shots in?
Yea. Really cool stuff
if it works, it works
it brings the FCS and ammunition into NATO standards which chally 2 lagged behind before. It is still the least mobile by a wide margin.
many consider it the best protected NATO MBT which is kind of bullshit. Main armor array is probably the best but does not cover the whole frontal area - drivers hatch area has zero composite. In russian tanks this is considered a major design flaw but british tank - A OK! Leopard 2 does not have this problem.
Lower glacis also has no composite (fixable by bolting 9 tonnes of applique shit on and reducing your tank to the power/weight as a 1950s M48 - just lol)
Also very little info on the ready rack size or ammo storage situation. Not advertised which usually means not great since they now have to shoehorn much larger rounds into a hull not designed for them.
this is such a meaningless anecdote. Was it a first round hit? was it moving? was the firer moving? If i just sat on a range plinking at a bucket for hours before finally hitting it does that make my rifle amazing?
the ability to find and quickly service a target is far more important and is what is used in gunnery training/competition. No amount of spamming this shitty cope meme parroted by butthurt british tank commanders after getting fucking owned by older tanks so hard in CAT87 that they permanently quit and had to build a new tank (challenger 2) is going to change that.
on a non-moving T-whatever that might have been abandoned, yeah.
no
>warriortard has entered the chat
Not only is it not, it's the worst of the big 3 Western tanks.
Well, trips don't lie.
Warriortard proceeds to samefag
What now?
seething
Do you not count the Leclerc? If so, why?
Good tank but operated by frogs unfortunately
Not just by the frogs. In fact, it has more users than the Challenger. Subsequently, more built as well.
it's better than the leopard and better than all but the most kitted out abrams. quit kidding. brits are delusional about their military might in basically every category, but the challenger really is a fantastic tank
How is better? Be specific
That’s not an Abrams
Well, he said best, so no shit its not an abrams.
Abrams is the best so it would make sense if he did say the abrams.
lol
lmao
interesting copeing mechanism
That’s not the Leopard 2
Two piece ammo and subpar performance of CHARM-3 instantly makes it not the best. As far as I know the internal NERA array hasn't been upgraded. Meanwhile the abrams has four generations of armor development since the original Burlington arrays. Could mean that while good, the Dorchester armor is old and may not hold up to current threats. There's other issues that others will probably point out but those are two fairly big ones. Mainly the ammunition.
Anon challenger three is swapping to standard Nato rounds. The rifled barrel is no more.
it looks like the tank has one of those flat chastity cages
Goddamnit.
How would that even work? Is this specifically for people with microdicks?
What are the tactical applications of X-ray technology?
It’s maybe 3rd
Not even close
>leo2 and m1 got CITV in the 90s
>leo2 and m1 got 120mm in the 80s
idk bro lets hear you opinion
British tanks have had 120mm's since the 1950's. It's only very recently that 120mm rifled has started to show it's age and it's not mattered at all since they are still expecting to fight soviet shit. CR2 may only have a thermal built in for the gunner and night vision for the commander but it's been a non issue since pretty much all combat deployed Challenger 2's have been fitted with an RWS that includes a thermal sight.
The L3s fielded by our brave boys overseas
One of the toughest one for sure. Bit too heavy tho and until the 3 rolls out that rifled barrel is a flaw
>Toughest
>Lower hull is straight up homogenous RHA.
>What is flank armour?
It's great if you have a compliant enemy that shoots at nothing but the front aspects of the turret. Sadly, IRL most shots come to the flanks, lower hull (mines) and shit gets ripped apart by artillery.
I miss West Germany
That said, frontal aspect really does take the most hits, flank armour is for if you fuck up even more than normal
>Best western tank currently fielded
Someone hasn't been Gavinpilled yet.
Currently? no because the current model is CR2, when CR3 arrives soon then yet it will be. This is due to the L55A1 gun with 20% more breach pressure than the regular L55 (and far more muzzle velocity than the L44). Combined with the fact the UK is fine shooting DU from tanks unlike German Leo's that get the same gun. It's already the best protected tank in NATO and it's getting a whole new generation of armour plus an APS. New generation of hydrogas suspension and increased power plus a whole new suite of sensors and systems for automatic spotting/tracking of targets.
CR3 is pretty much as good as current gen tanks will get before the arrival of the next wave of 130mm+ tanks gets here in a decade or two.
Alongside the Arete, it's one of the worst actually.
In your hearts, you know this is true.
No
No, but it’s good enough. Which is everything that matters in reality.
>Rifled gun
>Three-piece ammunition
No but it's not bad either. Worth mentioning it has one of if not the the best track record.
How does the challenger 2, the tank that’s only seen minimal combat, have the best record? It’s never even seen a t-72 in its history
What western tank has? It's seen more combat than the vast majority of western MBTs.
Abrams has seen an order of magnitude more combat than challenger 2
One tank isn't the vast majority of MBTs.
If you’re going to cope with that then I’d argue there isn’t a vast majority of western tanks. There’s really 4 relevant ones, and the challenger MIGHT be number 3.
>4 relevant ones
Abrahams, Leo, challenger and ??? K1?
Leo, Leo, Leo and Leo actually
Possibly, yes, since the K1 is heavily based on the Abrams, which makes it based as fuck.
Leclerc
So. Is this thread full of tourists?
This is a warriortard thread. He has another two on the go as well.
Don't feed the tard. With a bit of luck he'll go away.
He’s on a rampage. He got really upset after getting BTFO in the falklands thread. He keeps trying to convince people that the falklands was more than just a small skirmish with less than 1,000 dead total. He is trying to shoehorn the conflict as being kino
>He’s on a rampage
Not the word I'd use. He's a sad, lonely, unlovable 'man', who's only interactions with women involve currency changing hands.
His whole life has been a waste of everyone's time.
Worse than that, one day he will realize this and top himself. And no one will even notice.
Not even here. Where (ironically) the only people who feel anything towards him reside.
Do you think shilling for British weapons all the time brings him peace? We should get the anti-warriortard dude who makes the threads detailing the problems of the warrior to stop posting for a while and see if warriortard can make his escape from here
Nice try Best Western advertising department. We can see right through you shills.
Are you going to post this same image in all of your bait threads, retard?
Thats a Challenger 3, which isn't even in full production yet, let alone fielded.
Challenger 2, no. Its the worst of the M1, Leo 2 and Chally 2.
Heres your reminder that the Challenger 2 is overweight, underpowered, undergunned.
Two piece ammo, actually make that THREE piece ammo because you need a 12.7mm ignition charge.
Rifled barrel, which despite common belief, actually reduces the accuracy because Sabot rounds create their own spin with the fins and Sabot petal.
Also, ammo storage. Challenger 2 ammo is in wet stowage, exposed all around the tank.
Leopard 2 has 15 rounds protected by blowout panel and the rest exposed in the hull next to the driver.
M1 Abrams? All 42 rounds are protected by blow out panels, 35 rounds in bustle rack with blow out panels.
6 rounds behind Commander in a blow out panel compartment.
So no, Challenger 2 is not the best tank.
Would I rather be in a Challenger 2 than a Ukrainian T-64 though? Absolutely.
Forgot to mention the engine situation.
Regarding underpowered. M1 and Leo 2 both use 1500hp engines, with the Leo using Diesel and M1 Gas Turbine.
Challenger 2 uses a 1200hp diesel, despite being heavier than both Leo 2 and M1, Especially when you add ERA, Cage Armor etc etc.
ALSO, the Challenger 2 lower plate is 76mm thick, with no composite behind it.
M1 and Leopard 2 both have lower and upper front plate protection upwards of 400-500mm
Chally 2 Upper front plate is strong, but that lower plate weakness is not a joke.
It's a bait thread anon.
Well then I got played like a damn fiddle.
Enjoy my tank spergout anyway
I did, it's ok tho.
>M1 Abrams? All 42 rounds are protected by blow out panels, 35 rounds in bustle rack with blow out panels.
6 rounds behind Commander in a blow out panel compartment.
People often overlook this. Thanks I will automatically focus on this and make a line of threads dedicated to this
Not even the best British tank in use today.
Is the Shame Tank the best? No.
Just no.
Name one Russian or Chinese tank that would survive contact with a Challenger 2. I’ll wait (forever).
Reminder that this gay still uses a rifled barrel in 2023