new chally armor

contract has been signed for challenger 3's New Modular Armor. internal EPSOM and external composite Farnham, which replaces Dorchester.
https://forces.net/technology/land-vehicles/contract-deliver-new-modular-armour-system-challenger-3-main-battle-tank

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

    info

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    According to WarThunder it weighs 10t and provides only 30mm of protection.
    Maybe next time Bongs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >https://forces.net/technology/land-vehicles/contract-deliver-new-modular-armour-system-challenger-3-main-battle-tank
      Challenger3 isn't even in WT.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://wiki.warthunder.com/Challenger_3_TD
        It is actually.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thank God I left that shit game.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          well if 2s38 is, why not challenger 3

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >trusting WT as a source
      Wouldn't surprise me if people actually did this.

      This tbh.
      The fact that they're essentially putting lipstick on a pig instead of upgrading to a modern tank means they aren't serious about their armor.

      Like what? No tank out there is a big enough upgrade to be worth changing over to. What they should be doing is building new hulls (with relevant upgrades) to go along with the new turrets, which would have the added benefit of fleshing out the armored corps which have been neglected the past so many years.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Leopard or Abrams obviously.
        The Challenger 2 hull is a dead end because the armor layout has massive gaps and it's impossible to upgrade the engine. All the extra weight from the Challenger 3 modernization is going to make it even worse. It's an overweight and slow tank that has poor protection on top of that.
        Most of the Challenger 2's problems won't be fixed with a new turret, the Challenger 3 will be on par with the M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 in a best case scenario, that's terrible for a 2023 modernization.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >because the armor layout has massive gaps
          This is the first I'm hearing about it. Enlighten me.
          >It's an overweight and slow tank
          It's as heavy as the latest Abrams, as fast off-road and slightly slower on road. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

          >the invasion of iraq 2003 is the challenger 2s only combat history other than getting wrecked in Ukraine and pulled back
          grim

          As compared to, say, the Leopard 2, which got wrecked in Syria and then wrecked in Ukraine. Or the Abrams which suffered losses in the middle east and has yet to see combat in Ukraine. Don't throw stones from glass houses.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is the first I'm hearing about it. Enlighten me
            Don't play dumb, it's so well known that literally the next post mentioned it.

            https://i.imgur.com/n6nNewT.jpg

            its honestly pretty funny that the only way they could think of having the driver periscope work was carving a massive channel through the frontal armor

            what the frick were they thinking, combine with the complete lack of armor on the lower front plate. how does this leave the drawing board???? its not the kind of thing that slapping a german turret ontop fixes. the only reason they even need the new turret is to try and unfrick themselves from the 3 piece ammo situation they're in

            >It's as heavy as the latest Abrams
            With a significantly weaker engine and significantly weaker armor protection!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >armored corps which have been neglected the past so many years.

        read accounts from swedes training with british tankers in the cold war. pretty fricking GRIM. Lets read: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/the-british-army-of-the-rhine-in-1973-how-bad-was-it.582421/

        >During the trials (both the fixed situations intended to compare the strv 103 and the Chieftain and the bigger field exercise), the observers noted many behaviors that seemed odd or downright bizarre. As mentioned, one of these was the great width used within British platoons. In several of the fixed situation trials (especially on the defense) this led one of the tanks on either flank getting isolated, overrun and destroyed. Focusing fire was rarely possible, which led to most situations ending up as duels. In one of the trials, the observers note the entire thing as "a great example of how this type of battle should not be fought".

        people talk a lot about COIN rot in modern western armies. but its been like this for a loooong time

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's always funny how these pointless countries that never fight in wars always seem to think they're good at them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But enough about the bongs

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >spacebattles
          Thank you for the added confirmation, panzerfeist1.
          That'll go in the list.

          >Outed himself as poor
          Factory worker with a toolbag from Amazon, got caught replying to himself about his cool bag ($15 amazon) Tradies bullied him really bad.
          >Doxxed his own wiki
          Got caught editing the Bradley wiki and outed himself as Loafiewa, profile lists as Autistic loner. Change the location to Kent to cover his tracks.
          >Doxxed his own Twitter
          Filled with posts asking Jake Paul to notice him, posting fart fettishes and asking if other people can fart on command also looks at male dicks and wants to move to Canada.
          >Posts his wifes OF images and requests
          Shes a fat prostitute thats forced to sell her self online
          >Posts fat out of shape Dog
          Basically animal cruelty in an image, it was fat and pathetic resembling a wooden beer barrel.
          >Has been obsessed with the British and the mighty Warrior for over 6 years
          Guess Jake Paul isnt the only one he wants to notice him.

          Try not to be mean to this anon, he's the most pathetic poster here. Who else could spare 8 hours a day for the past 5 years doing this?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            im not the famous namegay you guys keep going on and on about. way to address the post though

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.forces.net/nato/challenger-2-tank-wins-nato-competition-ahead-leopard-and-abrams-tanks
          it's hilarious you post shit this dumb

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >forces.net
            awesome!

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              are you implying that the source means that the NATO Iron Spear 2023 competition just didn't happen

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it was one gunnery event for time lol

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes it's much less relevant than your post about the [Cheiftan] in the [80s] amirite
                honestly I sometimes wish we would reconquer some browns just to get you all to collectively shut the frick up for 5 minutes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                my account included a gunnery exercise though and even showed the scores before and after retraining as well as commentary on many other tactical tasks not just the bare minimum gunnery table

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                your account of the chieftan in the 80s in a thread about the challenger 3?
                Every time I climb off your mum she gives me a high five but you don't see me referencing it in this thread as even with her very thick frontal armour she's not relevant to the chally either

                I guess when it comes down to it, If you had to bet your life, limb, and eyesight on which tank would come out on top of a tank duel, I dont think anyone in their right mind would pick the challenger 2

                probably something with APS, modern sensors, and has had its internal armor upgraded since 2000

                which tank out there has penned the armour of the chally 2 exactly? It's been exposed to enemy tanks. You seem to think "it's not literally the best tank ever made" is some kind of L.
                Like, it's an upgrade of an old design by a small island nation with no land borders, where's the pressure to make it the best tank ever made

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >where's the pressure to make it the best tank ever made

                its the worse tank ever made

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you bait too hard here anon. It's maybe the fourth best tank ever made. I'll give you the 3rd best if we look at actual combat record

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not even the fourth best tank made in Britain.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So that's what?
                >Centurion
                >Challenger 1
                >Challenger 2
                >M1 Abrams
                >Chieftain

                The frick are Anglos so good at making tanks?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Your mom is the "worse" tank ever made.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the iron spear is the end all be all of evaluations
                >ignore the Greek trials that evaluated the challenger 2 against other western MBTs
                The Greek trials are like kryptonite to bongs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Kek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In late 1998, the Hellenic Army (Greece) conduct tests of the firepower and mobility (not the armoured protection) of the French Leclerc, the Leopard 2 A5 (they used the Swedish Strv 122) Russian T-80U, Ukrainian T-84 and the British Challenger 2E.
                The Greeks scored the Leopard 2A5 – 78.65% the M1A2 Abrams – 72.21% the Leclerc – 72.03%; and the CR2E – 69.19%

                >Challenger 2 literally scored an F

                >runs away to create a warrior thread after this thread failed
                >it gets deleted
                >comes back and starts samegayging to try and revive it
                The absolute state

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In late 1998, the Hellenic Army (Greece) conduct tests of the firepower and mobility (not the armoured protection) of the French Leclerc, the Leopard 2 A5 (they used the Swedish Strv 122) Russian T-80U, Ukrainian T-84 and the British Challenger 2E.
                The Greeks scored the Leopard 2A5 – 78.65% the M1A2 Abrams – 72.21% the Leclerc – 72.03%; and the CR2E – 69.19%

                >Challenger 2 literally scored an F

                ah yes, the infamous 26 year old greek trials that get posted on /k/ every day; this makes all the other points about the succesful combat record of the vehicle and the context of it's very low importance as a locally produced tank manufactured in small numbers for use occasionally blatting slavshit in the sandbox irrelevant.
                Truly the island that invaded over 60% of the worlds soverign countries and invented everything from the aircraft carrier, sonar, radar, jet engines, ejector seats, gyro gunsights, proximity fuses, to stun grenades, the entire concept of special forces, etc. etc. are actually really bad at everything and are stomped on by other countries like (UNKNOWN)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why do Brits take it so personally?
                Just admit the Challenger 2 is shit, you don't have to bring up a bunch of PrepHole shit to deflect.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Just admit the Challenger 2 is shit
                But it's not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ok fine, it's a decent tank, but by far the worst western MBT due to British incompetence and poverty.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but by far the worst western MBT
                Nope. It's a good tank. One of the best.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Laughable

                Why is it important to you that he "admit" that the Chally 2 is "shit"?

                Because, in reality, it served just fine.

                It's the truth, you're being delusional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's the truth, you're being delusional.
                Okay, but why is it so important to you that it be "admitted"?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why is it so important for you to defend it?
                But to answer you it annoys me when people deny reality.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the challenger 2 is bad because it just is okay? just admit it?
                Maybe people would accept your "reality" if you could justify it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Why is it so important for you to defend it?
                I'm not defending it. I'm largely here to mock you for behaving like a child.

                >But to answer you it annoys me when people deny reality.
                Do you not realize that hinging your emotions on the thoughts/feelings of other makes you a slave to their opinions and not your own?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not defending it.

                Why is it important to you that he "admit" that the Chally 2 is "shit"?

                Because, in reality, it served just fine.

                Sad tbh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it served just fine
                An accurate observation is neither a defense nor a critique. It is an observation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed.
                I observe the Challenger is poorly designed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's like demanding that people concede that red is blue, over and over, every day

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed it is, literal insanity.
                It wasn't so bad on this board before, /k/ always shat on the L85, Challenger, etc, but ever since warriortard buck broke the Brits, they defend every piece of bad or mediocre equipment like they're being paid for it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I meant it gets defended simply because there's really nothing wrong with it yet this thread appears constantly. /k/ never had a histroy of shitting on the challenger, I've been posting here since the board was first added to the site. Hence these threads are just "red is blue, admit it".
                It would be like if there was a thread every day shitting on the AR platform, constantly filled with shit that wasn't true, and every mention od the AR was spammed with the same replies, day in, day out. It's like dealing with flat earthers, they generate endless replies of people patiently sharing photos of the horizon, for eternity, because they're sure that the other person is mistaken and not insane or moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I meant it gets defended simply because there's really nothing wrong with it
                Come on anon, you don't really believe that.
                Anyway here's how these threads actually go.
                >post related directly or indirectly related to Challenger 2
                >flaws are pointed out
                >blatant denial of flaws
                >brazen assertion that actually the Challenger is amazing despite all the evidence to the contrary
                >shit posting mess ensues

                It's the assertion that the Challenger is an amazing tank that sets off shit posting because any 12 year old with access to Wikipedia can make posts pointing out all the things wrong with the Challenger.

                It's the same with the L85, Ramps, unnamed IFV, etc.
                There wouldn't be shitposting without delusional defenders.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >makes an argument
                >the argument is rebutted
                >seethes and begs everyone to just agree with him
                No.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                which real flaws have been pointed out?
                I mean nobody has even pointed out the rifled gun, which is a an actual proper flaw. The lack of active protection has come up only once which is another flaw. It's mainly been "its shit", talking about the fixed front glacis, talking about older tanks, pretending there's a hole cut in the armour, etc. It's just spam that traps people who think it's just someone being moronic.
                As for the L85, it's just spamming about the A1, which traps people trying to explain it was redesigned, regarding the FRICKING RAMPs, again people assume the poster doesn't know about the capacity for catapults and the EMALS debacle, they compare the bong carrier to the US ones rather than peer ones, etc. It's all just spam bait built around deliberately being moronic which traps exasperated repliers

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >More accurate gun is a 'proper flaw'.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its a flaw you moron, it's why the chally 3 doesn't have one.
                Honestly I feel trapped between seething bongs and sBlack personing yanks and armatard is pulling the strings, lol

                >I meant it gets defended simply because there's really nothing wrong with it
                Come on anon, you don't really believe that.
                Anyway here's how these threads actually go.
                >post related directly or indirectly related to Challenger 2
                >flaws are pointed out
                >blatant denial of flaws
                >brazen assertion that actually the Challenger is amazing despite all the evidence to the contrary
                >shit posting mess ensues

                It's the assertion that the Challenger is an amazing tank that sets off shit posting because any 12 year old with access to Wikipedia can make posts pointing out all the things wrong with the Challenger.

                It's the same with the L85, Ramps, unnamed IFV, etc.
                There wouldn't be shitposting without delusional defenders.

                >the AR platform:20 round mag??
                >jams constantly because of fouling with the WC 846 powder
                >the only rifle to not feature a cleaning kit
                >no chrome barrel on a rifle with no cleaning kit
                >what are the USA thinking?
                >flawed direct impingement system
                >blasting exhaust directly into the mechanism

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not to feed the confusion but half the time posts like

                >More accurate gun is a 'proper flaw'.

                are just armatard false flagging.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's a flaw that's why it's being replaced!!!!
                It's cheaper to run the better gun. It's not a matter of performance. The rifled gun has better performance, it's more accurate and offers more variety of munitions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >which real flaws have been pointed out?
                >I mean nobody has even pointed out the rifled gun, which is a an actual proper flaw.
                Well the thread was about armor, so that's mostly what was pointed out.
                Anyway if you want, the lower plate is still a weak spot even after add on armor, the cut out for the drivers hatch is also still a weak spot despite you trying to pretend it doesn't exist, and the manlet is also a large weak area (fixed on Challenger 3).
                If we want to list all flaws we would be here all day, like three (3)! piece ammo, rifled gun, weak engine that can't be upgraded without damaging the tank, thermal sight placement, etc.
                Same with the L85, even the reworked A2 is decidedly mediocre, heavy, and unergonomic (even more so than a typical bullpup).
                And with Ramps, pointing out the possibility of redesign does nothing to address the fact that the ramp is a massive limiting factor, with the shortest ranged F-35 and no fixed wing awacs.

                Everything in my post is fair and true, but bongs never want to admit to these things.
                It's not all bad, the Euro fighter is great for example, but there are many delusional bongs such as yourself that get upset and delusional when fair criticism is posted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NAYRT, but
                >still a weak spot
                how much does it matter?
                >is decidedly mediocre
                how much does it matter?
                >the ramp is a massive limiting factor
                you use the word "massive"
                quantify that - why is it a "massive" limiting factor instead of a "minor" or "minuscule" or downright "irrelevant" limiting factor?

                basically, the way these threads go is always
                >anything that's not 100% absolutely the best of the best of the best, SIR
                >is a MASSIVE and UTTERLY DEVASTATING WEAKNESS
                while ignoring the fact that nothing is perfect and the British Armed Forces is, despite its numbers and supposed MASSIVE WEAKnesses, still in reality in the top 5 of the world's most capable militaries

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i just wish they wouldn't pretend the challenger 2 is better than abrams m1a2, leopard 2a5, or even the t-90m to be honest

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We're not pretending. It literally is.
                According to service record and recent combat assessment, it is THE best tank.
                Sorry. Keep trying.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                wrong
                the Challenger is miles better than the T-90M and the equal of any Leopard

                Exactly what I'm saying, when forced with the reality, bongs deflect and try to say it doesn't matter.
                What's wrong with "yeah it's not great, but we'll get it done"? Does it always have to be denial and deflection?

                because it doesn't, and you're the one deflecting to say it matters when it doesn't
                >Does it always have to be denial and deflection?
                yes, because one always denies false and disingenuous allegations

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the Challenger is miles better than the T-90M
                why

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                because the T-90M has inferior optics, armour, likely even ammo

                >Equal to the Leopard
                Lmao, how? The leopard is fricking awful. Look at how it did in Syria. It's utterly pathetic and incapable compared to Challenger 2.

                >utterly pathetic and incapable
                you're using these exaggerated superlatives again, but you can't explain them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If it did do well in Syria, why did it do so poorly?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so poorly?
                define "poorly"
                how many were deployed, how many were destroyed, what were their objectives, under what circumstances were they damaged or destroyed, what did it allegedly do that other tanks wouldn't have done?

                has the challenger 2 thermal been upgraded since it was adopted? the russian tanks using imported and or modern FCS are probably a few generations ahead of the challenger at this point

                >has the challenger 2 thermal been upgraded
                yes
                >are probably
                so you don't know, you're simply guessing, and the exaggerated statements you make are based on baseless conjecture

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well more were lost than Challenger 2, I can definitely tell you that much.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                has the challenger 2 thermal been upgraded since it was adopted? the russian tanks using imported and or modern FCS are probably a few generations ahead of the challenger at this point

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes there was a UOR installation in 2009 and a properly integrated and certified upgrade in 2019 called TISP, but they only applied to a few dozen CR2s
                Both involved the installation of Catherine MegaPixel

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Equal to the Leopard
                Lmao, how? The leopard is fricking awful. Look at how it did in Syria. It's utterly pathetic and incapable compared to Challenger 2.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly what I'm saying, when forced with the reality, bongs deflect and try to say it doesn't matter.
                What's wrong with "yeah it's not great, but we'll get it done"? Does it always have to be denial and deflection?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                *faced with

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the cut out for the drivers hatch is also still a weak spot despite you trying to pretend it doesn't exist
                A literal Achilles heal

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >pretending there's a hole cut in the armour,

                the hole cut in the armour is infront of the drivers periscope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Laughable
                Not an argument.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's not even the worst western MBT, It's fine.
                It's not even an important weapon, like it's solely used to take part in foreign adventures around the world. It serves no defensive purpose to the UK. And it's not even going to exist very shortly as per the topic of the thread. You can say the Leclerc did better in the greek trials as an example, but the Leclerc wasn't actually shooting tanks in the sandbox and blatting whole columns of slavshit like the chally 2 was

                >aircraft carrier, sonar, radar, jet engines, ejector seats, gyro gunsights, proximity fuses, to stun grenades, the entire concept of special forces, etc. etc.
                This guy is always listing these same things as some type of own. Could you imagine if I listed all of the military tech the US produced just to shift goalposts

                It's not an own, it's just pointing out that these goons aren't in a position to criticise and need to wind themselves back into their brownbox. The USA are an order of magnitude more powerful and aren't even relevant. It's aimed at the homosexuals punching up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Why is it important to you that he "admit" that the Chally 2 is "shit"?

                Because, in reality, it served just fine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >aircraft carrier, sonar, radar, jet engines, ejector seats, gyro gunsights, proximity fuses, to stun grenades, the entire concept of special forces, etc. etc.
                This guy is always listing these same things as some type of own. Could you imagine if I listed all of the military tech the US produced just to shift goalposts

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the Brits developed all of this tech
                >this invalidates the tank trials
                >this explains why no other country in earth bought the challenger 2E

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They didn't buy the 2E because they're poor and it was too expensive.
                Realistically 90% of these countries are going to buy tanks that will never leave the parade grounds, so why spend more than you need?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They didn't buy the 2E because they're poor and it was too expensive.
                And because it scored dead last in the Greek tank trials

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which is a good thing, because obviously they wouldn't be able to afford it in the long run.
                Challenger 2 is too expensive for a poor country like Greece.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. T-80U and T-84 scored much, much worse. 40-something IIRC

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                again, why is this relevant? It has actual combat experience, why look at the nearest trial where it did bad when there's plenty of wars you could look at instead where it did well?
                >Have you SEEN the curve?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are plenty of market conditions that would explain that, mainly, Germany dropping about 1000 used Leo 2's on the market at about the same time or that the 1990's was the "end of history" and so on and so forth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah.
                >end of the cold war
                >huge amounts of reasonably modern tanks available for cheap
                >no pressing global threat
                Combine that with low production numbers and a higher cost, it never had much of a chance on the export market.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the only reason the Army adopted it is because thatcher forced them to in 1988

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which was a good move, given it's since had the best service record and recent competition performance of any tank of the current era!

                Thanks Thatcher!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I can't find any information substantiating this. Either way, it's a good tank and domestic production is good.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/21/business/thatcher-picks-british-tank-over-rival-american-model.html
                https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's a singular officer writing an opinion piece though? I only skim read it. Let me know if I missed your point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This left three main contenders – Germany’s Leopard 2, the US M1A1 Abrams, and Vickers Defence Systems’ (now BAE Systems) Challenger 2. We lived and breathed the project, discussing every aspect in minute detail time and again. In the end the recommendation of the HQDRAC staff officers was clear; Britain’s next tank should ideally be the Leopard 2, mainly for reasons of reliability, impressive mobility, and because of its 120mm smoothbore gun, which would give Britain ammunition compatibility and interoperability with our NATO allies (many of whom opted for Leopard 2) and the perceived advantages of economy of scale of production.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thank god somebody talked to sense into them. Look at the absolute state of Leopard 2 now. Challenger 2 has proved far more effective in combat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Could argue against the validity of one man's account of events but I won't. I think the benefits of domestic production and the fact it produced a good tank means it wasn't a mistake. But it's interesting to imagine a timeline where the UK bought Leopard 2s instead. I wonder if they would have swapped the composite array for a domestic one.

                Thank god somebody talked to sense into them. Look at the absolute state of Leopard 2 now. Challenger 2 has proved far more effective in combat.

                Stop baiting anon, you've been doing it all thread and everyone's bored of it. Both the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 have run into the same difficulties as of late.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you're trying to invalidate a real world combat record by pointing out that greece decided to continue fielding the leopard. The greeks really did decide to do that, nobody is arguing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Truly the island that invaded over 60% of the worlds soverign countries and invented everything from the aircraft carrier, sonar, radar, jet engines, ejector seats, gyro gunsights, proximity fuses, to stun grenades, the entire concept of special forces, etc. etc. are actually really bad at everything and are stomped on by other countries like (UNKNOWN)
                are you crying?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In late 1998, the Hellenic Army (Greece) conduct tests of the firepower and mobility (not the armoured protection) of the French Leclerc, the Leopard 2 A5 (they used the Swedish Strv 122) Russian T-80U, Ukrainian T-84 and the British Challenger 2E.
                The Greeks scored the Leopard 2A5 – 78.65% the M1A2 Abrams – 72.21% the Leclerc – 72.03%; and the CR2E – 69.19%

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Challenger 2 literally scored an F

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let me guess
                They whined about the gun being rifled even though that's been proven to give advantages for accuracy and munition options?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah and the joys of two pieces ammo. The international tank buying market settled this debate for us decades ago

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let me guess
                They whined about the gun being rifled even though that's been proven to give advantages for accuracy and munition options?

                The trials where BAE put a completely different engine in the tank without adjusting the transmission, and fired L23 tungsten APFSDS with hastily modified high-pressure charges, because Britain was never interested in producing new high-pressure charges for a round they stopped using for combat after 1991?

                You're a bunch of literal children.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reminds me of when NATO adopted an intermediary cartridge and forced everyone else to do it leading to most nations being stuck with an underpowered cartridge that everyone is now trying to escape from.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ahh so two piece ammo is only unpopular due to NATO conspiracy?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it's the European union keeping us down.
                If they hadn't made our tank look horrible, we would have sold thousands.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                is this a new double agent troll

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >babies first false flag
                Come on anon really?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it was just weirdly done

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NATO's pursuit for cheapness over quality is bad for everyone, yes.

                Ultimately, its impossible to unify arms between rich and poor nations without rich being forced to used cheaper arms.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                And here we are now with CR3 which has room in the turret for a 130 or 140mm autoloaded gun if required.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I never said it was the "end all be all". I said your waffle about a completely different tank 40 years ago had no relevance.
                Your post about the chally 2's failure to be selected by the Hellenic armed forces 26 years ago, on the other hand, is massive. Kryptonite indeed; every day it's ANOTHER post about the decision by Greece to stick with the Leopard. You can hardly even use /k/ nowadays for Greek army threads and the shamed bongs replying in them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The trials where BAE put a completely different engine in the tank without adjusting the transmission, and fired L23 tungsten APFSDS with hastily modified high-pressure charges, because Britain was never interested in producing new high-pressure charges for a round they stopped using for combat after 1991?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That seems to be what he's implying. He has been quite schizophrenic this thread, he also implied the invasion of Iraq didn't happen either. I don't think he's mentally well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          oh shit it's actually armatard

          im not the famous namegay you guys keep going on and on about. way to address the post though

          yes you are. fricking no one uses fricking space battles anymore, and you've been obsessed with the British for years now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        KF51

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Inaccurate source*~~) no proofs of armour protection xaxaxaxa (we'll still increase the weight though)

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger 3 Prototype will probably be shown for the first time tomorrow.
    There's an international conference on armoured vehicles being held in London by the MoD this week and a presentation on Challenger 3 is advertised as the main topic for Day 1.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      where will it show up? MOD website?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You fellas tire out the tard yet? It's tomorrow in ingerland, so I suppose can look forward to another rousing round of trying to have a chally thread while one man Too Cringe To Die derails

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        we never will until he kills himself or his poor wife does, but he seems to have given up on this thread at least, it's been quiet

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'll keep making threads about interesting stuff regardless of whether it happens to be on his no-no sperg list, all the same. But do take a moment to appreciate that he'll drive UK threads to 300 with or without your replies, so it doesn't necessarily pay to throw down at every available opportunity. I mean, I made this thread but I've only got 5-6 posts in it. If I had wasted my day sitting in the thread replying to a known degenerate, the post count would still look the same.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it doesn't necessarily pay to throw down at every available opportunity
            it's part of his narrative that we're wasting time replying to him. I can confirm that there are at least 3 other distinct anons besides myself who bash at him. I myself only fire off a couple of pastas and then bugger off. I certainly have much better things to do than entertain a complete loser.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really care for two reasons. first of all the British armored force is gutted and they barely maintain 200 MBTs, pretty sure its even less now. So it doesn't really matter if they had amazing next generation designs.

    second of all the challenger itself is an incredibly crusty design that lags far behind its contemporaries in upgrades, and they just need to get new hulls already. Obviously leopard 2a7+ would be more efficient

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This tbh.
      The fact that they're essentially putting lipstick on a pig instead of upgrading to a modern tank means they aren't serious about their armor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      [...]

      Army 2030 killed the British army and no one can convince me otherwise RFA is the only reason the Royal Navy maintains relevance

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >RFA is the only reason the Royal Navy maintains relevance
        True, and it’s hilarious because the RFA is such a complete shitshow. As a merchant mariner I get bombarded with targetted advertising trying to get us to take contracts with them for their dogshit pay.
        They’re desperate for manning, so will likely go back to the pre Falklands system where foreign mariners could crew the RFA, which is going to make the RN pop a fricking blood vessel.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This tbh.
      The fact that they're essentially putting lipstick on a pig instead of upgrading to a modern tank means they aren't serious about their armor.

      >Breaking news: Island nation with a focus on expeditionary warfare disfavors heavy armor.

      You dont need MBT's to slot floppies in some former colony and if you're in a big conventional fight with a near-peer, you're doing it alongside Americans (who have lots of tanks).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        maaaasive goalpost shift

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >maaaasive goalpost shift
          How is responding to a post about the Bong's new ORBAT and the low-priority placed on MBT's in said ORBAT a goalpost shift?

          Indeed it is, literal insanity.
          It wasn't so bad on this board before, /k/ always shat on the L85, Challenger, etc, but ever since warriortard buck broke the Brits, they defend every piece of bad or mediocre equipment like they're being paid for it.

          I see you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger3 is technically superior to the 50 year old Leopard2 and it's 2a7 upgrade.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So is the Challenger 3 program. I don't see your point. The UK should absolutely buy at least 300 Leopard 2A7s to supplement the 148 tanks they're upgrading. I'd wager that if the UK killed all the Pakis infesting their lands and raping their children, and sold their organs in the black market, they'd make enough money to afford the extra budget needed.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why would we buy inferior Leopard Tanks?
          Challenger has proven itself a more effective platform than Leopard in trials and service. There's no reason to opt for an inferior vehicle.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Even if you support the idea of the UK purchasing foreign tanks I feel now is the exact wrong time to do it. We're on the cusp of a new generation of tanks, with APS technology maturing and drones carving out their role on the battlefield. Whether that's the KF51, the AbramsX, MGCS or whatever might come after, there is a new generation of tanks approaching. Large orders for existing designs doesn't feel wise in an environment that's changing so rapidly.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Whether that's the KF51, the AbramsX, MGCS or whatever might come after
            Sure, I agree. Those would be even better than the Leo 2A7.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But we have Challenger 3 that's probably going to be better than all of those?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >still falseflagging because your thread failed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Is the Challenger 3 gonna be outfitted with APS? Cause there's no point on modernizing the Chally 2s or even buying a new tank, in other countries's case, if they're not gonna ship out of the factory with APS installed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah?
                Obviously? It's the Challenger 3. We're not Germany, we don't make shit tanks.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's gonna use the Trophy APS, right? Have the small hat people develop a top facing module for it yet? Hell, given that Russia is still gonna be the main use-case for the Chally 3, do the Russians even have a top-attack ATGM?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think we're all pretty underwhelmed by what Russia is offering and seriously reconsidering what the purpose of the tank is in a battlefield where the best the enemy has is a T-72 with a bodykit on it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They awarded a 20 million pound contract to Rafael to integrate Trophy APS. Passed the assessment phase last year and is going into the demonstration phase this year. So yes and it's probably gonna be Trophy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why buy a tank that is 50 years old? Even the Germans are working on replacements with KF51 and the joint design with the French.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The UK should absolutely buy at least 300 Leopard 2A7s
          They wouldn't be able to operate that many anyway
          Because of the Channel the logistics pressure of operating tanks on the Continent means that the British Army probably can field only 60 tanks in 1 armoured brigade on the Continent, even if there are more operational tanks back home
          Budgetary pressures impact all the European nations; even France and Germany, the land-based powerhouses of the Continent, can realistically field at best 100 tanks each (IF that many)

          Even if you support the idea of the UK purchasing foreign tanks I feel now is the exact wrong time to do it. We're on the cusp of a new generation of tanks, with APS technology maturing and drones carving out their role on the battlefield. Whether that's the KF51, the AbramsX, MGCS or whatever might come after, there is a new generation of tanks approaching. Large orders for existing designs doesn't feel wise in an environment that's changing so rapidly.

          the UK definitely has the industrial capability to build their own tanks, but the big question is what kind of tank should they build?

          Why buy a tank that is 50 years old? Even the Germans are working on replacements with KF51 and the joint design with the French.

          Is the Challenger 3 gonna be outfitted with APS? Cause there's no point on modernizing the Chally 2s or even buying a new tank, in other countries's case, if they're not gonna ship out of the factory with APS installed.

          IMHO the British should be looking at the EMBT right now.

          the big problem is that nobody knows what the Tank Of The Future looks like, and the Euros are watching each other and waiting to see which way they'll spring, keeping in mind that whatever design they choose has to be viable for the next 40 years
          dare any of you bet ten billion dollars on what land warfare in 2064 will be like?

          US got BRL-1 which was upgraded to BRL-2. Starting with the M1A1HA it was heavy armor package which was probably BRL-2 with DU I'm fairly sure. We don't know if the NERA array was upgraded alongside with 2nd gen DU for the HAP-2 package, ditto for HAP-3. SEPV3 and the M1E3 would have NGAP which I think is a heavily modernized array + 4th gen DU. AFAIK the challenger was Dorchester and I don't think the armor was ever upgraded to newer arrays, if it was it wasn't disclosed that I've seen. The newer arrays for the challenger 3 should be pretty good, I don't know if they would use DU reinforcement however.

          >if it was it wasn't disclosed
          yeah the various Theatre Entry Standard specs are all over the fricking place
          >I don't know if they would use DU reinforcement
          the British have used DU plates in the past, why would they not this time?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the British have used DU plates in the past, why would they not this time
            I know they’ve used DU sabots but what DU armor are you talking about?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              my bad, I went back and rechecked my notes; it's DU rounds and Chobham plates
              sorry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nobody knows what the Tank Of The Future

            One thing I always wonder if the Armata is, at least conceptually, the way of the future. It's obviously fricked due to Russian poverty and production standards but what if a Western country took and applied the same principles with Western tech (3 man hull-based crew, unmanned autoloading turret, sensors/cameras as primary external input)? Seems only the Abrams X has embraced this approach fully and the M1E3/Chally 3 will be a more conservative design

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              that's one concept

              what if the Tank Of The Future is actually a fast 45-tonner with only minimal artillery splinter protection and IFV-tier resistance against RPG shots, the bulk of its defensive and offensive capabilities being laser APS and swarms of loitering missiles and UGVs?
              >ie somebody pulls a carrier doctrine on tanks

              do you want to be stuck building land battleships in "1940" (2030) when everyone else has gone carriers, with the prospect of either ditching everything and paying massive recapitalisation costs, or living with your choice until "1980" (2060)?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              The issue with the unmanned turret is situational awareness. As we just saw with that T-90M peppered with 25mm, even if nothing penetrated it, it sufficiently knocked out it's optics that it couldn't fire effective shots back. Hypothetically if that tank wasn't abandoned and was able to retreat the commander could poke his head out and still have the old mk. 1 eyeball to use. Doesn't work in a capsule tank covered in cameras, especially if the turret access is restricted. Plus I don't think cameras can allow humans to use depth perception as well yet either. Redundancy is a huge part of military procurement and I'll tell you right now that the while the Abrams X is cool the army was absolutely not interested in the unmanned turret.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                RHAe is dumb imo. You can't replicate the complex interactions between penetrators and NERA arrays with RHAe. Basic b***h NERA from the 80s (the burlington/chobham shit mentioned above) was multiple spaced plates angled and layered so that you'd need to pass through 4 or 5 plates before hitting the thick backplate. These spaced plates are designed to bulge and bend as a penetrator passes through. The meme here is to either snap the penetrator by applying enough longitudal stress or yaw it enough to significantly reduce it's effectiveness all while damaging and abrading down the penetrator. These interactions are why composites have great mass efficiency, they aren't just putting mass in front of an object to stop it, they're actively applying highly destabilizing effects, hence the "reactive" part of non explosive reactive armor (NERA). This yawing shit is a big part of the leopard 2's "wedge" armor on the frontal turret.

                For chemical energy weapons like shaped charges etc. it's the same, the bulging and bending of the plates fricks with the geometry of the jets combined with the air gapes between the plates enough to really hurt the jets penetration. Something like a Kornet that's claimed to be able to pierce 1400mm of steel looks amazing on paper, remember than that might be severely degraded against complex NERA that will not allow the jet to form properly as it would with a block of steel. The same way a block of steel can only abrade a kinetic penetrator and not be able to yaw or stress it from angles that would cause failure.

                >nobody knows what the Tank Of The Future

                One thing I always wonder if the Armata is, at least conceptually, the way of the future. It's obviously fricked due to Russian poverty and production standards but what if a Western country took and applied the same principles with Western tech (3 man hull-based crew, unmanned autoloading turret, sensors/cameras as primary external input)? Seems only the Abrams X has embraced this approach fully and the M1E3/Chally 3 will be a more Conservative design

                Also the perpetual problem with two piece penetraters and autoloaders.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Chally 2 newer than the m1 hull is somehow older than the Leo 2 which is far older than both

      moron chama please

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Rebranding after the Ukraine incident

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the boxer is SO BRIISH

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >BRIT BAD BECAUSE THEY DO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT!!!!
    Wow, yeah bro, the US army must SUCK
    LOOK AT HOW MANY PROJECTS NEVER RESULT IN ANYTHING!!!!
    THEY'RE STILL USING THE ABRAMS!!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They’re bad because even with r&d they aren’t putting out anything good. I’m just talking about armored vehicles mind you I am not one of those rabid British haters

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The abrams has received about about 3 upgrade programs and 3 complete overhauls since the challenger 2 slithered out like a dollop of shit. You know when the British army tried to select Leopard, followed by abrams, but government lobbying interfered and FORCED the challenger upon them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fortunate, given Challenger 2 is rated as better than both of those tanks and has a better service record.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Will they fix the flaw on the chally 2 turrets at least
    >rambles about the lower glacis instead
    >a vulnerability the British army already fixed
    ???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it’s ok that we have to weld a slab of steel to the front of the hull
      No it really is not. The challenger 2 hulls are designed so poorly

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nooo that armor doesn't work because it was added afterwards
        What a bizarre thing to say. Are you okay?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you're replying to a well-trodden w*tard pasta

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm more than aware.

        >This is the first I'm hearing about it. Enlighten me
        Don't play dumb, it's so well known that literally the next post mentioned it.
        [...]
        >It's as heavy as the latest Abrams
        With a significantly weaker engine and significantly weaker armor protection!

        >driver hatch weakspot
        >significantly weaker protection
        I suppose we're just ignoring the Abrams turret ring weak spot then.
        >With a significantly weaker engine
        Which apparently hasn't made all that much difference per the listed speeds of the vehicles. I notice you've chosen to ignore that, maybe because you're wrong. Again.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >horsepower isn’t real
          >horsepower to weight ratio isn’t real
          >they’re basically the same
          I would say this too if I had to defend the most underpowered modern tank

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >claims it's slow
            >specs show it isn't
            >claims it's heavy
            >weighs the same as M1a2 SEPv3
            >claims it's underpowered
            >Ukrainians have had no issue with it's ability to cross terrain
            Yeah, I don't think you have an actual argument.

            >I suppose we're just ignoring the Abrams turret ring weak spot then.
            Challenger has the same turret ring weak spot too, it's objectively terribly armored. But it's nice of you to concede those known weak spots.
            >Which apparently hasn't made all that much difference per the listed speeds of the vehicles
            >What is HP/ton and how does it effect automotive performance?

            The turret ring is less exposed on the Challenger 2. Which was my point.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Ukrainians have had no issue with it's ability to cross terrain
              You can’t possibly make this statement

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                we had a ukranian commanders interview translated on here and he was basically cumming over the challenger for several paragraphs

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that’s absolutely meaningless. Especially considering the commander was never verified and neither was the translation.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                your completely uncited random comment is utterly meaningful, lol
                https://en.defence-ua.com/news/challenger_2_is_a_sniper_rifle_among_tanks_says_ukrainian_soldier_about_the_british_mbt_and_compares_with_soviet_t_80-7821.html

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >gun is accurate
                >this negates the armor problem
                >this negates ammo stored inside the hull

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                but we know there's no armor problem, and the "ammo stored inside the hull" is like, the next handful of rounds. The rest are not stored in the hull (which we also all know).
                The ukies absolutely jizz over the tank and have their very best people using it for a reason you dingus

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >we know there's no armor problem
                >ignore the massive cutout in the frontal armor to accommodate a single periscope
                it’s funny watching you make declarative statements that get BTFO immediately

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >some bulgarian c**t on the internet doesn't like the way the armour looks
                >therefore the armour must be really bad

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The armor has a massive channel cut into it. You can’t refute what that means for the cutaway part of the armor

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have any documentation or schematics showing this "Massive cut into the armor" you keep talking about?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                He thinks there's a hole all the way through the mantle directly behind the TIS.
                In other words, he's moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't need to refute anything, because you're a chuclefrick on PrepHole who doesn't have any relevant expertise. Cite me the engineer who says it's an issue

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >chucklefrick
                >on PrepHole
                >cite
                >appeal to authority

                Why do you come here? Are you banned from reddit?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Of course I can, per the interview with a Ukrainian armored expert he stated that both the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 encountered far fewer difficulties with mud and terrain.

                that’s absolutely meaningless. Especially considering the commander was never verified and neither was the translation.

                >everything that contradicts me is a conspiracy to credit the British
                You are schizophrenic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I suppose we're just ignoring the Abrams turret ring weak spot then.
          Challenger has the same turret ring weak spot too, it's objectively terribly armored. But it's nice of you to concede those known weak spots.
          >Which apparently hasn't made all that much difference per the listed speeds of the vehicles
          >What is HP/ton and how does it effect automotive performance?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The lower glacis isn't weak. It's designed to support modular armour packages. None of which are on Abrams or Leo2.
      See the slab of composite armour on the front?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >it’s not a gap in armor. It’s modular!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        will they also duct tape something over the huge gaping hole where the drivers head is sticking out?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Facts are often the best bait, as they cannot be refuted.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The challenger 2 is the only one of the modern big 3 western tanks that has never killed a tank in combat. Not relevant to the thread but just an interning little factoid in the tanker community

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the invasion of Iraq never happened
      Real schizo hours

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn't call "Driving over a mine" to be "In combat", tbh.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You wouldn't call knocking out enemy tanks in combat a combat encounter? Very strange, I think we can safely discard your opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Was it ever confirmed to even be a Russian mine?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the invasion of iraq 2003 is the challenger 2s only combat history other than getting wrecked in Ukraine and pulled back
        grim

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A large invasion of another country is the only combat experience of this tank!
          >Which is an upgrade of a prior tank that has an extensive combat history.
          I think the reason these threads go up is because the vast majority of the world not only cannot compete with the bong military, but also celebrate their independence from us

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger2 has the longest tank on tank kill record, unless you count the Ukrainian record on an abandoned tank that took multiple shots at.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its honestly pretty funny that the only way they could think of having the driver periscope work was carving a massive channel through the frontal armor

    what the frick were they thinking, combine with the complete lack of armor on the lower front plate. how does this leave the drawing board???? its not the kind of thing that slapping a german turret ontop fixes. the only reason they even need the new turret is to try and unfrick themselves from the 3 piece ammo situation they're in

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what the frick were they thinking
      No fear for their own jobs. The British were going to accept any tank as long as it was designed and manufactured in the UK.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And yet, it's currently destroying T-90s in Ukraine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >still making falseflags because he can't address actual arguments
        What did I even expect?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        May I see one case of a challenger destroying a t-90

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The only thing a Challenger 2 has destroyed was it's own crew.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >lack of armor on the lower front plate.
      Because it's not War Thunder where you have pixel-perfect precision aiming with mouse, and the average engagement range is 200 meters.
      Statistically it's the turret that's most likely to be hit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't want to hear excuses for a poor design. "it doesn't matter that much anyway :3" shouldn't fly

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >just don’t get shot in the weakspot
        The entire side profile and back profile is a weakspot. Why add one to the front of the tank if SOP is to face the enemy head on?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you understand how tank gunnery works? You are shooting at the tank. You put crosshair at center mass, and pull the trigger. You do not fricking aim at weakpoints, it's not a video game.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No one is saying that you moron. That’s no excuse to cut a massive channel in your frontal armor. Look, I’m sorry your world is unraveling in this thread but god damn if this wasn’t one of the stupidest replies of all time

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Tell me how many times Challenger got penetrated through the LFP?
              I recall one, with RPG-29 in urban combat. Where no fricking tank would do much better, if it was hit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell me how many times Challenger got penetrated through the LFP?
                The challenger 2 has seen tanks for what one month back in the early 2000s. Lack of combat record isn’t something to boast about

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Britain builds a tank to fight a peer-level enemy.
                >Peer level enemy reveals their master plan: T-62 with ERA strapped to the turret
                >This is Britain's fault.

                UK has built a tank to deal with the enemies it expected to see on the field. Which is why it has engaged those enemies on the field and won without any losses to direct fire.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They also fixed that issue in the upgrade package that followed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They never fixed the drivers hatch issue

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it doesn't matter because it only takes up 25% of the front of the tank

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                3/4 of the front of the tank is well protected. That speaks directly to the flawed design

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >3/4th you say? Frick it, good enough, time for tea.
                Why are they like this?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Evidentially it's not yet been an issue.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Statistically the tank who shoots first wins, why even have armor?
        There's no excuse for bongs, everyone else managed to adequately armor their tank hulls.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why are you even entertaining this moron? They built packages to cover the lower glacis, it's a non argument.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Can they also cover the massive drivers hatch hole?
          While they're at it, can they put a better engine in it?
          That might make it a good tank.
          Surely the British are capable of that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They can't fix any of that, they've been completely deindustrialized. They had to hire the Germans to fix their tank abortion.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You mean the bongs brought out a majority in Rhienmetal?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it's a good tank if you add this one piece
          Damage control from the Ukraine debacle

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >armor packages don't count because they just don't okay??
            You are coping.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I love the Falcon Challenger so much.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          they just sitting in storage right now. The US should do what they did with the Gerpards and give Jordan another payday. 200 of those would fare far better than 200 leo 1's
          >honestly I would rather be an infantryman in Bahkmut than drive a Leo 1 anywhere near any section of the front.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            IIRC, Jordan was looking at selling them to some Latino country a few years back but that still hasn't happened. I'd presume Colombia

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I suspect there is probably issues with
              1. Spares
              2. Conditions (Arabs aren't great maintainers)

              Yeah.
              >end of the cold war
              >huge amounts of reasonably modern tanks available for cheap
              >no pressing global threat
              Combine that with low production numbers and a higher cost, it never had much of a chance on the export market.

              If they were going to scale it, then maybe it would do better but a home run of ~400 means that even if you get the Greeks to buy 180 there will always be a tiny pool of spares, parts and skilled technicians. Germany played their cards perfectly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah no doubt, but I wonder how much of a difference it would have made. It was too late and too expensive for most countries, and when it did get entered into a trial they got screwed by a logistical frick up. Was armor even evaluated in the Greek trials by the way?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Probably but the Challenger 1 and 2 still share many parts and the UK is STILL making Challenger 2 parts even though it's only been exported to a single country. The Omanis have been purchases parts steadily. They also have some specially engineered parts for their desert versions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the UK is STILL making Challenger 2 parts
                surely they're only refurbishing parts from scrapped Challengers at best?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nope. Omanis just want new build stuff whenever they break their stuff. They're oil rich Arabs. No used parts will do.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong
                We gave Oman a bunch of old Challenger 1 tracks as spares and their ammunition is was surplus L23 tungsten rounds with L8 charges from Challenger 1 as well.
                When they started running out of charges they partly funded qualifying the rounds with the low pressure L18 charge that Britain developed for practice rounds
                They chose to use low pressure rounds to save money by extending barrel life and avoid costs in updating the FCS for ballistics of new rounds
                Oman are very frugal when it comes to defence spending

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They share only 10% of parts and it's down to stuff like track, suspension, injectors etc. I hate neo-/k/ so much die zoomer mutt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That’s a lot of armor they had to shave off

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >its honestly pretty funny that the only way they could think of having the driver periscope work was carving a massive channel through the frontal armor
      Why the frick would they do this

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The fricking Bradley has more armor kills than the mentallychallengeder

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    he is replying and shidding all over his keyboard, yes, as can be expected. he is not OP. i am OP

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bro, what does it matter?
    Just drive around them and shoot them in the back. 🙂

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Implying your average Russian tank commander is smart enough to come up with a tactic like this.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >2024
    >people on /k/ genuinely use war thunder as a reference

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    warriortard confuses me because the number of countries that can actually project power comparable to the UK is extremely small, and the UK itself is just a tiny island, yet this one man has to make daily seethe threads about it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s okay to discuss the problems with the challengers armor without it being a conspiracy to shit on the UK.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah but it's always just deliberately wrong nonsense that nobody actually from /k/ thinks is true, over and over, and baited bongs. It's not dicsussion

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you're familiar with this board and his modus operandi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I like to think his cousin was a Taliban fighter who was killed by a 30 mm L21A1 RARDEN (Unstabilized) or something.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      His samegayging has gotten a lot worse recently too. He had to delete his last Challenger thread out of shame after making himself look even more moronic than usual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He's some Bulgarian who got kicked out of the UK

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Jeeesus fricking Christ. Imagine the kind of shit you have to do to get kicked out of a country whose police and justice system go out of their way to cover up for pedophiles and Muslim criminals.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The Leopard is not as good a tank one-on-one
    So CR2 completely shits on anything Russian then

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Anything Russian
      Come on anon. Fricking Sweden can make better tanks than Russians.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    one reason why this is such good bait is because bong tank armour is really good and they have a great combat record with their tanks. And this is considering that tanks are the absolute lowest priority weapon for the UK, because they share no land border with anyone and have zero need for tanks to defend their country. The tanks are purely for getting involved in merking durkas every decade or so

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It is legitimately funny that a fricking Island nation that will never see ground combat within its own borders and can only use tanks offensively has made one of the most effective and well-protected MBTs of the era.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >is because bong tank armour is really good and they have a great combat record with their tanks
      This is just fanboying really. Bong tank armor is not that special and their combat history is again not that rich.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By what comparison?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The challenger 1 counts as the challenger 2 record. The chally 2 is just a new turret on a chally 1. It merked everything in Iraq, and the chally 2 also went on a major sandbox deployment.
        Which tanks are we even comparing it to? What combat record is in competition? USA, the modern rome? We're really going to compare the preeminent superpower of this century with little ol bongistan?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >if we redefine the tanks we can combine their combat record
          nope

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The challenger 1 counts as the challenger 2 record.
          How? The fighting systems are completely different. Different gun, different set of charges, entirely new FCS

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if we redefine the tanks we can combine their combat record
            nope

            So who are we comparing it to? Can you explain what the massive apparent failure of the chally 2 was in Iraq? May we see the massive losses?
            You brownhands forget who you celebrate your independence from

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if we redefine the tanks we can combine their combat record
        nope

        Can we see the poor combat record?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >bong tank armour is really good and they have a great combat record with their tanks.
      Even giving the bongs every possible inch here, that's just not true.
      Yeah, British soldiers usually perform well, but their tanks past the Centurion have been legitimate stinkers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but their tanks past the Centurion have been legitimate stinkers.
        The 1st (UK) Armoured Division was the easternmost unit in VII Corps' sector, its Challenger tanks forming the spearhead of the advance. The division advanced nearly 350 km within 97 hours, destroying the Iraqi 46th Mechanised Brigade, 52nd Armoured Brigade and elements of at least three infantry divisions belonging to the Iraqi 7th Corps in a series of battles and engagements. They captured or destroyed about 300 Iraqi tanks and a large number of armoured personnel carriers, trucks, reconnaissance vehicles, etc
        >yeah this sounds terrible
        The UK don't "perform well", they invent the weapons and tacticts of your shitty little rent-a-grunt militaries

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lmao this thread exploded in the past hour, I wonder why.
    >100 posts, 21 posters
    I see fartsniffer is mad again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Natural cycle with him. He says something moronic, gets btfo'd, then samegays until 404.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ok but remember when the challenger 2 survived 80 RPG hits and 6 milan hits in one engagement

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    They’re bad because even with r&d they aren’t putting out anything good. I’m just talking about armored vehicles mind you I am not one of those rabid British haters

    The abrams has received about about 3 upgrade programs and 3 complete overhauls since the challenger 2 slithered out like a dollop of shit. You know when the British army tried to select Leopard, followed by abrams, but government lobbying interfered and FORCED the challenger upon them.

    [...]

    Just going to leave this here, as apparently Britain is incapable of armoured vehicle R&D

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Part 2

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/QtPsz5E.png

      Part 2

      Wut?
      What you posted literally says the Brits at RARDE developed armour equal in protection to Germany's D-Tech for the US military, within 8 months

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I guess when it comes down to it, If you had to bet your life, limb, and eyesight on which tank would come out on top of a tank duel, I dont think anyone in their right mind would pick the challenger 2

    probably something with APS, modern sensors, and has had its internal armor upgraded since 2000

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >gives up trying to argue
      >starts asserting his opinion as universal
      Delicious.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    warriortard has been raped quite hard in the latter half of this thread; its just a shame we never got to have a proper thread to begin with

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    there is absolutely zero discussion in this thread

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's nice to see them finally updating Dorchester. I've posted this before but I've always felt that that array was outdated, the abrams has had 6 iterations of armor over its lifetime so its great to see something new and potentially more effective in place. I'm interested in the external composites, I'm assuming it's for the lower front plate and side hull as an add on armor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Be warned this is warriortard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's funny to watch you newbies screech warriortard at any post possible. Lurk moar and you won't be desperate to force memes to fit in

        In late 1998, the Hellenic Army (Greece) conduct tests of the firepower and mobility (not the armoured protection) of the French Leclerc, the Leopard 2 A5 (they used the Swedish Strv 122) Russian T-80U, Ukrainian T-84 and the British Challenger 2E.
        The Greeks scored the Leopard 2A5 – 78.65% the M1A2 Abrams – 72.21% the Leclerc – 72.03%; and the CR2E – 69.19%

        I'm 90% sure Greece would have tested on the FMS armor arrays for the Abrams without the DU. I've never been able to see a good picture of the tanks used in the trials and ID the armor package by the turret serial number.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In late 1998, the Hellenic Army (Greece) conduct tests of the firepower and mobility (not the armoured protection) of the French Leclerc, the Leopard 2 A5 (they used the Swedish Strv 122) Russian T-80U, Ukrainian T-84 and the British Challenger 2E.
          The Greeks scored the Leopard 2A5 – 78.65% the M1A2 Abrams – 72.21% the Leclerc – 72.03%; and the CR2E – 69.19%

          frick actually I'm thinking of the Swedish trials

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Swedes didn't even want to test the Challenger because they knew it couldn't measure up iirc.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Challenger 2 wasn't offered to Sweden at all. Their trials were set for 1994 and coincided with completion of the UK MoD's initial acceptance trials where they decided they weren't happy with its reliability and were making Vickers work on improving it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      US got chobham armour and developed it their selves with DU plates.
      Challenger2 got Dorchester armour which again most likely uses heavy metals like DU or Tungsten.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Better.
        It uses Anglorioum. It's made of the tears of third world nations which is then pulverized under the 'Oppression' they face from the ghost of The Empire.

        This produces a material of immense density and hardness far exceeding any known conventional material and manufactured rent free.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        US got BRL-1 which was upgraded to BRL-2. Starting with the M1A1HA it was heavy armor package which was probably BRL-2 with DU I'm fairly sure. We don't know if the NERA array was upgraded alongside with 2nd gen DU for the HAP-2 package, ditto for HAP-3. SEPV3 and the M1E3 would have NGAP which I think is a heavily modernized array + 4th gen DU. AFAIK the challenger was Dorchester and I don't think the armor was ever upgraded to newer arrays, if it was it wasn't disclosed that I've seen. The newer arrays for the challenger 3 should be pretty good, I don't know if they would use DU reinforcement however.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You realise BLR1 is Chobham armour? Bongs gave the tech to USA.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You realize BLR1 is the US improving on chobham armor right? Armor tech did not just stagnate after the bongs stopped upgrading

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You realise BLR1 is Chobham armour? Bongs gave the tech to USA.
            Yeah, but also Chobham is a meme name, it's a nickname that stuck and the designation was always Burlington if were gonna go there lol anon. The tech was shared and then modified. Germany also got information on the arrays. Starting from the original "buster" plates or whatever they called it, development branched out and the US went for modified DU reinforced arrays.

            You realize BLR1 is the US improving on chobham armor right? Armor tech did not just stagnate after the bongs stopped upgrading

            This is true. Whatever you wanna call it, chobham/burlington was americanized and updated. M1's with the updated array and DU reinforcement started receiving Us at the end of the turret serial number to denote the HAP series armor. I think the NGAP arrays end in M on the newer SEPV3s. There's also an NEA armor references but that's a brand new mine protection kit.

            The way I see it, if anyone talks about chobham or burlington armor I automatically assume they're referring to Abrams tanks prior to M1A1HA. Anything with DU reinforcement just isn't Chobham to me anymore since the official designations changed entirely to heavy armor package and most likely the NERA arrays were changed as well. Call me an austist kek.

            Regardless of if it's HAP, or Dorchester, or Chobham they all probably work the same. multi-plate spaced NERA arrays to frick with shape charges and abrade and bend penetrators, then a dense backplate to catch anything that makes in through the NERA.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You are fricking dumb.
              Burlington 1st gen, Chobham 2nd gen, Dorchester 3rd gen, Epsom and Farnham 4th gen.
              Kill your self.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Kek you are misinformed anon. Please don't get your info from wikipedia

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm ngl those red/pink reflections from the viewports look really sweet.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    is /k/ the most uk-centric board on PrepHoleg

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think the biggest reason is the BBC doing puff pieces on behalf of the armed forces and most of the talking points are about how a particular piece of equipment is 'world beating'. its said about challenger 2, eurofighter, etc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In the sense that they get discussed disproportionately often? Probably. You have a certain poster who'll go unnamed to thank for that.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IMHO the British should be looking at the EMBT right now.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s crazy the bongs have never had any kind of DU armor

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >tank thread I guess
    so all shitposts aside, actually what level of protection do NATO tanks mount?
    can they actually tank KE and HEAT hits frontally at all?
    how much RHAe is realistic? because there are all kinds of wild claims on the net

    if you go by missile manufacturers' claims, even turret fronts can be easily penetrated no problem
    but top-attack ATGMs give the lie to that claim

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      RHAe is dumb imo. You can't replicate the complex interactions between penetrators and NERA arrays with RHAe. Basic b***h NERA from the 80s (the burlington/chobham shit mentioned above) was multiple spaced plates angled and layered so that you'd need to pass through 4 or 5 plates before hitting the thick backplate. These spaced plates are designed to bulge and bend as a penetrator passes through. The meme here is to either snap the penetrator by applying enough longitudal stress or yaw it enough to significantly reduce it's effectiveness all while damaging and abrading down the penetrator. These interactions are why composites have great mass efficiency, they aren't just putting mass in front of an object to stop it, they're actively applying highly destabilizing effects, hence the "reactive" part of non explosive reactive armor (NERA). This yawing shit is a big part of the leopard 2's "wedge" armor on the frontal turret.

      For chemical energy weapons like shaped charges etc. it's the same, the bulging and bending of the plates fricks with the geometry of the jets combined with the air gapes between the plates enough to really hurt the jets penetration. Something like a Kornet that's claimed to be able to pierce 1400mm of steel looks amazing on paper, remember than that might be severely degraded against complex NERA that will not allow the jet to form properly as it would with a block of steel. The same way a block of steel can only abrade a kinetic penetrator and not be able to yaw or stress it from angles that would cause failure.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's honestly hard being someone who thinks the British military sucks but who can still spot warriortard. everything he posts is gay and moronic and has been for the ten years he's infested this board, and it means it's impossible to have an actual intelligent discussion about the problems in the British military

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger 2 is the best modern european tank currently fielded.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >EPSOM
    >Farnham
    >Dorchester
    what's up with the stupid names? what's next, worcestershire?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >W comes after F
      Not as stupid as you are, however

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russian armor is so advanced they are already at Z. It would take the British most of the alphabet to catch up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, Worcestershire is a county not a town, and it's also not in Surrey like Chobham, Dorchester, Epsom and Farnham are

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Finally that tank has been neglected for 2 decades. It’s about time they bring it up to modern standards

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like the leopard. A lot more thought was out into its design. Note how they didn’t cut a channel into the frontal armor to accommodate a periscope, one of the biggest problems with the challenger 2 hull

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tell me you a war thunder player without telling me you're a war thunder player

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is war Thunder some kind of coping mechanism for you? Did you not know about the drivers periscope cutout before today?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Did you?

          Did you know that the British emphasize the armor on the turret than in the hull is to optimize the tank’s ability in a hull-down position which makes it's capability good in a defensive role but limited in an offensive one.

          Beacsue that/was NATO’s defensive doctrine at the time to fight with another country’s units against an enemy in a larger number utilizing cover and concealment in a defensive war.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >did you
            Yes, the large cutout in the frontal armor of the challenger was one of the first things I noticed about the tank

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You mean that cut out on the turret in a mother fricking computer game? Where the guy in the British Military got mad and posted actual secret documents showing the mantle is like x5 thicker than in game?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. The cutout for the drivers periscope. I understand you have to pretend not to see it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What’s with bongs hinging their entire argument on war Thunder references. This is like the fifth time it’s happened itt

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >itt war thunder zoomers posting

    Kill em all let god sort em out
    Now here is a question from a former tanker, what extra residency's will be added, why no EW like they added for Afghanistan, the anti IED system worked half the time. And what system will the hardkill use? Lastly WILL THEY FRICKING UPDATE THE GAS I HATED HAVING TO USE THAT FRICKING THING

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don’t like the criticisms so you play war thunder!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >morons spout moronic shit
        >Hmmm looks like a correlation between other morons

        Do you cry about racism you half cast mutt.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You’re just upset that people are talking about the large cutout in the frontal armor of the challenger 2. It’s ok that it’s being talked about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's bad for radar if you want to make that argument. Otherwise please learn about standard engagement ranges. And how small the port is to the cutout armour. It looks like shit. It may be shit. But the idea that you some moron will noscope the driver and kill the tank in one shot is brainrot. The morons saying "hull down" as an excuse are also moronic. Track is only a cold war doctrine scuffed out. The hull should always be moving, and this is doctrine copied from burgers, which is why the chally was designed to emulate the Abrams speed (lacking it's acceleration).

            If you want to shit on the chally il give you some tips: lower glacia shitshow.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It’s not an insignificant cutout. The lower glacis being a problem doesn’t negate the cutout problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The cutout is very likely armoured to the same degree as what the angled slope is. I'm glad you aren't warrior tard sorry if I was being a c**t. But it's the port that is the actual weakpoint. The more I look at it the more I see issues with visibility.

                Perhaps I havent played enough videogames but I am still attached to the real life doctrine of don't be there, don't be seen, don't get hit, don't die etc. a driver's ability to have situational awareness enough to act independently when a commander is overwhelmed is important.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How could dead air be armored to the same degree as steel?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >itt war thunder zoomers posting

              Kill em all let god sort em out
              Now here is a question from a former tanker, what extra residency's will be added, why no EW like they added for Afghanistan, the anti IED system worked half the time. And what system will the hardkill use? Lastly WILL THEY FRICKING UPDATE THE GAS I HATED HAVING TO USE THAT FRICKING THING

              The cutout is very likely armoured to the same degree as what the angled slope is. I'm glad you aren't warrior tard sorry if I was being a c**t. But it's the port that is the actual weakpoint. The more I look at it the more I see issues with visibility.

              Perhaps I havent played enough videogames but I am still attached to the real life doctrine of don't be there, don't be seen, don't get hit, don't die etc. a driver's ability to have situational awareness enough to act independently when a commander is overwhelmed is important.

              you are in fact talking to warriorturd, you half wit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            isn't this just a sensor placed in the front of the tank? It's not going to be a literal hole through the armour is it. This is just armatard spam, none of this is real

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he knows about the cutout scandal

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone knows about it

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is it with this myth on /k/ and in War Thunder community that Brits have good tanks?
    Just because you invent the tank, and later Chobham, doesn't mean you have dogshit procurement practices and designers.
    At this point UK has more bad tanks under their belt than good ones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >doesn't mean you DON'T* have dogshit procurement practices and designers.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A contract to deliver a new modular armour system for the Challenger 3 main battle tank has been awarded to Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).

    German armor for a British tank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Plus a German gun and an American engine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bongs gave u on armor design

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a joint british German company. They are most likely leveraging German armor expertise

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At best it's AMAP in a variant based on British requirements. Though more likely it is just AMAP with a British sounding name.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Newest prototype

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >That massive cutout

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why not make a thread about it instead of posting the first new photo of the CR3 in a thread with 300+ replies

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