seeing as how the abrams lost in ukraine was relatively undamaged because the blowout panels functioned properly, do you think the chally 3 will incor...

seeing as how the abrams lost in ukraine was relatively undamaged because the blowout panels functioned properly, do you think the chally 3 will incorporate blowout panels or does the challenger 2 hull that is being used not allow for it? the challenger lost in ukraine did suffer a turret toss

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They probably can’t just add blowout panels. The layout of the turret is pretty dated

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are those rounds in the turret with the crew?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are those rounds in the turret with the crew?

      Yes

      WHAT THE FRICK??
      I was certain Challenger 2 has blowjob panels like all the other western tanks.
      What ware they thinking!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mandela effect competent challenger tanks when

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They were thinking you're replying to yourself again you schizo.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, the M1 Abrams is the only MBT currently to have ALL the ammo in blow out panel protected areas. 34 in the turret bustle and 6 in a hull compartment.
        Leopard 2 only has 15 rounds in a turret bustle rack protected by blow out panels, the rest are in the hull next to the driver unprotected.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        3 piece ammo ammo you slavmutt schizo.

        The only part of the ammo not in wet storage bins is the shells and primers. Depleted uranium doesn't explode when hit and the HESH rounds use fire insensitive HE.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >2024
          >3 piece ammo
          >wet stowage
          Hooni why do you felt yourself with these posts?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          When ammo detonates its usually because of the propellant and not due to its HE load or whatever you think
          Thats why rheinmetall made those special shells with new propellant which drastically reduced its chance of detonation
          Also theres no way that brits use 3 piece ammo
          They use 2 piece ammo instead which is still worst then American and German 1 piece rounds

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >theres no way that brits use 3 piece ammo. They use 2 piece ammo instead
            It’s 3 piece but the primers (electrically fired venturi tube igniters) are held in a magazine loaded in the breech block so aren’t loaded until after firing half a dozen rounds

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Warrior tard... Those are sabots kept in the open and bag charges kept in wet storage bins that are surrounded by more liquids.
      It's nowhere near as good as the Abrams system but there is no evidence of it being less effective.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd hope they'd design the thing with blowout panels. Pretty obviously a required feature at this point if you value crew survivability in your tanks. Even with a crewless turret it's still an important feature. An ammo detonation with blowout panels is guaranteed a hell of a lot easier to repair than a turret popping ammo detonation.

      I'd expect an interior redesign would be part of the upgrades.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The layout of the turret is pretty dated
      m8, that's a Challenger 1 Mk.1, not a Challenger 2

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why do they have a box to put their fish in?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The chips are stored in the hull

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger3 has an all new turret that apparently has room for an autoloaded 140mm or what ever the next nato standard could be like 130mm.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The layout of the turret is pretty dated
      m8, that's a Challenger 1 Mk.1, not a Challenger 2

      Appears to be accurate regardless

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    do you ever get tired of this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      He'll never, it's his hobby

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Grim.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to shoehorn blowout panel storage into the design. They are replacing the gun anyway so some turret redesign isn’t out of the question.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The turret is an all-new design.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think the British have the requisite engineering skills or care for their men.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >filename chally
    Only WT calls it the chally

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I’ve never played warthunder

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.google.com/search?q=%22chally%22+tank

        how can you be this new?

        All those dumb idiots are replying to warrirotards false flag bait. If all aren't by him.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.google.com/search?q=%22chally%22+tank

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ok warriortard you stole the nickname from Reddit

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          jesse, what the fudge are you talking about?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can say frick on PrepHole, you moronic Black personhomosexual

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you can say fudge too tho

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      how can you be this new?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's chally wally

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >challenger
    useless without shells

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I remember one story where a challenger lied about coming under attack and suffering 70 or 80 rpg hits. The story has never been corroborated and no pictures of the tank exist. That makes me think it’s a bad tank because why else would you have to make something like that up

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2905817.stm

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he challenger lost in ukraine did suffer a turret toss
    Huge if true, link?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean here’s a picture that shows the turret is completely free. Blowout panels would have stopped this from happening

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are my eyes deceiving me or did the front fall off in addition to the turret pop

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the front falls off
          Can't make this shit up holy frick

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cease your homosexualry warriortard. You do this every fricking time you do one of these threads. Also, your samegayging is completely obvious.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Any tank with hull ammo stowage can have this happen. Leopard 2s have blowout panels in the turret ammo storage but still lose the turret if the hull storage detonates.
        The Abrams is the only tank in use without any hull ammo storage that I know of (maybe the K2 or whatever doesn't, IDK), even the Leclerc has a stowage bin next to the driver.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I know I was just responding to this guy

          >he challenger lost in ukraine did suffer a turret toss
          Huge if true, link?

          who was seemingly in disbelief

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That’s why blowout panels and not storing rounds inside with the crew is so important

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Could be worse.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t think the challenger was hit with a JDAM though

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            These weren't, it was just some insurgents with ATGMs.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Are you sure? Iirc the Turkish airforce bombed their tanks that couldn’t be recovered

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Islamic state released a 21 minute drone video of the whole thing, and these tanks along with other vehicles appear in it.
                So, yeah.
                Leopard 2 isn't very good, tbh.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can we see the video of the insurgents with atgms causing this

                https://i.imgur.com/h5OI8nE.jpg

                Could be worse.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Original got pulled from youtube, so, I'd have to find it again, but, there's a truncated version here:

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He’s an assblasted Brit, there is a reason why Leopards in Ukraine at worst are burned out despite being hit by the same Russian ATGMs and the A8 nearly reached 1K units sold alone.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Tanks are not an invincible fortress regardless of if there is a French, German, American, British, Israeli or Russian flag on the side.
                Leopard is cheap. It makes sense it's not as protected other vehicles. It's not an unreasonable compromise to make and there is a value in a tank being cheaper to produce than others, even if the drawback is that they have to be used more carefully by the armies that employ them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Leopard is cheap. It makes sense it's not as protected other vehicles.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Leopard 2s are neither cheap nor are they worse armored than say a Challenger 2. The difference is that the UK has no access to high quality steel or alloys, same for their outdated composite tech.

                Well, regardless of what you think, the service record really speaks for itself.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The leopard has seen an order of magnitude more combat service than the challenger. Not one person is surprised more leopards have been lost

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Again. More made up shit by everyone's least favorite brap enjoyer

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                are two modern Russian ATGMs with around 1200mm+ RHA not good enough for you?
                even ignoring that
                the challenger 2 was seen in combat only once and was also destroyed during it
                meanwhile the Abrams was seen in Combat twice and was "destroyed/lost" in one of the times
                the service record when contained to the ukraine war does not speak in your favor at all

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the Abrams was seen in Combat twice
                video footage that WE have seen. OPSEC still exists and who knows how much action the Leo 2 and Abrams saw before being knocked out. It really might be a case of the german elefant on the Eastern Front
                >elefants were so well armored and armed that ivan saw them the same way americans saw tigers
                >while only a hundred or so, they were beloved by crew and were very effective even if one was lost through mobility kill, abandonment, or combat loss

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Incredible how well they have performed in contrast to the challengers 1 and done approach

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >endlessly baiting

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >truth is now bait
                Frick off you don’t belong here

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                bump

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, the challenger has been spotted in combat on a different occasion than the famous turret pop? Please show us video. In reality you will probably cite some written article that some higher up said it was great or something

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What did he say that wasn't true?

                >i havent seen it thus it does not exist

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >allow me to mindlessly speculate and draw conclusions from the lack of video evidence
                No

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >allow me to mindlessly speculate

                Incredible how well they have performed in contrast to the challengers 1 and done approach

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not speculation, the abrams was seen engaging in combat and the challenger was not. The challenger suffered a catastrophic loss and preliminary reviewing of the abrams kill suggests the blowout panels worked as intended with minimal seen damage to the tank

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It’s not speculation,
                >allow me to mindlessly speculate and draw conclusions from the lack of video evidence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >lack of video evidence
                Anon the abrams combat videos were posted extensively last week

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the abrams was seen engaging in combat and the challenger was not
                >allow me to mindlessly speculate and draw conclusions from the lack of video evidence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shit I made up because I have serious mental illnesses. Signed warrior yard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What did he say that wasn't true?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                me to mindlessly speculate and draw conclusions from the lack of video evidence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no video footage of F-117s or B-2s in combat at all
                >they were never used

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not a very fair comparison at all. We’re talking tanks in the most photographed land war of all time vs high flying aircraft from decades past. A false equivalence. Speaks to the strength of your argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And yet the serbs still shot some down. Now that's a heck of a poor service record!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are we pretending that the F117 shoot down wasn't very humbling and humiliating event for America?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, as always

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you moronic?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Leopard 2s are neither cheap nor are they worse armored than say a Challenger 2. The difference is that the UK has no access to high quality steel or alloys, same for their outdated composite tech.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Now you're just making shit up of the top of your pointy head.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the UK has no access to high quality steel
                What an absurd statement

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No one is saying challengers are better protected than leopards

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No one is saying challengers are better protected than leopards

                >kornet hit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it's possible, but keep pic rel in mind

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Half the tank is just... gone. Only seen that happen to Russian tanks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/h5OI8nE.jpg

        Could be worse.

        Jesus

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Blowout panels would have stopped this from happening
        Unlike Russian shitboxes though, the turret doesn't pop until the whole turret is gutted by fire. The result of an uncontrolled fire in the turret in terms of losing the vehicle, will be the same whether there's blowout panels or not

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >seeing as how the abrams lost in ukraine was relatively undamaged
        The ammo went off. Undamaged compared to a russian shitbox? Yes. But it is still 100% fricked and will likely never fight again, even if they can recover it. BOPs are for the crew, not the tank.
        >do you think the chally 3 will incorporate blowout panels
        Seems like it. Available photos seem to indicate some sort of panel apparatus on the left side of the turret bustle.

        Not necessarily. Blowout panels are nice and improve crew survivability, but it seems like everything else they're not 100% effective.

        Again, blow-out panels more for the crew than the tank. Since single-piece ammo puts the shit that burns easy next to the shit that goes boom, there's little lag time for the crew to escape before shit starts deflagrating. Modern insensitive munitions can be pretty good about their cookoff time in other circumstances such as artillery, but BOPs are basically a requirement with fixed ammo for that reason. The reason that russian tanks throw their turrets is because they neither have BOPs, nor segregate their ammo storage. They're literally stacked on top of each other on the carousel.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just fyi that pic rel was from an M1 that hit an IED. The reason it's turret flew off was because the hull floor was shoved into the space the turret was occupying at supersonic speed by like 100kg of HE. Ammo storage was irrelevant in this case.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a whole new turret designed around the L55 so it will definitely have different ammo storage to the challenger 2

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s so goofy looking

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no, how terrible! Anyway,
    >U.S. Army – 2,509 total, 750 M1A1SA, 1,605 M1A2 SEPv2, 154 M1A2 SEPv3 (some 3,700 more M1A1 and M1A2 in storage)

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >undamaged
    That Abrams is 100% a total loss. All the electronics, the engine and fighting compartment are fricked.
    It's not repairable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >That Abrams is 100% a total loss
      Do you have anything to back this up. Visually it just looks like the blowout panels well, blew out. Did you see a deep dive on the tank in question or maybe some other pictures

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fricking ammo burnt off and there's smoke billowing from the hatch, everything inside is useless.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the ammo burnt off
          Yeah that’s what the blowout panels are, it’s the point of this thread
          >smoke billowing from the hatch
          That’s also the blowout panels. No smoke can be seen billowing from the hatch, in fact it’s white clearly not smoking

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The point of this thread is that your of your meds again and proud of it wt.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Realistically anon, that tank is lost. Even if it's not blown to bits and could be repaired, who is going to repair it? Who is going to salvage it? Who is going to load it up onto a carrier and tow it away?
        It's not going to be the Ukrainians, and it's not going to be the US either. There's no infrastructure or logistics in Ukraine to facilitate such a thing.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, all damaged abrams has to be semt back to america unless the U.S. gave approval for a hub to fix shit. Just like with the leopards, if its been extensively damaged, it can be sent back home for repairs or refurbishment.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah dude they're just dumb slavs it's not like we gave them fricking recovery vehicles and training on how to fix them

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        [...]
        There are worse examples from iraq thats been repaired. It can be fixable or refurbished if its been recovered and sent back to the U.S.

        It's fixable but even US forces would write it off as a combat loss and have the unit who owns it get a replacmemt in theater rather than have it sit in the motor pool forever affecting their combat power. It would be repaired state side and issued out on tank day or whatever tankgays call it when they get issued refurbished vehicles when at their post.

        blown blowout panels are generally considered a complete turret write-off due to Metal deformation from all the Heat and Force applied onto the Turret
        the "repairs" you are talking about are literally just replacing the entire turret with a new one
        America could do it because they had spare turrets lying around so it would be cheaper to do it that way
        though whether or not that is true today is unknown to me especially since America probably doesnt store non-DU armored turrets anyways and America may not even provide Ukraine with that big of a "repair" service for them even if they have turrets for them

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >blown blowout panels are generally considered a complete turret write-off due to Metal deformation from all the Heat and Force applied onto the Turret
          Which TM can I read about this in. I’m certainly not just going to take your word for it kek

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The fricking ammo burnt off and there's smoke billowing from the hatch, everything inside is useless.

      https://i.imgur.com/RUD6jCN.jpg

      >the ammo burnt off
      Yeah that’s what the blowout panels are, it’s the point of this thread
      >smoke billowing from the hatch
      That’s also the blowout panels. No smoke can be seen billowing from the hatch, in fact it’s white clearly not smoking

      There are worse examples from iraq thats been repaired. It can be fixable or refurbished if its been recovered and sent back to the U.S.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's fixable but even US forces would write it off as a combat loss and have the unit who owns it get a replacmemt in theater rather than have it sit in the motor pool forever affecting their combat power. It would be repaired state side and issued out on tank day or whatever tankgays call it when they get issued refurbished vehicles when at their post.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Right, but the Abrams crew probably survived. Coping aside, the challenger crews probably didn't make it back alive. The Abrams is in a class of its own, while everything else is basically just a bigger but equally moronic T90.

      I don't think the British have the requisite engineering skills or care for their men.

      M8 have you got a loicense to engineer those blowout panels? Did the crew have a loicense to live? Di'nt think so. And we need that money to fund social housing for Paki rape gangs anyway, can't spend it saving useless white men.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        While the challenger undoubtedly is
        inferior to the abrams this poster is baiting. We don’t care that the British have a slightly less effective tank

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >We don’t care that the British have a slightly less effective tank
          >We d-don't care, it's almost as good, r-right guys?
          Maybe you don't, but I (a true Abrams fanboy) care. I will not shut up about it. You WILL buy the monkey model for export, it WILL outperform your "state of the art" "tank", and your soldiers WILL be concussed, but at least they'll be alive.

          >the challenger crews probably didn't make it back alive.
          The only challenger that has been lost was due to hitting a mine, where it was abandoned and then hit with something else until it burned down.
          The crew all survived, as has been confirmed.

          >Complete turret separation with sealed hatches but the crew made it back under their own power, just trust us
          I really doubt this "confirmation"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but I (a true Abrams fanboy) care
            Self-own if ever I have seen one.

            >unnamed source runs damage control
            >pls take this as confirmation
            No, I won’t

            >allow me to mindlessly speculate and draw conclusions from the lack of video evidence

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the challenger crews probably didn't make it back alive.
        The only challenger that has been lost was due to hitting a mine, where it was abandoned and then hit with something else until it burned down.
        The crew all survived, as has been confirmed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          None of that has been confirmed what the frick are you talking about

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A Western defence source told the BBC that the British-made and supplied Challenger 2 tank in Ukraine was initially immobilised by a mine.

            >That mine explosion caused a fire in the rear fuel tank, at which point the Ukrainian crew of four evacuated the tank to safety.

            >The Western defence source said that while the empty tank was immobilised, it was then targeted by a Russian Lancet loitering drone, which destroyed it.

            As verified as verified can be.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >unnamed source runs damage control
              >pls take this as confirmation
              No, I won’t

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you won't take the word of one of the most trusted broadcasting corporations in the world?
                Can you tell me what sources you do trust?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the state funded British made broadcasting corporation is the most trusted in the world?
                >it can be trusted when discussing British made gear
                No it isn’t and No it can’t

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >source 1: A self-admitted fanboy on the internet
                >source 2: The BBC
                hmmmm... tough one.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Surely my highly ideological state broadcasting service would NEVER lie
                Look, tanks protect their crew from weapons. Rockets launch their crew in the air. The Abrams is the last remaining tank. Everything else is a rocket.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >As opposed to your evidence which is.....?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You’re the only one who needs to provide evidence because you unwisely said the challenger was hit with a mine and then said it was confirmed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Evidence has not been provided?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, so again, what sources do you want?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The youtube vids that all say "here's how Ukraine can still win" in the title

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I want evidence not the state arm of the British government assuring us the British tank was merely mined

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I want evidence not the state arm of the British government assuring us the British tank was merely mined
                As opposed to your evidence which is.....?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I’m not the one shouting about how the challenger was hit by a mine and that it was confirmed now am I? I never said how the tank was killed

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have evidence to the contrary?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you made the claim that it was a confirmed minestrike. the only one that needs to provide evidence is you.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              A lancet did that damage? That would be crazy because I’ve seen videos of Bradleys tanking lancets to their top armor, I highly doubt a lancet would cause a catastrophic explosion to happen to the challenger.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Open hatches. Challies tend to die from that.
                >See blue-on-blue in the gulf

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Taken out by a lancet. Absolutely terrible

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                In that context? lol.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What context? The tank was detracked but otherwise fine, a lancet hits it and suddenly the turret is no longer attatched to the vehicle?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >hatches open

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bro are you implying they flew a lancet through a hatch ? It's not a FPV drone it can't hover or fly backwards and I'm sure Russians don't have simulations to train drone operators

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                hes coping

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, yeah, the hatches are open. You could throw a grenade in there and it'd probably do it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't mean anything, lancets have different payloads depending on the range and size of the drone and getting hit doesn't guarantee that the jet that penetrates will hit ammunition or fuel

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >died to a lancet

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                would be funny

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's genuinely painful now warriortard. I have no idea how you can function on any level at all and even have a job.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >All the electronics, the engine and fighting compartment are fricked.
      Engine yes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I still haven't seen a single video of the damaged Abrahimars posted here

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    is that tank stanced?

    someone needs to stop these mods

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    warriortard thread
    https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61036145/#61036145

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Guess you’ll just have to deal with it

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you want me to believe russia destroyed an abrams, but the only footage of it is a dodgy-looking photo of a screen?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Impunity

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Posting the pasta since the plumber seems to be on it's lunchbreak.

    Alright lets delve in!
    >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 to 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
    He looks at male dicks and wants to move to Canada.
    >Posts his wifes OF images and requests
    She's a fat prostitute thats forced to sell her self online
    >Doxxed his own OF
    He's also fat and sells videos of himself farting and burping and touching himself (picrel) and jerking off
    >Posts fat out of shape Dog
    Basically animal cruelty in an image, it was fat and pathetic resembling a wooden beer barrel.
    >Posts gun and bedside table
    His bedside table is covered with dust so his house is almost certainly a pigsty
    >Has been obsessed with the British and the mighty Warrior for over 6 years
    Guess Jake Paul isn't 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 posting here for the past 5 years?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is he a plumber or a factory worker? What's your job btw?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Don’t engage with the moron. He just wants to derail

        https://i.imgur.com/kH2DePd.jpg

        it's possible, but keep pic rel in mind

        What’s the inference here. Sorry I’m a bit moronic

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          that ATGM is perfectly capable of turning Leo 2 into an unrecoverable loss if the hull ammo storage is not empty, it's not isolated from the crew and there are no blowout panels for it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >What’s the inference here.
          The hull stored ammo on that Leopard 2A4 was hit and it detonated, blowing off a chunk of the hull off.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's not going to be a challenger 3.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The wunderwaffen is actually unstoppable cause it just blew itself up instead is the most amazing cope I've seen all war and /k/ is competing with /misc/tards chgging putler's cum on this. You've outdone yourselves.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >wunderwaffen
      It was probably a later model M1A1. If you think it qualifies as "wunderwaffen" you're an idiot. Is prioritizing crew survivability that alien to you? An AbramsX as advertised might qualify, but certainly not an old ass A1.
      >unstoppable
      No tank is unstoppable, however it's MUCH easier to repair a blown out ammo bay than a fully popped turret assuming you can recover the vehicle. The crew is also SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to survive an ammo detonation. An equivalent hit on a T-72 or T-90 would've sent the turret flying and vaporized the crew. With blowouts you generally have to do something stupid or take a really bad hit for the crew to get fried. An example we've seen before would be arabs operating M1s propping the ammo doors open out of pure laziness. Pretty sure it's also part of why "lap loads" are seen as bad even though you get your follow up shot off faster. As far as the really bad hit, it'd probably kill the crew on it's own if it kills crew and still sets off the ammo even with the doors shut.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what a fat frick

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's worth noting at this point that not even The Russian Military is claiming to have blown up a Challenger 2 with any form of ATGM or Anti-tank weaponry. But simply that a Challenger 2 was "on fire".

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That doesn't mean anything, not all ATGM footage will make it to the internet

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yes they claimed they used a kornet. even the UK government is saying it hit a mine and the consensus is that it was later targeted by a kornet
      https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/update-on-the-challenger-tank-destroyed-in-ukraine/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yep

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah i heard it was a kornet as well

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can't be worse that Leopard 2

    >replacement parts ordered in spring only began arriving by December
    >electric faults and glitches impossible to fix in the field
    >underside of the turret front works as an easily penetrable shot trap

    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/politik/ukraine-leopard-panzer-reparatur-e052059/?reduced=true

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >underside of the turret front works as an easily penetrable shot trap
      what in the frick are you even talking about?
      there is no such "shot trap" on the leo 2

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        keep coping hans

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >P-p-please don't buy leopards you guys it hurts my ego
    Leopard 2s are excellent tanks

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's even a convertible option.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Mad about the fact the Leo2 is a great tank, possibly the best? Why?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you have a source for the Leopard 2 being a great tank?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            He watched a vid on YouTube called "LEOPARD 2. THE DECISIVE GAMECHANGING WEAPON
            IN UKRAINE WINNING THE WAR" that's just stock footage of leo1s being driven around by Argentinians..

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Do you have a source for the Leopard 2 being a great tank?

              Why are you upset about leopard2s being great and possibly the greatest tank? Angry americans that can't deal with someone else producing superior equipment, angry vatniks that hate everything western?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Angry americans that can't deal with someone else producing superior equipment
                are these a thing?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Probably but that's a silly thing to be mad about since the USA is the undisputed king on airframes which are more important than anything else.
                Europe having better guns,tanks and vehicles doesn't matter when the USA could win a war against the entire continent without a boot on their soil.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah I'm an american and I know our shit is overrated vaporware. We say tanks blowing themselves up doesnt count as an enemy kill haha putler! and that our super power stealth bombers are unstoppable when they get downs by 60s AA operated by inbred south slavs.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Greetings fellow Ohio-Oblast resident.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not, I'm just asking you to prove your claims.
                Preferable without using sources from German government agencies or members.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The future is a bunch of morons shouting "proofs?" back and forth forever.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How's it going fart sniffer ?

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >seeing as how the abrams lost in ukraine was relatively undamaged
    This cope again? Lol

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's turret didn't pop off and get everyone inside killed.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So far "The turret pops off and flies through the air like a firework, killing everyone inside" is a feature restricted to just Russian and German tanks.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Its a feature restricted to everyone else but America

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I haven't seen any Challengers, Leclercs or Merkavas with their turrets flying across the battlefield.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              There’s a pic earlier itt with a challenger that had its turret pop free. Not a spectacular kosmonaut level toss but still

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    its so fat

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    IT

    KEEPS

    HAPPENING

    https://twitter.com/giK1893/status/1763172052226232562

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sometimes I wonder if the freak who shit talks brit stuff is also the same dude who keeps posting that one turkish leopard.they have the same posting style and samegay/ban evade the same threads for days.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Weird how it's specifically equipment being used by countries supporting Ukraine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Weird how it's specifically equipment being used by countries supporting Ukraine.

      Schizo

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        braaaaaaaaap

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Meds

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i dont think it will receive blowout panels but it really would benefit from them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      its incredible they didnt think of it in the 90s

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        couldnt afford it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          checked but its not the expense rather than its a difficult design to get right. so far only the US has been able to master it

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wide

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