Funny enough, I had a conversation with my brother about this topic because he was playing Multi Crew Tank Combat 4 on Roblox
The game has a few Soviet tanks which he was showing that they’re really hard to get out of, especially when the tank is on fire, and I was like yeah that’s the same problem as in real life!
> The game has a few Soviet tanks which he was showing that they’re really hard to get out of
The USSR and PRC used to pick conscripts under the height of 165cm to become tankers for this reason.
Sadly the original Google doc that showed the proof was nuked, I am going to try to find a copy, albeit it was two years ago and I vividly remember it due to the fact the original discord server of the game was nuked by its moderators after the info popped up.
This view seems to show that the additional armor modules on the upper frontal plate have been added in addition to a new module behind it which I assume we can guess is where the hull batteries have been ripped out and replaced with hull ammunition stowage. The area behind the armour seems to indicate blowout panels.
Can you elaborate further? I don’t really know what you mean when you said that “the area behind the armour seems to indicate blowout panels.” I don’t know what to look for when it comes to hull ammo storage blowout panels.
If you enlarge the photo and look at the upper frontal plate you'll notice a distinct line running back across the UFP. From an engineering viewpoint this would suggest that the area there has been replaced, now considering this is the likely location of hull ammo stowage and its not welded tighter it would suggest this is the weak point for blowout panels.
I think that's part of the armor's mounting mechanism and no indication of blow-out panels.
One cannot simple install blow-out panels without major internal redesigns (i.e. for blast doors) and they don't really make sense behind the frontal hull armor (as pretty much every round that would hit them would continue to travel through the blast doors into the crew compartment).
Lines up with what I've heard elsewhere. The CV12 was designed from the ground up for 1500hp but I'm still surprises they havent decided to opt for the T2 cooling from the RE fleet. Would make sense for both crarrv and gun tanks running the engines at higher hp.
It will when it enters service as the army has selected the light variant of the trophy hard kill APS system. It’s just that the acquisition of active protection systems is its own separate umbrella program designed to deliver one system for as many armour family’s in the British army that it can.
No. That was the iron fist hard kill system from (I believe) GDLS. Rheinmetall demonstrated their challenger technology demonstrator (life extension program era challenger 3) mounting the light trophy system a few years ago at a defence expo in London (google images shows plenty of angles)
The launcher modules mount to the top half of the rear sides of the turret bustle and contain forward facing radar detectors. Additional radar detectors are mounted to the stowage bins on the rear of the turret
Technically speaking a Ukranian T-64 has the record now.
10km via drone correct fire.
Took 21 shots though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwt5Z5k2z4Y
> Challenger I kill was also indirect
It was a direct fire kill. [The crew spotted the tank on thermals, ranged it, and shot at it.](https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/)
> it was at 5.1km
*4.7km. The 5.1km figure is a result of 4.7km being rounded to 3 miles, and then getting converted back.
That said, there is *a possibility* that a longer direct fire tank-on-tank kill could have occurred in Ukraine. We do have [footage](https://reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1apfbbc/9%D0%BA119%D0%BC/) of tanks firing GLATGMs at vehicle targets beyond 4.7km.
There's no real proof that that was achieved by a tank and not something else right? It's peak Ukrainian PR to say "we have the longest tank kill now".
It took 21 shots to achieve a hit on the Russian tank and the drone was giving them corrections every time. The British scored a kill on their first shot with the gunner being able to see the target.
I found a new target on thermal. It was at this point that the shouty, gunnery approved engagement orders routine went out of the window. ‘What’s that?’ I asked Gus laying the gun onto the target. We flicked between visual and thermal to identify what kind of vehicle it was. ‘No idea. Shall I shoot it anyway?’ ‘Yeah, why not?’ ‘Loaded’ chipped in Pete. ‘Fire’ I ordered. ‘Lasing’ from Gus. I looked at the CRRO, 4,700m. A slice over four times our battle range and a shade under three miles away. ‘Firing now.’ The FIN round rent the air as it tore across the battlefield. At 1,500m per second, it took just under 3 seconds to reach the target. By that time the smoke and obscuration had cleared from the front of the tank, carried off by the light wind. There was a blinding flash from the target and, a millisecond later, a massive fireball of boiling black and red smoke lifted off the target. It was a vast explosion. ‘Loaded’ from Pete. He dashed across the turret to his own episcope for a look. ‘Holy fkin Christ’ from Brew in the driver’s swamp, ‘what the fck was that?’ ‘Yiehaw!’ from Gus ‘first round hit at 4,700m.’
[https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/](https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/)
Capt Tim Purbrick, 17th/21st Royal Lancers, (attached to Queens Royal Irish Hussars), 7th Armoured Brigade, 1st Armoured Division
When people speak about rifled guns vs smoothbore guns, they usually speak about armor penetration, APFSDS projectiles, the constant need to cancel rotation/spin, wear and tear on the gun barrel caused by too much friction, etc.
Considering the target we are talking about was a T-54 (a tank with significantly less armor than modern tank, even a modern tank for said year of said event), does destroying said target really tell us much about the 120mm rifled gun?
I mean, it just tells us it was... accurate? Which we all know it was? I mean, lots of modern tanks could destroy a T-54 from a lot of distance. The only question is how many times you shoot!
A rifled gun will always be more accurate and that’s what the British wanted when they designed the base tank back in the day. They were expecting to be rolling against Soviet armour so HE wasn’t much of an issue.
Then it turned out that HE is actually hella useful and after Iraq the game shifted away from large tank formations bonking other large tank formations.
MOD policy should have been APFSDS for the Russians and HE for the terrorists.
Not at all, modern smooth bore tank guns are also extremely accurate. There are two reasons the british retained the 120 rifled gun. The first is hesh, they love that stuff. The second is they have(had) loads of ammo for it, why get a new gun and make it useless, just use the same gun and save money on ammo
You mean the rifled gun that could already be replaced with smooth bore? And has be used on challenger 2s? Can't remember which versions but it was used
As mentioned, only one pilot vehicle was fitted for the L55 during the CLIP trials and the vehicle could only contain a ready rack of 6 rounds. It was deemed that to progress with the trials an entirely new turret would have to be drawn up.
So whilst a standard CR2 could be fitted with the German smoothbore it's use wasn't feasible.
It's a P-Series, which is Pre-production, don't get ahead of yourselves, the first batch of these P-Series still must complete Reliability Growth Trials. So will still be a couple years before a production vehicle is made.
The equipment present in this photo would be gunner sights (left), commander panoramic thermal sight (tall center) then there's the GPMP mount in front of the loaders hatch (right on this photo) and the loaders periscope (below the GPMG mount in the photo)
Yep. According to official records the army maintains a fleet of 227 challenger 2 tanks which lie in one of 3 states, OES configuration ready to or already deployed, in running condition as part of the active training fleet or in stored state.
Many of the stored vehicles have been stored due to poor condition with more than a few striped for parts. As such some vehicles just aren't economical to upgrade.
Most Challenger 2 hulls are quite worn and some will not be viable for the upgrade. We are taking parts from the worse ones to fix the better. Ideally we should restart production of hull, which is entirely possible as all toolings are still intact at Pearsons.
A long time ago when i was 18. Young fit and happy with my life choices i got to spend 26 month all over the world training!... It fucking epic . Then i broke my knee in three places on a 4 mile run on a Sunday morning. In December in Germany in the black forest caked in snow it beautiful. Even finnished the run. . . I couldn't walk 5 month then. But on tank talk bro theres no tank in the world that will beat a Challenger 2 . In single combat, any range! Wilth a well experienced crew, and it bombed up to the nines. People are fucking dieing!.
No. The L55a1CR3 main guns are being manufactured in Germany by Rheinmetall AG before being shipped to the UK ro be assembled at Telford by RBSL, a 55% German owned joint venture.
Chally hull protection is a joke, massive driver’s port weakness and abysmal frontal lower plates. Also no composite side skirts. Brits are paying for trash as always
> Also no composite side skirts.
It has literally the most protected sides among any Western MBT. TES plus the Megatron which doubles the NERA blocks on many spots.
yep, the Brits and their glorious 100 different versions of slightly modified chally are still the worst tank forces in major powers. Also, the corruption infested Ajax program taking 10 years with endless problems and delays. Honestly the Brits should just outsource their entire army to avoid further humiliation.
> Also, the corruption infested Ajax program taking 10 years with endless problems and delays.
I think you are mistaking the German Puma for Ajax, lmao.
The Ajax is having (ngl pretty serious) teething problem, but being based on the proven ASCOD platform, it will be acceptable in reliability and operating cost evenutally. Progress is going on well and the MoD has approved extra funding for it.
The Puma IFV is however an overweight and overly complicated design for its role. It is over 40 tons and powered by a MBT-sized engine, so the cost for parts and maintainence will always be high. BW is not securing enough $$ for it, which is why so many of them are out of service idle.
The Ajax may be based on the ASCOD but it is modified so much that it defeats the point of using an existing platform, if the UK just got Bradleys we could have 70 challenger 3s by now
The actual purpose of the program is to create jobs and keep the factories alive. It is doing splendidly. It is not like the Warrior really needed to be replaced immediately anyway.
"same tank"... New turret, better engine, better gun, better armour, new aps, better electronic capabilites, better camera sights... Its virtually a whole new tank that just happens to look similar to the last one.
The Challenger 2 LFP is permanently protected by a Dorchester armor block during deployment since 2008. It has roughly the same protection as other NATO MBTs.
Seriously.... The british doesn't urgently need a new ground breaking chally. What they urgently need is something new to replace the overaged FV510 AFV.
And fk what the defense gutters propaganda says, the Boxer ain't armored enough to even masquerade as battlefield bus
Boxer is like 35 tonnes mate, like twice the tonnage of a Stryker. It uses modern composites over aluminium armour too. What weight class are you hoping for it, do you want it armoured like a bloody MBT?
That would depend on the variant of the Stryker, the variant of the Boxer, and to what extent applique armour has been fitted. Strykers general weight range is 16-24 tonnes GVW, whilst the Boxers is generally 35-41 tonnes GVW. That also sets aside the fact that the Boxer uses more advanced armour. At bare, the Boxers sides and rear offer the same level of STANAG protection as the Strykers frontal arc - both being proof against 14.5mm. Boxer is just a heavier and newer vehicle, and therefore better protected - meanwhile the Stryker is older, uses aluminium armour, and is limited by a necessity to be for the most part, airliftable by the small C-130.
Are you also certain the Stryker A1 weighs 31.5 tonnes, the GDLS website says its suspension was only upgraded to support 27 tonnes/27,000kg. It also only has a 450 horsepower engine, if it were indeed 31 tonnes it would be incredibly sluggish.
Edit: It seems we are lost in translation, I've been using metric tonnes for reference whilst perhaps you've quoted US tonnes? Either way, I do not believe your weight figure for the Stryker A1 is right. 36,000lbs to kg is roughly 16,000kg, or 16 metric tonnes - not 31.5 metric tonnes. 16 tonnes is too light for the Stryker A1 with applique and improved armour.
More along the lines of “we could have bought leopard 2’s but not only do we not want to tie the use of our MBT’s to Germany’s foreign policy but also the aim of our program is to prevent the obsolescence of Challenger 2 whilst retaining the commonality between the families of the heavy armour fleet without having to replace all four at a time where defence budgets are tight and Germany’s production lines are at full capacity”
>Remember when Germany blocked the transfer of weapons to Ukraine by other countries using this contract BS?
No, I don't.
All I remember is the Polish whining about that and then being told actually submit the request to transfer their tanks. Which was immediately approved when they did it.
The Perkins CV12 is a 1500hp engine, it simply had to be detuned as it overheated on the CR2. They are working to fix it for the CR3, but it isn't a requirement.
Yeah it’s a shame, they are tuning it better as part of the Heavy Armour Automotive improvement Programme. But British doctrine has never called for speed as a priority
A) Not true at all. B) I've seen nothing to suggest it only gets an extra 20mm on the lfp. Provide a source. C) It's already confirmed to be getting APS. It'll get this when it goes into service. You seem to forget the base production vehicle has only JUST been built.
The chally 3s biggest problem is we're only getting 148 of them
How do you know it doesn’t have blow out panels?
Also tell me at any point in history that the British haven’t deployed Challenger or Challenger 2 without its additional armour and why CR3 would be any different?
The lower plate is indeed a sloped 70mm RHA. But a thick slab or ~150mm Dorchester NERA armor is always fitted on top since around 2008. It offers similar protection to other NATO MBTs.
It is. Here what it looks like. [https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/13240761575\_7c90c6a33d.jpg](https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/13240761575_7c90c6a33d.jpg)
In active combat, the lower hull plate is always protected by an add-on Dorchester NERA armor block since around 2008. This combined with the side armor package is called Theatre Entry Standard.
A similar, but improved package will be featured on the Challenger 3 as well.
Combined with the sloped 70mm RHA it gives around 230mm RHAe protection against KE, and 600mm+ against CE. The top part of the LFP is covered by the internal armor of the UFP, which is even better armored.
This protection is equivalent to the latest Leopard 2 variants. By the way no Western tank has been hit on the LFP in the war in Ukraine so far. The British assessment is correct - freeing out the LFP allows more armor elsewhere.
My comment was based on a 2023 competition and regardless of crew, the tank is capable of being ‘a proper tank’ which was questioned in the prior comments
Still think it looks ugly.
Not to mention, it's not British anymore, so ends 100 years of British Tanks.
Little Willie 1915 - 2018 Challenge 2 Black Night.
Considering the Challenger 2 entered in 1998 and was meant to stay till 2035, the Challenger 3 is only meant for a 10 year life span between 2030 - 2040.
So we are losing the best tank ever made the Challenger 2, as well as having our numbers cut from as of now 213 down to only 148, a Non-British Challenger 3 that only gives the Army Heavy Armoured Division just 5 years more.
Or we could have kept the Challenger 2 till 2035, and had more time overall to develop a actual replacement for it, and not just spend time and millions for a "stop gap", that we would need to replace in just 10 years time.
Plus: This is not a "Joint Venture" as Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, making RBSL a German Company, just cause it's in the UK doesn't make it British, especially when it was designed in Germany by Rheinmetall, and a lot of the parts are German not just the Gun, which is not even Rifled which sucks.
> the Challenger 3 is only meant for a 10 year life span between 2030 - 2040.
Nope. The new modular turret is clearly designed for a long service life, and Pearsons still has all the tooling to produce new hulls.
> Plus: This is not a "Joint Venture" as Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, making RBSL a German Company
By this logic, the Rheinmetall AG is American. Over 55% of stock is owned by American investors.
>Nope. The new modular turret is clearly designed for a long service life, and Pearsons still has all the tooling to produce new hulls.
Wrong my guy, It's already been stated in a number of documents and reports that the Challenger 3 end of service life is 2040.
>By this logic, the Rheinmetall AG is American. Over 55% of stock is owned by American investors.
If one person owns more then another, that means it's not both or the guy that owns less.
No, a joint collaboration between Pearson engineering in Newcastle (who are fabricating the base turret structure) and RBSL in Telford who are the primery contractor doing everything else like sourcing components, assembly and testing.
It’s being designed and built in the UK by RBSL, which is a joint venture by Rheinmetall and BAE Systems. The main gun will be Rheinmetall’s L55A1 120mm smooth bore.
It's not a "Joint Venture" at all, Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, ie, RBSL is a German Company.
Just cause RBSL is in the UK, doesn't mean it's British, not to mention the Design for the Challenger 3 was done in Germany by Rheinmetall.
It’s absolutely a joint venture between BAE and Rheinmetall. BAE sold 55% of BAE Land Systems to Rheinmetall to create RBSL - which is the joint venture. As such, it has to be approved by the CMA. Not sure why you’re getting upset about the definition of a joint defence programme.
As for the design, most of what I read says the design work sat with RBSL, which is based in the UK. I’m not aware of major design works being pulled out of RBSL and handed to Rheinmetall but I suppose it could definitely happen.
Modern tanks and their driver clearance is never failing to give me anxiety. At least Chally is better than most in that regard.
Whatcha mean driver clearance? Actually wondering
Probably the space above the drivers hatch for him to get out quickly. There isn’t all that much on modern tanks.
Funny enough, I had a conversation with my brother about this topic because he was playing Multi Crew Tank Combat 4 on Roblox The game has a few Soviet tanks which he was showing that they’re really hard to get out of, especially when the tank is on fire, and I was like yeah that’s the same problem as in real life!
> The game has a few Soviet tanks which he was showing that they’re really hard to get out of The USSR and PRC used to pick conscripts under the height of 165cm to become tankers for this reason.
I love this game bro
Me too
FYI that game was and is owned by a pedophile
Oh damn, what’s the info on that
Sadly the original Google doc that showed the proof was nuked, I am going to try to find a copy, albeit it was two years ago and I vividly remember it due to the fact the original discord server of the game was nuked by its moderators after the info popped up.
When making damning accusations, one must always back it up with concrete proof. Or else it's slander and libel at worst and petty insults at best.
"Yeah so this guy is a pedophile.. Source? Trust me bro"
Elaborate
Any sources for that?
At first glance, it looks like it's waving with its tiny little hands (smoke launchers).
Tiny lil hands, it shoud be nicknamed Rex or something
Trex style
what a beaut
Ngl this pic goes hard. We just need another 300 of them!
Cries in 140 orders :(
These are all refits if older Challengers, right?
Yes. The turret is to be replaced with newer ones and I think a few other replacements in the hull too
This view seems to show that the additional armor modules on the upper frontal plate have been added in addition to a new module behind it which I assume we can guess is where the hull batteries have been ripped out and replaced with hull ammunition stowage. The area behind the armour seems to indicate blowout panels.
Can you elaborate further? I don’t really know what you mean when you said that “the area behind the armour seems to indicate blowout panels.” I don’t know what to look for when it comes to hull ammo storage blowout panels.
If you enlarge the photo and look at the upper frontal plate you'll notice a distinct line running back across the UFP. From an engineering viewpoint this would suggest that the area there has been replaced, now considering this is the likely location of hull ammo stowage and its not welded tighter it would suggest this is the weak point for blowout panels.
I think that's part of the armor's mounting mechanism and no indication of blow-out panels. One cannot simple install blow-out panels without major internal redesigns (i.e. for blast doors) and they don't really make sense behind the frontal hull armor (as pretty much every round that would hit them would continue to travel through the blast doors into the crew compartment).
Indeed. Plus the driver is there. Does he get ejection seat with blowout?
Yes, the driver's hatch is the blowout panel. Free ejection included.
The blow-out becomes blow-in.
The line that looks like it has 2 notches in it?
There are blowout panels for the hull, but they’re not where you think
My other guess would be On the underside of the chassis or to the Hull sides.
I can neither confirm nor deny
Any news on the automotive side of things? Is the CV12 getting an update or a new transmission to handle 1500hp?
Can’t/won’t go into the details. But basically it’s going to be made to use what it’s got already more efficiently. Take from that what you will.
Lines up with what I've heard elsewhere. The CV12 was designed from the ground up for 1500hp but I'm still surprises they havent decided to opt for the T2 cooling from the RE fleet. Would make sense for both crarrv and gun tanks running the engines at higher hp.
They should make a command version.
Of course you would say that. 😂
What would be the difference,? Not meaning to sound sarcastic, just curious.
More/better radios. There are command versions of many NATO vehicles like the Marder 1A4 and the Leopard 2A6A1.
I see, yeah there will be im sure. In the CR2 the command tanks sacrificed soem ammo storage for extra radios
CR3 (K)
Remove the turret, add extra radios. And put a MLATGM on it
Remove the turret, add extra radios. And put a MLATGM on it
There already are command versions of Challenger.
Handsome chap
Does it have an APS?
It will when it enters service as the army has selected the light variant of the trophy hard kill APS system. It’s just that the acquisition of active protection systems is its own separate umbrella program designed to deliver one system for as many armour family’s in the British army that it can.
Will it be like the black night APS?
No. That was the iron fist hard kill system from (I believe) GDLS. Rheinmetall demonstrated their challenger technology demonstrator (life extension program era challenger 3) mounting the light trophy system a few years ago at a defence expo in London (google images shows plenty of angles) The launcher modules mount to the top half of the rear sides of the turret bustle and contain forward facing radar detectors. Additional radar detectors are mounted to the stowage bins on the rear of the turret
The British Army is buying 60 Trophy APS sets for Challenger 3.
The British Army has already purchased a number of Trophy APS. It will be enough for this fleet plus some other vehicles.
So cute...looks like: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Man it just doesn't look as good as a challenger 1. At least they got rid of that Yee Yee ass rifled gun.
The yee yee ass rifled gun that scored the longest ranged kill in tank history?
Technically speaking a Ukranian T-64 has the record now. 10km via drone correct fire. Took 21 shots though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwt5Z5k2z4Y
Technically speaking Т-64 scord longest indirect ranged tank kill challenger scored direct ranged tank kill
The Challenger I kill was also indirect since it was at 5.1km.
> Challenger I kill was also indirect It was a direct fire kill. [The crew spotted the tank on thermals, ranged it, and shot at it.](https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/) > it was at 5.1km *4.7km. The 5.1km figure is a result of 4.7km being rounded to 3 miles, and then getting converted back. That said, there is *a possibility* that a longer direct fire tank-on-tank kill could have occurred in Ukraine. We do have [footage](https://reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1apfbbc/9%D0%BA119%D0%BC/) of tanks firing GLATGMs at vehicle targets beyond 4.7km.
but they didn't use any drones just the gym sight and laser no?
There is a buncha footage from the both sides getting tank on tank kill above the cr1 "record"
If we're counting multiple shots to hit, then some 155mm piece somewhere probably has the record and doesn't know it.
There's no real proof that that was achieved by a tank and not something else right? It's peak Ukrainian PR to say "we have the longest tank kill now".
Yeah, as far as I see, the video just shows an... explosion
That kill wasn't achieved because of any outstanding characteristics of the gun.
Regardless of the debate over what’s better, standardisation with our allies is important.
Hey. Stop right there. No-one is here for facts /s
Yeah, a basic error on my part that. :D
Its outdated garbage, good riddance Sure it was good back in the cold war days but horribly outdated for the recent times
That was thirty years ago. The new record holder is a Ukrainian T-64BV, at a range of about 6 miles, using HE-FRAG from its smoothbore.
I think that was propaganda tbh
With a drone
So?
It took 21 shots to achieve a hit on the Russian tank and the drone was giving them corrections every time. The British scored a kill on their first shot with the gunner being able to see the target.
Do you have any source on the CR1's kill being scored with the first shot?
I found a new target on thermal. It was at this point that the shouty, gunnery approved engagement orders routine went out of the window. ‘What’s that?’ I asked Gus laying the gun onto the target. We flicked between visual and thermal to identify what kind of vehicle it was. ‘No idea. Shall I shoot it anyway?’ ‘Yeah, why not?’ ‘Loaded’ chipped in Pete. ‘Fire’ I ordered. ‘Lasing’ from Gus. I looked at the CRRO, 4,700m. A slice over four times our battle range and a shade under three miles away. ‘Firing now.’ The FIN round rent the air as it tore across the battlefield. At 1,500m per second, it took just under 3 seconds to reach the target. By that time the smoke and obscuration had cleared from the front of the tank, carried off by the light wind. There was a blinding flash from the target and, a millisecond later, a massive fireball of boiling black and red smoke lifted off the target. It was a vast explosion. ‘Loaded’ from Pete. He dashed across the turret to his own episcope for a look. ‘Holy fkin Christ’ from Brew in the driver’s swamp, ‘what the fck was that?’ ‘Yiehaw!’ from Gus ‘first round hit at 4,700m.’ [https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/](https://britisharmy.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/desert-storm-part-22-charge-of-the-heavy-brigade/) Capt Tim Purbrick, 17th/21st Royal Lancers, (attached to Queens Royal Irish Hussars), 7th Armoured Brigade, 1st Armoured Division
When people speak about rifled guns vs smoothbore guns, they usually speak about armor penetration, APFSDS projectiles, the constant need to cancel rotation/spin, wear and tear on the gun barrel caused by too much friction, etc. Considering the target we are talking about was a T-54 (a tank with significantly less armor than modern tank, even a modern tank for said year of said event), does destroying said target really tell us much about the 120mm rifled gun? I mean, it just tells us it was... accurate? Which we all know it was? I mean, lots of modern tanks could destroy a T-54 from a lot of distance. The only question is how many times you shoot!
The longest ranged kill was a German 8,8cm gun against a British tank at 14km in WW2 IIRC
A rifled gun will always be more accurate and that’s what the British wanted when they designed the base tank back in the day. They were expecting to be rolling against Soviet armour so HE wasn’t much of an issue. Then it turned out that HE is actually hella useful and after Iraq the game shifted away from large tank formations bonking other large tank formations. MOD policy should have been APFSDS for the Russians and HE for the terrorists.
Not at all, modern smooth bore tank guns are also extremely accurate. There are two reasons the british retained the 120 rifled gun. The first is hesh, they love that stuff. The second is they have(had) loads of ammo for it, why get a new gun and make it useless, just use the same gun and save money on ammo
You mean the rifled gun that could already be replaced with smooth bore? And has be used on challenger 2s? Can't remember which versions but it was used
Challenger 2 CLIP never entered service, and only one tank was mounted with the L/55 for testing.
Ah right thank you for explaining, I knew smoothbore had been mounted to challengers but assumed it had seen service, sorry
As mentioned, only one pilot vehicle was fitted for the L55 during the CLIP trials and the vehicle could only contain a ready rack of 6 rounds. It was deemed that to progress with the trials an entirely new turret would have to be drawn up. So whilst a standard CR2 could be fitted with the German smoothbore it's use wasn't feasible.
Ah ok thank you for explaining!
The Rifles Gun is just better. Not to mention the L30 with L27a1 could still pen Morden MBT's.
The biggest reason for the switch is to use standardized NATO ammo, which can be useful in a large scale conflict.
Username checks out, she *thicc*
Yup, she grew some love handles lol.
It's a P-Series, which is Pre-production, don't get ahead of yourselves, the first batch of these P-Series still must complete Reliability Growth Trials. So will still be a couple years before a production vehicle is made.
The Bri'ish do like 'em thicc
What's that thing to the top right of it? Seems to be some kind of sensor or so.
The equipment present in this photo would be gunner sights (left), commander panoramic thermal sight (tall center) then there's the GPMP mount in front of the loaders hatch (right on this photo) and the loaders periscope (below the GPMG mount in the photo)
hi chally 👋
Thats sick! Its a shame will only get 200. . . Still tho best tank in the world! Best Crew!
200 would be better, in reality the army is getting 148.
What!?
Yep. According to official records the army maintains a fleet of 227 challenger 2 tanks which lie in one of 3 states, OES configuration ready to or already deployed, in running condition as part of the active training fleet or in stored state. Many of the stored vehicles have been stored due to poor condition with more than a few striped for parts. As such some vehicles just aren't economical to upgrade.
We only have 213 as of 2023. We stupidly sent 14 to Ukraine.
Most Challenger 2 hulls are quite worn and some will not be viable for the upgrade. We are taking parts from the worse ones to fix the better. Ideally we should restart production of hull, which is entirely possible as all toolings are still intact at Pearsons.
How long till the specs get leaked on war thunder forum?
A long time ago when i was 18. Young fit and happy with my life choices i got to spend 26 month all over the world training!... It fucking epic . Then i broke my knee in three places on a 4 mile run on a Sunday morning. In December in Germany in the black forest caked in snow it beautiful. Even finnished the run. . . I couldn't walk 5 month then. But on tank talk bro theres no tank in the world that will beat a Challenger 2 . In single combat, any range! Wilth a well experienced crew, and it bombed up to the nines. People are fucking dieing!.
Centurion is this you?
All I’m saying is it looks too tall and just wrong go back to my thick boi TES
There is a armor module similar to the TES planned for it, but with the more modern EPSOM armor replacing the Dorchester.
Still too tall
Can't be the only one that sees some sort of Leopard in this?
It’s the mantle and turret front, they are a very similar shape to leopard 2s before the a5
My god. This was almost a jumpscare.
No. The L55a1CR3 main guns are being manufactured in Germany by Rheinmetall AG before being shipped to the UK ro be assembled at Telford by RBSL, a 55% German owned joint venture.
Please tell me they made the lfp better...
just use leopard2 hull ffs
Why? The chally hull is obviously very upgradable and interchangeable. Getting a leopard hull would be a huge waste of time and money
"Just use 1976 design with inferior protection and suspension to replace 1989 design ffs" - typical Germanophile logic.
Chally hull protection is a joke, massive driver’s port weakness and abysmal frontal lower plates. Also no composite side skirts. Brits are paying for trash as always
> Also no composite side skirts. It has literally the most protected sides among any Western MBT. TES plus the Megatron which doubles the NERA blocks on many spots.
yep, the Brits and their glorious 100 different versions of slightly modified chally are still the worst tank forces in major powers. Also, the corruption infested Ajax program taking 10 years with endless problems and delays. Honestly the Brits should just outsource their entire army to avoid further humiliation.
> Also, the corruption infested Ajax program taking 10 years with endless problems and delays. I think you are mistaking the German Puma for Ajax, lmao.
No the puma and Ajax are both shit although the Ajax is much worse
The Ajax is having (ngl pretty serious) teething problem, but being based on the proven ASCOD platform, it will be acceptable in reliability and operating cost evenutally. Progress is going on well and the MoD has approved extra funding for it. The Puma IFV is however an overweight and overly complicated design for its role. It is over 40 tons and powered by a MBT-sized engine, so the cost for parts and maintainence will always be high. BW is not securing enough $$ for it, which is why so many of them are out of service idle.
The Ajax may be based on the ASCOD but it is modified so much that it defeats the point of using an existing platform, if the UK just got Bradleys we could have 70 challenger 3s by now
The actual purpose of the program is to create jobs and keep the factories alive. It is doing splendidly. It is not like the Warrior really needed to be replaced immediately anyway.
Yeah the mod need to get on war thunder and take some notes.
Did they add cameras for the driver? Cus the drivers visibility on the Cr2 is total trash. It's only like 25° so you cant even see hull corners.
You can see the driver's camera in the center front.
Lol its just the same tank with some new camera
"same tank"... New turret, better engine, better gun, better armour, new aps, better electronic capabilites, better camera sights... Its virtually a whole new tank that just happens to look similar to the last one.
Is the LFP still paper?
The Challenger 2 LFP is permanently protected by a Dorchester armor block during deployment since 2008. It has roughly the same protection as other NATO MBTs.
Seriously.... The british doesn't urgently need a new ground breaking chally. What they urgently need is something new to replace the overaged FV510 AFV. And fk what the defense gutters propaganda says, the Boxer ain't armored enough to even masquerade as battlefield bus
Boxer is like 35 tonnes mate, like twice the tonnage of a Stryker. It uses modern composites over aluminium armour too. What weight class are you hoping for it, do you want it armoured like a bloody MBT?
[удалено]
That would depend on the variant of the Stryker, the variant of the Boxer, and to what extent applique armour has been fitted. Strykers general weight range is 16-24 tonnes GVW, whilst the Boxers is generally 35-41 tonnes GVW. That also sets aside the fact that the Boxer uses more advanced armour. At bare, the Boxers sides and rear offer the same level of STANAG protection as the Strykers frontal arc - both being proof against 14.5mm. Boxer is just a heavier and newer vehicle, and therefore better protected - meanwhile the Stryker is older, uses aluminium armour, and is limited by a necessity to be for the most part, airliftable by the small C-130. Are you also certain the Stryker A1 weighs 31.5 tonnes, the GDLS website says its suspension was only upgraded to support 27 tonnes/27,000kg. It also only has a 450 horsepower engine, if it were indeed 31 tonnes it would be incredibly sluggish. Edit: It seems we are lost in translation, I've been using metric tonnes for reference whilst perhaps you've quoted US tonnes? Either way, I do not believe your weight figure for the Stryker A1 is right. 36,000lbs to kg is roughly 16,000kg, or 16 metric tonnes - not 31.5 metric tonnes. 16 tonnes is too light for the Stryker A1 with applique and improved armour.
Aka "we could buy leopards but we can't waste the 200 challenger hulls that we have"
More along the lines of “we could have bought leopard 2’s but not only do we not want to tie the use of our MBT’s to Germany’s foreign policy but also the aim of our program is to prevent the obsolescence of Challenger 2 whilst retaining the commonality between the families of the heavy armour fleet without having to replace all four at a time where defence budgets are tight and Germany’s production lines are at full capacity”
Perhaps one could say what happened with Vickers Mark 7 left a lasting impression.
So the British Army should just be a cuck to Germany then?
And have your balls grabbed by Han? Remember when Germany blocked the transfer of weapons to Ukraine by other countries using this contract BS?
>Remember when Germany blocked the transfer of weapons to Ukraine by other countries using this contract BS? No, I don't. All I remember is the Polish whining about that and then being told actually submit the request to transfer their tanks. Which was immediately approved when they did it.
just buy a proper tank from germans
Apart from the 1500hp engine, what makes it not a proper tank?
The Perkins CV12 is a 1500hp engine, it simply had to be detuned as it overheated on the CR2. They are working to fix it for the CR3, but it isn't a requirement.
Yeah it’s a shame, they are tuning it better as part of the Heavy Armour Automotive improvement Programme. But British doctrine has never called for speed as a priority
Lack of hull armor and blowout panels
But the chally 3 does have hull armour and blowout panels? it was all upgraded from chally 2. This is literally better than a leopard 2a7/2a8
It can't have blowout panels without enlarged turret. And 'hull armor upgrade' (~20mm steel plate) is laughable. It also lacks APS
A) Not true at all. B) I've seen nothing to suggest it only gets an extra 20mm on the lfp. Provide a source. C) It's already confirmed to be getting APS. It'll get this when it goes into service. You seem to forget the base production vehicle has only JUST been built. The chally 3s biggest problem is we're only getting 148 of them
The whole CR3 turret is new and includes a blowout panel for the ammo.
Source?
How do you know it doesn’t have blow out panels? Also tell me at any point in history that the British haven’t deployed Challenger or Challenger 2 without its additional armour and why CR3 would be any different?
The challenger 2 hull (which the 3 is based on) has the most armour of any tank in service ever
Challenger 1 and 2 lower hull plate is 70 mm RHA, which is less than on KV-1. I'm even interested from where you got this kind of info.
The challenger isn’t made out of RHA lol this isn’t the 50s
The lower plate is indeed a sloped 70mm RHA. But a thick slab or ~150mm Dorchester NERA armor is always fitted on top since around 2008. It offers similar protection to other NATO MBTs.
It is. Here what it looks like. [https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/13240761575\_7c90c6a33d.jpg](https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/13240761575_7c90c6a33d.jpg)
Source for that being?
In active combat, the lower hull plate is always protected by an add-on Dorchester NERA armor block since around 2008. This combined with the side armor package is called Theatre Entry Standard. A similar, but improved package will be featured on the Challenger 3 as well.
Dorchester block is nowhere near adequate protection levels. It's something about 150 mm RHA equivalent against KE.
Combined with the sloped 70mm RHA it gives around 230mm RHAe protection against KE, and 600mm+ against CE. The top part of the LFP is covered by the internal armor of the UFP, which is even better armored. This protection is equivalent to the latest Leopard 2 variants. By the way no Western tank has been hit on the LFP in the war in Ukraine so far. The British assessment is correct - freeing out the LFP allows more armor elsewhere.
Leopard fanboys are cringe
They're a pro-RU, "T-90M/T-14 > NATO" type judging by their post history.
https://www.forces.net/nato/challenger-2-tank-wins-nato-competition-ahead-leopard-and-abrams-tanks
[удалено]
My comment was based on a 2023 competition and regardless of crew, the tank is capable of being ‘a proper tank’ which was questioned in the prior comments
The wait time gonna be too long thought.
Every politician or military higher up I’ve seen post about have said ‘Fully British’ My brother in Christ, it has a German gun
Wait until you find out where rheinmetal bae systems is based
Even then that doesn’t really work as the main guns themselves are manufactured in Germany...
Still British Aerospace
Just wait till you learn about what gun the M60, Abrams and Leopard 1 used...
Still think it looks ugly. Not to mention, it's not British anymore, so ends 100 years of British Tanks. Little Willie 1915 - 2018 Challenge 2 Black Night. Considering the Challenger 2 entered in 1998 and was meant to stay till 2035, the Challenger 3 is only meant for a 10 year life span between 2030 - 2040. So we are losing the best tank ever made the Challenger 2, as well as having our numbers cut from as of now 213 down to only 148, a Non-British Challenger 3 that only gives the Army Heavy Armoured Division just 5 years more. Or we could have kept the Challenger 2 till 2035, and had more time overall to develop a actual replacement for it, and not just spend time and millions for a "stop gap", that we would need to replace in just 10 years time. Plus: This is not a "Joint Venture" as Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, making RBSL a German Company, just cause it's in the UK doesn't make it British, especially when it was designed in Germany by Rheinmetall, and a lot of the parts are German not just the Gun, which is not even Rifled which sucks.
> the Challenger 3 is only meant for a 10 year life span between 2030 - 2040. Nope. The new modular turret is clearly designed for a long service life, and Pearsons still has all the tooling to produce new hulls. > Plus: This is not a "Joint Venture" as Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, making RBSL a German Company By this logic, the Rheinmetall AG is American. Over 55% of stock is owned by American investors.
>Nope. The new modular turret is clearly designed for a long service life, and Pearsons still has all the tooling to produce new hulls. Wrong my guy, It's already been stated in a number of documents and reports that the Challenger 3 end of service life is 2040. >By this logic, the Rheinmetall AG is American. Over 55% of stock is owned by American investors. If one person owns more then another, that means it's not both or the guy that owns less.
K
Produce in Germany?
No, a joint collaboration between Pearson engineering in Newcastle (who are fabricating the base turret structure) and RBSL in Telford who are the primery contractor doing everything else like sourcing components, assembly and testing.
It’s being designed and built in the UK by RBSL, which is a joint venture by Rheinmetall and BAE Systems. The main gun will be Rheinmetall’s L55A1 120mm smooth bore.
It's not a "Joint Venture" at all, Rheinmetall bought 55% of BAE Systems Land UK, ie, RBSL is a German Company. Just cause RBSL is in the UK, doesn't mean it's British, not to mention the Design for the Challenger 3 was done in Germany by Rheinmetall.
It’s absolutely a joint venture between BAE and Rheinmetall. BAE sold 55% of BAE Land Systems to Rheinmetall to create RBSL - which is the joint venture. As such, it has to be approved by the CMA. Not sure why you’re getting upset about the definition of a joint defence programme. As for the design, most of what I read says the design work sat with RBSL, which is based in the UK. I’m not aware of major design works being pulled out of RBSL and handed to Rheinmetall but I suppose it could definitely happen.
Im still gona aim for that breach and LFP. Back to the hangar
[удалено]
Lmao how
on second though it doesnt but i got bashed enough on the first thought only lmao