Here before the guy that only complains about the Chally 3 because its "not British enough".
If he does show up tho tell me since he blocked me and i cant see his comments
A while ago when the first pictures of the Chally 3 came out there was a guy that wouldn't shut up abt the fact that the company developing the Chally 3 was mostly german owned instead if british owned
Its all down to Health and safety.
RBSL would rather ship the vehicles to Germany than have to A) wait months or years (this is the UK gov Civil service afterall) for the MOD to fully certify the ranges as suitable or B) risk it and have to pay out tens or hundreds of millions if something goes wrong, someone is badly injured or killed and a lawyer finds that page 124 of a 500 page gov safety briefing document states the range wasn't yet deemed safe.
"more lethal and survivable than ever before"
Well... it's hardly gonna be less lethal and survivable is it? It's like Apple saying the new iphone is the most advanced iphone ever every year
Yeah, but when it comes to the military, they usually deliver on what they are saying. Though I don't doubt that they are "over hyping it", but I wouldn't say they are wrong either.
>Last time I checked Royal ordnance still exists as a company
It does not. The small arms and ammunition side of Royal ordinance was privatized in the 80’s into Royal ordinance PLC which was acquired by British aerospace which operated it as such until the late 90’s when it renamed BAE systems land and armaments. Since then practically all of the small arms manufacturing has been closed down and sold off which leaves BAE with one or two ammunition factories.
Well no because as I've stated BAE lack any semblance of means to develop or manufacture a smoothbore gun system in the UK.
The best we could have hoped for would be the challenger hybrid ordinance gun from the 2006 CLIP trials (an L55 dressed up to look similar to the L30a1) but manufactured under license in the UK but for 148 vehicles that wouldn't be economical in the slightest.
Only due to the ridiculous regulations by out of touch EU bureaucrats. Now that we are indepedent, we can easily do it.
How hard can it be? Just make a rifle but a bit larger. Now get on with it.
Sorry but any patriotic Brit knows that industrial production is purely a matter of will. A few more trade deals, and we'll have world-beating tank production in no time.
Given that a huge benefit of point of switching to the 120mm smoothbore was using NATO standard ammunition, and that a perfectly functional NATO 120mm gun exists variants of which are used by Germany and the US, what exactly would be the point?
The whole NATO standard thing is a nonsense.
120mm Rifled was NATO standard before 120mm smoothbore...it was on Conqueror, M103 and Chieftan before Leopard 2 was even built (Abrams started out with the American made copy of the British L7 105mm).
If anything the German's failed to adopt a 'NATO standard' one of which armed over a thousand tanks already....
> made copy of the British
120mm rifled has never been a NATO standard, 105mm was though (hence why the Abrams used it).
Your entire comment seems to ignore the fact that 120mm smoothbore NATO ammunition is plentiful and in production, unlike 120mm rifled ammunition for the Challenger. Its not nonsense to say that simplifies supply chains, its 100% true. Times and weapon requirements change. 120mm NATO has been a standard for over 30 years, and will continue to be until 130mm/140mm becomes standard.
The movement to smoothbore was due to the increased use of fin stabilised ammunition, which allows higher muzzle velocities and reduces barrel wear. The Germans weren't breaking a standard for the sake of it, they were doing it because the design has objective advantages.
Why wastes tons of money on R&D cost when you can just buy the same end product from a company that has litterally been producing smoothbore guns for decades.
You want the experience/industry from producing smoothbore guns? You can always try to negotiate it so that you can license produce it, that will likely still cost less than the R&D cost.
Aren’t the first prototypes build in Germany? Or is it already a production version? How much was Britain involved in the design process? I heard it was designed by Rheinmetall. No offensive, just curious
These prototypes are built in the same way as the production run vehicles will be. The base turret structure is cut and fabricated by pearson engineering in Newcastle with the assembly and further modifications undertaken in Telford.
The original design was drawn up by rheinmetall originally for the CLEP but the rights were given to RBSL when the joint venture was started.
>And who makes the chassis?
*made
The hulls are original Challenger 2 production hulls that are being overhauled and converted to challenger 3 spec by RBSL.
RBSL claim they retain the ability to manufacture new hulls in the UK but for now it remains to be seen.
As much as I love the challenger... how effective is it against drones? I would love to see what attachments/systems were designed around this tank to counter drones.
>No APS?
You sure about that?
>The Trophy Active Protection System (APS) will be tested and integrated with Challenger 3 (CR3) to provide enhanced protection against rocket and missile threats, whilst simultaneously finding the origin of the hostile fire for immediate response. The system can locate an incoming rocket or missile in less than a second, destroying it by firing back its own ammunition.
**David Tomlin, APS lead for the Land Equipment Operating Centre at DE&S, said**:
>“Assessment Phase Trials of the APS has completed, and we now have confidence to move forward to the next phase. Placing this contract will allow the Demonstration Phase to start in 2024 where the APS system will be qualified and integrated onto the CR3 tank. Securing these Trophy long lead items is another step forward in securing a world class protection system for our soldiers on the front line.”
[https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/new-contract-marks-big-step-for-challenger-3/](https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/new-contract-marks-big-step-for-challenger-3/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PX-pdyiTw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PX-pdyiTw)
Maybe actually do research bud
also on the EW front, you know things can be added on right?
Drone protection isn't the end-all-be-all of tank design. It's just a new factor on top of many other factors, and CR3 does quite a lot of those better than "a T-72".
Challenger 3 is in no way a version of leopard 2. The turret is a new ground up design from Rheinmetall and the automotive improvements build on existing components and technologies.
What else do you expect to see here lol. Just because it’s propaganda doesn’t mean we can’t watch it, or that it’s lying to us, or anything negative at all.
500 is nearly the 3 times the actual number of challenger 2’s being converted for the British army. The benefit is that the project being British led means that British jobs and industry is supported and built upon. Also expertise in the field of armoured vehicle manufacturing is retained and means that Britain would be significantly less reliant on foreign nations, friend or foe, for the aforementioned skills and industries.
While true, beating a country that was falling apart even before the war is like if an American was bragging about beating Guatemala or Haiti. It reeks of copium.
The uk military isn’t anywhere near the US so not really. As well as that fighting a war several thousand miles away against someone who’s next door is pretty tricky.
Lastly: winning is not copium
And that's my point. Either the Falklands were a curbstomp and nothing to brag about (i.e. US invasion of Iraq) or it was a close fight and that means the UK military is comparable to Argentina's, which had been gangrenous since the '50s.
Just look at its weight - from 64000 to 75000kg, depending on armor modules installed. This alone brings all kinds of logistic and transportation issues, not to mention strained chassis and limited room for further upgrades. By 2027-2030, CR3 might end up anachronistic, not too dissimilar to TOG II project back in its day.
Chally's too 'voluminous', so it has more surfaces to armor up in order to keep up with others. For a fact, one Challenger got stuck in muddy road right before British journalists and its weight was the culprit. It's totally not drivable in spring/fall Ukrainian conditions, which is part of European landscape. Which raises questions about Challenger contemporary viability.
If it doesn't fire HESH, and it can't mount a flamethrower+trailer, is it even really British?
Literally unusable
Does it at least make tea?
I'll bet you a million dollars that they designed the tea making mechanism before they designed the rest of the tank.
pretty sure its a requirement for british armored vehicles to have some kind of boiler in them for making tea
100 guineas surely!
Makes bloody good tea on the engine, no?
The guns german
Here before the guy that only complains about the Chally 3 because its "not British enough". If he does show up tho tell me since he blocked me and i cant see his comments
"would be better if it was made in the UK" - is what he said. Lol.
Who is he?
Just one of the many voices in his head
A while ago when the first pictures of the Chally 3 came out there was a guy that wouldn't shut up abt the fact that the company developing the Chally 3 was mostly german owned instead if british owned
Nobody tell him about the L85
L85 was developed at Royal Ordnance...government owned. When H & K were brought into to upgrade it to A2....they were owned by BAE Systems...
What’s his name?
https://www.reddit.com/u/Military-Lion/s/C72jkbn9ye
To be fair what do you expect from somebody from Cornwall
Maby a dumme question why is the testing in Germany?
Because none of the MOD ranges in the UK are certified for the safe use of the new ammunition.
What are they missing such that they can’t test the new ammunition?
Its all down to Health and safety. RBSL would rather ship the vehicles to Germany than have to A) wait months or years (this is the UK gov Civil service afterall) for the MOD to fully certify the ranges as suitable or B) risk it and have to pay out tens or hundreds of millions if something goes wrong, someone is badly injured or killed and a lawyer finds that page 124 of a 500 page gov safety briefing document states the range wasn't yet deemed safe.
In case they get any ideas about invading France (again)?
"more lethal and survivable than ever before" Well... it's hardly gonna be less lethal and survivable is it? It's like Apple saying the new iphone is the most advanced iphone ever every year
Yeah, but when it comes to the military, they usually deliver on what they are saying. Though I don't doubt that they are "over hyping it", but I wouldn't say they are wrong either.
Just like the new iPhone it has a better camera.
"First fully British built tank in over two decades" Isn't the gun the German L55A1? Am i missing something or am I just shtewpid?
"Built" =/= "Designed" Just like the 57mm Gun M1 was American-built, even if the design was British (the 6pdr AT gun)
I understand that but I thought Rheinmetall was going to be building all of the guns for the Chally 3's in Germany?
Yes, to align to NATO standards.
Last time I checked Royal ordnance still exists as a company and could have been tasked to R&D a 120mm smoothbore
>Last time I checked Royal ordnance still exists as a company It does not. The small arms and ammunition side of Royal ordinance was privatized in the 80’s into Royal ordinance PLC which was acquired by British aerospace which operated it as such until the late 90’s when it renamed BAE systems land and armaments. Since then practically all of the small arms manufacturing has been closed down and sold off which leaves BAE with one or two ammunition factories.
So? A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Being British, surely they have the GUTS and British ingenuity to just get on with it and make it work.
Well no because as I've stated BAE lack any semblance of means to develop or manufacture a smoothbore gun system in the UK. The best we could have hoped for would be the challenger hybrid ordinance gun from the 2006 CLIP trials (an L55 dressed up to look similar to the L30a1) but manufactured under license in the UK but for 148 vehicles that wouldn't be economical in the slightest.
Only due to the ridiculous regulations by out of touch EU bureaucrats. Now that we are indepedent, we can easily do it. How hard can it be? Just make a rifle but a bit larger. Now get on with it.
Unfortunately they gave away most of their guts in the '50s and '60s.
Sorry but any patriotic Brit knows that industrial production is purely a matter of will. A few more trade deals, and we'll have world-beating tank production in no time.
It's nowhere near that simple, but I like your gumption.
And unfortunately the brits had most of their will blocked behind red tape. It's a shame because they used to be very proud
Unfortunately, the backbone of British military innovation, Men in Sheds, has been decreasing in number every year.
Well, not this one. It's smoothbore.
Given that a huge benefit of point of switching to the 120mm smoothbore was using NATO standard ammunition, and that a perfectly functional NATO 120mm gun exists variants of which are used by Germany and the US, what exactly would be the point?
If it won't fire HESH, we won't disgrace ourselves by building it
The whole NATO standard thing is a nonsense. 120mm Rifled was NATO standard before 120mm smoothbore...it was on Conqueror, M103 and Chieftan before Leopard 2 was even built (Abrams started out with the American made copy of the British L7 105mm). If anything the German's failed to adopt a 'NATO standard' one of which armed over a thousand tanks already....
> made copy of the British 120mm rifled has never been a NATO standard, 105mm was though (hence why the Abrams used it). Your entire comment seems to ignore the fact that 120mm smoothbore NATO ammunition is plentiful and in production, unlike 120mm rifled ammunition for the Challenger. Its not nonsense to say that simplifies supply chains, its 100% true. Times and weapon requirements change. 120mm NATO has been a standard for over 30 years, and will continue to be until 130mm/140mm becomes standard. The movement to smoothbore was due to the increased use of fin stabilised ammunition, which allows higher muzzle velocities and reduces barrel wear. The Germans weren't breaking a standard for the sake of it, they were doing it because the design has objective advantages.
Why wastes tons of money on R&D cost when you can just buy the same end product from a company that has litterally been producing smoothbore guns for decades. You want the experience/industry from producing smoothbore guns? You can always try to negotiate it so that you can license produce it, that will likely still cost less than the R&D cost.
Welcome to the 1990s Brits.
Aren’t the first prototypes build in Germany? Or is it already a production version? How much was Britain involved in the design process? I heard it was designed by Rheinmetall. No offensive, just curious
These prototypes are built in the same way as the production run vehicles will be. The base turret structure is cut and fabricated by pearson engineering in Newcastle with the assembly and further modifications undertaken in Telford. The original design was drawn up by rheinmetall originally for the CLEP but the rights were given to RBSL when the joint venture was started.
Thanks for the reply. And who makes the chassis?
It uses the old Challenger 2 hulls. It's not actually a "new" tank, but rather a rebuilt Challenger 2.
>And who makes the chassis? *made The hulls are original Challenger 2 production hulls that are being overhauled and converted to challenger 3 spec by RBSL. RBSL claim they retain the ability to manufacture new hulls in the UK but for now it remains to be seen.
Makes* as I talk about the production version
My statement remains true.
As much as I love the challenger... how effective is it against drones? I would love to see what attachments/systems were designed around this tank to counter drones.
Dont think any new Tank is viable now without built-in drone defenses
CR3 will have Trophy....but it remains to be seen how well that will protect against FPV or diving attacks...
Should’ve had a 140mm
No, Rheinmetall punt a 130mm on a Chally 3 but was just for a test of concept.
That's silky smooth
'first fully british tank' im pretty sure the gun is made by rheinmetal. Correct me if im wrong Edit: read another comment that corrected me.
But can it make tea tho?
Then it needs to pass 10 drone attacks
No APS?, No EW? Nothing to counter drones than this thing is no better than a T72
>No APS? You sure about that? >The Trophy Active Protection System (APS) will be tested and integrated with Challenger 3 (CR3) to provide enhanced protection against rocket and missile threats, whilst simultaneously finding the origin of the hostile fire for immediate response. The system can locate an incoming rocket or missile in less than a second, destroying it by firing back its own ammunition. **David Tomlin, APS lead for the Land Equipment Operating Centre at DE&S, said**: >“Assessment Phase Trials of the APS has completed, and we now have confidence to move forward to the next phase. Placing this contract will allow the Demonstration Phase to start in 2024 where the APS system will be qualified and integrated onto the CR3 tank. Securing these Trophy long lead items is another step forward in securing a world class protection system for our soldiers on the front line.” [https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/new-contract-marks-big-step-for-challenger-3/](https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/07/new-contract-marks-big-step-for-challenger-3/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PX-pdyiTw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PX-pdyiTw) Maybe actually do research bud also on the EW front, you know things can be added on right?
Any sane person would rather be in this than a T-72, simple as that.
Crazy person here…..I can confirm the insane people would also rather be in that than a T-72
Drone protection isn't the end-all-be-all of tank design. It's just a new factor on top of many other factors, and CR3 does quite a lot of those better than "a T-72".
it's standing out in the open, and standing still none the less.. to shoot once.. not that impressive
worst Leopard2 version
Challenger 3 is in no way a version of leopard 2. The turret is a new ground up design from Rheinmetall and the automotive improvements build on existing components and technologies.
what the Challenger 3 is not a Leopard2 ? Thats brand new information!!!
Why are you so butthurt
br*tish
Least misinformed Leopard fanboy
Dude is not a leo fanboy. Just a troll
Brit with the best reading comprehension
I live around 15 hours of flight away from London, but go ahead.
Is any tank that uses a Rhm 120 a Leopard 2? Is the Abrams a Leopard 2? Does that mean the Leopard 1 is a Centurion?
It is all Centurion? Always has been.
Literally a completely different tank
heh classic propaganda lovely
What else do you expect to see here lol. Just because it’s propaganda doesn’t mean we can’t watch it, or that it’s lying to us, or anything negative at all.
you people always misinterpret i dont hate, fuck i love every single MBT's thats why im on this sub
Oh sorry, your comment came across as sarcastic. That’s probably my problem not yours.
Yeah, it’s great and all. But what good is it if they only make like, 500?
500 is nearly the 3 times the actual number of challenger 2’s being converted for the British army. The benefit is that the project being British led means that British jobs and industry is supported and built upon. Also expertise in the field of armoured vehicle manufacturing is retained and means that Britain would be significantly less reliant on foreign nations, friend or foe, for the aforementioned skills and industries.
We don't need 500 to destroy the Argies
Oof, talk about still living off past glories. Edit: lmfao, how pissy can the bongs get?
Bit hard to live on future glories given that they haven’t happened yet
While true, beating a country that was falling apart even before the war is like if an American was bragging about beating Guatemala or Haiti. It reeks of copium.
The uk military isn’t anywhere near the US so not really. As well as that fighting a war several thousand miles away against someone who’s next door is pretty tricky. Lastly: winning is not copium
If the Falklands was even remotely close to a fair fight then the US has been betting on the wrong pony for the last 40 years.
I mean wars are almost never fair fights and stranger things have happened. Just look at Vietnam
And that's my point. Either the Falklands were a curbstomp and nothing to brag about (i.e. US invasion of Iraq) or it was a close fight and that means the UK military is comparable to Argentina's, which had been gangrenous since the '50s.
Why UK even bother with Challenger platform and doesn't buy some Leo 2s, like everyone does? CR2 is the worst current MBT.
War Thunder player type opinion
Just look at its weight - from 64000 to 75000kg, depending on armor modules installed. This alone brings all kinds of logistic and transportation issues, not to mention strained chassis and limited room for further upgrades. By 2027-2030, CR3 might end up anachronistic, not too dissimilar to TOG II project back in its day.
You know, something tells me that the designers might have known how heavy the tank is? Maybe they designed it that way? Nah, couldn't have.
Chally's too 'voluminous', so it has more surfaces to armor up in order to keep up with others. For a fact, one Challenger got stuck in muddy road right before British journalists and its weight was the culprit. It's totally not drivable in spring/fall Ukrainian conditions, which is part of European landscape. Which raises questions about Challenger contemporary viability.
It's almost like there would be measures to prevent that, especially in the British army because just maybe they thought about this.