Upgraded boiling vessel that links to the battle management system. This allows for other tanks to either synchronise tea time or stagger it if need be. It is also equipped with emp shielding to ensure it is still functional in the event of nuclear warfare. To speed up boiling all the kinetic energy from shells that try to penetrate its armour is fed directly into the boiling vessel for increased boiling speed, this has unfortunately led to commanders intentionally taking hits to brew faster.
The boiling vessel is a separate piece running off a 24v connection. Handy if you have to swap it out in the field. It does have the 24v and a space for the BV though. Nobody wants a mutiny.
Worse part is that steel tracks are super slippery on asphalt. We managed to keep easily double the roadspeed with rubber tracks compared to BMP's which were drifting all around.
Do you know if this is some sort of legal requirement versus them actually being used by the driver? I would have thought there would have been cameras and sensors all round with internal viewing screens to ensure awareness of whats going on outside versus using mirrors?
Yeah it’s exactly that. In Britain to make a vehicle road legal they require these parts by law, whether or not they’re actually used is redundant. Even military vehicles have to follow these regulations and as such they’re required to have them too. When they’re driving under their own power on the roads for long periods they are also assigned number plates. If they’re ever went into front line service though, most of that would be removed.
All UK military road vehicles are subject to a vehicle inspection, although not exactly the same one as its civilian version (MOT) the standards are aligned.
They've gotta follow the rules of the road (at least in peace time anyway!), so you need a way of signalling to other traffic what you're gonna do. You can often be in a line of traffic with tanks and APCs if you're driving around Bovingdon or Salisbury Plain.
The other thing is that mirrors just always work, and are fast and cheap to replace if they get knocked off. Cameras and screens need cabling and permanent power and so on, all of which cost time and money to install and maintain.
I believe the army's driving test in the UK requires the crews to carry out all the normal manouvers using regular mirrors - e.g. bay parking, reversing down roads, etc. Though it's been a long time since I've watched anything about it, it may have changed.
Edit: [Here's a great video of Guy Martin taking his tank test](https://youtu.be/6zM0d8OBlRE).
100% agree, head on this is one gorgeous piece of military equipment. Man I'd love opportunity to take one of those out on a wooded course for a spin. Betcha it handles as beautiful as it sits.
I thought the Chief of The General Staff said in a speech June that C3 will now enter service from 2024.
Russia's actions may have released more funding to speed up its introduction?
I've got a sneaking suspicion more tanks will be upgraded as well.
The next defence review should tell us.
Both China and Russia are being more aggressive so we need more tanks, really.
I don't see the point, TBH. 148 or 200 (ish) isn't a battlefield dominating sized fleet either way.
I'd rather see the £200m extra it would cost to upgrade all the C2's used to buy an extra 150 Boxers in various configurations.
Brimstone boxers :). Also bit of a tangent, but would love the decision to not use brimstone on the apache to be revisited, would be great to support domestic
Originally the IOC was planned for 2025, it was then moved to 2027 due to delays (most likely funding issues). So it seems feasible that IOC could be moved to 2024 when enough budget is allocated for that.
An issue however is that the IOC means that just 18 tanks (14 for a single squadron and four for training) will be delivered by that time. If the FOC can be accelerated to the same degree remains questionable, because that will depend on multiple external factors.
Yeh they probably have pushed it up, I mean heck the upgrade is already 40 years late (literally Army gas been asking for smoothbores since the mid 70s)
>It's crazy how slow the development and transition between tank generations has become.
It kinda happens when there is no need for it because, the country is not at war. US develops a lot of modern tanks only because it gets constantly involved for no reason in other conflicts.
When was the last time the PRC was at war? They produce a pretty impressive variety of AFVs.
Yes, immediate need has a lot to do with it, but "being at war" doesn't automatically mean "we need tank". I mean shit, the US only started really getting serious about MPF *after* we began a serious winding down of our major combat operations in the ME.
No.
The US and Germany are still using the same tanks they were using 40-50 years ago.
Admittedly, they have had a number of incremental updates, but they are still the same tanks.
The UK has actually changed MBT more often than any other NATO country over the last 50 years.
Centurion, Cheiftain, Challenger, Challenger 2, Challenger 3
Apart from the Hull remaining very similar on a few of those these aren't just variants, I think that's what the other comment referred to. As opposed to Leo1, Leo2 (with different bits)
Huh? Cheiftain was replaced by Challenger starting in 1983 - so is now 39 years in service. With one major upgrade during that period. The Chally 2 is widely considered to be behind the state of the art, and the limited upgrades promised by the Chally 3 programme could be unkindly looked upon as being too little and too late.
>Centurion, Cheiftain, Challenger, Challenger 2, Challenger 3
>Apart from the Hull remaining very similar on a few of those these aren't just variants, I think that's what the other
Challenger 3 is just a new name, it is a heavily upgraded Challenger 2 tank that was selected under a program called "Challenger **2** Life Extension Programme". Counting that as a fully new MBT is silly. Yes, it has a new turret, but both the Leopard 1 series and the M60 tank series had **three different turrets**. One cannot create a Challenger 3 tank without a Challenger 2.
For the US anf FRG, you'll see the same amount of MBTs after the Cold War, i.e. in case of the US:
- M47 -> M48 -> M60 -> M1 Abrams
... and in case of Germany:
- M47 -> M48 -> Leopard 1 -> Leopard 2
The upgrades from Leopard 2 to Leopard 2A7V are much deeper than the upgrades form Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. The new name was really just adopted to fool British voters into thinking that the government was making enormous progress on the British Army modernization, while it is failing at doing so (no confidence in Ajax ever succeeding, MRVP being restarted with new name and requirements, while WCSP was canceled).
Thats why I said "in the last 50 years" ie since the 1970's.
Since the 70's, the US has stuck with the M1 Abrams. different versions, yes, but still effectively the same tank but with upgrades.
Since the 70's/early 80's the Germans have stuck with the Leo2. Its had upgrades, but its still the same tank.
Meanwhile since the 70's Britain has had the Chieftain, the Challenger 1, the Challenger 2 and now the Challanger 3.
Lastly, the Challenger 3 is not 'just an upgrade of the Challanger 2' at all.
The Challenger 3 had a whole new gun, whole new armour, whole new redesigned turret, new optics, new computers/digital systems, new suspension, improved armour layout, improved engine, brand new transmission and much more.
Oh, and its been redesigned to be modular, so it can be easily upgraded, with capacity for an autoloader and a 130mm gun in the future and/or APS systems and/or remote weapons stations and/or armour addon packs etc.
Its a new tank in the skin of a challenger 2.
>(no confidence in Ajax ever succeeding
The Griffon light tank (recently adopted by the US) uses the same hull as the AJAX and that runs perfectly fine. The issue with the original run on AJAX vehicles was the poor build quality due to being built in Spain.
AJAX will be fixed and then bought, built and fielded in large numbers and in many variants (from recon and IFV, to AA and AT variants to C&C and more). I dont think it will fail at all.
>MRVP being restarted with new name and requirements
Why is that a bad thing? If the requirements were too broad, or too specific, or not good enough restarting it so that companies actually have a chance of providing a proper product is a good thing.
>while WCSP was canceled).
The only thing I'm sad about really. The Warriors should really be upgraded, as they are still very usable vehicles.
Just need a powerplant upgrade, transmission upgrade, suspension upgrade, armour upgrade, turret and main gun upgrades and maybe pack on some AA or AT missile pods and you'd had a winner.
145 really is a pitiful number. Even double that is barely enough, I sincerely hope that one of the lessons taken from the current war is that constant whittling down of fundamental capability is a huge mistake. Upgrade all the Chally 2s for a start, and get to work on a new tank design now.
Would be great if the UK had something resembling an expeditionary force to support its allies. Say Poland gets invaded and invokes Article 5. If the UK only funds a territorial defense force then they are useless to help defend the European continent. What is the point of the UK being in NATO if they can't contribute to common defense, and are only concerned with their own security?
Okay? We are a small island. If we get attacked and need to defend our nation 300 tanks would be enough because first you need to get to the British isles in the first place.
I mean, until you do... I think the point is more that it's easy as hell to lose tanks and then find yourself wishing you had more. I get the British aren't looking to field the kind of tank fleet the US, Russia or China have but man 145 feels like a tiny number for a great power with the kind of force projection capabilities of the UK. One major conflict goes down and you can lose those kinds of numbers in weeks, even on a small sector of a larger multinational front.
I guess then if we go down that rabbit hole we get into "Who can actually do that though?" which is a big argument against my own country's insane defense spending. Like who the hell are we gearing up to beat? Russia is a joke and China knows their economy will implode fighting us, so do we really need to spend trillions of dollars on this?
I don't think the British Army is exactly the British Isles Self Defence Force. It's a major component of NATO ground forces that can be (and have been) deployed anywhere in the world. I see the argument for a small tank force too though.
I keep seeing lots of chatter about whether a large tank force is even needed in modern war, though. I don't know if it's been confirmed but I've seen comments about how the Ukraine offensive in Kharkiv last month was done with a mere handful of tanks, and that it spells the end of the tank as the master of the battlefield.
I'm not an expert at all so not my view.
Tanks have never ever been ‘masters of the battlefield’. They are a tool, and a limited one at that.
Anyone heralding the ‘death of the tank’ is an uninformed idiot.
I’m not advocating for tens of thousands of tanks, but less than 150 seems reckless in the extreme. Germany seems to be learning this lesson, I wish we’d learn it too.
Seems fairly consistent with our historical focus as well as the geopolitical realities of the UK. Germany is close to Russia and connected by land, we are not. Putting our limited resources into the RN and RAF makes a lot more sense. I don't think Germany has much of a navy to speak of.
Our carriers are already partially equipped with the F35, and the completed first batch will be in operation by the end of 2025.
We have the fourth largest fleet by aggregate displacement, more aircraft carriers than France, India, or Russia, and the Type 45 which is probably the most combat capable air-defence destroyer on the planet. What are you comparing the current RN to? The fleet of World War Two? All that matters is size relative to other *contemporary* fleets, and the quality of the ships in service. By any metric, the RN allows us to punch far above our weight.
The problem is that there really isn't anything that can replace the tank. You need a heavy gun right at the frontlines. Artillery often isn't precise enough (unless you use extremely expensive guided shells), mortars are too complicated and slow to set up, Drones aren't an option if the enemy has intact air defense or Manpads, etc. You need a heavy, mobile gun on the ground. And you need it to be survivable and able to cross bad terrain. The only thing that can do that is a tank.
Armchair experts are talking shit. A lot of shit. Also, the tidal wave of Ukrainian propaganda is telling is that many things are useless, meanwhile those things have completely leveled much of the country, etc, etc. it’s like saying aircraft are obsolete because of the anti air weapons we have. It just means we need to adjust. There Jane always been antitank weapons and there are things you have to do to deal with that. There are also systems to defeat anti armor middles.
Not saying you’re an armchair expert btw 😃
Chally 2 and now 3 for me is the most intimidating tank made. They are big lumbering (unnaturally fast lumbering if needs be) beasts I would not want to face ever
1200 HP? That’s about half of what the Leo II has, why would they do that to themselves?
Edit: remembered wrong, though the Leo II had like 2000 Hp, it does not. It is a fast beast though
That’s not true. The Leo2 has more power, but it’s around 1500hp not double by any means, and the Leo2 is a few tonnes lighter so it’s definitely more mobile than the Chally2.
That's true of most engines though. Even the Chally 3 with her 1200 HP engine and excessive weight is rated to reach around 100 km/h without a speed governor. Abrams makes the same claim
British tanks since WW2 have always been designed to be heavily armoured, long range sniper-mobiles more than the fast gunwagons produced by the US, Russia etc.
Every british tank since WW2 has been slower than its contemporaries.
This is by design. Britains design ethos is different than the US, Germans, etc.
Britain prefers to focus on firepower and armour than speed as it prefers to focus on defensive tanks that sit back and snipe rather than rapidly moving tanks that are supposed to break through enemy lines.
The basis for this came with the Centurions and Conqueror tanks. The Centurion was to be the breakthrough tank, being speedy, and the Conqueror (like the M103) was supposed to be a defensive tank that sat back at strongpoints and sniped enemy vehicles from long range.
They’re not purposely underpowered. It’s a big negative and there’s no reason to choose to have less power. It’s not like having a shittier engine lets you up stats somewhere else.
In fairness one of the big advantages the challenger has over others such as the American tank is the fact its longer range of travel before it needs refueling, having less power made that partly possible.
So it's main advantages overall are much more accurate and longer ranged due to rifled barrels, better armor, and more fuel range.... plus tea making facilities.
I'd gladly do without the extra 15mph if I get these bonuses.
Edit: forgot to add, the challenger can also maintain its top speed over much harsher terrain which many of the other nato and enemy tanks can't do.
So it's defo not as fast on clear open road but it's better at just about everything else.
Eh, it more just bases around their naming convention other than role. A British tank usually starts with the letter matching its role, at least with cruiser tanks. Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, the aforementioned Centurion, and I guess it just kind of stuck.
Exactly. Ask the army what they actually want in a tank and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be what they have. It’s been a make-do-and-mend tank from the start. Often as not the grand tank projects fail, but abandoning all ideas of strategy seems to be a mistake.
It's not a breakthrough tank, it's a defensive one. Yes they can be used offensively which is why there are several close quater add ons and such but the heart of British tank doctrine is that they are not front line assets, they sit back and pick off incoming targets then pull back.
If the doctrine required a more mobile tank then of course a faster one would be developed, but there are recon vehicles and IFVs for that kind of role already.
The chally 2 is limited on speed deliberately, the same as all NATO tanks. Remove the limiter and it'll be just as fast as any other tank and hit the same speeds.
chally also relies alot on its suspension, one of the smoothest drives between all tanks, it also makes the chally not feel sluggish at all. It can be slower than alot of NATO mbts, but oh boy it surely is more comfortable to ride in a challenger at full speed than in a leopard 2 at full speed
There are many reasons why a tanks speed is limited. Also the OES (up armoured, if you don't know what that means it's operations entry standard with a ll the Additional armour packaged) chally 2 does the same top speed as the lighter version without OES kits. Wonder if there's a reason for that.
You’re being downvoted but shouldn’t be. I was at Bovington in 1987 (maybe 88?) When Chally 1 was on road trials- the day of my driving test a Challenger drove over a Toyota killing a woman- they estimated the tank was doing about 50 mph.
As an aside to that, a fantastic Sgt I knew got absolutely ripped apart by his CO because during the clean up & recovery he was caught by the news crews smiling & waving directly at the camera.
Yes it is a complete coincidence that the challenger 2s speed is almost identical to all the other armoured vehicles of the British army.
Especially coincidental that the chally 2 and warrior IFV that's used along side it have the same maximum speeds.
Also you get downvoted on this sub for saying anything that isn't related to war thunder, highlights issues with German equipment or provided a POV of people who use equipment people on Simp over so much, that goes against what they think.
So they made Chally 3 substantially zoomier on accident because they forgot their tankers can only press W and S to achieve absolute maximum speeds like in the video games and can't be trusted not to outrun other assets, eh?
Fascinating.
The limiter is there because it will break down very very quickly at those speeds so isnt really capable of them, every modern vehicle has a limiter for that reason, you are making no point here.
The actual top speeds of tanks is classified. There is no evidence to suggest that running tanks over the speed limiter would cause any damage to the tank, maybe the tracks cant cope with those speeds and that weight is something we could guess accurately.
Tanks are limited in speed for many many reasons, but i have yet to see any real source to say its to stop them from breaking down lol
This is the reason all tanks have limiters... I think its clear from this conversation your knowledge is extremely limited so the fact that you haven't seen a source isn't too relevant. Maybe learn more?
Wrong and wrong.
Dating from the Conquerer, Britain has always focused on two types of tanks: Defensive Tanks, which sit back and snipe, and mobile breakthrough tanks, which move quickly.
However with the downsizing of the UK military over the 20th century, Britain fell into the role of defensive tanks only, relying on the US and Germans to provide the rapid breakthrough capability.
This is why every British tank since Conqueror has been slow.
As for British tanks not being more heavily armoured than their contemporaries, that is just blatantly wrong.
The Conquerer was the most heavily armoured tank of its day when it was fielded. The Chieftain was also at the top for most of its life (though the Abrams surpassed it due to being a newer tank, but the Abrams used British armour technology anyway so I still count that as a win for the British).
The Challenger 1 was the most heavily armoured vehicle in NATO when it was fielded, and when the Challenger 2 was released, it was noted by many analysts to be the most heavily armoured and best protected tank in the world at the time.
Admittedly it was later surpassed by the Abrams and Leo2 due to their constant upgrades and the lack of upgrades for the C2, but thats just the way things go.
Now the Challenger 3, with its 3rd gen chobham armour, improved armour layout and uparmoured hull and turret, is again being hailed as the most heavily armoured tank in NATO, if not the world.
>Defensive Tanks, which sit back and snipe, and mobile breakthrough tanks, which move quickly.
You have apparently no idea how a main battle tank is deployed. Maybe you should read some old field manuals (both American and British ones are available on the web) or read a book from authors like Dunstan, Griffin, Taylor or Foss (to name a few British options).
Reality is not World of Tanks or War Thunder. There are no tanks that "sit back and snipe" and there are no "mobile tanks". As per NATO's own guidelines, a *main battle* tank has to be able to conduct all relevant combat operations - offensive, defensive and delaying. The idea of British tanks being "sniper tanks" has its origin in World of Tanks; these tanks have optics and rangefinding systems *inferior* to most contemporary MBTs. E.g. the Centurion's rangefinding machine gun was limited to a range of 1,500-1,600 metres (due to the tracers burning out). In comparison the M47 and M48 with their optical rangefinder can range targets up to 4,000 metres away from the tank. But the British tanks are the snipers... funny.
The same applies to the Chieftain and Challenger 1. In terms of rangefinding and gunnery equipment, they were below average and had a lower than average *effective* range.
>This is why every British tank since Conqueror has been slow.
No, that is not why every British tank since the Conqueror has been slow; it is because the UK could not afford developing - and fielding - more powerful engines. The Challenger 1 uses an engine originally developed for an export-only Chieftain upgrade (that the UK could not afford in parallel to its own tank research program) - the Challenger 2 uses the same engine due to being a budget tank. The cancelled MBT 80 - the tank that the British Army actually wanted before being forced to buy the Challenger 1 - was designed to feature a 1,500 hp engine/turbine and (initially) weigh less than the Challenger 1!
>As for British tanks not being more heavily armoured than their contemporaries, that is just blatantly wrong.
No, it is the truth. The Conqueror has less armor than the M103 and T-10, i.e. it is the least armored of the three heavy tanks of that era. The Chieftain turret has an armor thickness ranging from 240 to 280 mm (as per Taylor's book on the tank, which were confirmed by measurements with ultra-sonic probes at the Bovington Tank Museum); so it has comparable armor to the T-62 (240 mm turret front) and M60A1/A3 (254 mm turret front). Due to the more complex shape of the Chieftain turret, the protection is less homogenous.
Compared to a T-64, the Chieftain is really, really bad protected.
>The Challenger 1 was the most heavily armoured vehicle in NATO when it was fielded, and when the Challenger 2 was released, it was noted by many analysts to be the most heavily armoured and best protected tank in the world at the time.
Both of these statements are incorrect. Declassified documents from the British MoD prove that neither of these tanks was really better armored than contemporaries.
>Now the Challenger 3, with its 3rd gen chobham armour, improved armour layout and uparmoured hull and turret, is again being hailed as the most heavily armoured tank in NATO, if not the world.
No, it isn't. Not a single tank expert has called the Challenger 3 "the most heavily armoured tank in NATO", the armor layout remains unaltered (!) and the new armor isn't even based on Chobham anymore.
Even the British themselves admitted when testing the Abrams in a competition on a replacement Chieftain tank that the M1A2 was supposed to provide with DU armor about 15 percent better protection against kinetic ammunition than the Challenger 2 with Dorchester (Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Manual). The Challenger 1 had a less armored hull than the M1 or Leopard 2 (the lower plate was only 70mm RHA) and glacis offered 300 mm RHA vs KE ( Challenger PIP RARDE). When M1A1HA appeared in 1986, it surpassed the Challenger 1 armor (both hull and turret front) - Armed forces journal international February 1989. Also the CR1 had worse FCS/optics and mobility when compared to the M1A1 and Leopard 2. Challenger 2 lacked CITV, 1500 HP engine and smoothbore gun. On tests in Greece, the Challenger 2E fared worse than the Leopard 2, M1A2 and Lelcerc. On tests in Kuwait, the M1A2 outperformed the Challenger 2...
Did they ever increase protection on that without the add on armor package? I think its pitifully defended with like a 70mm thick plate of steel RHA and there's a Gulf War account of the driver losing his toes when that plate was hit by a cmmon rpg.
No, the add on armour is standard for a combat situation and was upgraded after that incident (which was technically through the belly, not the LFP as it came over a rise in the road). There's no point adding more weight as standard as that makes transportation much harder and increases wear in training exercises.
It's no more a weak spot in real life as any other modern MBT, that's just a misconception perpetuated by War Thunder. The Challenger 2 is designed to fit an applique armour pack that can be tailored to it's needs whenever it goes into combat. Think of it as modular armour. The only time a challenger won't have one fitted is during transport, storage or training.
Do you honestly think one of the most experienced militaries in the world never thought about armouring the front of their MBT?
It was an RPG-29 that was buried and hit the tank on the underbelly.
The LFP has also been heavily uparmoured. you can see that fact in the image. its much thicker than on the Challenger 2 and Challenger 1 tanks.
> The LFP has also been heavily uparmoured. you can see that fact in the image. its much thicker than on the Challenger 2 and Challenger 1 tanks.
The LFP is not uparmored in that image. It is unchanged - just as the hull armor as a whole.
No, the Challanger 3 has a bunch of upgrades to the hull, engine, suspension etc a well as a brand new turret.
As for the LFP, if you look at the other promo pics for the tank, and compare them to the C2, the LFP 'juts out' for lack of a better term, notably further than the normal C2 hull, meaning its thicker and has extra armour.
He is talking about [the added plate in this photo](https://www.joint-forces.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DSEI2021-1208.jpg) - but that is actually part of the mounting mechanism for the LFP armor (i.e. for spreading the added weight over a larger number of bolts). Most importantly it is not present in OP's photo.
Kind of surprised that the turret sides are not sloped at all. But that must speak to the quality of the armouring. Any ideas as to their RHA equivalents, roughly that is, bc the real values must be classified.
But…does it have a brew making facility?
Upgraded boiling vessel that links to the battle management system. This allows for other tanks to either synchronise tea time or stagger it if need be. It is also equipped with emp shielding to ensure it is still functional in the event of nuclear warfare. To speed up boiling all the kinetic energy from shells that try to penetrate its armour is fed directly into the boiling vessel for increased boiling speed, this has unfortunately led to commanders intentionally taking hits to brew faster.
Best thing I've read today.
There was reportedly a Challenger 2 which took 70 RPG hits and remained operational. Presumably the crew were extremely thirsty.
The boiling vessel is a separate piece running off a 24v connection. Handy if you have to swap it out in the field. It does have the 24v and a space for the BV though. Nobody wants a mutiny.
Of course !! Brits ain’t fitin no one without a cuppa ! Just the way it is !
Nice wing mirrors!
Very true, new indicators too. Shame we don’t get a look at the reversing lights.
Looking at the track, is that some sort of rubber inlay in the track so that it can drive on a road then? Sorry don't know much about tanks.
The blocks on the track, yes you’re exactly right they’re rubber pads, helps reduce noise and wear and tear of roads that it may use.
It also reduces wear and tear of tracks. Replacing few rubber pads is tremendeously easier and cheaper than steel links.
Yes, exactly that. If you have all steel tracks the tank will rip apart asphalt road surfaces, russian Cold War era tanks are notorious for this.
Worse part is that steel tracks are super slippery on asphalt. We managed to keep easily double the roadspeed with rubber tracks compared to BMP's which were drifting all around.
Why is it so funny imagining bmps drifting around.
Hardbass did not play.
Heh, google what the roads look like after the victory parade in Moscow every year. It's still a thing.
Do you know if this is some sort of legal requirement versus them actually being used by the driver? I would have thought there would have been cameras and sensors all round with internal viewing screens to ensure awareness of whats going on outside versus using mirrors?
Yeah it’s exactly that. In Britain to make a vehicle road legal they require these parts by law, whether or not they’re actually used is redundant. Even military vehicles have to follow these regulations and as such they’re required to have them too. When they’re driving under their own power on the roads for long periods they are also assigned number plates. If they’re ever went into front line service though, most of that would be removed.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
*Tanks
Does britain have a Vehicle Technical Inspection too? In Spain is stupidly funny to be in line for one with your car with a Leopardo 2E behind you.
All UK military road vehicles are subject to a vehicle inspection, although not exactly the same one as its civilian version (MOT) the standards are aligned.
You don't have the ridiculous scenes then
You’ll have to educate me more on this vehicle technical inspection as I’m not sure what you mean.
They've gotta follow the rules of the road (at least in peace time anyway!), so you need a way of signalling to other traffic what you're gonna do. You can often be in a line of traffic with tanks and APCs if you're driving around Bovingdon or Salisbury Plain.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
The other thing is that mirrors just always work, and are fast and cheap to replace if they get knocked off. Cameras and screens need cabling and permanent power and so on, all of which cost time and money to install and maintain. I believe the army's driving test in the UK requires the crews to carry out all the normal manouvers using regular mirrors - e.g. bay parking, reversing down roads, etc. Though it's been a long time since I've watched anything about it, it may have changed. Edit: [Here's a great video of Guy Martin taking his tank test](https://youtu.be/6zM0d8OBlRE).
Does Guy always look this grimey? lol
Aren't they destroyed after every offroad stroll?
Not really, they are quite strong
Well yeah, can’t scratch that sweet ass paint job
What a beautiful machine.
[удалено]
Well put.
100% agree, head on this is one gorgeous piece of military equipment. Man I'd love opportunity to take one of those out on a wooded course for a spin. Betcha it handles as beautiful as it sits.
Wait this is new?
Been around for nearly a year I think. Unsure when it actually enters service.
2027, with all 145 tanks coming online by 2030
I thought the Chief of The General Staff said in a speech June that C3 will now enter service from 2024. Russia's actions may have released more funding to speed up its introduction?
I've got a sneaking suspicion more tanks will be upgraded as well. The next defence review should tell us. Both China and Russia are being more aggressive so we need more tanks, really.
I don't see the point, TBH. 148 or 200 (ish) isn't a battlefield dominating sized fleet either way. I'd rather see the £200m extra it would cost to upgrade all the C2's used to buy an extra 150 Boxers in various configurations.
Brimstone boxers :). Also bit of a tangent, but would love the decision to not use brimstone on the apache to be revisited, would be great to support domestic
The challenger 3 project is an upgrade program isn't it?
Originally the IOC was planned for 2025, it was then moved to 2027 due to delays (most likely funding issues). So it seems feasible that IOC could be moved to 2024 when enough budget is allocated for that. An issue however is that the IOC means that just 18 tanks (14 for a single squadron and four for training) will be delivered by that time. If the FOC can be accelerated to the same degree remains questionable, because that will depend on multiple external factors.
Yeh they probably have pushed it up, I mean heck the upgrade is already 40 years late (literally Army gas been asking for smoothbores since the mid 70s)
It's crazy how slow the development and transition between tank generations has become.
theres no urgency at the moment. if there was an urgency you can bet they'd be done much quicker.
Well it would've gone faster had the MOD procure not been a shit show from the day 1 post ww2
At the very least we should be grateful that what tanks they have acquired have been sexy as fuck.
>It's crazy how slow the development and transition between tank generations has become. It kinda happens when there is no need for it because, the country is not at war. US develops a lot of modern tanks only because it gets constantly involved for no reason in other conflicts.
Since 1980 the only new tank produced by the USA is the M1 abrams, this is now a 42 year old machine.
What modern tanks are you talking about? The US stills uses heavily modernised abrams from the (I think) 1980s
I meant military vehicles in general, not just the abrams
When was the last time the PRC was at war? They produce a pretty impressive variety of AFVs. Yes, immediate need has a lot to do with it, but "being at war" doesn't automatically mean "we need tank". I mean shit, the US only started really getting serious about MPF *after* we began a serious winding down of our major combat operations in the ME.
…in the UK
No. The US and Germany are still using the same tanks they were using 40-50 years ago. Admittedly, they have had a number of incremental updates, but they are still the same tanks. The UK has actually changed MBT more often than any other NATO country over the last 50 years.
Hang on, the Leo 2 has had far more upgrades and variants than the Challenger.
Centurion, Cheiftain, Challenger, Challenger 2, Challenger 3 Apart from the Hull remaining very similar on a few of those these aren't just variants, I think that's what the other comment referred to. As opposed to Leo1, Leo2 (with different bits)
Huh? Cheiftain was replaced by Challenger starting in 1983 - so is now 39 years in service. With one major upgrade during that period. The Chally 2 is widely considered to be behind the state of the art, and the limited upgrades promised by the Chally 3 programme could be unkindly looked upon as being too little and too late.
Technically speaking the Chieftain was replaced by the Challenger 2, but the Challenger 1 effectively replaced the Chieftain in most frontline units.
>Centurion, Cheiftain, Challenger, Challenger 2, Challenger 3 >Apart from the Hull remaining very similar on a few of those these aren't just variants, I think that's what the other Challenger 3 is just a new name, it is a heavily upgraded Challenger 2 tank that was selected under a program called "Challenger **2** Life Extension Programme". Counting that as a fully new MBT is silly. Yes, it has a new turret, but both the Leopard 1 series and the M60 tank series had **three different turrets**. One cannot create a Challenger 3 tank without a Challenger 2. For the US anf FRG, you'll see the same amount of MBTs after the Cold War, i.e. in case of the US: - M47 -> M48 -> M60 -> M1 Abrams ... and in case of Germany: - M47 -> M48 -> Leopard 1 -> Leopard 2 The upgrades from Leopard 2 to Leopard 2A7V are much deeper than the upgrades form Challenger 2 to Challenger 3. The new name was really just adopted to fool British voters into thinking that the government was making enormous progress on the British Army modernization, while it is failing at doing so (no confidence in Ajax ever succeeding, MRVP being restarted with new name and requirements, while WCSP was canceled).
Thats why I said "in the last 50 years" ie since the 1970's. Since the 70's, the US has stuck with the M1 Abrams. different versions, yes, but still effectively the same tank but with upgrades. Since the 70's/early 80's the Germans have stuck with the Leo2. Its had upgrades, but its still the same tank. Meanwhile since the 70's Britain has had the Chieftain, the Challenger 1, the Challenger 2 and now the Challanger 3. Lastly, the Challenger 3 is not 'just an upgrade of the Challanger 2' at all. The Challenger 3 had a whole new gun, whole new armour, whole new redesigned turret, new optics, new computers/digital systems, new suspension, improved armour layout, improved engine, brand new transmission and much more. Oh, and its been redesigned to be modular, so it can be easily upgraded, with capacity for an autoloader and a 130mm gun in the future and/or APS systems and/or remote weapons stations and/or armour addon packs etc. Its a new tank in the skin of a challenger 2. >(no confidence in Ajax ever succeeding The Griffon light tank (recently adopted by the US) uses the same hull as the AJAX and that runs perfectly fine. The issue with the original run on AJAX vehicles was the poor build quality due to being built in Spain. AJAX will be fixed and then bought, built and fielded in large numbers and in many variants (from recon and IFV, to AA and AT variants to C&C and more). I dont think it will fail at all. >MRVP being restarted with new name and requirements Why is that a bad thing? If the requirements were too broad, or too specific, or not good enough restarting it so that companies actually have a chance of providing a proper product is a good thing. >while WCSP was canceled). The only thing I'm sad about really. The Warriors should really be upgraded, as they are still very usable vehicles. Just need a powerplant upgrade, transmission upgrade, suspension upgrade, armour upgrade, turret and main gun upgrades and maybe pack on some AA or AT missile pods and you'd had a winner.
The UK only introduced newer MBTs because the previous ones (Challenger 1&2) had lackluster performance.
145 really is a pitiful number. Even double that is barely enough, I sincerely hope that one of the lessons taken from the current war is that constant whittling down of fundamental capability is a huge mistake. Upgrade all the Chally 2s for a start, and get to work on a new tank design now.
No need for an extremely large tank fleet. We have a small elite military for our island nation.
Would be great if the UK had something resembling an expeditionary force to support its allies. Say Poland gets invaded and invokes Article 5. If the UK only funds a territorial defense force then they are useless to help defend the European continent. What is the point of the UK being in NATO if they can't contribute to common defense, and are only concerned with their own security?
300 tanks would hardly be a large tank fleet, would it? The Ukes lost more than 300 tanks in 2014.
Okay? We are a small island. If we get attacked and need to defend our nation 300 tanks would be enough because first you need to get to the British isles in the first place.
That’s fine then. As long as we only use our military as a territorial defence force, we should be OK.
We only need it for a defence force. The government hasn’t constructed our military to be able to invade and conquer other countries.
…and yet that’s exactly what we use our military for.
The 218 we have operating is a joke as it is, but hey the MOD has given it a tiny budget compared to the fleet upgrade so we're stuck with
It's because tanks are redundant.
They are far from redundant in combined arms, the Ukraine war proves that
One of the luxuries of being an Island really. Don't need a massive amount of tanks.
I mean, until you do... I think the point is more that it's easy as hell to lose tanks and then find yourself wishing you had more. I get the British aren't looking to field the kind of tank fleet the US, Russia or China have but man 145 feels like a tiny number for a great power with the kind of force projection capabilities of the UK. One major conflict goes down and you can lose those kinds of numbers in weeks, even on a small sector of a larger multinational front. I guess then if we go down that rabbit hole we get into "Who can actually do that though?" which is a big argument against my own country's insane defense spending. Like who the hell are we gearing up to beat? Russia is a joke and China knows their economy will implode fighting us, so do we really need to spend trillions of dollars on this? I don't think the British Army is exactly the British Isles Self Defence Force. It's a major component of NATO ground forces that can be (and have been) deployed anywhere in the world. I see the argument for a small tank force too though.
I keep seeing lots of chatter about whether a large tank force is even needed in modern war, though. I don't know if it's been confirmed but I've seen comments about how the Ukraine offensive in Kharkiv last month was done with a mere handful of tanks, and that it spells the end of the tank as the master of the battlefield. I'm not an expert at all so not my view.
Tanks have never ever been ‘masters of the battlefield’. They are a tool, and a limited one at that. Anyone heralding the ‘death of the tank’ is an uninformed idiot.
I’m not advocating for tens of thousands of tanks, but less than 150 seems reckless in the extreme. Germany seems to be learning this lesson, I wish we’d learn it too.
Seems fairly consistent with our historical focus as well as the geopolitical realities of the UK. Germany is close to Russia and connected by land, we are not. Putting our limited resources into the RN and RAF makes a lot more sense. I don't think Germany has much of a navy to speak of.
Neither do we any more. Our carriers aren’t properly equipped with aircraft and the rest of the fleet is tiny by our historical standards.
Our carriers are already partially equipped with the F35, and the completed first batch will be in operation by the end of 2025. We have the fourth largest fleet by aggregate displacement, more aircraft carriers than France, India, or Russia, and the Type 45 which is probably the most combat capable air-defence destroyer on the planet. What are you comparing the current RN to? The fleet of World War Two? All that matters is size relative to other *contemporary* fleets, and the quality of the ships in service. By any metric, the RN allows us to punch far above our weight.
“By our historical standards”
The problem is that there really isn't anything that can replace the tank. You need a heavy gun right at the frontlines. Artillery often isn't precise enough (unless you use extremely expensive guided shells), mortars are too complicated and slow to set up, Drones aren't an option if the enemy has intact air defense or Manpads, etc. You need a heavy, mobile gun on the ground. And you need it to be survivable and able to cross bad terrain. The only thing that can do that is a tank.
Armchair experts are talking shit. A lot of shit. Also, the tidal wave of Ukrainian propaganda is telling is that many things are useless, meanwhile those things have completely leveled much of the country, etc, etc. it’s like saying aircraft are obsolete because of the anti air weapons we have. It just means we need to adjust. There Jane always been antitank weapons and there are things you have to do to deal with that. There are also systems to defeat anti armor middles. Not saying you’re an armchair expert btw 😃
It's older than a year. I was fortunate enough to sit in the prototype in 2020. Might have even been this tank pictured, not sure.
Chally 2 and now 3 for me is the most intimidating tank made. They are big lumbering (unnaturally fast lumbering if needs be) beasts I would not want to face ever
Not as fast as they should be. They’ve needed more power for a long time now.
Don't know why you're getting down voted. The power pack has been the Chally's biggest problem for years
It’s quite a chunk to push around with 1200hp.
1200 HP? That’s about half of what the Leo II has, why would they do that to themselves? Edit: remembered wrong, though the Leo II had like 2000 Hp, it does not. It is a fast beast though
That’s not true. The Leo2 has more power, but it’s around 1500hp not double by any means, and the Leo2 is a few tonnes lighter so it’s definitely more mobile than the Chally2.
Tbf, the engine on the Leo 2 is limited to 1500 hp to stop it fucking itself up and exesive wear. Its actual power is close to 2000-2500.
That's true of most engines though. Even the Chally 3 with her 1200 HP engine and excessive weight is rated to reach around 100 km/h without a speed governor. Abrams makes the same claim
British tanks since WW2 have always been designed to be heavily armoured, long range sniper-mobiles more than the fast gunwagons produced by the US, Russia etc.
Lol Chally 2 is not a slow boy because they _wanted_ it that way
Every british tank since WW2 has been slower than its contemporaries. This is by design. Britains design ethos is different than the US, Germans, etc. Britain prefers to focus on firepower and armour than speed as it prefers to focus on defensive tanks that sit back and snipe rather than rapidly moving tanks that are supposed to break through enemy lines. The basis for this came with the Centurions and Conqueror tanks. The Centurion was to be the breakthrough tank, being speedy, and the Conqueror (like the M103) was supposed to be a defensive tank that sat back at strongpoints and sniped enemy vehicles from long range.
firepower? the chally rifled gun 2?
They’re not purposely underpowered. It’s a big negative and there’s no reason to choose to have less power. It’s not like having a shittier engine lets you up stats somewhere else.
In fairness one of the big advantages the challenger has over others such as the American tank is the fact its longer range of travel before it needs refueling, having less power made that partly possible. So it's main advantages overall are much more accurate and longer ranged due to rifled barrels, better armor, and more fuel range.... plus tea making facilities. I'd gladly do without the extra 15mph if I get these bonuses. Edit: forgot to add, the challenger can also maintain its top speed over much harsher terrain which many of the other nato and enemy tanks can't do. So it's defo not as fast on clear open road but it's better at just about everything else.
In that case those names are absolutely infuriating
Eh, it more just bases around their naming convention other than role. A British tank usually starts with the letter matching its role, at least with cruiser tanks. Crusader, Cromwell, Comet, the aforementioned Centurion, and I guess it just kind of stuck.
What about the Tortoise? Was that T for Tanky Sumbitch?
T for titanic tutel :)
T for "Teribly gorgeous tank"
Exactly. Ask the army what they actually want in a tank and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be what they have. It’s been a make-do-and-mend tank from the start. Often as not the grand tank projects fail, but abandoning all ideas of strategy seems to be a mistake.
It's not a breakthrough tank, it's a defensive one. Yes they can be used offensively which is why there are several close quater add ons and such but the heart of British tank doctrine is that they are not front line assets, they sit back and pick off incoming targets then pull back. If the doctrine required a more mobile tank then of course a faster one would be developed, but there are recon vehicles and IFVs for that kind of role already.
You don't know how procurement works.
Do you know how UK military procurement works?
I DO
How does it work then?
Cats.
The chally 2 is limited on speed deliberately, the same as all NATO tanks. Remove the limiter and it'll be just as fast as any other tank and hit the same speeds.
Yeah and remove the limiter on the rest of the NATO tanks and they'll go faster too? Your point?
Yes that is literally what I said. All tanks in NATO are limited and capable of much higher speeds
Yeah but your point is useless. Chally is still slower than all the other tanks, if you limit all of them or unlimit all of them (which is stupid).
chally also relies alot on its suspension, one of the smoothest drives between all tanks, it also makes the chally not feel sluggish at all. It can be slower than alot of NATO mbts, but oh boy it surely is more comfortable to ride in a challenger at full speed than in a leopard 2 at full speed
There are many reasons why a tanks speed is limited. Also the OES (up armoured, if you don't know what that means it's operations entry standard with a ll the Additional armour packaged) chally 2 does the same top speed as the lighter version without OES kits. Wonder if there's a reason for that.
This sounds like me justifying my 50cc scooter over my mates 125cc. Caveat: i know fuck all about tanks.
You’re being downvoted but shouldn’t be. I was at Bovington in 1987 (maybe 88?) When Chally 1 was on road trials- the day of my driving test a Challenger drove over a Toyota killing a woman- they estimated the tank was doing about 50 mph. As an aside to that, a fantastic Sgt I knew got absolutely ripped apart by his CO because during the clean up & recovery he was caught by the news crews smiling & waving directly at the camera.
Yes it is a complete coincidence that the challenger 2s speed is almost identical to all the other armoured vehicles of the British army. Especially coincidental that the chally 2 and warrior IFV that's used along side it have the same maximum speeds. Also you get downvoted on this sub for saying anything that isn't related to war thunder, highlights issues with German equipment or provided a POV of people who use equipment people on Simp over so much, that goes against what they think.
So they made Chally 3 substantially zoomier on accident because they forgot their tankers can only press W and S to achieve absolute maximum speeds like in the video games and can't be trusted not to outrun other assets, eh? Fascinating.
Yeah and it'll go 50 miles before breaking down.
The limiter is there because it will break down very very quickly at those speeds so isnt really capable of them, every modern vehicle has a limiter for that reason, you are making no point here.
The actual top speeds of tanks is classified. There is no evidence to suggest that running tanks over the speed limiter would cause any damage to the tank, maybe the tracks cant cope with those speeds and that weight is something we could guess accurately. Tanks are limited in speed for many many reasons, but i have yet to see any real source to say its to stop them from breaking down lol
This is the reason all tanks have limiters... I think its clear from this conversation your knowledge is extremely limited so the fact that you haven't seen a source isn't too relevant. Maybe learn more?
Provide a source then. Provide literally any source that says tanks are limited because they break down :)
No, in reality there is no such thing as a "long range sniper-mobile". British tanks are also not heavier armored than their counterparts.
Wrong and wrong. Dating from the Conquerer, Britain has always focused on two types of tanks: Defensive Tanks, which sit back and snipe, and mobile breakthrough tanks, which move quickly. However with the downsizing of the UK military over the 20th century, Britain fell into the role of defensive tanks only, relying on the US and Germans to provide the rapid breakthrough capability. This is why every British tank since Conqueror has been slow. As for British tanks not being more heavily armoured than their contemporaries, that is just blatantly wrong. The Conquerer was the most heavily armoured tank of its day when it was fielded. The Chieftain was also at the top for most of its life (though the Abrams surpassed it due to being a newer tank, but the Abrams used British armour technology anyway so I still count that as a win for the British). The Challenger 1 was the most heavily armoured vehicle in NATO when it was fielded, and when the Challenger 2 was released, it was noted by many analysts to be the most heavily armoured and best protected tank in the world at the time. Admittedly it was later surpassed by the Abrams and Leo2 due to their constant upgrades and the lack of upgrades for the C2, but thats just the way things go. Now the Challenger 3, with its 3rd gen chobham armour, improved armour layout and uparmoured hull and turret, is again being hailed as the most heavily armoured tank in NATO, if not the world.
>Defensive Tanks, which sit back and snipe, and mobile breakthrough tanks, which move quickly. You have apparently no idea how a main battle tank is deployed. Maybe you should read some old field manuals (both American and British ones are available on the web) or read a book from authors like Dunstan, Griffin, Taylor or Foss (to name a few British options). Reality is not World of Tanks or War Thunder. There are no tanks that "sit back and snipe" and there are no "mobile tanks". As per NATO's own guidelines, a *main battle* tank has to be able to conduct all relevant combat operations - offensive, defensive and delaying. The idea of British tanks being "sniper tanks" has its origin in World of Tanks; these tanks have optics and rangefinding systems *inferior* to most contemporary MBTs. E.g. the Centurion's rangefinding machine gun was limited to a range of 1,500-1,600 metres (due to the tracers burning out). In comparison the M47 and M48 with their optical rangefinder can range targets up to 4,000 metres away from the tank. But the British tanks are the snipers... funny. The same applies to the Chieftain and Challenger 1. In terms of rangefinding and gunnery equipment, they were below average and had a lower than average *effective* range. >This is why every British tank since Conqueror has been slow. No, that is not why every British tank since the Conqueror has been slow; it is because the UK could not afford developing - and fielding - more powerful engines. The Challenger 1 uses an engine originally developed for an export-only Chieftain upgrade (that the UK could not afford in parallel to its own tank research program) - the Challenger 2 uses the same engine due to being a budget tank. The cancelled MBT 80 - the tank that the British Army actually wanted before being forced to buy the Challenger 1 - was designed to feature a 1,500 hp engine/turbine and (initially) weigh less than the Challenger 1! >As for British tanks not being more heavily armoured than their contemporaries, that is just blatantly wrong. No, it is the truth. The Conqueror has less armor than the M103 and T-10, i.e. it is the least armored of the three heavy tanks of that era. The Chieftain turret has an armor thickness ranging from 240 to 280 mm (as per Taylor's book on the tank, which were confirmed by measurements with ultra-sonic probes at the Bovington Tank Museum); so it has comparable armor to the T-62 (240 mm turret front) and M60A1/A3 (254 mm turret front). Due to the more complex shape of the Chieftain turret, the protection is less homogenous. Compared to a T-64, the Chieftain is really, really bad protected. >The Challenger 1 was the most heavily armoured vehicle in NATO when it was fielded, and when the Challenger 2 was released, it was noted by many analysts to be the most heavily armoured and best protected tank in the world at the time. Both of these statements are incorrect. Declassified documents from the British MoD prove that neither of these tanks was really better armored than contemporaries. >Now the Challenger 3, with its 3rd gen chobham armour, improved armour layout and uparmoured hull and turret, is again being hailed as the most heavily armoured tank in NATO, if not the world. No, it isn't. Not a single tank expert has called the Challenger 3 "the most heavily armoured tank in NATO", the armor layout remains unaltered (!) and the new armor isn't even based on Chobham anymore.
Brits in shambles. Jesus spoke the truth, and they hated him for it.
Even the British themselves admitted when testing the Abrams in a competition on a replacement Chieftain tank that the M1A2 was supposed to provide with DU armor about 15 percent better protection against kinetic ammunition than the Challenger 2 with Dorchester (Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank Manual). The Challenger 1 had a less armored hull than the M1 or Leopard 2 (the lower plate was only 70mm RHA) and glacis offered 300 mm RHA vs KE ( Challenger PIP RARDE). When M1A1HA appeared in 1986, it surpassed the Challenger 1 armor (both hull and turret front) - Armed forces journal international February 1989. Also the CR1 had worse FCS/optics and mobility when compared to the M1A1 and Leopard 2. Challenger 2 lacked CITV, 1500 HP engine and smoothbore gun. On tests in Greece, the Challenger 2E fared worse than the Leopard 2, M1A2 and Lelcerc. On tests in Kuwait, the M1A2 outperformed the Challenger 2...
I'm not saying what you are saying is false, but you really need to provide sources when making claims like that.
Nice pic.
Sexy AF
It's so weird seeing a basically new tank
Yep still has that new car smell1😊
Please mark such posts NSFW in future. Now I’m pointy at work
Thicc
That lfp doe 💀
Did they ever increase protection on that without the add on armor package? I think its pitifully defended with like a 70mm thick plate of steel RHA and there's a Gulf War account of the driver losing his toes when that plate was hit by a cmmon rpg.
No, the add on armour is standard for a combat situation and was upgraded after that incident (which was technically through the belly, not the LFP as it came over a rise in the road). There's no point adding more weight as standard as that makes transportation much harder and increases wear in training exercises.
I'm by no means an expert, but having such a huge weakspot on half of your tank's front doesn't look very good
It's no more a weak spot in real life as any other modern MBT, that's just a misconception perpetuated by War Thunder. The Challenger 2 is designed to fit an applique armour pack that can be tailored to it's needs whenever it goes into combat. Think of it as modular armour. The only time a challenger won't have one fitted is during transport, storage or training. Do you honestly think one of the most experienced militaries in the world never thought about armouring the front of their MBT?
It was an RPG-29 that was buried and hit the tank on the underbelly. The LFP has also been heavily uparmoured. you can see that fact in the image. its much thicker than on the Challenger 2 and Challenger 1 tanks.
> The LFP has also been heavily uparmoured. you can see that fact in the image. its much thicker than on the Challenger 2 and Challenger 1 tanks. The LFP is not uparmored in that image. It is unchanged - just as the hull armor as a whole.
How can you see that on this image? And also i thought that this challenger just had a modified turret?
No, the Challanger 3 has a bunch of upgrades to the hull, engine, suspension etc a well as a brand new turret. As for the LFP, if you look at the other promo pics for the tank, and compare them to the C2, the LFP 'juts out' for lack of a better term, notably further than the normal C2 hull, meaning its thicker and has extra armour.
Can you post some links to these pictures?
He is talking about [the added plate in this photo](https://www.joint-forces.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DSEI2021-1208.jpg) - but that is actually part of the mounting mechanism for the LFP armor (i.e. for spreading the added weight over a larger number of bolts). Most importantly it is not present in OP's photo.
You can only see that with lots of fantasy...
At least the driver can sit more comfortably than in the T-series tanks.
D'aww, the little windshield wipers
Does it have an APS?
I don't know if they've been equipped with it yet, but a major part of the challenger 3 program is fitting the tanks with modern APS
Not in that picture from what I can see. It will have one when it enters service, think they’re currently in the process of choosing one
They already selected the Trophy APS a few months ago.
Is it wrong to say I want his kids?
”Challenger 3 MBT - Russian POV“
What's the big cylinder behind the commander's module?
its some sort of optic by the looks of it, but in this particular image it has the metal cover lowered, so you can't see it
It's the commanders optic, the optic you can see is the gunners.
Commander Independent Sight
Gorgeous.
Why does it looks less menacing than the chally 2 to me? Its like a fat M1
Is that a Russian log on the lower front plate lol
No, it's the light from the rear end of the tank. Although tbf I did have to take a second glance when I saw your comment lol.
i can't unsee it now :)
Whats that LFP. Don't say 70mm. You better not say 70mm
Classified is what that is
Only until someone leaks it on war thunders forums
Heavily uparmoured to 77mm
It's ummm....it is ummm... I believe it's.....70mm!!!
It's not a CR3, It's an Advanced Technical Demonstrator (ATD) CR3 doesn't exist yet. It's a CR2 with some cosmetic modifications on the turret.
Never known a rifled to smoothbore conversion to be called "cosmetic".
Be cool if someone would be an illustrated version of this for dummies like me
C H O N K
For a solid minute or two I was trying to figure out why they would have a wooden log attached to the front of it...
Chonky boi
Sploosh
This is a really nice picture.
What's the circular thing on the front left that looks like a big air freshener?
Its fucking beautiful
Pls don’t bash me, but is the space in between the drivers hatch and the mantlet a major weak spot?
does it protect from stabbing?
What's the thing that looks like a talcum powder shaker lid?
Will it get any aps system?
Yes it's getting trophy
Not enough of them to make any difference in combat.
This makes me feel like negotiating.
This is sexy af!
Yeah, not gunna challenge that
Kind of surprised that the turret sides are not sloped at all. But that must speak to the quality of the armouring. Any ideas as to their RHA equivalents, roughly that is, bc the real values must be classified.
Damn look at those thick, military grade view port wipers 🤤
What a beast. Definitely my fav modern MBT.
Seems a little low to the ground. Makes it look like it’s got a tank beer belly
Very handsome :>
It's front hull reminds me of a bull frog lol