Challenger 2 cons

>>33502166
There's a bunch of fuckin' limeys in it.

>>33502181
Roll up, roll up, place your bets ladies and gents!

5:1 its an Argie
10:1 its a stillmad potatonigger
2:1 its an orphaned sandnegro

>>33502166

It's downright archaic from the obsolete thermal camera, to the flank armor protection, plain RHA front hull, shitty ass engine, crappy suspension etc.

It reflects the death of British industry that occurred in the late 80s.

>>33502166
-rifled gun
-no funds/industry to develop post 90's ammunition
-ammunition stored in the crew compartment
-position of the main gun sight
-no independent thermal sight for the commander
-lower glacis is simple steel armor without its in-theater armor
-extremely heavy in its in-theater configuration
-1200hp engine with the aforementioned weight
-no modern friendly force tracking system or satcom

>>33503849
>rifled gun
Until tanks with smoothbore guns are making 4,700 meter kills, we'll just say it's a different taste, not a worse one.

Other than that, most of what this anon says is on point.

>>33504971

"Abloo bloo I sat on a hill taking pot shots at some retard in a trash can because I had nothing else to do, rifled guns are good!"

Found the bongaloid.

File: mrm-ce.jpg (115KB, 1024x721px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x721px

>>33504971
Try 12km.

Rifled guns are not more accurate than smoothbores, it is simply a different method of stabilizing the round.

shitty gun
shitty ammo storage
shitty sensors
shitty armour configuration
extremely ugly due to contrast between brutalist hull and sleek turret
no updates except for heavy COIN armour since it came out
THREE piece ammo
Thermals duct taped to gun
cant use modern ammo
shitty short penetrators
only 200 ever made
only 2 armoured brigades (or is it 1 now we have 'strike brigades')
slow

british tanks have sucked forever
yes including the centurion

>>>33505953
>Insults rifled barrel
>Posts cancelled DOD project
This is why everyone hates Americans.
Well, actually there are other reasons for that.
But this would be enough to base hatred on.

>>33506424
fuck off

File: lahat9.jpg (45KB, 746x478px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 746x478px

>>33506222
That's because Brits don't get the best, they get the most adequate.
Being the best only makes sense if you're selling it.
Tanks have progressed because tanks are obsolete for a modern Western army.

>>33506440
Don't be upset
Barrel fired missiles are hard.
It takes an impressive and formidable country to develop one.
I can understand why it was too difficult for America.

>>33506462
British defence policy is just as much a joke as their garbage equipment

also lol at Britain trying to condescend to USA about ANY military technology; what a joke lmao

>>33506493
UK does more with $60 billion than the US does with $160.

The UK MOD got over half the capability of 2 Ford class carriers for less than the price of one.

And that's even including how much more expensive it is for the UK to build capital ships since they never do it.

Keep in mind you need two ships to do 1 job because of maintenance rotation.

How does it feel burgers knowing you have to use superior British Chobham armour design? Bet you fags use a smoothbore gun like it's the 17th century or some shit.

>>33506462
>It takes an impressive and formidable country to develop one
>MGM-51 Shillelagh
>1964

>>33503849
>>33505097
>>33505953
>>33506222

>I don't know what I'm talking about: The Posts

kek the only position you've been near a tank is sitting on your computer desk chair playing War Thunder\World of Tanks.

two thirds of the "cons" you listed aren't even cons.

>>33506424
>rifled guns are more accurate because once one actually had the opportunity to shoot at a target beyond 4km
>that test doesn't count because the round was not adopted for service

Nevermind that most western tanks can hit moving targets on the first shot at beyond 4km.

>>33507316
>NO YOU ARE WRONG!
>doesn't attempt to refute anything

>>33506528
Before labor fuckups we could have got 3 QEs for the price of one Ford

>>33503849
>-ammunition stored in the crew compartment

Everyone that is not an Abrams does this. The Leo 2 does it, for example

>>33508447
Because I'm not going to get into an autistic greentext fight where anons quote eachother constantly.

A large majority of those listed are wrong, heavily over exaggerated, or straight up lies.

Take the "only 200 made" one as an example. That's an outright lie.

>>33506528
>The UK MOD got over half the capability of 2 Ford class carriers for less than the price of one.

-QE
2 squadrons of F-35B

-Ford
2 squadrons of F-35C, 2 squadrons of Super Hornets, 1 squadron of Growlers, 1 squadron of AEW

Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales combined have less capability than a single Ford.

File: chally2tes.jpg (83KB, 729x486px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 729x486px

>>33508573
Since you don't want a greentext argument I won't, but I am curious what parts of >>33503849 do you think are wrong, heavily over exaggerated, or straight up lies

>rifled gun - no nato ammunition commonality
>shit range
>bad engine
>heavy af which isn't helped by the terrible engine
>no modernization because muh errything else can't spend money on da military
>etc etc etc

>>33503230
If its a potatonigger, than its especially funny since they don't have a single tank, and haven't had one since they scrapped a handful of wartime relics.

>>33508622
Development of Ammunition, position of gun sight, independent thermal sight, steel armor (lol?), Perkins engine, BLUFOR tracking system.

Literally all that I mentioned can be easily disproved by Googling.

File: knives.jpg (51KB, 584x389px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 584x389px

>>33503230
WRONG
I am a knife.
pic related, family reunion we had last month.

>>33504971
Against a T-55 or something that was probably sitting there unaware

File: Challenger 2 innairaq 2.jpg (182KB, 1024x558px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x558px

Supposedly, CR2 will be given a Soft Kill system. More specifically, the MUSS. Next year(April 2018) is going to be the first introductions.

>>33507276
>MGM-51 Shillelagh
>Non-shit missile
Pick at most 1.

>>33508893
>Soft Kill
Stupid bongs. Just buy Trophy.

>>33509124
need to make it easy for the enemy. Challenger 2's with Trophy would be overkill.

>>33504971
The problem isn't the performance of rounds fired by a rifled 120mm, its that the rest of NATO can use standardized 120mm smooth ammo and the U.K. cannot.

>>33502166
It's not a con buy Chally Chally Chally two limey is my favorite modern tank becasue i think it looks the best. Abrams is to edgy. I love the looks of chally 2's turret.

>>33509173
Performance of the APFSDS is questionable though, lucky for the bongs the performance is not needed in modern desert COIN bullshit

>>33508718
The UK could technically develop new ammunition for the L30 gun, but it would have to shoulder the entire cost as no manufacturer is going to make new ammunition for the L30 of their own accord when it is not NATO standard. And it has been nearly 20 years since a new ammunition was developed/adopted.

The primary gun sight is not independent of the gun barrel's movement, meaning longer distance shots with slower rounds like HESH are impeded. The gunner who made the record distance shot with an APFSDS is more proud of a shorter ranged shot he made with HESH.

The Challenger 2 has an independent commanders sight, but it is not thermal.

The lower glacis of a Challenger 2 does not have a composite armor cavity.

The Perkins engine is 1200hp, the engine and transmission have not handled being uprated beyond that well in testing.

Have Challenger 2's been given a blue force tracker since 2003 when one shot another after HQ informed them of a (misidentified) bunker being a possible target?

This is all information that is easy to find on google.

>>33510100
lol the challenger 2 freaking sucks
luckily they're buying french/german next time, if they even keep any armour brigades next SDF time

File: 1370661538389.jpg (34KB, 300x562px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x562px

>>33508968
>ATGM's from the 60's were bad because they suck by modern standards

>>33506222
The "200 made" isn't completely incorrect. While around 450 were made, it would be more accurate to say that around 200 remain in service.

>>33506222
>3 piece ammo
Care to elaborate? It wasn't mentioned when i got taught to load the gun.

>>33510268
He means technically, it is 3 piece.

I'm sure you Brit tankers had two piece, projectile and propellant, but there is primer at the end of that too.

Probably referencing this article:
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/06/team-challenger-2s-upgrade-suggestion.html

>>33510100
The British Army is currently developing a new CHARM round. "work is ongoing to develop improved 120mm ammunition"
http://www.royaltankregiment.com/Uploads/Files/en-GB/RAC_Newsletter_Dec_2015.PDF

The CR2 has multiple gunnery sights, both with active day and night system. It's not difficult to switch, and tankies have been taught to use both. The secondary sights is located to the right of the barrel. The CR1 lacked a functioning day\night secondary sight.

The CR2 doesn't have an independent night system for the CMDR, true, but an upcoming upgrade will include one. I wanted to point that out, but I figured that it'd be easier for others to google it.

You want to source your statement regarding the steel lower glacis, bud? Because I could easily claim that the Abrams doesn't have side composite armor, or it's lowerglacis also lacks it. As well as the Leopard 2 still using RHA.

The Perkins engine being 1200hp is true, however it is still superior to the Honeywell in all but power output. And even still, the off-road speed for the CR2 is the same as the M1A2 Abrams.

CR2's have had Bowman CBML's since it's introduction. The engagement you're citing had nothing to do with the computer tracker, and was simply down to human error, as the commander thought that it was an enemy flanking manoeuvre.

Need to work on your googling skills, anon.

>>33510447
Every tank that uses 2 piece needs something to make the propellant go bang.

>>33508600

That's pretty dishonest way of looking at it.

I mean, you only give the QEs two squadrons each? When we all know you can get six and a bit squadrons of F-35Bs on each QE. Not that it reflexes a realistic deployment under planning assumptions, but the point still stands.

>>33508487
Leclerc and Type 90 also don't have crew compartment storage.

>>33510631
I know that, but standard NATO ammo is 1 piece, projectile and propellant in a classic "bullet" configuration.

How the US Army, Germany, Italy, and most NATO countries have their ammo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC2ePKRvo9k

And Britain:

http://tanknutdave.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank/

The article shows that their gun rounds are two separate pieces; the projectile and propellant, as opposed to the US and almost everyone in NATO who uses 1 piece.

>>33510631
Never mind.

Disregard >>33510808

I misunderstood.

While British tank ammo is physically 2 piece, it is technically 3, with the primer. I'm sure the primer is installed before rounds are loaded onto the vehicle, so the all the loader has to worry about is the propellant bag and the projectile.

Sorry for the confusion.

File: Leclerc.jpg (44KB, 800x384px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 800x384px

>>33510744
>Leclerc
>doesn't have crew compartment storage

Roughly 20 rounds are stored to the right of the driver, similar to that of the Leopard 2.

It also uses an autoloader so lol penetration will result in a failure of the loader and most likely a detonation.

>>33508968
I'll take "Moving the goal posts" for 500, Alex.

>>33509173
>cannot

I wouldn't say that. They certainly have an aversion to it, but I don't believe it's a matter of capability, be it in design or manufacturing.