How do the worlds most modern main battle tanks stack up against

Abrams is a shit
Leopard 2 is ok
Rossiya t-14 stronk number 1

Any tank that can't make it across the parade ground is a loser by default.

>>34608193
Shatap rossiya stronk best tank u are a shit

Ok in all seriousness the T-14 seems way too good to be true, it will probably be another T-90

>>34608130
Leopard 2 takes first prize for style

>>34608213
No, it's the modern day T-64.

NATO absolutely shit themselves when the T-64 came out, and they scrambled to create something similar.

>>34608173
Abrams>Leo 2 and i say that as a german, Leo simply doesnt have enough combat experience to outgrow its problems, same reason why i dont consider the t-14 as good, it could be good, but also have crippling real life ürobleems, no one truely can tell. But lookwise i would go with >>34608243 Leo 2>Abrams>>>T-14, seriously the T-14 looks like a bad movie prop.

File: 1496129221536.jpg (618KB, 2047x1323px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 2047x1323px

>>34608130
There are no clear winners. In the field? Not that many have seen actual combat, let alone tank on tank combat. Right now, I can only think of 3-4 "modern" tanks that have seen tank on tank fighting. The M1A2, Challenger 2 and the T-80\72. Both the M1A2 and Challenger 2 haven't been lost to enemy tank fire, and the Challenger 2 at all. Meanwhile, both the T-80 and T-72 regularly see combat in the Ukraine and ME, and both have had their skirt lifted above their heads.

It's completely subjective. The Merkava would dominate in an Urban environment, as it's designed there, and the Challenger 2 would dominate in a hull down position, as that was also designed to do such.

All we can do is shitpost about which tank is better on a Indonesian sewing image forum.

>>34608409
>All we can do is shitpost about which tank is better on a Indonesian sewing image forum.
Then lets debate which is the best seam for a tank cover. Chain stitch?

>>34608409
>And the Challenger 2 at all.
Unless you count one getting shot up the ass by another chally 2

>>34608130
None of them have fought against each other, and all of the important numbers can't be known for sure.

>>34608130
Merkava looks the coolest, like something out of the Imperial Guard

Fucking Ruskies had so much better tank desings but their shitty economy didn't allowed them to build.
Object 292, Object 187, Black Eagle,
It's shame that they are wasting their APS systems and new X12 engine on shitmata chassis

>>34608130
Leclerc > Leo2A5 >M1A2 > Challenger 2

>>34609826
GET THIS HOTHEAD OUTTA HERE

>king of the hill
M1A2 SEP, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc, Merkava 4

>good but lacking that special something
M1A1 SA, Leopard 2A5, Challenger II, T-90A, T-72B3, Oplot

>don't have the money for something better
Leopard 2A4, Ariete, T-90, Merkava 3

>cold war hand-me-down
T-80, T-72, T-64, M60, Challenger 1

>allah ackbar
T-55, T-62

File: even sam hyde thinks you're gay.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>34609826
damn baguettaboos

>>34608130
T-14 isn`t in mass production yet, so it is out of competition for now. We simply don`t know what the final version would be capable of.

All in all, I think Main group, that is more or less on the same level consists from top versions of Leopard, M1 and T-90/T-72. Below them, Merkava (too specialized), Chineese latest tanks and everything else.

In a few years, T-14 could be a clear winner, if the actuall stats will be close to what is declared.

>>34610146
Add T-90MS and T-90MA to the "King of the hill". That would be plausible. Also, I think Merkava is more like second tier. Good machine, but it is designed for specific job, unlike other MBT.

File: 1434116791004.jpg (746KB, 1435x1600px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1435x1600px

>>34608213
>it will probably be another T-90


which is totally ok bc the 90 is a fucking beast.

File: 1498851610219.jpg (238KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x1066px

>>34608130
I wouldn't put much stock in the armata considering the manufactoring quality in pic related.
It's just another "Heт aнaлoги в миpe!!!" scrapheap they are gonna make 10 or so units of for parades and thats it.

>>34612499
And what do you mean by that picture? Want to show the dust cover? Or never seen welded seams on the armor before? BTW, those on picture are perfectly ok.

File: 1474482770299.jpg (2MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1500px

>>34612499
>>they are gonna make 10 or so units of for parades and thats it.
More than 20 produced allready. And it isn`t in a mass production run as of yet.

File: 1488120728847.gif (472KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 500x281px

>>34612499
>Russia shows off some sick sci fi thing
>"lol west btfo this is the new T-64/AK-47"
>14 produced
>none ever enter service
>made cheaply as possible
>budget still mostly spent on embezzling
>86% lead painted asbestos by volume
>made in a shed in Chukotka
>lead engineer's qualification: owns a hammer
>slavaboos quietly move onto the next thing

Every time

>>34608363
It's less then the T-64 as Nato doesn't seem to even care about the T-14's existence.

File: 1459735462911.png (506KB, 808x480px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 808x480px

Also, this little fucker, while not completely "tank", is even more interesting.

>>34612556
Authors of Leo and Abrams modernization programs think otherwise. Good thing, they dont lurk through /k.

>>34608772

I know about that, the hit was actually to the open commander's hatch. Fragments went down into the turret and set off the ammo.

>>34612527
I f you really think those weld seems are good - please commit suddoku.

File: merkava.2nd.glacis.jpg (69KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 604x453px

Most modern Western tanks use a 120mm gun, weigh 65 tons, and have 1,500 hp.

They're really not that different. The only standout is the one single USMC M1 Abrams that is fitted with Israeli APS as a test bed.

>>34612579
Just learn how armor is welded, junior.

>>34612527

There's not a thing wrong with the picture, nice resolution, everything's in focus....

Oh the tank, in the picture? The tank that was obviously dragged off the assembly line, 1/4 of the way finished so it could be on parade? Yeah no, terrible tank. It ate it's oven transmission on the parade square.

File: Panzer_68-88.jpg (1004KB, 3620x1896px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 3620x1896px

>Swiss Panzer 68 is the best
>If you turn on the heating system, it will fire the cannon, which helps heat the tank up
>Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical systems are insufficient, forcing the crew to wear masks, which saves money
> the radios used in the tank tended to interfere with the turret control system, resulting in uncontrolled turret movements whenever the radios were used at full power, which forces the crew to not use them at full power, which saves energy
>ruskis gtfo
>americans gtfo
>britbongs gtfo
>germans gtfo

File: 1497307930433.jpg (205KB, 780x840px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 780x840px

>>34608890
>design the T-64
>say fuck it and roll out a bunch of T-62s instead

File: 6732.png (1KB, 205x37px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 205x37px

>>34612555
>14 produced

>>34612605
>design the M1
>say fuck it and roll out a M60 until 1994
>design the K2
>say fuck it and roll out a T-80
>design the challenger 2
>say fuck it and roll out a Chieftain

>>34612587
You should pick up on your own advice, kiddo.

>>34608363
>I have no arguments so I make up bullshit on the internet

File: giphy (1).gif (4MB, 480x267px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x267px

So I hear y'all was talkin' shit.

>>34608772
>>Both the M1A2 and Challenger 2 haven't been lost to enemy tank fire, and the Challenger 2 at all.
>what is reading comprehension
think before you tap enter, you uber nigger

>>34612773
Nice argument, friend. But it is the case. Big NATO members are scrambling to create something similar, or upgrade their current MBTs. Ala M1A3, Leopard 3.

File: Tank comparison.jpg (708KB, 1936x1164px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1936x1164px

Here's a little comparison I've been working on.

I'd love some input, as some information is hard to find, i've been scraping Janes for the past week or so and still can't seem to find information.

Some input

Abrams:
Pretty well rounded, Decent protection, good battlefield management and optics. Best Ammo in line.

Challenger
Poor Mobility (in comparison with others). But good Gun (good accuracy and penetration)(despite the misconception), best suspension, optics and Armour.

AMX leclerc.
Excellent mobility, and excellent modularity. However limited data in regards to lethality.

Leopard 2
Good mobility, Gun, ammo, however Protection is stated to be poor going off previous models.

T90
Ok all round, doesn't exceed any of the other tanks in anything.

C1 ariete
As above doesn't have anything outstanding.

Merkava IV
Good Armour, Excellent survivability, Good protection systems.

K2 Black panther
Seems a pretty good compromise between an abrams and a leopard.

So under context
Urban COIN warfare : merkava
Long range tank duel: Challenger 2
Economy & logistics: Leopard 2
Jack of all trades: Abrams

>>34612607
English speaking sourses state 20+. Well, 50>20, so it`s ok.

>>34613004
Quite good. As a Side note, T-90MA got reactive armor elements from T-14, and supposed to get 1500 hp engine. Don`t know if it is done allready. So, most likely it will advance a bit.

Also, am I blind, or there is no "ground pressure" line? That`s quite serious characteristic for an MBT.

>>34613004
ЗБM-60 is DU.
ЗБM-59 is tungsten.

File: b_3_1_tur.jpg (19KB, 520x381px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 520x381px

>>34613004

Add range to T-90. Here's a T-72B3 firing an AT-11 in Syria.

File: DEdQiBqXkAUHbTZ.jpg (38KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 720x405px

>>34613093
>
This tank fires Kornets which have longer range than guns.

>>34613059
Thanks, i'll look into the MA, but there's not a lot of sources in english.

I found sources on original pre-upgrade ground pressure on some tanks But some tanks like the challenger have added nearly 20T of upgrades which changes the ground pressure drastically.

But if you know any then i'd love to know

>>34613071
I know the original Svinets was DU, but the source i've seen states its tungsten
"The original Svinets round uses a penetrator made of depleted uranium ..." (this seems to imply that its changed)

This isn't exactly an illogical idea, as the british L28 (770m penetration @ 2KM) tungsten round is reportedly being used at ranges above 1600m. But below this range they'll use the DU CHARM 3, as after 1600m the velocity has a crash resulting in decreased penetration.

>>34613093
Second line under range, 5KM with ATGM, does T90 use AT11 too?

>>34613102
>does T90 use AT11 too?
It does, it can also use a new one derived from the Hermes-A missile that they test run in Ukraine.

>>34608365
Canadians used Leo 2 in Afghanistan extensively as did other nations. It took RPGs like a boss. One did get put on its end by an IED consisting of like 6 155mm shells, most of the crew lived.

Armata is a winner
Abrams is a loser

>>34611821
Russians prefer their t72 b3 to their t90s, as they have more of them and the upgrade essentially gives it the same capabilities without the nagging teething issues the t90 seems to have.

File: ffc1bd012f7709c69d9599273678f869.jpg (1MB, 860x1214px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 860x1214px

jews have the best army in the word, therefore merkava is the best

>>34613004
M1A2 -
>During the Battle of Najaf on March 25, two M1A2's were struck by an unidentified weapon and knocked out.
>Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after an RPG warhead penetrated the rear engine compartment.
>There were more losses during the Battle of Baghdad. On April 4, two Abrams were destroyed by anti-aircraft guns
>while on April 5, another was hit by a recoilless rifle and set aflame. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment.
>On October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (up to 250 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect. The massive explosion beneath the tank knocked off the turret.
>On November 27, 2004, an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an improvised explosive device (IED) consisting of three 155 mm shells (containing 34.5 kg of explosives). The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.
>On June 6, 2006, two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew were killed during combat operations in Baghdad, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.
9 listed to have been lost.

Challenger 2 -
Only one destroyed, in a blue on blue engagement.

AMX Leclerc -
>one Leclerc tank was hit and penetrated in the driver's hatch by an ATGM, possibly of Konkurs or Konkurs-M type, resulting in the death of the driver and injuries to the legs of the commander

>The first fatality suffered by a crew operating a Leopard 2 happened on 25 July 2008. A Danish Leopard 2A5 hit an IED in Helmand Province. The vehicle was able to continue 200 metres (656 ft) before it halted. Three members of the four-man crew were able to escape even though wounded, but the driver was stuck inside. On site treatment by Danish medics could not save him. The vehicle was towed to FOB Attal.
1 lost.

>>34613162
The Turks have lost at least 1 Leo 2 in Syria. There pictures showing a top down view of I believe a Leo 2a4 with its ammo bunker detonated after it was hit with some sort of projectile. I'll try and find source.

>>34613177
Nobody is denying that Turks lost a dozen or so Leopard 2's, but the graph shows the Leopard 2A6, not the Turk 2A4-5

>>34613004
>challenger 2
>penetration

But that's wrong. Estimates for the CHARM series has always been on the low side with 3 being equal to the original M829

>>34613177
http://defence-blog.com/army/two-turkish-leopard-2-main-battle-tanks-were-destroyed-in-syria.html

The Turks have lost no less than 3 2a4's, with some sources saying as many as 10 have been knocked out. This has been due to a combination of ATGM and IED/At mines

>>34613198
A6 biggest upgrade is spaced armour, so I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make to top down ATGM

>>34613177
Monkey models

iirc one leopard was destroyed in afghanistan by a homebrew improvised mine

>>34613162
Thanks for that.

Abrams
6 lost to enemy combat
3 probables, as i'm aware that many disabled abrams were deliberately destroyed by their crew or other crews to prevent capture, and it seems that those 3 could have been recovered and repaired, wheres the other sound like they've been properly destroyed

The challenger was destroyed under friendly fire and under extreme odds, so there will be a note.

Was the leclerc destroyed or has it returned to service?

Same goes for the danish leopard, did it return to service?

I may be willing to add in Leo 2A5 to the leo2a6 as there are persistent rumours that the armour is the same on both variants. >>34613198


>>34613211
I'm going off numerous sources (not estimates) that state it as anywhere from 720mm to anywhere as high as 740mm, but seeing as 720 is the most common i've used that. The propellant bags have since been replaced with a new type too, possibly bumping up the penetration even further.

File: duvious.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

>>34613211
I've seen the same "estimates" they were totally wrong.

Former RTR and REME members stated it was downright low (they couldn't say exactly what it was due to the OSA, but they kept denying it was low even up to 710mm)
People tore apart his math (the person doing the estimates didn't take into account the fact that the CHARM3 was nearly 3 kilos heavier than the DM53)

the stated muzzle energies were as follows:
DM53+ L55 = 12,785.93 Kj
CHARM3+ L30A1 = 14,083.94 kj

File: Leopard 2 inert armor.jpg (503KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1024x768px

>>34613222
This is true.

Reminder that the ammo bustle for the Leopard 2 is located to the right of the driver, in a single compartment. So one penetration to the hull will result in a devastating explosion.

>>34608130

Noone knows. No modern tank has ever fought another modern tank.

The closest we've had is Iraq vs Iran and both sides were using previous generations of outdated and replaced 70s models.

File: Leopard 2 inert armor 2.jpg (481KB, 2256x1496px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2256x1496px

>>34613332

>>34613332
The ready bin ammo bunker on the turret detonated outward as it was designed to, crew was unharmed, the main stowage was unscathed.

>>34613097

Any news on it's combat use in Syria as of late?

>>34613247
Those are usually made from 155mm artillery shells, you try armoring a tank against that at point-blank range

>>34613341
Anyone know how much addition RHA armour rating this adds for the a6 over the a4

File: 1481642478492.jpg (110KB, 633x710px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 633x710px

>>34613343
Is that why there's flames shooting out of the commanders cupola in pic related?

>>34613360
Rumoured to have knocked out some of the Turkish 2a4's

>>34613368

ha! if only....

>>34613368
>>34613376

Sorry I thought you were talking about the BMPT, not Kornets.

File: image.jpg (102KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x480px

>>34613366
Ah, I was thinking of a different vehicle. Pic related.

>>34612556

>NATO doesnt care
>Germany and France are jumping for a new MBT program even though Leopard 2A8s and Leclercs are relatively capable and modern
>Britain is revisiting upgrading the Challenger 2
>Ukraine and Poland shitting themselves because they already were shit scared of T-90s and a BETTER tank is out of their league

Nah. Everyone is still worrying about it. Even if it's just as good as a Leopard 2A8 then it's still a step-up from the T-90 series.

Just the bigger gun is worrying enough if it delivers a better penetrator and Russian penetrators were still plenty capable.

>>34608130

Noone knows. No tank battle has been fought between modern tanks. The closest we have is Iraq/Iran using their Soviet vs ex-NATO stock in the 80s and that war was pretty much a stalemate.

Now? It's all doctrine.

You could achieve the goals that the tanks accomplish with any post 60s tank design because the strategy and tactics are designed around achieving one shot, one kill for the tank crews and preventing infantry from deploying AT weapons in range of the tanks, where they are vulnerable.

>>34608772

>Enemy fire
>Challenger 2

and any MBT being ass shot from any MBT is going to kill it.

>>34613376
Source http://defence-blog.com/army/two-turkish-leopard-2-main-battle-tanks-were-destroyed-in-syria.html

"Military experts believe that the tanks were hit with the Soviet-produced Fagot or Konkurs anti-tank guided missile system."

File: 1492255397517.jpg (540KB, 1152x1195px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1152x1195px

>>34613362
Judging by the thickness and length of the bolts, I'd say the two plates within the inert package would be 60-70mm's thick. The plates appear to be simple steel, and by judging by the three plates pressed together on the top portion of the package, I'd say it'd be between 100mm's to 110mm. The angling is 45 degrees south, and I can't accurately give an estimation to how much effective RHAe that would because I've forgotten the formula to calculate it. Anyone else can work that out if they remember it

I'd have to say about 200-250mm maybe pushing 300, because I'm being generous, effective RHAe. Then again, I could be completely wrong and might just be talking about of my ass

>>34613162
>During the Battle of Najaf on March 25, two M1A2's were struck by an unidentified weapon and knocked out.
wiki and the two citations on there don't specify m1a2, it just says "abrams".

>>34608193
Wrong, the tank shoved how good the handbrake was.

>>34613401
Not to mention the actual space before the main armour. It's supposed to be able to defeat modern HEAT, but I'm unsure about anything bigger than like an rpg 29.

>>34613390

Yeah I thought you were talking about BMPTs not Konkurs.

I'm guessing no news of the BMTPs in Syria then

>>34613448
Not that I've heard.

As a side note for the 2a6, my unit used it in Afghanistan.
"In an assault on 2 November 2007, a Leopard 2A6M hit an IED and survived without casualties: "My crew stumbled upon an IED (improvised explosive device) and made history as the first (crew) to test the (Leopard 2A6) M-packet. It worked as it should." wrote a Canadian officer in an email to German defence officials.[64] Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier denied reports that a Leopard 2 tank that was struck by an IED was a write-off, insisting that the tank has been repaired and is once again in use. "The Taliban have been engaged with some of the new Leopard 2 tanks in several ambushes" and that as a result the Taliban "learned some very harsh lessons" and lost the battle in question "very quickly and very violently."

I believe this vehicle might be the same one we still have at the unit, the hull was cracked, but they welded it back together. Almost 10 years later the welds gave out and they had to sent it out for additional repairs. Tank still runs good though.
Canada beats the shit out of our tanks in training compared to other countries.

>>34613440
It can stop HEAT and maybe an ATGM, but APFSDS will cut through it like butter

>>34613401
According to wiki

Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2 range from 590–690 mm RHAe on the turret, 600 mm RHAe on the glacis and lower front hull on the Leopard 2A4, to 920–940 mm RHAe on the turret, 620 mm RHAe on the glacis and lower front hull on the Leopard 2A6 against kinetic projectiles.[90][unreliable source?]

>>34613509
It's designed to reduce the effects of kinetic penetrators by changing their direction after they pass through it, I'd assume by normalization, and thus they don't hit the flat armour underneath at a perpendicular angle.

>>34613527
Considering the "source" is just a blog, I don't think it is a reliable source. It's the equivalent of using a Russian blog about the T-90MS and how it's the best tank in the world

>>34613527
>According to a description page hosted by the Federation of American Scientists, the armour of the Leopard 2A4 is believed to provide protection equivalent to 700 mm armour steel (RHA) against kinetic energy penetrators and 1000 mm RHA against shaped charge warheads.
That seems more reliable than the other "source". And FAS would most likely be talking about the turret.

File: Destroyed cr2.jpg (147KB, 1280x848px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x848px

>>34613388
>and any MBT being ass shot from any MBT is going to kill it
25 March 2003:
Az Zubayr Near basra at 00:50 Zulu

The crew of C squadron, Queen royal Lancers Challenger 2 DS-59-AA Callsign Ironside November 12 were engaged by of 2RTR challenger 2 DR-31-AA, Callsign Ironside India 10

the Commander Of I10(<REDACTED> LT. REDACTED>) observed through his thermal sight whet he believed to be enemy dismounts Climbing in and out of a bunker. He sought permission to fire from the local infantry commander which was approved following a recent RPG attack
I10 Fired one HESH round which fell short, but this was close enough for the crew to be thrown off the Turrets of tanks N11 & N12 (who were sleeping on the rear deck). N12 at this point was on fire

N11 then reversed which I10 observed which I10s commander believed to be an enemy MTLB, firing another HESH round which hit N12

The HESH round Fell into the open hatch detonating the ammunition. Consequently Destroying N12. N11 was hit by fragmentation from the explosion of N12 but there was no injury or damage
24848863, Corporal, SJ Allbutt (Tank commander) and 25119984, Trooper, D Clarke (driver) were killed instantly
<Redacted> L/Cpl (gunner) <redacted> and <redacted> Trooper (loader) <redacted> were seriously injured From the Previous HESH round
They were rescued and withdrawn from the vicinity of N12 by the crew of N11

After several minutes the ammunition load of N12 detonates, causing catastrophic and irreparable damage to N12

Commander of N11 sights I10 and another tank through his periscope. N11 Listens to I10 give the end of a contact report in which they claim to have destroyed an enemy vehicle. N11 establishes contact with I10 and requests Direction of fire

I10 is relieved of duty pending inquest and is replaced by I42


Death or glory lancers, Death or glory.

>>34613553
e.g. every composite armor system ever.

>>34613577
No, composite refers to different materials, not angled spaced armour you tard.

Composite works because the materials have different densities. The angled spaced armour works by changing the angle of attack of the kinetic penetrator. Two different concepts.
The flat turret of the 2a4 using the first concept, and the additional armour of the 2a6 using both.

>>34613615
I get that antique tanks may have only had one or the other.

Modern ones are all the same shit. Angled steel shell, space, composite, composite matrice backing,shock absorbant, steel backing, repeated 5-6 times.

>>34613574
We had an Lt on exchange from them. Dude was fucking hilarious and professional. 10/10 would work with again.

File: QRL.png (121KB, 315x315px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 315x315px

>>34613630
QRL or RTR?

File: 1485016995011.png (2MB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1063px

>>34613615

>>34613629
I'd assume putting that much space on the outside before it hits any of the actual composite is much more effective than having it simply incorporated into the structure. It's almost a foot of empty space for the angle of attack to change. Saves a lot of space on the inside of the vehicle.

>>34613642
Queens royal lancers.

File: 1484977531056.png (296KB, 865x738px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 865x738px

>>34613644

>>34613652
Did you find him a little... odd.

File: stealth level 100.jpg (321KB, 1600x1177px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1600x1177px

>>34613004
>I'd love some input
As someone who's never really payed much attention to the MBTs of various nations, I'd suggest adding a list of countries that each tank is used by and what nation/company is the primary producer.

>>34613663
Not really, super dry British humour, but that's right up my alley. Wasn't snobby at all. Made fun of us when we would hide from the rain though.

>>34608173
Leo 2 >>>>> Abrams and i say that as an american

>>34613670
Is that a PT91? Awesome cam job.
And wiki lists all that is you take 2 seconds

>>34613670
Absolutely can do.

>>34613675
No i meant how much ketamine did he take on a daily basis? Did he carry round a APFSDS penetrator? Did he have a hard drive full of green john deere tractors?

>>34613708
>No i meant how much ketamine did he take on a daily basis? Did he carry round a APFSDS penetrator? Did he have a hard drive full of green john deere tractors?
is it bad that i 100% get and identify with these references?

File: 1487342159825.jpg (285KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1680x1050px

>>34613685
>>34613695
>Is that a PT91?
Dunno, and yeah I figured it'd be an easy couple of points of information to add to the infographic.

It looks like the kind of thing that'll end up being shared around /k/ and other places a lot once it's complete, so having the producers and operators on it seemed like a good idea.

>>34613708
Wtf are you talking about?

>>34610146
What about Type 10 and K2?

>>34613766
Its an inside british army joke.

he's referring to:
The 100% of the samples failed a compulsory drugs test for ketamine, It was believed it got mixed up with a prison sample.
In 2003 when QRL rolled into Basra a challenger got swarmed and a TC beat an iraqi to death with a DU penetrator
As for tractors this is one of their recruiting areas, http://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/suffolk-man-sex-with-tractors/

Some of them got arrested in germany because their uniforms looked like SS ones with the skull cap badge and everything, it didn't help that when the police came they started doing the goose step, started singing deutcheland deutachland and startedscreaming heil hitler

Top blokes though

>>34613817
>>34613766
Oh and that whole they like to do suicide missions for shits and gigs

>>34611821
>Add T-90MS and T-90MA to the "King of the hill"

I left them out because no one is using them.

>>34612572
Feel free to quote them plebbit.

>>34613817
I heard the goosestep bit, not not the singing or heiling.

Reminder that the chav cav have a day specifically for them where they're allowed to steal everything not bolted down in their garrison, and the army isn't allowed to do anything. In '13, a group of 8 men from 2RTR stole the KRH's goat mascot and proceeded to get it shitfaced and dumped it in a field in Dorset, where they found it a week later.

>>34613904
Fuck it wasn't a goat and it wasn't KRH, it was a pony from the QRH

>>34612962
>Big NATO members are scrambling to create something similar, or upgrade their current MBTs

So the UK finally deciding to upgrade its Chsllenger 2? Because the others are receiving upgrades that were in the works before the T-14 was revealed and any new MBT won't exist for 15+ years.

>>34613615
The Leo 2A4 and Leo 2A5-2A6-2A7 all use the same "flat" armor cavities with stacked spaced plates on the turret face.

>>34613817
>>34613904
Haha holy shit. How the hell did that day come about?

>>34612575
Why ?

>>34613965
Wasnt referring to the actual turret armour but the bolt on sloped, and no, they opened the cavities and used a different stack when they upgraded from the a4 to the a5

>>34614011
I never said they used the same armor package, I said they use the same armor cavities (gunner sight placement notwithstanding).

File: MerkavaGaza2009.jpg (96KB, 768x504px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 768x504px

>>34611792
>Merkava (too specialized)
>>34611821
>Good machine, but it is designed for specific job, unlike other MBT.
Too specialized for what, exactly? If you're falling for the wiki meme that it's optimized for urban warfare you're retarded. Even the IDF considers it a MBT, and trains extensively for tank vs tank combat. The Merkava, from the Mk 1 onwards, was designed with the express purpose of being a main battle tank, ie to engage enemy armored forces and destroy them, forming the core of a maneuvering force.
The gun on the 3/4 gun functionally identical to the 120/L44 as found on the M1A1, LEO 2 and so forth.
Saying the Merk is a second-rate or even third rate tank is fine, but for fucks sake get the reasons right.
Possible reasons for the Merk being ranked low:
1. Judische phyisk
2. Front-mounted engine (a debatable utility which comprimises protection over certain areas)
3. Non-separated hull ammo
4. Israel lagging behind in armor or ammo tech (debateable)
Also, I'd point out that the Merk has a working and battle-tested APS, which is more than can be said for practically any other tank.

>guys no Challenger 2 was ever lost to enemy fire
>saw so little combat that they never even got hit by IED's

>>34613974
Cambrai day

>>34612565
The problem with that, and all similar current systems, is that they're only useful for bullying ragheads, as they're useless in any peer-level ECM environment.

>>34614048
I know this is bait, but to the retards who'll believe it, CR2's saw equal amount of combat as the Abrams did in the Iraq war, and there wasn't a single day where the CR2 wasn't on the field in Basra.

>>34613989
>>34613574

File: 14441549730251.png (3MB, 1024x1398px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x1398px

>>34608365
> i say that as a german
I say as an austrian that modern day germans are turbocucks and their opinions on tanks are irrelevant
if you need tank lessons just ask, bitchboy

>>34613004
Regarding the C1 ariete i think the tank use the same transmission of the Leopard
Also i think we use DU since there have been a scandal about italian soldier that got DU sickness but i am not so sure
>tfw no C1 mk2 with the 1600hp engine

>>34614048
the abrams were used in far larger numbers so were bound to have more accidents.

But they were used, and very heavily at that because for the force that we had out there we had less tanks per infantryman than the americans.

I saw some CR2s that were seriously fucked, but they'd be repaired and back out within 6 hours.

At one point there were considering a crew rotation policy, where one crew would take it out for 10 hours, it would come back be serviced in two and have another crew take it out,

I seem to remember being my section dispatched to to retrieve a length of track from a CR2 at least 4 times

>>34613327

L27A1 CHARM 3

Long rod : 4,9 kg
Sabot : 5,2 kg
Penetrator length : 565 mm
Muzzle velocity : 1650 m/s


DM53

Long rod : 5 kg
Sabot : 3,35 kg
Penetrator length : 646 mm
Muzzle velocity : 1750 m/s

File: 1467525376382.png (261KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1366x768px

>>34613004
>Youtube-tier comparison ...

What about the

>torque (Nm)
>steering system (hydrostatic or geared).
>acceleration from 0 to 32 km/h
>suspensions vertical travel
>reverse speed

>>34614063
>CR2's saw equal amount of combat as the Abrams did in the Iraq war

You are confusing intensity with amount.

>>34614278
CHARM 3 has a much lower length to diameter ratio. It is short and fat compared to DM53, M829A3 and Svinets-2.

>>34614342
>>torque (Nm)
>>steering system (hydrostatic or geared).
>>acceleration from 0 to 32 km/h
>>suspensions vertical travel
>>reverse speed
Because these factors really don't matter unless you're a mech. Its not like even half of these are publicly available

>>34614278
Yeah those weights have been disproved by RTR, especially the weight of sabot. the Specs look similar to jericho CHARM1, but thats way out of spec for CHARM3

>>34614413
Its only really a problem above certain ranges,hence why L28 (a former WHU training ammo) has been used for ranges above 1600-1700m.

under those ranges CHARM3 is more effective

>>34613004
>Jack of all trades: Abrams

Abrams is anything but a Jack of all trades. It has small operational range and is both the second most expensive and has the second highest weight out of all these.

It can't deal with most bridges, it is very expensive both to obtain and maintain.
It is a very solid tank for the US or the UAE but for most countries which do have to deal with bridges, do have to care about the fuel cost and so on... It is very uneconomical.

>>34614498
Someone got triggered.

>>34614515
By being truthful? What?

File: 1496604600728.png (72KB, 449x498px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 449x498px

>Came here for what I expected was going to be a tirade of shitposting
>anons are actually engaging in thoughtful discussion
Is this bizzaro /k/?

>>34613004
>T-90, Merkava, and K2 also have LWR, yet not mentioned
>No information on optics, a core component of any tank
>No information on subsystems anywhere. C4I networks? FCS?
This is indeed Youtube-tier comparison.

>>34614614
>>T-90, Merkava, and K2 also have LWR, yet not mentioned
Not enough information
>No information on optics, a core component of any tank
There really isn't enough information.
>No information on subsystems anywhere. C4I networks? FCS?
As above
> This is indeed Youtube-tier comparison.
You do one then
.

>>34614564
Saying tanks are expensive and cannot cross most bridges is truthful but not something limited to Abrams.

>>34614605
Wait until most of the Americans wake up

>>34614626
There is indeed the information, and easily found as well. No delving into training manuals. This is Wikipedia-tier accessible.
https://www.google.com/search?q=k2+black+panther+laser+warning+reciever&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I have no interest in writing a crappy infographic like this, but I've already established that even by the image's misguided principles as to what is worth putting down, the information presented is lacking.

>>34614605
It's because all of them have no distinct advantage over each other. If you include a true superior tank, like the Type 99 super tank for example, the thread will be full of shitposting because people cannot accept the fact that something is far better than their stupid tank.

>>34614681
That lazy bait though.

>>34614634
I'm not saying the other tanks somehow don't cost anything, I'm just saying that Abrams is the one that costs a hefty premium.

It is not a problem because the countries that use it are also the countries with the highest military budgets on Earth, but it's still a big thing for anyone who'd even start considering using them themslves.

>>34614673
Gib information and i'll put it in.

Looking into it, all have LWRs apart from T90

>>34614342
No one cares about that stuff, and it doesn't really matter in a tank

Besides steering is in there (for some)
>>34614673
>>34614614
All optics are pretty much equal now, same goes for information subsystems as its STANAG required (but not standardised)

File: turkish indonesian medium tank.jpg (104KB, 650x374px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 650x374px

>>34608409
>Indonesian
Since we're talking about tanks.

Turkey and Indonesia are jointly working on a medium tank for the Indonesian armed forces.

>>34614733
Feel free to put up some numbers instead of vague assertions.

>>34614763
>All optics are pretty much equal now
Tell that to the UK.

>>34614737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
ctrl-f "laser warning"
And what about soft-kill mechanisms, like Shtora? No mention.
Integration into the C4I networks of higher echelons is key to maintaining control of the battlefield. It keeps units relevant and allows them to make better judgements. Obviously each implementation is different, but if a tank can't be put into the computer at all, it can't take part in that force multiplier. I know both Abrams and Merkava have such networks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rest did as well. Not an expert on this subject, but then, I'm not making this graphic.
Optics determines what the tank can see. First to see = first to shoot = first to kill. Information is always the key. Worth discussing what is basically available to commander/gunner. Don't need to go into detail like resolution etc.

File: how many sights.jpg (77KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x500px

>>34614853
how many sights?

British optics are superior but apparently add ludicrous amount of weight

>>34614763
Eh, as someone who is actually in a tank regiment, those things do matter. For example, the Leo has enough torque to just excavate itself out of anti tank ditches, and has the suspension travel to drive over three foot drops at speed with out breaking/hurting its crew.
Reverse speed matters for jockeying, because armour is good but not getting hit is better.

>>34614902
7 + the streetfighter cameras?

>>34614902
When you are talking a ~60 ton tank, how much weight could those optics add?

>>34614922
A fucking lot, considering all the copper wiring and other electronic gizmo's.

The upcoming upgrade for the CR2 will replace all copper wiring with fibre optic, and is said to reduce the weight level by 4-5 tonnes

>>34614922
I've heard its nearly half a tonne, with about 40% of that being TOGs alone

>>34614902
The commander relies on the same TOGS II thermal that is slaved to the gunner. The export CH2E has an independent thermal sight for the commander, but UK tanks don't.
The LEP upgrade may change this, but for now the setup isn't ideal.

>>34614938

What do you think of fiber versus copper? First thing that comes to mind is that it's a lot easier to fix copper wire over fiber optic

>>34614902
Three. TOGS II, the box above the barrel. Manual, the one to the right of the barrel on the gun mantle, and the primary sight, the view box atop of the tank, below the TC camera.

>>34614956
Massive upgrade. I dont know the exact specifications, but BAE has stated that it will increase the performance by a substantial amount. You don't need to be a tank nut to know why fibre optic is better than copper wiring. It's why most internet providers are switching from copper wiring to fibre optic.

>>34614962
TCs camera for manual ovveride, two other periscopes on the turret, TCs copula, RWS and various other cameras

>>34613004
>ground clearance, speed
Please be clarify the units everywhere.
Else, nice work.

>>34614772
It's all there in that handy chart I originally responded to.
The cost per unit is only surpassed by the Korean K2, which is a technological test-bed.
Then consider the range.
Abrams has 1900l of fuel and 265 miles of operational range, which is by far the lowest of any tank presented there (average being some 350 miles with very rough math).
Challenger 2 does 340 miles, 75 miles more and only stores 1600l of fuel.
LeClerc does 400 miles at 1700l of fuel.
Leopard does 340 miles at 1200l of fuel.
T-90 does 340 miles at 1600l (or 900l, depending on whether the Russians consider the armoured fuel container to be a part of it or not) of fuel.

You can easily see the pattern here.

>>34609826

>Leclerc on top

>Has ammo in the crew compartment
>Steel armor on front lower glacis
>Giant weakpoints on turret front
>Only 22 rounds before it has to disengage

Are you that same Frogfag that was screaming on about Leclerc having an APS called GALIX?

>>34612556

>It's less then the T-64 as Nato doesn't seem to even care about the T-14's existence.

Its because their numbers are too low, to make any significant difference.

File: Leclerc swedish mock-up front hull armor cavities layout.png (453KB, 350x559px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 350x559px

>>34615539
>>Has ammo in the crew compartment

Less ammo and safer storage than on the Leopard 2 or the C1 Ariete.

>>Steel armor on front lower glacis

Its hull front has composite armor cavities (pic-related).

>>Giant weakpoints on turret front

That's not because the gun shield is large that it should be considered as a weakspot.

>>Only 22 rounds before it has to disengage

The M1A2 has only 18 ready-rounds, 15 for the Leopard 2, even less for the Merkava Mk. 4.

>>34610146
>don't have the money for something better
>Ariete
That thing deserves its own tier of shittiness, not like Italy needs tanks anyway.

>>34615664
Mark my words they'll produce cancel production soon due to costs.

When was the last time they truly phased out a piece of equipment for brand new equipment. They're using T72 for christ sakes

Remember russian PM
> No money but have good day

File: 1479328493795.jpg (43KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 330x319px

>>34610146
>allah ackbar

>>34615493
Again, try putting up some actual cost numbers instead of handwaving.

The Leopard 2A7 has a 340km cruising range, the M1A2 SEP's 425km cruising range, the Challenger 2 without its in theater armor has a 450km cruising range. When you add to this the actual engine performance you do indeed start seeing a pattern.

And we have not addressed maintenance costs.

File: FoJbmEb.jpg (101KB, 800x491px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x491px

>>34615704

>Its hull front has composite armor cavities (pic-related).

There is still a notably obvious strip on the lower glacis that is just RHA.

>That's not because the gun shield is large that it should be considered as a weakspot.

When several areas of the turret front are so thin that anything more than a 100mm gun will tear through them like they weren't there then yes, I'm going to call that a pretty massive weak point.

>The M1A2 has only 18 ready-rounds, 15 for the Leopard 2, even less for the Merkava Mk. 4.

The Abrams and Merkava can reload during ops though, it's merely slowed down rather than stopped. The Leclerc has to completely disengage to refill the autoloader, not a process you can do under fire.

File: 1500486086109.jpg (43KB, 468x576px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 468x576px

>>34613004
How is Abrams Jack off trades? Abrams is a glorified super tank destroyer if anything, just look at it ammo, it should be the long range tank duel, tank. Not the fucking rifled gun garbage chally 2.

What's wrong with you?

>>34615879
>Not the fucking rifled gun garbage chally 2
5100m kill I rest my case

>>34615913
Dude, some single anecdotal kill on a garbage haji tank doesnt mean shit. Chally 2s gun is trash for tank fighting compare to the m256 with modern ammo.

>>34615943
m256 is crap you can't hit shit beyond 2500m with it

>>34612543
That pic makes it look like a t70 with loads of stuff gaffer taped to it

>>34615879
Come back when you can form proper English sentences.

>>34612602
Vastly underrated post

>>34615779
>The Leopard 2A7 has a 340km cruising range

The cruising range is in miles, anon. Not kilometers.
Leopard 2 has 550 km cruising range after conversion.

>>34613004
Merk main gun range is closer to 5km with experienced gunners, supposedly.
Also has laser detection system.
One of the 7.62 guns is also coaxial.
Ammo used is mostly the same as us ammo, with some exceptions I can't tell you about.
Basically this is all I can say without saying anything secret, t.idf

File: IMG_1953.jpg (137KB, 721x960px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 721x960px

>>34616041
Nope, 340km.

>>34616116
>Ammo used is mostly the same as us ammo, with some exceptions I can't tell you about.

M329 and M339 are not secret.

>>34615797
>There is still a notably obvious strip on the lower glacis that is just RHA.

This is less than half of the hull front.

And this choice was justified by the weight distribution, the French also wanted a full-composite glacis without affecting the tank's center of gravity.


>When several areas of the turret front are so thin that anything more than a 100mm gun will tear through them like they weren't there then yes, I'm going to call that a pretty massive weak point.

Good luck at penetrating its +700 thick steel/composite gun mount assembly.

>The Abrams and Merkava can reload during ops though, it's merely slowed down rather than stopped. The Leclerc has to completely disengage to refill the autoloader, not a process you can do under fire.

Its autoloader can be reloaded on the field and under armor, by one or two men.

File: 1430073164527.jpg (1MB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5616x3744px

>>34615976
>APFSDS becoming inaccurate beyond 2500 m....

>>34616222
yeah no, anything that is below 50 calibres and not missile guided is going to tumble at that distance.

thats physics yo

File: Prix blindé couluer colonnes varie selon la source.png (3MB, 2044x1604px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2044x1604px

>>34614473
>Because these factors really don't matter unless you're a mech. Its not like even half of these are publicly available
>>34614763
>No one cares about that stuff, and it doesn't really matter in a tank

Still better than using mere Wikipedia's meaningless values such as the relative cross-country speed.

Acceleration capabilities, torque-to-weight ratio and suspensions vertical travel provides a clear idea of the tank's mobility.

>Yeah those weights have been disproved by RTR, especially the weight of sabot. the Specs look similar to jericho CHARM1, but thats way out of spec for CHARM3

The L23A1's sabot represents 43,75% of the total weight of the shot.

I don't know for the L26 but it is slightly longer and the shot is 0.5 kg heavier.

>>34616254

>On 26 February 1991, a Challenger achieved the longest range confirmed kill of the war, destroying an Iraqi tank with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) round fired over a distance of 5,200 metres (3.2 mi)—the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded.

>>34616374
It was an incredibly impressive shot, but anon isn't wrong. Your citation doesn't disprove his statement, it's a fact. Distance doesn't render the weapon ineffective, rather making it inaccurate and tumble.

Firing a bullet directly into the air can still kill when it lands

>>34616254

So, why a Merkava Mk. 4 platoon leader hit the minaret of a mosque at 4300 m with an APAM round during Protective Edge ?

>>34616402
proofs

>>34616193

>+700 thick

That is just absolute fantasy wishing.

>Its autoloader can be reloaded on the field and under armor, by one or two men.

And to do it you need to rotate the turret and pass through the tank. That is not "in combat". You need to disengage for that. Abrams and Merkava can stay on station.

>>34616374
Couple problems with your statement there mate
The L30 is a 55 calibre rifled gun, and not a 44 calibre smoothbore

You see the issue is, when you fire a rifled SABOT spin is imparted before it even leaves the barrel, whereas with a smooth bore you throw it out the front end and hope it spins.

What you don't realise is that with the rifled gun the SABOT falls off using centrifugal force, whereas with a smooth bore is air resistance or a tiny explosive charge.
This can be overcome by using a longer barrel to detach the penetrator from the sabot earlier.

Both of these can affect the flight trajectory by a in amount, but these anomalies start to stack up over a longer range.

In laymens terms, its like putting a tabletop spinner on a table before you spin it, you get more resistance and but it will always find its balance. In a smoothbore you drop the tabletop spinner from height, you get less initial resistance, but you're hoping the spinner lands right way up.
You also have the factor that in rifled guns you have a centre based torque already induced, meaning it will be more stable initially and longer, wheras a Smoothbore it has to start spinning after its left the barrel.


>>34616402
because you don't shoot at mosques with APFSDS rounds do you?

>>34616183
Yeah that's not the round I was talking about.
Not sure if that's secret or not but I don't want to risk it.

>>34616510

Merkgunner

>>34616516
>That is just absolute fantasy wishing.

Same as people who see weakspots where there are none.


>And to do it you need to rotate the turret and pass through the tank. That is not "in combat". You need to disengage for that. Abrams and Merkava can stay on station.

The gunner can replenish the autoloader without having to traverse the turret.

>>34616706
>Merkgunner
again, where is proofs

>>34616529
>because you don't shoot at mosques with APFSDS rounds do you?

The APAM is fin-stabilized.

>>34616157
Then someone fucked up in a pretty magnificent way writing the specs down for that tank here >>34613004.

>>34616748
The chart is for 2a6 not A7

>>34616706

>Same as people who see weakspots where there are none.

There was a picture posted showing explicitly how thin that area is.

Unless France has invented literally magic, you are not fitting 700mm effective resistance into that small area.

>>34616748
>Then someone fucked up in a pretty magnificent way writing

They did, the 2A4's range is commonly quoted for the 2A6 despite the significant weight difference.

>>34616529
>You see the issue is, when you fire a rifled SABOT spin is imparted before it even leaves the barrel, whereas with a smooth bore you throw it out the front end and hope it spins.

You went full retard.

>>34617260
>You went full retard.
Shoe is on the other foot i'm afraid.

>>34614043

The main problem with the Merkava is the armor. The first generation was homogeneous steel all around, and the most recent iterations are highly focused on defeating only infantry weapons and HEAT warheads which is good for street fights but absolutely terrible for kinetic penetrators.

Luckily, the Zionist lobby that controls America has used the US armed forces to dismantle every one of Israel's enemies with large regular armies.

>>34617260
Believe it or not but smoothbores "failure to stabilize" is a real thing.

>>34617316
>>34617370
>what is a slip ring
>what is fin stabilized

Don't comment until you have a bare minimum of knowledge for the subject

>>34617410
How can it be fin stabilised if they're not exposed in the barrel?

A slip ring does the opposite - Its meant to prevent the rotation of a SABOT and provide a deal.

>>34617260
>APFSDS:
>Armour
>piercing
>fin
>stabilized
>discarding
>sabot
FIN STABILISED. a round can't stabilise through rotation until the Sabot has been ejected successfully and without disturbing the penetrator and had began to rotate through its fins.

File: MerkvaMk3BAZarmour_zps2c2105c0.png (1MB, 1024x982px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x982px

>>34617317

Modern Merkavas use NERA plates which are effective against kinetic energy penetrators.

>>34617440
CHARM is fin stabilized, the slip ring keeps it from spinning in the rifled barrel.

>>34617440
its kind of funny that they used to make obturation rings to prevent over rotation of a projectiles to prevent drag fro rotating fins decelerating the penetrator, and to provide a good pressure seal.

Hence why most guns today are smoothbore to increase the pressure seal, but the british L30 manages to get a better muzzle velocity than some smoothbores. And they just deal with the velocity loss at range through lighter

>>34617523
The british CHARM3 uses the obturation ring to slow rotation but not stop it. Its also necessary due to its two part ammo.

Its the reason why the Jericho Charm 1 managed to get a kill at nearly 5KM

>>34612543
It looks like a cheap toy made in china. Plastic doesn't make effective armor Ivan.

File: Sabot.jpg (19KB, 500x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x216px

>>34617523
>>34617562
I should add that when the Charm looses its SABOT it looses it through means that it won't effect the penetrator as it will rotate peacefully off.

In a non rotating Sabot it can have dire effects for the penetrator

>>34612587
Fuck off Ivan, not everyone is fucking poor like your country. Russia has massive army and GDP smaller than that of Illinois. Those plastic tanks are really gonna help when the Ruble collapses.

>>34617587
CHARM uses air resistance like every other modern APFSDS.

>>34614902
That Lower Frontal Glacis is 70mm RHA. Drivers port is a weakspot to. But this tanks is very good for British Tank battles doctorine.

File: Challenger 2 underside.jpg (46KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x480px

>>34617786

Thankfully the glacis has been composite covered for a few years now.

>>34613388
For Britian, the Challanger 2 being upgraded was something coming for a long time since it arguably has the most modern hull second to only the Leclerc, making it a better recipient of upgrades than the M1 and Leo2 in theory.

>>34614956
>>34614973
It might be a great way of saving weight and providing excellent bandwidth, but I'm also worried about repairs - I was under the impression that a break in an optic fiber cable was a very difficult thing to repair and usually required replacing the whole line.