Challenger I

>>35118004
Why cause not just donuts with chocolate frosting. They easily defeated plain donuts, but we're immediately superceded by frosted donuts with sprinkles? It was also aesthetic.

it couldn't hit a goddamn thing, at least initially

>>35118049>>35118049
>it couldn't hit a goddamn thing, at least initially

From wiki:
In action, the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Thermal Observation and Gunnery System (TOGS) fitted to the Challengers proved to be decisive, allowing attacks to be made at night, in poor visibility and through smoke screens.[13] In total, British Challengers destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks without suffering a single loss in combat. Patrick Cordingley, the commander of 7th Armoured Brigade, said afterwards that "Challenger is a tank built for combat and not competitions."[14]

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

>>35118004
Terrible engine.

It was never intended to be in service for that long, it was a stopgap after both the failure of the MBT-80 project and the 1979 revolution stopping export of the Chieftains to Iran.

The Challenger 1 was essentially a freebie that the British military got when its original customer (Iran) became an Islamic Republic

>>35118103
>>35118125
So, are you saying the Challenger is just a Chieftain?

>>35118069
http://www.mihalko-family.com/Canadian-Army-Trophy-Competition.htm#1987

>>35118227
Heavily upgraded, yes. It's sort of like the jump from M48 to M60.

>>35118004
lower plate is made of straight steel and is weak to every fielded shell and team level atgm.

it was really only designed for hulldown defense of the island like all other britbong tank designs.

the longest kill meme wasn't due to the tank but circumstance. they had already ranged the squeeze point they knew t62's would come out of days in advance, and like the canadians intended it as propaganda to make up for a lack of British action in the war. As in all actuallity the bongs did about as much as the french but get more credit because of these kind of intentional constructions

>>35118004
The gun didn't have enough penetration to damage another Challenger from the front, so they just ended up pinging shots off each other until they both ran out of ammo or the artillery killed one of them, which everyone agreed wasn't much fun.

>>35118294
>As in all actuallity the bongs did about as much as the french but get more credit because of these kind of intentional constructions

The French had an armoured division heavily involved from start to finish which wiped out hundreds of tanks and IFVs? IIRC our navy helicopters wiped out the Iraqi navy too and our air force took heavy lossed doing the most dangerous missions. One of our ships saved USS Missouri from being hit by a Silkworm missile (the only successful shoot-down od one missile by another at sea) while the US escort vessel fired at Missouri's own chaff. The French pissed around in a little patch of desert somewhere.

>>35118261
I heard it was rate of fire that caused them to fail so hard. Something about the turret being too cramped for the loader to actually do his job.

>>35119626
http://www.mihalko-family.com/Images/Military/CAT%2087/CAT%2087%20Scoreboard%20Marker.png

>>35118294
>it was really only designed for hulldown defense of the island like all other britbong tank designs.

the british have never had this strategy, even in ww2. what are you talking about.

when challenger was a thing, the main effort was boar confronting the soviet shock armies in germany. i mean, wtf.

File: 1499826956978.jpg (73KB, 534x512px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 534x512px

>>35118294
>As in all actuallity the bongs did about as much as the french but get more credit because of these kind of intentional constructions

Not sure on the accuracy of this statement given the disparity of troop numbers deployed...

France:
>18000
UK:
>54462

>>35119762
>>35118261

And yet in some other of the competitions some US tanks scored low, but no-one talks about them being inaccurate.

All that shows is they came lower in a COMPETITION.

When it went to actual war, its accuracy was shown to be just fine.

>>35118294

Thats why the lower plate had ERA on it. It was only more recently as ERA defeating things became common it swapped out. Never had an issue before.

>and like the canadians intended it as propaganda to make up for a lack of British action in the war

And this is just delusion.

>As in all actuallity the bongs did about as much as the french

How about fucking no. The French did almost nothing outside of their air strikes, the British were involved very heavily on ground, air and even on sea.

>>35119972
>>35119825
>>35119791
>>35118710
found the butt angled teabs. stay mad and delusional, fucking uneducated sociopaths :^)

File: db0.jpg (26KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 349x642px

>>35120438

>>35119791
>even in ww2
this statement makes no sense and is a complete nonsequitur as british ww2 design was based off of 2 concepts and had little to do with cold war aesthetics
>when challenger was a thing, the main effort was boar confronting the soviet shock armies in germany
challenger was an attempt at an enhanced chieftain. it shared the same weak near nonexistent hull armor albeit improved to make it more attractive to foreign sales. Chieftains main design was always to be used in hull down defensive positions. centurion was the last tank where they ever though about advancing like a cruiser tank in ww2

File: knowyourmeme34.png (89KB, 259x335px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 259x335px

>>35120457
>first result know your meme
>second result imgur
summers over my kid. go home

>>35120499
>filename
Why don't you go be a faggot somewhere else; adults are trying to have a conversation here.

File: knowyourmeme43.jpg (19KB, 420x418px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 420x418px

>>35120921
you sound pretty mad for an adult

>>35120951
>implying
k then

Shit engine

>>35118294
Ah yes /k/ the /pol/ of discussion only autism and retardation is allowed

Have fun getting shot amarifat

>>35124882

Engine wasn't shit, thats just "If it isn't the record holder best in world then it must be shit" thinking.

The tank was mobile enough, engine was very reliable, and it had decent range on it. Served well, did the job. Thats not "shit". A "shit" engine would be if it could barely move, had poor range and broke down all the time.

I think you might be getting confused with the early Chieftain tanks circa 1960, which were a different tank that came before the Challenger.

>>35124907
Shit engine was what I remember from when I went to the tabk museum in bovington

>>35124942
Mate I went to bovington the other month and the cunts said the CHIEFTAIN had the shit engine but a good design. Mate you dont even get yir sources right. "Challenger 1 was a good tank" - bovington staff. bit of a shit cunt there pal.

>>35118069
>>35118294
Also, this muh longest shot is overblown: they shot multiple HEAT rounds until they hit, and it was made by unit commander, who would fuck and scream into ground any subordinate who wuold use that amount of rounds on one target.

>>35118294
>island defense

No, it had far more to do with the terrain that NORTHAG was expected to fight in which made it incredibly advantageous. There's a reason why The majority of T-80s were assigned to units that were to attack NORTHAG where CENTAG dealt with obnoxious amounts of T-72s as they were expected to go up against long open sight lanes that suited defensive ATGM fire.

>Meme kill

It was, but it wasn't on a moving target, the target was buried because Iraqis are dumb. It very much was a meme kill though.