Armor of the Anglosphere

>Number of challengers lost in combat
>0

Attached: 5dBR4h4.jpg (1280x848, 147K)

>Tank gets stuck in a hull up position on a berm
>Gets hit by over 100 missiles
>Minor breach from one of them, one injury
>"Hurr bits can't build tanks"
I doubt the crew would have survived in any other tank.

>What is building for the future?
Seriously, user?

If it were an Abrams it wouldn't have even been penetrated.

>The only thing that can succesfully, provably kill a Challenger is... another Challenger
>"The gun is shit"

Attached: british grenadiers.png (234x311, 48K)

>still spreading this nonsense

it was hit in a fucking city, the underside was not hit, the round went through the lower front plate.

>Posts picture of houthi militant killing Abrams with a lighter and a petrol soaked piece of cardboard

>Oh shit I better tell some lies!
Just outside the city, on a berm by an irrigation ditch.

>even the fucking article in the picture you're replying to says you're wrong
>keeps it up

it's all so tiresome

>The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed on operations.
Blue on blue doesn't count as "lost in combat". Especially when it was the flukiest of flukes.

Sorry of course you're right. The drivers foot, the part of him that was injured, is in fact nowhere near the underside of the tank. The driver drives with his feet up in the air at his own head level. British tank driver jobs are exclusively reserved for fucking contortionists.

Attached: lag glimlag.png (325x312, 107K)

>implying budget Abrams without DU armor are the same as what the US fields

>lower front plate is the underside of the tank

Attached: 1231947430837.jpg (251x189, 7K)

>Suddenly journalists are infallible
Additionally, nowhere in the article does it say the tank was hulldown inside a city. Ivan, please learn to read.

>Using a smoothbore gun is "building for the future"
>Russians have been "building for the future" since 1961
>Germans have been "building for the future" since 1979
>North Koreans have been "building for the future" since 1980
>Chinese have been "building for the future" since since 1982
>French have been "building for the future" since 1983
>Americans have been "building for the future" since 1985
>Israelis have been "building for the future" since 1989
>Japanese have been "building for the future" since 1990
>Italians have been "building for the future" since 1995
>South Korea have been "building for the future" since 1999

Attached: 1522775384866.jpg (400x250, 22K)

>Even the challenger's own shit gun can kill a challenger
>"The Challenger is a good tank"

Attached: 1517508943947.jpg (446x446, 27K)

You keep repating yourself, even after your position is shown to be logically impossible. Laughably, utterly impossible. A driver's feet are nowhere near the lower glacis. If an RPG had penned the lower glacis close enough to hit the drive, that driver would have been cut in fucking half.
think about it logically. Where are the driver's feet in a tank?

Nobody said it was hull down or even implied it

>Nobody but the brits can build decent guns, so they have to upgun earlier.

>repating
>has offered no evidence for anything
>the lfp is the underside of the tank

Attached: 1360805176423.png (346x193, 34K)

see It was a HESH kill. Literally any tank can lob HE; any tank could have scored that kill.

>The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret, killing two crew members. The strike caused a fire that eventually led to an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be destroyed on operations.

see

What other evidence do you need than "foot injury" and a mind capable of logical thought? You are really pretty stupid.

>everybody upguns except the brits because "muh HESH!"

Attached: 1330419430979.jpg (140x140, 36K)

>HESH is so effective upgunning was never required

>HESH is only good for killing walls and friendly tanks
>"Good enough for us, eh chaps?"

The Brits never built good tanks though. The M46-48 was leagues better than the Centurion, and same with the M60 to the Chieftain. The British should have just bought American instead of trying to do it themselves, would have done them a hell of a lot better.

How did they manage to make the challenger 2 so awful when it's one of the newest western designs? Despite being based on older designs, newer M1 and leo2 models are superior in every aspect. The hull armor is so poor that it has to fight hull down to be protected from even ww2 era guns and the armor coverage around the mantlet + stupid cutout section for the driver is poor against anything modern.

>dat butthurt
kek'd again m8

>Every other country's examples are riddled with design flaws.
>chieftain.jpg

fpbp.

All of these nations make better tanks than the UK. US gets a pass though since M1 has a well-earned reputation.

Attached: meet-the-merkava-mk-4-barak1.jpg (1600x1067, 351K)

The Challengers main gun is trash because it has two-piece ammunition (not because it's rifled), and the turret interior and ammo storage arrangement don't permit the fielding of longer APFSDS penetrators. This is why the UK MOD has repeatedly flirted with fitting the Rheinmetall 120mm to the Challenger 2 in both CLIP and CLEP. The only reason it hasn't been done is because it's unlikely that the Challenger 2 is actually going to have to fight anything built in the last 30 years. Soviet tanks ran into a similar problem and they had to redesign the autoloader to fix it.

Longer ammunition is the easiest way of increasing the sectional density, and thus penetration of an APFSDS projectile.

Consider yourself now informed.

Attached: perf_eq.jpg (1016x1277, 191K)

>The Germans are this autistic.

>Rifled guns
>Shit armor
>90s shells
>No proper HE
Anglo """"""tanks"""""" are not real tanks

>missiles
rockets
>100
70
No pics ever surfaced of that tank

Attached: 1552940352866.png (500x300, 42K)

>*adds spall liner to tank*

Attached: 1549824586591.jpg (300x250, 10K)

>pic of the fucking Chieftain

Attached: 1554062853469.jpg (310x422, 37K)

Leopard wins like every competition.

>I'm lying because I can't accept that my country sucks at tanks.

>muh Anlosphere
>implying that the Challenger 2 isn't retarded
A Fucking Rifled gun

Yet still Sweden won, with almost no training beforehand

>The tide of unironic burgers masturbating over their undeddable abrams
So, /wgg/ moved over to Jow Forums did it?

Attached: WGG.png (660x790, 384K)

The M1 is s really, really good tank tho. Probably the best one today

Your number are good but you're a tard

They try to design them like swiss army knives but they're not as autistic as the swiss so they turn out to be shit.

Where am I wrong tho? The M1 is legit one of, if not the best tank in the world. And this forum is filled with americans, so naturally there is going to be a lot of jerking off to it.

But neither US nor UK has ever designed a good tank.

>The M1 is legit one of, if not the best tank in the world

Attached: classic.png (800x400, 193K)

Yes, now post a tank that has seen as much combat as the M1 and never had any casualties at all.

Ill wait.

So, what are you basing your claim of "the best tank in the world" on?

Well, at least im not basing it on memes made from cropped ISIS videos.

It was a good design to start with and seen a ton of combat, wich in combination with retarded ammounts of US taxmoney spent on it means that it has had a continued development over the decades. All other tank-producing nations sort of slowed down development in the 90s when there was nobody to fight, but not the US.

Sure, there are perhaps tanks that would do better in certain scenarios, but all in all, its still up there with the best ones.

>tank competition
>the Germans spend like a whole year training for it
>won
What's unfair about that?

t. butthurt soviet garbage lover

>It was a good design to start with
Not really, It was a safe design with a ton of outdated solutions, taken as a compromise when the MBT-70 didn't take off.

>and seen a ton of combat
Ts have seen way, way, WAY more combat.

>it has had a continued development over the decades
Said development did not include anything that could give it a definite upper edge compared to it's contemporaries.

>All other tank-producing nations sort of slowed down development in the 90s when there was nobody to fight, but not the US.
Chinks, Japs, Germans and Ruskies continued to upgrade their vehicles. Type 96, Type 90, Leo 2A5, T-90 all happened in the 90s. M1 just got a bloody SEP and export modifiations in the meantime. Wtf are you talking about?

>but all in all
And what is it that makes said "all in all"?

Here's the proposed Rheinmetall turret. New L55 smoothbore. I don't think it looks as aethstetic as before but its a well needed upgrade.

Attached: p1752105_main.jpg (752x423, 77K)

Bad strawman, bad

Attached: 1553240583536.jpg (795x608, 104K)

Several uppgrades of the M1A1 came in the 90s and more importantly, the M1A2 was put into service in 1992 I belive.

>Ts have seen way, way, WAY more combat.
Yes, but they have not had autistic ammounts of money dumped on them to actually make use of that combat experience

>Said development did not include anything that could give it a definite upper edge compared to it's contemporaries
The worlds best FCS? Actual thermals way before anyone else? A C&C system that isnt stuck in the 80s?

>And what is it that makes said "all in all"?
It has the same type of gun (120mm) as everyone else, similar armor (probably better in new models) as other tanks, and similar mobility. Aka all the basic factors of a tank is similar to those operated by everyone else.

So the challenger 2?

>uppgrades of the M1A1
Plz.

>the M1A2 was put into service in 1992 I belive
That's the baseline. The M1 model that supposedly "got way better over the 90s" while everyone else was poking their noses.

>The worlds best FCS?
> A C&C system that isnt stuck in the 80s?
That's some good buzzwords.

> Actual thermals way before anyone else?
Um no.

>It has the same type of gun (120mm) as everyone else
Ts have a 125mm.

> similar armor (probably better in new models) as other tanks
No, the approaches to protection is significantly different in many details compared to Leo, Chally and Types, and RADICALLY different in Ts.

>and similar mobility
Is that supposed to be bait?

So, all in all, M1 is "just like all of it's competitors" [spoiler]not really[/spoiler], but "it got gorrillions of dollars spent on upgrading it"[spoiler]not really[/spoiler], so now it;s actually better by the virtue of having " worlds best FCS" [spoiler]not really[/spoiler], C&C system that isnt stuck in the 80s [spoiler]as compared to what, exactly? Sudanese T-34s?[/spoiler], and "probably better armor".

Well, that's certainly not a 100% fudd argument, if I ever heard one.

FUGG I FORGOT I'M ON Jow Forums

FUCKING SPOILERS

THEY DO NOTHING

>majority of points come from the dismounted skills tests and the Germans spend like a whole year training for it
What country doesn't train basic soldier skills????

Don't start this shit with Jow Forums user they hate everything british because of the gun laws and most are burgers. I like the challenger 2 although its had some weird problems in the past such as the one driver injured driving over a mine/IED, the tank crew that fired a round on a test ground and everyone died, and then the Blue on Blue that was posted earlier.

well yeah, because everything british sucks

>Abrams is just Leo2 with worse engine
>Brit tanks are a disaster for decades

Ok.

>> 41160525
>Abrams is just a Leo2 with worse engine
You are not even worth a (You), even though your assessment of teebtanks is correct

Next gen Abrams is going back to diesel.

Burgers are waking up user its going to get worse.

Attached: 1455326556076.jpg (1597x1014, 481K)

>back to diesel.
???
It is a multi fuel engine

Man, secondaries that came into WarGame after EE really ruined the series
>Ts
No.
Also, the only ones that have "seen more combat" than the Abrams are the T-55, 62, and 72, and they've failed to impress.

Oh god yeah. We love when you fight it too. Just let it go.

The competition doesn't involve being shot at. Leopard's catastrophic design flaws lie in its survivability.
Namely the big hole in the front of the turret where the gunner's optics go, instead of sitting on top of the turret.
And the exposed rack of ammunition below the turret ring

Brazil actually made a really good tank but the 1st Gulf war and politics killed it and ran the company to bankruptcy.

let me show you a REAL perfect deck user

Attached: Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov.jpg (1920x1080, 479K)

Attached: 1538692373389.jpg (514x372, 38K)

>Not posting the upgraded version

Attached: 1553459523110.png (1026x1228, 56K)

The USA literally didn't train their tankers for enviroments which isn't a desert for over two decades.

Neither the Challenger II nor the Abrams ever won a competition against the Leopard 2.

The Challenger II performed so badly that they stopped any attempts of getting an export deal pretty fast.
That thing was never competive. A result of the lack of automative engineering know how in the UK.

That's their stupid fault.

Well, they are trying to fix it. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge is a co thing by the USA and Germany.

>fun fact
>every single winner nation in the past years used Leopard 2
>Leopard 2 basically dominates the competition

Why do you lie this blatantly?

Attached: muh dismounted skill tests.jpg (1080x1080, 135K)

>U.K.
>good tanks
Also
>What is Germany
>What is Russia
>what is Japan

>Implying that the abrams has no design flaws

Attached: 321447E7-7C9C-4736-BFDD-17096D572486.jpg (620x457, 61K)

they also used Leopard, so I'm not sure what that proves aside from Bundeswehr's general incompetence

>but but they trained a year just for the competition!

I love when people just claiming nonsense to feel better.

i have a question
why do modern tanks have such large turret bustles?
what do they keep back there
back then turrets looked reasonably sized

Attached: 1550565402519.jpg (798x542, 233K)

>underfunded army spends its entire budget so they can train few crews and afford fuel and ammo
>meanwhile US sends random crew #571136 because who gives a shit

>Implying arab brains has no design flaws

>back then turrets looked reasonably sized
no they were small and tight as fuck.

>why do modern tanks have such large turret bustles?

safe ammo storage; if it gets hit, it blows out the top and not into the crew compartment