Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion (Part 1)

It was a turret front with no gun installed with the mantlet details fully exposed.

It was the holy grail, but is unusable unless told otherwise. 😞

2 Likes

No idea why it was taken down, however, because it was, with haste, we can assume that is exposes something that may be classified.

As for the second part, refer to Gunjobs comment

Haste is rather relative. It was up for over 40min. That is fast, but in the internet it is more than enough time to let a thing be seen by milions

I’m not going to comment on whether that photo was classified, because there is simply no way of us knowing, though personally I have my doubts that it was (strictly speaking at least). There are countless other reasons it could have been taken down; generally speaking taking any photos inside a UK military base without explicit permission is against the base rules and can (depending on the circumstances) land you in hot water.

However speaking more generally it is absolutely possible for a photo to be classified. In the UK (and I imagine most other countries) classification flows down; if you take a photo of something classified that photo becomes classified, if you put one classified file on a hard drive that whole hard drive is considered classified, etc. And classification doesn’t just apply to text, objects or areas can also be classified.

I will preface this next bit by saying that the classifications discussed below no longer apply (as evident by the fact that the MOD have more recently allowed multiple photos and videos to have been released from inside the CR2, and of the turret shells).

As an example, when the Challenger 2 was new (~1993) a journalist was wanting to view the tank and write an article about it. They got rejected because the inside of the turret was (at the time) classified as UK Restricted, meaning you had to have signed the Official Secrets Act to simply look inside the turret.
image

They also wanted to see the factory where the turrets were being produced, but this was again rejected as the turret shells were classified as UK Secret meaning you again had to have security clearance to see them:
image

All they were prepared to let him do was view the tank from the outside, so long as all the hatches were closed so he couldn’t see inside:
image

And as a reminder these classifications almost certainly no longer apply (as evident by various photos and videos the MOD have released from inside CR2 over the years since it entered service).

5 Likes


I found the photo, makes sense when it comes to protection after the rework tbh. I can see why it was classified.

6 Likes

The photo is taken on Ministry of Defence property, not in a public space. Believe it or not, there are rules about what you can and can’t take photos of on military bases, and you need the MoD’s permission to publish them.

4 Likes

Good news everyone!
Now that we know what the mantlet is like in reality, using gaijins excuse of why they can’t use actual documents for classified vehicles we can now make the mantlet thick enough to be comparable to other tanks at the BR since we know it’s empty and therefore won’t be encroaching upon reality.

2 Likes

Yes, challenger 2s in reality do not have barrels or breeches

1 Like

All challenger 2 are just command tanks

No, they are all

1 Like

I think this is where they get their hull armour measurements from. Original source
download (2)

5 Likes

I mean the holes on either side of the turret are empty, do u think it’s to do with holding the gun in place perhaps?

That post was pulled before, frankly until I see a FOIA for it I will consider it to be a breach of the Official Secrets Act and therefore a breach of forum rules.

8 Likes

Fair enough. I am going to delete my own picture too.

I love how they still have to put L plates on :D

1 Like

Well, the guy is still learning

Does that mean any discussion of it isn’t allowed or no posting the picture?

LoL, after looking at that photo one can conclude that the Challenger 2 mantlet armor is going backwards in history

Discussion is still dissemination of potentially classified information so no.

Decided to look to the thread, out of curiosity.