It’s such a shame. There IS potential. The mobility corrections made them almost good.
Unfortunately, they are held back the most by the lack of LFP spall liners (it’s not so damn hard Gaijin) and first order stage ammo rack replenishment speed (and possibly size).
But the biggest offender is definitely the missing spall liners. Challengers could shine if their survivability was a strength.
I haven’t done much research into it. From what i know it was originally used for testing in the MBT-80 then they re-used it on the Challenger 2 when NATO wanted to do some testing to see how autoloaders would cope in modern and/or western tanks.
Well there was a source from when the tanks were first sent saying the MOD have instructed the crew to detonate the tanks if its left abandoned or unrecoverable. Apparently the crew were trained and how and were to destroy it.
That was never trialled on the Challenger 2, at least not in my knowledge (there is a mockup of it, but that is not a trial). The autoloaders, as you already mentioned, were for the MBT-80, specifically the E.N.T project. The carousel autoloader was chosen instead of the bustle due to being able to hold more ammo (as both autoloaders are meant to carry 140mm shells). The bustle autoloader never saw the light of day aside from that project, and there is a fake Challenger 2 “variant” that is allegedly carried the bustle one, but no proof was given. Even made a whole suggestion about it
Additionally, it was also planned to carry a 20mm autocannon and HVM/TRIGAT missiles, as well as some automatic detection systems
Spoiler
Too lazy to rewrite my words, so I’ll just copy paste:
The E.N.T compared with the Challenger 1 has massive protection differences, with an estimated 46% higher increase with kinetic projectiles and a 75% higher increase with shaped charged projectiles. This was achieved thanks to the turret having Chobham and ERA in its turret, giving the turret 700mm of armour from the front against kinetic projectiles in a 60 degree area of attack, meanwhile for HEAT projectiles it gives 1100mm at an 80 degree frontal arc. The turret sides also had Chobham and could also mount ERA, giving it 460mm of protection at 90 degrees.
The hull armour has 700mm protection against kinetic projectiles and 1300mm against HEAT projectiles if shot on the upper glacis. However like the Challenger 1, it still has the lower plate weakspot, as it wasn’t armoured like the other parts of the tank. The roof was armoured at some areas too, where it has up to 225mm of armour, high enough to survive small projectiles like bomblets and artillery, the bustle part wasn’t armoured.
Seeing as this one had 700mm KE on the hull, is it reasonable to think Challenger 2’s 550mm KE ingame is on the low end? Or is it fine according to any source we may have available? Do we have any sources in regards to its armor anyway?
Asking you since you seem to be well informed about this, hahah.