Where is the 80t figure coming from?
The standard model is 66 tons, and the full set of NMA is 80 tons.
The current Tes is 74.8 tons, and the weight is only much more.
I’m not sure that using the TES as an example is fitting when we know new armour will be used, the trophy APS will likely reduce the amount of protection needed, and the model suggests a redesign of the LFP protection at the very least.
It’s also worth pointing out that 62.5t is the training weight of CR2, with the combat weight (fully loaded but no add-on) is 64t. For some reason the RBSL comparison between CR2 and 3 lists it as 65t, and CR3 as 66t. Going from that, the weight increase before considering add-ons looks to be 1-2t.
Revealed by the deputy editor-in-chief of Jane’s Land System：
I would trust this guy about as far as you can throw him. He insits that CR3 will not get an engine upgrade at all, where as both the MOD and Army have reported engine upgrades. + the only weight number we have atm is a 66tonne combat weight, the APS selected is only an 500KG increase in weight, so I would not imagine a massive increase for new, lighter armour packages.
The most recent mention I saw was part of a thread in October 2023 discussing the possibility (or lack thereof) of an uplift to 1500hp.
Spoiler
This got me curious about the 72t figure mentioned, as it seems like it would be the basis for the 80t claim (the add-on has to be fitted to the tank, after all), and that 15hp/t does translate to an 80t weight. However, going through all his tweets mentioning CR3 I didn’t see that 72t figure again (unless I missed it) but did see the “just shy of 79t” claim from back in April 2021 and a 79.5t claim from August 2022 (though with no clarification of what “projected extras” would entail)
Spoiler
Searching by LEP also produced no results, so I changed tack and searched for that figure and, well, it seems that first tweet is his only one mentioning it. And before you ask, yes, I did include replies in the search. I tried the search again but with “72” instead of “72t,” there still wasn’t any other mention as far as I could see.
If you know what this 72t figure is based on or have a screenshot of the original mention/reasoning for it then please do share.
72 probably means that ST is converted to about 66 metric tons.
72,000 kg is 72 metric tons…
short tons, not metric tonnes
Okay just to make sure I’m clear
Jon explicitly claims 72,000kg - 72 metric tonnes - for CR3 in the tweet that I screenshotted and included in my reply
We know the weights of CR2 (none of which are 65t which is bugging me):
Training: 62.5 metric tonnes / 68.9 ST / 61.5 LT
Combat: 64 metric tonnes / 70.5 ST / ~63 LT
Taking the CR3 weight of 66 tonnes at face value, we get 72.75 ST / ~65 LT.
So you’re saying Jon just messed up?
He is long gone
2 Likes
UK don’t use short tons, only long tons and metric tonnes.
Yea, i added UK there for some reason, thanks for pointign that out
given the army allready pointed out that cr3 will be working side by side with ajax and boxers theres no reason now to put the challenger in a position where it can be flanked.
tes side upgrades were meant to protect inside cities with the lessons learned in iraq. but since ajax and boxers can now use aps theres no reason they cant go there instead of challengers.
not to mention that even outside cities the mod is looking for an aditional number of boxers with close aa support that is very good against drones. they will prolly work with the cr3s all the time mostly
Dont the US trophy using abrams use both trophy and NERA side armour together?
yes but i think moving forward theyll want to do the same setup as uk.
as good as the bradley has been doing in ukraine its starting to show its age.
also the US as so many abrams they can just use them as recon lol
They are getting a new bradley with iron fist aps
We need to put some APS on the Ajax tbh
4 Likes
dw we’re getting LAZERRRRRRRSS!! XD
pesky bees
1 Like