should have given us some info about the DM83, that would have been good
Why is it incorrect?
It will use the best shell and have some of the most if not the most modern targeting systems used by any NATO country. Including multi-vehicle intergration stuff that will give it some pretty insane situational awarness.
3 Likes
Great pics but in game that lower glacis is going to get us killed just as quick as the CR2 :(
Dumbest, stupid, filler word that ever existed (that pretty much means its bad and we can’t explain why its good). Yet for some reason every UK MoD marketer is compelled to use it by the mythical power of the MiC.
2 Likes
How is this incorrect?
-
It has the best gun of any NATO tank (on par with the Leopard 2A8)
-
Some of the most modern sights in NATO
-
The best ammo in NATO
It shoud be the JOINT best armed tank in NATO alongside the Leopard 2A8
I don’t like “the best” claims, but at least the Challenger 3 is a contender
4 Likes
The final Challenger 3 will have a new lower front plate composite block, so IRL it won’t be an issue. It just depends how gaijin model it.
7 Likes
I imagine the other side of the coin is mobility and protection. Regardless of how good the composite on CR3 is, the hull is worse both for manoeuvrability and for protection. (probably)
I would probably put 2A7V/2A8 higher though depends how much value you place on the APS.
I suppose the more lethal firepower in NATO you couldn’t argue with.
When they say “lethality” they mean its ability to kill, presumably talking about its firepower and fire control. In that regard, the Challenger 3 is genuinely extremely capable and has very modern tech (great sights, AI assited target tracking etc…) and hardware (the L55A1).
The armour is probably comparable to the Leopard 2A8, the lower plate appears to be a big issue, but for almost 20 years now theres been a huge composite block their fitted on the Challengers which fixes that issue. Compare the Challengers 3’s armour to the M1A2 SEP V.3 which still lacks spall liners in 2025, its pretty great.
The mobility (as is tradition with Challengers) is where the issues may rise, but that isn’t really related to lethality in this sense
1 Like
Can’t stop a 50 cal you say?
Given the more defensive nature of NATO, I dont think this is necessarily actually all that big of an issue IRL, especially as Its only marginally slower than the competition
1 Like
Yeah, mobility is important, but the Challenger being a bit slower than other NATO tanks is realistically not a huge issue. It’s not like its going TOG-II speed…
2 Likes
‘Lethality’ is just a PC term - don’t read too much into it.
Alas, terms such as ‘Smiting the enemies of the Crown.’ ‘Killing power.’ ‘Big F-Off Gun.’ and ‘Fully Operational Battlestation.’
…have somewhat fallen by the wayside in favour of slightly gentler terms. Lethality is shorter and easier to say, plus it’s fuzzy. Marketing PR types love it.
3 Likes
Because it will reach the exact same level everyone else is going to be. So, its capabilities will be standard and not extraordinary.
Same gun anyone either buying or modernizing its Leopard 2 fleet is getting. Italians are working on their own analogue. French are working on the ASCALON gun as well.
Again, its going to be pretty much the same as everyone else who is currently spending.
Same point as above. It will shoot DM73 and DM83. Nothing unique.
I don’t see your point.
The L55A1 entered service in 2019 and is an extremely modern gun. So far only a handful of countries have got this gun into service (most notably Germany as they developed it), and it is the most capable NATO gun out there.
It outclasses the M1A2 SEP V.3’s gun, the Leclerc’s gun, the Type 10’s gun, the K2 Black Panther’s, T90M’s gun etc…
Countries can pump out all the 130mm and 140mm gun designs they want, the Brits did it years ago. However, these tanks are early prototypes that are nowhere near entering service. The Challenger 3 has already completed most of its trials and is entering service within a few years.
Also, the Challenger 3 turret can fit a 130mm gun, so it is not stuck with the L55A1 (still the best tank gun in NATO)
I don’t know what you want the British Army to do, do you want them to develop a new generation of generation four thermals sights? They have given it world class optics which are just as good as anything on the next generations tanks we’ve seen such as the KF51, but the Challenger 3 is actually entering service very soon unlike the KF51.
Currently only Germany and the UK are ordering DM83, so it isn’t “the same as everyone else”, the round is pretty exclusive to those two countries at that point.
So in terms of tanks entering service by 2027 as is planned. The Challenger 3 will indeed have the best gun, the best ammo and the best optics. Therefore its not in any way underwhelming in terms of its lethality.
1 Like
That its not correct if you claim to be “the” best at something when everyone else is doing exactly the same. I´m not critizicing the tank itself, just the BS overhyping propaganda narrative around it.
can you name a NATO tank entering service by 2027 that exceeds the Challenger 3’s firepower
You seem to be arguing that it won’t be the best in like 2035, which is not what they’re claiming
The only nations which are planning to use a comparable gun are some nations using the most modern Leopard 2 variants, and then they are just “the same” firepower, and therefore not superior
1 Like
Just because multiple things are “best” doesnt mean none of them are.
It’s a wierd take.
“Germany will have similar capabiltiies therefore the CR3 wont be better than most”
1 Like
Yeah, the Challenger 3 is comparable to the Leopard 2A8 in terms of lethality. The Leopard 2A8 is the best in NATO, therefore the Challenger 3 is now the best, alongside it.
Alan seems to be comparing the Challenger 3 to proposed designs which are nowhere near entering service, which is a bit unfair.