Challenger 3 MBT - Technical Data and Discussion

The suspected all-up combat weight will be somewhere around 76t as far as I’ve seen. So yeah it makes Boxer bridgelayers (which were already worse than our Titan bridgelayers) completely redundant as they don’t have the capacity to support that sort of weight.

It also leaves virtually no wiggle room for Titan bridgelayers who’s limits are ~78t.

Not a clue where all the weight is coming from given I thought they were potentially going to be making the turret lighter? But I suppose given their solution to a poor hull was slapping more armour onto it… I’m not sure what we expected. It’s one of those where it’ll probably be viewed as good enough but I’m 100% sure this thing is going to get stuck way more than any NATO contemporary.

I really wish BAE would take some initiative like Rheinmetall and just self-fund a new hull like Rheinmetall is doing for the KF-51.

(Having read further down @AblativeKitten’s summary is more detailed than my slight ramblings from bits and bobs i’ve seen).

1 Like

I hope my mildly annoyed fugue state rambles were useful at least.

1 Like

Yes, it does

Yeah, that article is slop, you gave a much better analysis that I would have lol

1 Like

It caught me after cyberpunk crashed during an annoying boss fight lmao, so I was already primed to be annoyed lmao

Im also a sucker for the option to do some light research.

also figured if Im going to bitch about sourcing Id better get my own ducks in a line. Would have triple sourced but I was genuinely a bit pissed off at that point, figured 1 was enough.

1 Like

Considering they used zero sources, i think one is good enough lol

1 Like

Tbf all previously developed hardkill APS are designed around destroying atgms flying at high speed, not a quadcopter floating in or flying at most a few hundred kmph.

I do wonder how hard it would be to tie the sensors of an APS to a remote weapon station with an automatic shotgun in the mount. We’ve seen plenty of footage of drones being brought down by single or double barrel skeetshooters, radar guided automatic shotguns with hundreds of rounds surely would be a fairly efficient means of negating the light drone threat?

image
Welcome back GEC-Marconi TAMS

3 Likes

I mean, thats pretty much what AHEAD/KETF and the likes are for.
All those can be used by rcws stations

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jNabdrBgekAY

Challenger 3TD missing target tracking reported

If passed this would also apply to the AJAX as they share the same sights.

Janes Target Tracking
.
Page 53 ESD
.
Page 67 ESD
.
Page 68 ESD
.

8 Likes

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vaf23R6g6PcQ

Remade report

So basically if this doesn’t pass the ajax is screwed for air defence

I imagine they would give it to the AJAX anyway, however, yes there is a chance it would not get it if the report isn’t passed.

EDIT:

Luckily, just as I was replying, the second report got passed to the devs and accepted.

Therefore (hopefully) the Challenger 3TD and AJAX should get target tracking ingame.

2 Likes

inb4 we get the blackjax (in 2031) without the 85 degree elevation or air tracking

1 Like

DNGS-T3 can also be equipped with automatic tracking.



Afterall, it is the same sight, but without ability to rotate.

1 Like

Nah the best ajax we can get is ths ifv version

Remote turret, 40mm CTA as previously, iron fist aps, underarmour iavelin launcher

4 Likes

“Can be”
You and I both know damn well if gaijin decides we’re not getting target tracking, “can be fitted” will not stop them in the slightest.

Official source does state it has it, so I see no issue here.

Those are some good sources, where did you get them from?

I can add them to my collection of other sources so if and when the AJAX comes and dosent have tracking I can report it

Thales catalogue
I think? I don’t remember tbh.