How could you not tell…
i was lied to ok i was betrayed
Ah yes, thats the one from the 2020 gulf war, right?
Found on HMS Invincible after the Argies sank it…
Was it not Ark Royal?
Nope.
Invincible. which they still believe they sank.
They also think the Atlantic Conveyor was an actual aircraft carrier, and not a transport.
1 Like
Did the fact that two aircraft carriers rocked up in Portsmouth after the war not convince them or something
Also, in fairness, while I wouldn’t call Atlantic Conveyor an Aircraft Carrier, she was an improvised one. Then again the point made was that had they come under air attack the Harrier scrambled would’ve been on a one way trip.
Nope, they think its one big conspiracy.
A Fair number of them still believe Invincible was sunk, and we’ve covered it up since.
It’s a new turret. There’s numerous articles about Pearson Engineering cutting new steel for the turret and being awarded the job of manufacturing them for RBSL, plus delivery of their first turret
As others have said, the new turret is supposed to be entirely welded from rolled plate, where the CR2 turret had both rolled and cast elements. The elevated area behind the gunner’s sight (DNGS-T3) that the commander’s cupola sits on, does show signs of this new welded contruction compared to what we’ve seen of the naked CR2 turret.
There are good reasons for maintaining a similar turret layout in terms refitting things like simulators, training procedures and equipment for the extraction of injured crew, being able to use existing lifting equipment for removing the turret etc. etc.
if you’re making a new turret it’s a very odd decision to retain a cutout on the commander’s cupola for a CPS that will never exist on that tank. As I said, I suspect it’s still the TD turret with (relatively) minor changes to the turret face and no turret roof plates fitted. There may be good reasons for maintaining a similar layout, but what are the reasons for a totally identical layout, including the redundant features from CR2, if it is an entirely new turret then it looks like they’re just making new welded versions of what CR2 already has, rather than an actual new design.
Here’s Devil06 with a similar take on the TD turret in December: British Weapon Systems - Technical data and discussion - #689 by DevilO6. If you have the opportunity to apply decades of experience using the CR2 turret and construct a new turret shell that’s designed to accommodate the new technology that you know is going to be used… why would you just build new versions of the old design, keeping everything the same but this time you’re welding instead of casting?
It can be ukrainian 3 gen ERA called “Knife” it can be placed either in boxes or be build in armor. But this ERA works different from contact 1 and 5 . It releses a
cumulative stream to damage the projectile instead of launching a plate into it .
all i can say is
…
I think, as it is one of the 6/8(i forgot how much) prototypes, they did the first one with the Cr2 turret style, and they might change the design later
Not if you’re taking the cupola off old CR2 turrets and recycling them on new ones, which is what appears is happening with CR3. It’s just a cupola; there’s no need to reinvent the wheel when you have established subcontractors and spares for the cupola and peris.
I forget what company manufactures AFV cupolas these days, but like roadwheels and other components, CR2’s cupolas were not done in-house by BAE
1 Like
Its a photoshop sadly
read further
1 Like
I love M1
1 Like
M1 is much easier to kill
1 Like
Challenger 3 prototype 1 of 8 going under testing in Germany !!
https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1759599266228470241?t=D4MnXWyVhCReAaX3AOlmRQ&s=19
10 Likes
So new plates on the top of the turret making it less boxy, this sparks joy.
4 Likes