I forgot how this Germany engine called in 2E, 3TD modification, Black Night,
All of them was with Rheinmetall help, but goes to British TT
Challenger name belongs to Britain)))
Oh hey another british hallucination
2E and 3td were all build in UK for UK.
Chally 130 was built in germany as an independet project to test the implementation of the 130mm cannon onto real tanks and how it influences chassis etc.
It worked as a main advertisement to germany in the fight for the next german main caliber cannon vs nexter. Uk had no hands in the project.
The challenger 130 as we know it literaly never touched british ground
4 Likes
So, hull was made in German?
Where was the vickers mk.7 hull made again?
3 Likes
Reading helps, i know its hard, but i believe in you
I believe in you too
That argument doesn’t really hold up.
Gaijin has never been consistent about subtrees being based purely on alliances. If that were the case, NATO vehicles would be interchangeable across most trees, which obviously isn’t how the game works. Subtrees are selective and often tied to manufacturing, domestic industry involvement, or direct service history, not just political relationships.
Using that same logic, Britain should already have far more Commonwealth vehicles than it does. Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Singapore, etc. aren’t fully represented because Gaijin doesn’t treat alliances or FVEY as a blanket rule.
In the case of the AS21 Redback, the “USA should get it” argument makes even less sense. It’s not an American vehicle. It’s designed and built by Hanwha Defense Australia, a subsidiary of Hanwha Defense (South Korea), specifically for the Australian Army. The US has no involvement in its development or production beyond being an ally.
Meanwhile, Britain receiving the Boxer makes sense because it’s manufactured in the UK by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL). By that logic, Boxer variants being in the British tree are justified due to domestic industrial participation. The same standard should apply consistently.
So if Gaijin is being consistent:
- Industrial/manufacturing links matter (Boxer → UK)
- Service usage matters (Redback → Australia)
- Alliances alone are not enough justification
On that basis, giving the AS21 Redback to the US tree makes far less sense than arguments based on actual production or service history.
I think the confusion here is that you’re treating Rheinmetall as only a German company, when that’s not how the Challenger programme works.
Yes, Rheinmetall is German-founded, but Rheinmetall has a UK arm, and Challenger 3 is built by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) — a UK-registered joint venture, similar to how BAE Systems itself operates across multiple countries.
That doesn’t make Challenger 3 a “German tank with a British name.” It’s a British Army programme, developed and manufactured in the UK, with foreign partners supplying major components — which is completely normal in modern defence projects.
Also:
- Challenger 2E was an export variant with a German powerpack, not a British service tank.
- Black Night was a British BAE Systems demonstrator.
- 3TD was a test/demo vehicle, not the production Challenger 3.
Rheinmetall contributes the gun and turret technology, but the tank is not German-made and rebranded. The Challenger name doesn’t just “belong” to Britain — the entire programme does.
A lot of people make this mistake with Rheinmetall, just like they do with BAE, assuming one country = one company. That’s not how modern defence industry works.
1 Like