Is the British challenger tank irl really very good?

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
122

Which one? The Chally one proved to be very good in reality but define very good.It certainly didn’t face the latest and greatest Russian tech of it’s era with well trained and motivated Russian crews.It did what was asked for by command and it’s crews.It started and it stopped which was more that you could say about the Chieftain early on but that has nothing to do with the game.

It scored a kill over record breaking distance.It died to another HESH firing tank in a friendly fire accident in a somewhat freak occurrence.
Reality has next to nothing to do with this game.Chally Two was after my time so don’t know.

Remember saving crews and getting huge explosive kills is two different things.

MBTs save crews from death not bounce enemy shells like the man of steel : ) It’s believed if you get hit you are done but it’s whether you go home in a bag that counts.That is reality and nothing to do with War Thunder.

2 Likes
123

that’s what happens when you get engaged in a real war and not in some pseudo war against some desert dudes with sandals

1 Like
124

The Youtuber channel Covert Cabal has done an excellent job of estimating how much is left in russian stockpiles. Its eyewatering how few are left in a salvageable condition

1 Like
125

kek if thats how you want to put it go for it lmfao

126

I think Perun did one recently also - quite in-depth but well worth a watch.

127

ok wheraboo your tanks are invincible can take 2000 rpgs hits and russian tanks are crap, we get it

128

I don’t think many tanks would survive a Squashhead to a cupola tbf. the one that was vapourised in kursk is a better example to use

1 Like
129

hes glazing over all 8,100 US abrams lol

sure, UK only has like 200, but does it matter when their main ally has over 8 thousand tanks? and article 5 exists?

130

in comparison to western made kit of the last 50 years yes, objectively

131

50 years is a stretch, they were equal to or better than NATO tanks up until the Abrams entered service in 1980, after which the west started to take the lead, which would make it 45 years

T-80’s couldve probably given early abrams some issues though

132

Id say it does matter. We shouldnt rely on others for our own defence no matter. for an island our navy is quite pathetic and everyone else is neglected of funding.

133

ok 45 years, as thats abrams and lepard 2

134

T-72 is from the 70s, the T-80 too

135

well yes that is true, your navy is pretty sad, its unfair to compare an island to the largest country in the world in terms of size of land army. so his 200 UK chally vs 14 sent to Ukraine point is kinda BS

1 Like
136

almost like they havent been really capable of a new tank since

1 Like
137

already adressed. went from 50 to 45 years

1 Like
138

out of all of are CR2 tanks I don’t believe even 100 of them are in a ready for war state

139

The CR2 donation was more of a gesture that paved the way for others to follow suit. The same for stuff like MLRS, Storm Shadow - the British Govt decided to stick their neck out and ‘be the first’ to cross this or that red line.

I’d say that single Squadron of Challengers was possibly more impactful for what it gave diplomatic cover for others to do - than the actual metal on the ground.

Just my take anyway.

3 Likes
140

in terms of what we actually got in storage vs service, we have similar ratio for the abrams

1 Like
141

yeah thanks for reminding that, the also have 8 thousand attack helicopters, thousands of planes, lots of aircraft carriers and submarines, 39% of the global defense spending, 3.5 % is Russia…but then they tell Russia wants to attack nato rofl. Art 5 true meaning is to protect us from Godzilla I guess