Because they are overall less protected? lol they’re in the same combat environments.
Leopards are fatnastic MBTs but they’re not untouchable.
Anyways, not the place for this discussion or it’ll likely end up with stuff getting locked and I don’t wanna cause htat.
The uh, current conflict, is a terrible example of how NATO MBTs perform. Untrained crews, poor service environments, lack of proper supply, etc. all lead to this environment being an mediocre argument for how vehicles handle.
You wouldn’t consider the current performance of an Iranian F-14 to be the ‘top’ or even ‘realistic’ performance of an F-14. Why? Lack of parts, knowledge, and people. This same logic applies to tanks. The systems behind it matter just as much as the vehicle itself. So. Again. The current event is a poor descriptor for how tanks perform.
Unlike Leopards Chally2’s didn’t recieved armor upgrades during their service time, if you don’t count additional ERA’s.
Leopards on other hand recieved new internal armor packages, new munitions as well as new external armor packages which provides much better protection overall.
Current Chally2’s are no where near to latest Leopard2A7V’s nor 2A8’s in any way.
skill issue lol
I was kinda referring to the part where there are more than 10 Leopard 2s for each chally but yeah wrong thread
Not untrained at all. They have been trained granted not as intensily as operators of the native countries but they are still trained.
As well as that, the training of crews is absolutely irrelevant on the armour pefrormance of two armoured vehicles in the same fighting environment.
So we can use other conflicts as well. Leopard 2a4s were lost by turkey in syria, 2016 - 2017, which is more than Challanger has.
Uhm, yeah they did? LFP got upgraded after an RPG went through it.
As well as that the 2004 they refitted them for afghanistan with additional composites plastered to the fkers.
The dorchester / chobham which is used is only recently becoming less effective.
You’re talking about 2A8 which isn’t even in service yet, the CR3 Farham armour is yet another massive leap as far as we’re aware in the composites which britain use.
BTW the challanger 2 is still recognised by many to have thicker, more protective composites in it’s actual internal arrays, rather than what is found on 2A7 being mostly modular, which while more versitile doesn’t translate to more protected.
Also again, a tank from 1998 still being one of the most well defended MBTs in teh world speaks volumes about it’s armour capabilities.
I was refering to the 21 2a6 variants sent. Not the 2A4 variants.
Which BTW even if you put the 2a4 and 2a6 together it’s not 10 per CR2. Still more though.
I did see something about HESH being stored in the turret where in British service that is never done for safety/survivability reasons
Again, they got trained not to the same levels as the native crews, they will do their own thing with the vehicles depending what the situation demands.
But again, I’d rather can the topic rather than ge tthe thread locked
It’s a 10.7 T-72B pretty much… with a 30mm… and how would it not be able to use other rounds? That makes 0 sense.
It’s the same 30mm off a bmp-2 just fixed onto a T-72…
Like where is your logic dude? You need to go and find it.
Foreign advisors are training crews… so that statement makes no sense. Either in country or out they’re getting trained.
You would say that, after reading nothing. lol.
But hey, another post for me to save of your blissful ignorance :)
If a foreign advisor trained you (and the rest of a brand new crew) on a tank for 1 week, would you say you’d be able to use it to it’s full effect?
We know the Ukrainians are not that well trained, as on the Challenger 2 we have video proof of them misusing the vehicles eg. Loading HESH into the turret bustle where it shouldn’t be
Yeah probably. I’m a pretty good jack of all trades.
Modern tanks aren’t the hardest things to use…
I think you get my point
it also has a pretty strong round ?
Thanking u man.
They got 2 or 3 motnhs odd on CR2 in britain but pop off lad.
you realise they don’t have to follow our doctrine specifically to suit their warzone right.
Now again this will likely get the thread closed.
Some only got 1 month, because you know, it’s kind of urgent
This is not a “doctine” thing, it’s them misusing the vehicle
How is it a missuse? if our troops don’t load it, it doesn’t mean they are forcing hesh into a location the tank cant support it, it just means they are loading it somewhere that our crews wouldn’t.
They likely need access to the round quickly.
Also it’s not explicitly prevented in british doctrine but is restricted due to crew surviveability if a cook off does happen.
SO we still do load it into teh turret if / when it is absolutely necessary, adn going by how they are laoding it in there I believe the British will have showed them it with and without it and warned of the dangers of it.
so yeah missuse my ass
Got a source for that? every outlet and source i got says 11 weeks.
The Challenger 2’s design mandates that their are no explosives stored in the turret, they are all stored below the turret ring in armoured containers.
The turret rear rack does not feature armour, as it is intended to only store inert APFSDS rounds. This is a key design feature of the vehicle.
Removing the explosive HESH rounds from the specially made protective bins in the hull and into the turret bustle means they are unprotected, as they were never intended to be stored there.
There are around ~20 dedicated HESH storage containers in the hull, which should be used to store them.
If you store the HESH in the turret rear, you are neglecting the tank’s in built protection system and making a detonation upon penetration MUCH higher.
If they chose to neglect the design of the vehicle and incorrectly store the ammunition, then the loss of survivability is not the vehicle’s fault, it is the fault of the crew.
The British Government states the crews spent “several weeks” training, not months.
Forces TV reported 4-6 weeks
I cant find anywhere saying 11 weeks.
The standard training in the British Army is at minimum 6 months, or ~24 weeks.
I dont think the thread will get locked unless this is a specifically political discussion, this is just a discussion on the training of different nations, which is completely fair to discuss here.
They still lack the supply, chain of command, and # of trained crews and vehicles. So yes, it still does make sense.
I think I’d be able to use it to full effect, of my doctrine.