What Challenger 2 can and cannot do in Ukraine

97
What Challenger 2 can and cannot do in Ukraine


62,5 tons of British steel


The Western view on the supply of military equipment to Ukraine is purely practical. From the modern to the front line goes either small arms weapon, or light anti-tank missiles. On the line of contact, obsolete weapons should die, for example, M113 or Bradley thirty years ago. This is a marketing ploy in front of the growing gun hunger around the world. Frightened by imaginary Russian aggression, countries are ready to spend billions on new Tanks, helicopters, airplanes and other equipment. An illustrative example is HIMARS installations that operate at distances that seriously complicate retaliatory suppression. Similarly, the German PzH 2000 and other "crabs" are fighting. NATO long-range systems, if they are destroyed, then all traces of this are carefully erased from the information space. As Abrams at one time became the hallmark of NATO aggression in Iraq, so HIMARS is now in the role of the leader of the resistance of Ukrainian nationalists. Artillery systems are actors in a large advertising campaign for gunsmiths in the United States and a number of NATO countries. Another thing is the main battle tanks. It so happened that even in 2023 tanks remained the symbols of the national military-industrial complex. The Germans have Leopard 2, the Americans have Abrams, and so on. The British have the Challenger 2. Only now, no one except the armed forces of the United Kingdom needed a very specific car. 38 cars for Oman do not count - a meager contract only confirms the rule.








Challenger 2. Source: vk.com

But Ukraine needs help. And best of all, NATO-style tanks, from which there is more resonance and enthusiasm. Challenger 2 is excellently prepared for this symbolic role. In the foreseeable future, there will be no buyers for the British tank, therefore, reputational damage is of no interest to anyone. The whole squadron, that is, 14 tanks, can die the death of the brave without the slightest damage to Great Britain. The first squadron will obviously be followed by the second, and the third, and the fourth. And it will not be a shame to show photos of the burned-out Challenger 2 - after all, the English school of tank building has long died. Another thing is the German "cats", which are still being sold and sold to frightened Europeans and sympathetic brethren. The Abrams is no longer in production and is unlikely to be, but it is important as a symbol of the invincibility of the American military. Enough of the M1A2S Abrams of the Saudi Arabian Army that were shot down by the Houthi Mestizos. There are suspicions that the US tank is not able to withstand the horrors of the Ukrainian front at all and will be turned off from the game before it starts. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl laments:

“The Abrams tank is very sophisticated equipment. It is expensive. It's hard to train on it. It has a gas turbine engine, I think, with a consumption of about three gallons of jet fuel per mile (more than 13 liters per 1,62 kilometers). It's not the easiest system to maintain."

The attitude towards the fighters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as underdeveloped users should offend the military-political leadership of Ukraine. But he doesn't offend. Since the Americans are not ready to share their tanks with the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Germany decided to take a timeout. Scholz refused this stories act alone. Naturally, the Poles cannot transfer the Leopard 2PL to Kyiv without German permission - these are the terms of the contract. However, Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki is a hero:

“We will either quickly get this consent from Germany, or we will do the right thing ourselves.”

In the meantime, the Polish leadership was enough to include in the package of deliveries the ancient S-60 anti-aircraft artillery systems and seventy thousand ammunition for them.

Strengths of the Challenger 2


No matter how commentators and experts despise the Challenger 2, it is still a heavily armored vehicle with a fairly powerful gun. Especially when fourteen tanks are supplemented by an unnamed number of FV432 Mk 3 Bulldog armored personnel carriers. The British seem to be hinting that they are preparing a made in UK shock fist, supplementing the arms deal with AS-155 self-propelled 90-mm howitzers.

The British will put Challenger 2 out of the so-called crisis package, which they have long wanted to get rid of. In 2019, it was decided to reduce the staff from 227 vehicles to 148. The remaining 79 tanks were assigned either for spare parts or for deep conservation for “every firefighter”. And so it happened, but not in the UK, but in Ukraine. The remaining Challenger 2s will be gradually upgraded to the level of Challenger 3. It is not known how many tanks the British managed to dismantle, but we will proceed from the most pessimistic scenario, according to which all 79 decommissioned and preparing to be decommissioned vehicles may end up in Ukraine. The logic will be something like the following - the first squadron will be tested in combat, the level of vehicle ownership by Ukrainian crews will be assessed, and if everything goes well, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be saturated with a few dozen more tanks.












Loading BC in Challenger 2. Source: telegram

The main argument of the Challenger 2 is its rifled 120 mm gun Gun 120 mm Tk L30 or L30A1. A rifled gun provides greater accuracy of battle in comparison with smooth-bore counterparts - an average of 5-7%. The specifics of the gun does not imply the use of HEAT ammunition - the Challenger 2 has sub-caliber shells against tanks. According to the manufacturers, British "crowbars" made of depleted uranium can hit up to 740 mm of homogeneous armor. This can be critical for frontal projections of all tanks of the T-72 series, but modern modifications of the T-80BVM and T-90M are quite reliably protected from English shells. However, it is only speculative to talk about dueling battles between Russian and British tanks. A little more than a dozen Challenger 2s will be thrown into almost a thousand-kilometer front. What is the probability of meeting with a Russian tank?












Challenger 2 in the British Army. Source: vk.com

The Challenger 2, as mentioned above, can be supplied with depleted uranium core projectiles - the L26A1 APFSDS product. It is unnecessary to explain what the consequences for Ukraine could be after intensive firing of such ammunition. To be fair, the tank's ammunition also contains more environmentally friendly anti-tank shells with tungsten-based alloy penetrators.


The back side of a homogeneous armor barrier after shelling with plastic explosives (HESH)

A distinctive feature of the ammunition load of the British tank is the armor-piercing high-explosive L31A7 HESH equipped with plastic explosives. There are not many users of such ammunition in the world - in addition to the British, HESH is found in the ammunition of the Indian Arjun, the Stryker M1128 "wheeled tank", the Chinese VT-4 and several more obsolete vehicles. Modern NATO tank smoothbore guns are deprived of ammunition with plastic explosives. The rifled barrel of the English cannon increases the effectiveness of HESH-type ammunition due to centrifugal force, which more effectively spreads the explosives on the armor. This is followed by an explosion - and fragments are formed on the back of the target, hitting the crew, ammunition and other components. Simple mechanics work well only on homogeneous armor - modern combined barriers, spaced armor and anti-fragmentation lining effectively dampen the compression wave. The L31A7 HESH has speed limits. The fact is that too high a speed of impact on the target will scatter the explosives of the projectile without detonation. Therefore, the initial velocity of the ammunition is limited to 670 m / s, which creates problems both with the firing range and with work on moving targets. The developers claim that plastic explosives should ensure the effective destruction of concrete shelters.


L30A1. Source: vk.com

For this reason, a tank in Ukraine will become a good sniper rifle - more accurate than Soviet-type tanks and similar in power. Moreover, the LMS allows the tank a lot - and this is another strong point of the representative of the English Lend-Lease. The Challenger 2 has a good gentleman's kit - Thales' Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight II (TOGS-II) thermal imaging sight, the commander's SAGEM VS 580-10 gyro-stabilized panoramic sight, the NANOQUEST L30 and SFIM VS-580 sights, as well as the powerful "brains" of the FCS on two 32-bit processors. The thermal image is duplicated for the commander and gunner. At long distances in the Ukrainian steppes, the tank is quite capable of causing inconvenience. Especially at night. It is possible to hit an English tank at a distance of 3-4 km only with ATGMs - the forehead of the tower and the upper frontal part are strong and are not affected by all Russian ammunition. At shorter distances, the feathered sub-caliber "Lead-2" is effective. At the moment, it is not known exactly in what configuration London will send the tanks to Ukraine. There is a possibility that in a protected version of TES (Theatre Entry Standard) and equipped with a remote-controlled 7,62-mm machine gun on the roof of the tower. In this case, massive blocks of dynamic protection will be placed on the sides of the tank, significantly increasing the resistance against anti-tank grenades. However, even without such protection in Ukraine, there are enough craftsmen to handicraft tanks with Soviet-style dynamic protection.


Additional booking under the TES program (Theatre Entry Standard)


Boiling vessel is a regular food heater of the British Challenger 2 tank. The only one of its kind in the world tank building

Among the undoubted advantages of the English tank are considerable internal dimensions and a high level of comfort. In particular, the engineers took care of the crew's hot meals and equipped the Boiling vessel tank - a large electrically heated kettle. Usually the loader is responsible for the kitchen on board the tank. The device allows you to simultaneously heat four cans from the standard ration of a British soldier from the 24-volt electrical network of the tank, as well as brew tea or coffee. Boiling vessel is also present in the Bulldog armored personnel carriers transferred to Ukraine. In general, a comfortable meal in British tanks is provided for the military of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Challenger 2 Weaknesses


The British tank turned out to be controversial. And all the negative sides will become critically important in Ukraine. Here, the Challenger 2 intends to fight not with partisans, who have nothing stronger than RPGs, but with the Russian army. The English tank will live until the first meeting with the Shturm-S self-propelled ATGM - its potential is more than enough for any Challenger 2 armored part.

First on the list of weaknesses is the 120mm gun. The weapon is accurate, as mentioned above, but outdated. No wonder the British army in the third generation of the Challenger intends to replace the rifled gun with the German smoothbore L55A1. The exotic Englishwoman has a separate-cartridge loading, which requires more training for the fourth crew member and reduces the final rate of fire. In addition, each projectile has its own powder charge. All ammunition for the rifled gun is unique, which will force fourteen tanks to organize a separate logistics line. Engineers have equipped the Challenger 2 cannon with an axial seal for the wedge of soft metal, which, as it wears out, can cause a breakthrough of powder gases that is fatal for the inhabitants of the tower. It is not always returned to its place after service. This happened on June 14, 2017 at the training ground - an explosion of a powder charge in the breech without an obturation ring killed two tankers and seriously injured two. The English trunk clearly requires careful attention.




Challenger 2. Source: telegram

One weakness of the Challenger 2 was already found by the Ukrainians themselves, who pointed out the vulnerable location of the combat kit in the turret shelf. Quadcopters with cumulative grenades from the Second World War may well put a British tank out of action. And quickly and with the most fatal consequences. Domestic tanks are deprived of this, however, in return, the turret crew is forced to literally sit on the ammunition load.

The Challenger 2 is NATO's heaviest tank. Depending on the modification, its weight varies from 62,5 tons to 75. There are a lot of problems with overloading. Firstly, not all bridges are able to withstand such a colossus. Secondly, the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have tank bridge-layers capable of "digesting" more than 60 tons. The recently delivered German Bibers are also not designed for such heavy loads. Together with the Challenger 2, we will have to send the Titan bridgelayer to Ukraine in order to provide at least some mobility in the offensive. Thirdly, it is very difficult to pull an English car out of a mud captivity. There is no such tow truck in Ukraine. We are waiting in the package of British deliveries of the CRARRV ARV with a maximum traction force of 98 tons? Too many retinues are demanded by the Englishman for his person.




Joystick gunner Challenger 2. Source: vk.com

British heavy tanks have always been clumsy and the Challenger 2 is no exception. In the SVO, armored vehicles value high throttle response and speed. Even in the lightest Challenger 2, the power-to-weight ratio does not exceed 18 hp. With. per ton, and if the tank is equipped with the whole complex of additional protection, the mobility will be equal to the German heavy tanks of the WWII era.


An interesting comparison of the dimensions of the Ukrainian 6TD-2 (T-84) and the British Perkins Engine Company CV12 (Challenger 1,2). Both engines are 1200 hp. With. Source: vk.com


If necessary, Challenger 2 can do this

By the way, about protection. Despite the formidable appearance, the tank has pain points. For example, the lower front plate, which in Iraq they managed to pierce with a grenade launcher. No wonder - the thickness is about 70 mm. Now the part has been covered with dynamic protection, but armor still does not pose any problem for modern tank shells. You just have to get in. If you believe the British advertising campaign, then in 2003 in Iraq, the Challenger 2 withstood hits from 17 anti-tank grenades and one missile from the Milan complex.

To all of the above, the inevitable difficulties with the maintenance of unique equipment should be added - there are practically no components and parts interchangeable with other NATO equipment in the tank. The Challenger 2 is obviously not sent to break through Russian defenses, but to repel attacks. The English tank has yet to adapt to the realities of the special operation, and it doesn’t have much chance of doing so.
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    23 January 2023 05: 34
    I didn’t understand the criticism of separate case loading ...
    Is it somewhere in tanks in such a caliber that a unitary shot is used when manually loading?

    Here are different charges for different shells, it's interesting :). There is probably protection, otherwise the loader in the park will put the wrong "cap"
    1. +5
      23 January 2023 05: 52
      There was a video showing how they load on the Merkava - there was a unitary one. CD 2 minutes.
      1. -3
        23 January 2023 09: 12
        Quote: NG inform
        CD 2 minutes.

        Manual reloading the first few shots is faster than a machine gun.
        1. 0
          26 January 2023 14: 40
          Well, on the vidosik CD was 2 minutes. The projectile is heavy. It is also interesting how the loader remains intact in real conditions - any wrong movement and you are without a hand.
        2. TIR
          0
          6 March 2023 10: 01
          Unless the tank is standing still. Then reload faster. If I were a loader on a tank and without my command (you need to snuggle up to the wall from the breech, grab hold of the handles tightly and then say that the gun is loaded), the gunner fired, then I would take a bigger key without words and twist the brains of such a gunner. And behind all these manipulations, it will obviously not take 6-7 seconds. What if you do it all on the fly? Then exactly reload more than 10 seconds
    2. +10
      23 January 2023 06: 05
      Quote: VicktorVR
      Is it somewhere in tanks in such a caliber that a unitary shot is used when manually loading?

      Yes, all other NATO tanks use unitaries
      Look, this is the English "Throwing Shot", both the projectile and the powder caps are clearly visible

      But the standard in NATO unitary 120-mm tank shells with a combustible sleeve


      But in the hands of Panzersoldat what remains of them after firing
      1. +2
        23 January 2023 10: 06
        For German-American guns, cumulatives and OFS are somewhat lighter than for 120-122-mm rifled and 125-mm smoothbore. The 122-mm unitary shot for the D-25T was almost the height of a tanker.
      2. +1
        23 January 2023 17: 37
        Quote: svp67
        But in the hands of Panzersoldat


        Grenadier.
        1. +3
          23 January 2023 19: 28
          I think it's "her"...
        2. 0
          24 January 2023 10: 48
          Panzersoldat - a tanker panzergrenadier - Ordinary motorized infantry. So do not correct svp67 in this.
      3. TIR
        0
        6 March 2023 10: 04
        Interestingly, there are clearly traces of soot and fuel oil on his face. For another reason, I see no reason to apply combat makeup to the loading tank. And they are also surprised at the insanity in our army. Here the peasant was forced to smear his face. Moreover, by his sour physiognomy, he understands that this is insanity, but if they said to paint, then it is necessary
    3. +1
      23 January 2023 06: 36
      In Abrams, a unitary projectile. Criticism - the loader must first lay the projectile, then the cartridge case with the charge. Also choose which one with which charges. I didn’t know, but it says here that the charge for various shells and firing conditions is different.
      1. +1
        23 January 2023 16: 11
        Quote: YOUR
        Criticism - the loader must first lay the projectile, then the cartridge case with the charge. Also choose which one with which charges. I didn’t know, but it says here that the charge for different shells and firing conditions is different.
        And yet, with cap loading, the capsules are charged separately, they are not on the charges.
      2. Alf
        +2
        23 January 2023 18: 48
        Quote: YOUR
        In Abrams, a unitary projectile. Criticism - the loader must first lay the projectile, then the cartridge case with the charge.

        For a unitary shot, a cartridge case with a charge ??? However, a new word in the ammunition business ...
    4. 0
      18 March 2023 15: 57
      A tank of the 21st century without AZ is what the moderator will not let you write because we are all cultural here and you can’t write like that.
    5. +1
      26 March 2023 18: 49
      Believe it or not, the L55 has a unitary shot. That is, on Leopards and Abrams, unitary shells. Separate loading from AZ or MZ, on our tanks, is not at all what the British have. Sadness however. Given that each type of projectile has its own type of charge, a special sadness.
  2. +11
    23 January 2023 05: 51
    >What could be the consequences for Ukraine after intensive firing of such ammunition,
    You can stop there. The author has obvious problems with competence.
    1. +12
      23 January 2023 06: 09
      Quote: NG inform
      >What could be the consequences for Ukraine after intensive firing of such ammunition,
      You can stop there. The author has obvious problems with competence.

      Well, don't judge too harshly. No. This is how we people think. If we hear the word "uranium", then everything is in the head of the picture of the radiation apocalypse belay But the fact remains: there are no complete and objective data on the radiation effects of these munitions on the human body. request
      1. KCA
        +6
        23 January 2023 07: 28
        What difference does it make, for these ammunition or for others, there is complete information on U238, its weak alpha radiation is not able to penetrate even the skin, it is dangerous only when particles enter the lungs, i.e. for 100% protection, even our favorite mask is enough, and you can even eat it, which has been demonstrated more than once
        1. -3
          23 January 2023 15: 26
          I knew those who fired uranium at the range. All died quickly. The first - those who went to the target. They died badly.
          1. 0
            26 January 2023 14: 58
            It's a lie. Students hold depleted uranium in their hands during radiochemistry courses.
        2. +4
          23 January 2023 17: 47
          Who cares, ...

          Big.
          The ingress of finely dispersed particles into the blood through the lungs or through the stomach will definitely not add health.
          At one time he worked at an industrial construction site. And there was a person in our team, to whom the doctor predicted the level of aluminum in the blood and the oncology progressing because of this (he often cut aluminum scaffolding with flex)). for a maximum of six months. And so it happened.
          1. 0
            24 January 2023 22: 35
            Well, they won’t cut uranium scrap.
          2. 0
            26 January 2023 14: 59
            How do they fucking get into the blood? Do you know that every granite cobblestone has enough uranium to melt it? Or that uranium ore is more radioactive than pure natural uranium?
      2. +4
        23 January 2023 11: 25
        And the data that is, you can on the blue eye declare incomplete and biased. There would be a desire. Journalism is... journalism.
      3. +2
        23 January 2023 22: 40
        This is how we people think.

        Nobody judges. This is your thinking.
        But in Serbia, people have a different opinion.
        Radiation has nothing to do with it. This is a smoke screen for the weakly erudite.
        Uranium is a heavy metal. Its compounds are worse for the human body than lead. The metal itself is very active chemically. Upon impact with the armor, the core basically burns out. If it breaks through the armor, the crew is definitely a khan, whoever does not die immediately will die of cancer, breathing in. Not even from cancer, from heavy metal poisoning. If the armor is not broken, uranium oxides enter the soil. Then a person either breathes dust, or eats with agricultural products.
        In Serbia, there are big problems with increased oncology. It is clear that no one wants to hear about this in the West.
        1. 0
          28 January 2023 20: 57
          In war, everything is bad. Any ordinary metal is just as harmful.
          Yes, the MPC of silver is the same as that of lead - and silverware is loved.
      4. 0
        26 January 2023 14: 54
        Because they don't exist. Uranus is everywhere. If there is a coal-fired power plant near you, then in terms of emissions per year, it covers more than one nuclear bomb.
    2. +5
      23 January 2023 12: 35
      Quote: NG inform
      >What could be the consequences for Ukraine after intensive firing of such ammunition,
      You can stop there. The author has obvious problems with competence.
      Let's not stop: the problems from depleted uranium are not due to radiation, it is harmful in itself, chemically. When breaking through the armor, it goes into a finely dispersed state (grinds off as it passes) and this dust is harmful.
      1. 0
        April 2 2023 20: 45
        And why does the crew have to stand and breathe? After breaking through, if, God forbid, alive, then in a second they will jump out. Two or three breaths will not poison you, you need to breathe like that for years.
    3. +4
      23 January 2023 16: 44
      Depleted uranium has weak radioactivity, but very high toxicity, like its compounds. And in the body, like all heavy metals, it accumulates, gradually and for a long time poisoning.
      When the core of depleted uranium is destroyed, many small fragments and dust are formed, which enter the environment. The harm of this is clear, but the degree depends on many things.
  3. +2
    23 January 2023 05: 59
    There are many problems with overload. Firstly, not all bridges are able to withstand such a colossus. Secondly, the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have tank bridge-layers capable of "digesting" more than 60 tons. The recently delivered German Bibers are also not designed for such heavy loads. Together with the Challenger 2, we will have to send the Titan bridgelayer to Ukraine in order to provide at least some mobility in the offensive. Thirdly, the English car is very difficult to pull out of the mud captivity. There is no such tow truck in Ukraine. We are waiting in the package of British deliveries of the CRARRV ARV with a maximum traction force of 98 tons?
    Too many retinues are demanded by the Englishman for his person.

    The British announced that they were sending their tanks to Ukraine, clearly in the expectation that Germany would pick up their "initiative". It didn't work out.
    So, taking into account all the above facts about the cumbersome use of the Challengers, they will not be sent further than the Lviv region, where tanks are used as actors for propaganda videos. The British said: first we will send two tanks, the rest then.
    In our time, in the information war, these tanks will be more useful than in a real war.
    It will be possible to raise the morale of the population and the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and reproach the Germans, and brag to the Americans. But, if they do end up in the Donbass, then, as the article says, there will be methods for it.
    1. -2
      24 January 2023 18: 06
      The British announced that they were sending their tanks to Ukraine, clearly in the expectation that Germany would pick up their "initiative". It didn't work out.
      as you can see, in the end they all turned out
  4. +10
    23 January 2023 06: 05
    An interesting comparison of the dimensions of the Ukrainian 6TD-2 (T-84) and the British Perkins Engine Company CV12 (Challenger 1,2). Both engines are 1200 hp. With
    The comparison is not correct. English is not just an engine, but a quick-change module, which, in addition to the engine itself, also includes part of its servicing systems. The engine itself, somewhere in the size of our "B-2" series
    1. +4
      23 January 2023 09: 30
      But on the Chieftain it looks like a 5-6TD diesel engine. The truth seems to be vertical. But in the end, the British refused such.
      1. +3
        23 January 2023 09: 34
        Quote: Dimax-Nemo
        But on the Chieftain it looks like a 5-6TD diesel engine. The truth seems to be vertical.

        Yeah, two-stroke and opposite
  5. +4
    23 January 2023 06: 38
    Tank battles, which were during the Second World War, are not expected. There may be separate battles between 2 - 5 tanks. Basically, they fight tanks with the help of artillery, ATGMs, which are ground-based, which are aircraft and mines.
    The presence of such tanks is unpleasant, but not critical. Most likely they will indeed be used with an armored fist in conjunction with infantry fighting vehicles. Those. create units equipped only with British equipment. Here, all the cards are already in the hands of our intelligence. To track in which area these tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will appear.
  6. +11
    23 January 2023 06: 38
    Everything is lined up! Now it's clear to everyone that their tanks are crap. Only now they will not kill our guys in a shitty way. The same can be said about the Hymers: Well, really, what do 6 missiles in a package mean compared to our tornadoes and hurricanes?
  7. +1
    23 January 2023 06: 43
    The car is really serious and can do a lot of things in capable hands. But with skillful hands in / on somehow not very much. In order to effectively use such a prodigy, the course of a young fighter in 1, 2, and even 3 months is clearly not enough, and the experience of service and even fighting on the T-62/64/72 is somehow not very applicable. And can 404 afford to remove 14 tank crews from the front and send them to study for several months?
    Of course, you can recruit volunteers from the bad guys, and not too expensive compared to the price of the tanks themselves, only the reverse flow of cargoes of 200 and 300 is unlikely to contribute to the growth of the popularity of the current prime minister.
    And also, if a tank, even a dead one, falls into the hands of the RF Armed Forces, specialists with hacksaws, grinders, and other cutting tools in their hands will figure out what the vaunted strictly secret Chobham armor is like, and how best to make holes in it.
    So we will see.
    1. +3
      23 January 2023 07: 10
      And also, if a tank, even a dead one, falls into the hands of the RF Armed Forces, specialists with hacksaws, grinders, and other cutting tools in their hands will figure out what the vaunted strictly secret Chobham armor is like, and how best to make holes in it.

      If the exposition in Kubinka is replenished, it will be a circus with horses.
    2. +4
      23 January 2023 09: 22
      Quote: Nagan
      And can 404 afford to withdraw 14 tank crews from the front and send them to study for several months?

      I don't see any problems. There are almost no tank battles now, before the start of the NMD, Ukraine had about 800 tanks. And, accordingly, crews.
      Quote: Nagan
      vaunted top secret Chobham armor

      Armor Chobham is already 60 years old. That's still a secret.
    3. -1
      24 January 2023 08: 57
      But with skillful hands in / on somehow not very much.
      and therefore we have been trying for 11 months to free at least the LDNR? Maybe it's enough to consider the enemy as idiots and clumsy? When will it come that THERE is in many ways BETTER than ours? And you need to learn and never consider the enemy weaker or more stupid than yourself. I understand that all sorts of idiotic comedians like perky for many years inspired the idea of ​​"God's chosen" us and the "stupidity" of all others. But it is not.
  8. +5
    23 January 2023 06: 56
    Thanks to the author, interesting and informative! The last photo is epic-sucked Yes
  9. -6
    23 January 2023 06: 59
    A lot of water and nothing new in essence. Everything can be looked at in the Vartander toy. The videos about Abrash were seen in the cold and snow, it’s still screaming !!! Like a passenger car on summer bald tires off-road in a cold weather! What will happen to optics, electronics and other components if the tank at the position of the ukrov in the field stands idle, at least at minus 5-10 with a breeze, for a couple of days. Or will he sit on his belly after driving off the road into a ditch? Yes, sitting in the bushes on the back line and shooting those who have broken through can, but like a bunker. And it’s better in flat fields in the south. But the bunker and bunker is easier than a mobile tank ... No, of course, it’s not easy to destroy a barn, but this is not a wunderwaffle. The most important thing is that this car is neither in winter, nor in spring and autumn, nor in summer in the rain, nor from the garage ...
    1. +8
      23 January 2023 09: 24
      Quote: Anatoly Proskurin
      Videos about Abrash have been seen

      Lots of videos like this. About bulldozers, excavators, etc. Putting a heavy one in a car into a swamp has never been a big deal.
      1. +17
        23 January 2023 10: 23
        Especially for the members of the sect "the coming of Abrams, Leo2, Challenger2, which will not take place, because they are heavy, get stuck, will not reach, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will not master them and they slide like Plushenko on ice."
        Murz, well-known in narrow circles, writes for this sect:
        “People don’t teach materiel, it’s sad. And they don’t want to teach. Therefore, they don’t know that the issue of “winter shoes” for Abrams was raised from the very beginning of their production. with different versions of the harp in winter conditions as early as October 1982.
        And just as suddenly for //// /////// "Field manual", "Field manual" of the damned pinds//// on the war in winter informs us that:
        For the M-1 series tanks with T158 track, special ice cleats are available. For best performance, every fifth track shoe should receive a set of cleans. A total of 64 cleans per vehicle (32 per side) and 64 new self-locking nuts are needed.
        That's it. 32 removable ice access sets for each track. Well, this is in addition to the fact that "Abrams" has a tabular value of "gradient" - 31 degrees, between T-72 - 30 and T-80 - 32.


        Still, it's amazing, it's almost a year since the NWO is coming, and Anatoly Proskurin with an incredibly childish expression is still found in the Russian Federation.
      2. +9
        23 January 2023 10: 26
        Quote: Negro
        Quote: Anatoly Proskurin
        Videos about Abrash have been seen

        Lots of videos like this. About bulldozers, excavators, etc. Putting a heavy one in a car into a swamp has never been a big deal.

        I completely agree, there are a lot of materials on the net about how in February the warriors from the "elite" divisions decided to cut across the field quickly. As a result, 404 was presented with a bunch of new equipment ... The tank, in terms of cross-country ability, is more like an excavator than a swamp ..
      3. +3
        23 January 2023 21: 57
        The steeper the jeep, the further to go to the village behind the tractor. Checked Yes
  10. +4
    23 January 2023 07: 54
    Or they will be used together during the offensive, or somewhere in the city they will stand
  11. +4
    23 January 2023 08: 39
    There are no hatred moods, even a box of cartridges delivered to the enemy brings death. However, today, mobility is the basis of survivability (this has been written about more than once), and this is not the strongest side of this tank.
    1. -1
      23 January 2023 23: 01
      A question for the optics, interlocked in two boxes above the gun and on the turret, what will happen to them after the line from the "shilka" or someone else high-tempo? The crew is alive, the engine is intact, but you will have to aim only through the barrel.
      Quote: South Ukrainian
      mobility is the basis of survivability

      Don't treat the enemy as fools! It's harmful.
      For defensive battles in the city, when there is asphalt under the tracks, and there are no swamps, since there is a storm drain, or for the foothills of the Carpathians, where it is still flat, but not yet mountains, the car can be very suitable.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 07: 07
        How do you imagine Shilka direct fire on a tank in the modern world? belay
    2. 0
      24 January 2023 08: 37
      Show me at least one fight in Ukraine where high speed decided. This is already 10 years old cartoon of our blockheads in general's shoulder straps, de 70 km.h. bullshit speed tanks need even more then he will be invulnerable. Moreover, no one really cared, as in principle, even at 60, the crew should effectively fight. And with our mighty reverse, this is generally a laugh.
      1. 0
        26 January 2023 01: 57
        Not speed, but mobility. He rolled out, fired twice and quickly rolled away. And it is better to roll out and roll back faster.
  12. +4
    23 January 2023 08: 52
    Quote: KCA
    What difference does it make, for these ammunition or for others, there is complete information on U238, its weak alpha radiation is not able to penetrate even the skin, it is dangerous only when particles enter the lungs, i.e. for 100% protection, even our favorite mask is enough, and you can even eat it, which has been demonstrated more than once


    Who ate uranium? It would be interesting to see. Uranium, like plutonium, is a heavy metal. They have a detrimental effect on the body not only by radioactivity, but also by their chemical properties (similar to mercury). So it's not worth it to eat.
    1. KCA
      +8
      23 January 2023 09: 31
      It’s clear that it’s not worth it, but if plutonium is more dangerous as a poisonous element than radioactive, then everything is easier with uranium, and look at the videos on the Internet, and these are not stupid bloggers, they cannot have access to uranium, but scientists, popularizers of science, not Russian, of course, we have much fewer fools, and most heavy metals have a much less harmful effect than is described everywhere, I dabbled with mercury as a child, including making 2 silver kopecks out of copper, and dragged people to school, and they were lying on my table, so much lead was melted down, in the reception of non-ferrous metal now tears would shed, and I chewed how many times the lead on the weights for the float fishing rod, alive, no chronic diseases, 50 years old. Arsenic, of course, I would not chew
      1. 0
        23 January 2023 09: 41
        Quote: KCA
        they cannot have access to uranium,

        Uranium is quite widely used where you need a lot of weight in a small volume. Keels of sports sailing yachts, for example.
        1. KCA
          +5
          23 January 2023 12: 54
          Well, it’s there as a whole ingot, I’m saying it’s not dangerous, it’s only dangerous when dust gets into the lungs, but it’s also not easy to get into the lungs, it will get stuck with ordinary dust in the nose and come out with snot, so this is a danger to uranium mine workers when all the time suspended particles in the air
        2. +7
          23 January 2023 16: 28
          Quote: KCA
          and these are not stupid bloggers, they cannot have access to uranium,


          For children (1950s):
          The development of the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab kit was overseen by the likes of Leslie R. Groves (Director of the Manhattan Project) and John R. Dunning (the physicist who demonstrated the fission of the uranium atom). It was 1950 in the yard - the world had already known the terrible power of the atomic bomb, but scientists did not want to continue making weapons. They believed that the power of atomic energy should be directed in a peaceful direction, for which the world would need thousands of nuclear scientists - physicists, engineers, biologists, etc. And such play sets were intended to acquaint children with the nature of radioactivity, to interest them, to prepare them for the very idea of ​​the “atomic world”.
          The Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab kit was very difficult. It contained elements of uranium-238, separate sources of alpha, beta and gamma radiation, a Geiger counter, an electroscope, and a cloud camera. Plus, a spinthariscope is a tool for observing the decays of atoms. The instruction taught to work only with gloves, not to remove or carry radioactive materials, so that dangerous dust would not settle on other objects. The set was accompanied by a comic book, each episode of which described a new experiment with radioactive substances.
          1. -1
            23 January 2023 17: 59
            )))
            There was a lot of fun. See "Radioactive Boy Scout".
          2. KCA
            +4
            23 January 2023 18: 03
            Once upon a time, cocaine was considered the best cough medicine, before mercury and arsenic were medicines and cosmetics, similar kits, by the way, were in the USSR
            1. +1
              23 January 2023 22: 42
              And on salts of radium, toothpaste was made to glow in the dark and dishes. I won’t say anything about the owners of those teeth, because I don’t know, but the army watch of 1930-40s. with a permanent phosphor, with activation by radium salts, they are still "fukushima", even if the phosphor itself in the luminescent coating has degraded and no longer shines.
              1. KCA
                0
                24 January 2023 11: 59
                Even aviation clocks were with isotopic phosphor illumination, people of Caucasian nationality in the 90s liked to put them in cars, show off, sold them 5 pieces, though not from aircraft, but from communication machines
  13. 0
    23 January 2023 09: 02
    Maybe: destroy the bridge, burn out, mix up the logistics, break down and get ours for inspection.
    Cannot influence the situation.
    The tank is good, but for NATO, for their war games against a weak enemy, in terms of their superiority in aviation and helicopters, as well as on certain ground.
    1. +3
      23 January 2023 20: 08
      It is unlikely that someone will promise Challenger alone to attack. There will be complex tactical formations, with air cover or at least tactical air defense. Ukram, too, you know, does not smile, out of his own stupidity, to give the Russian Federation free info-propaganda-fast food;)
  14. +1
    23 January 2023 09: 36
    Challenger 2 is excellently prepared for this symbolic role. In the foreseeable future, there will be no buyers for the British tank, therefore, reputational damage is of no interest to anyone. The whole squadron, that is, 14 tanks, can die the death of the brave without the slightest damage to Great Britain. The first squadron will obviously be followed by the second, and the third, and the fourth. And it will not be a shame to show photos of the burned-out Challenger 2 - after all, the English school of tank building has long died. Another thing is the German "cats", which are still being sold and sold to frightened Europeans and sympathetic brethren.

    )))
    It is always amusing to read the thoughts of patriotic authors about the fatal impact of a lost company of tanks on the reputation of all foreign tank building. The pulp is that the loss of more than 1000 Soviet vehicles by both sides of the NMD for some reason did not cause exactly any damage to their reputation.

    This is what happens, they had such a reputation? It's somehow not patriotic.
    1. +1
      23 January 2023 22: 49
      What is the "pulp" in this, since the USSR has not existed for 30-odd years. The reputation of which military-industrial complex suffers from the destruction of "Soviet machines"? Well, these are not "showcase samples" of the latest high-tech thought of the "white sahib" for selling to the entire "civilized world".
  15. +4
    23 January 2023 09: 54
    of course, his cross-country ability is terrible, autumn-winter and the field, not for him at all .. but he will arrive at the front no earlier than April, when there is no more frost or dirt anymore .. excluding this part of the description from the article, it turns out to be a very serious car .. the train would be with them, derail along the road, that would be a powerful effect - from all sides ..
    1. -1
      24 January 2023 09: 04
      And where did you get the idea that he has poor cross-country ability? Are there any test results? Or is the whole opinion based on the fact that the tank is heavy and a couple of videos from YouTube? Well, about our tanks, you can find 100500 pictures where they are stuck in the mud. And during the period of thaw on viscous soil, any tank will sink.
  16. +11
    23 January 2023 10: 12
    What else is funny in this tank, "to neigh"?
    For example, primers are in a separate magazine (like a rifle), which the loader must also attach to the gun - otherwise it will not shoot.

    What else is not funny, "not to laugh"?
    Rifled English guns are very accurate. Its predecessor, the Challenger 1, hit an enemy tank from its 120mm L26A1 APFSDS crowbar at a distance of 5100m. - hit five thousand one hundred meters. Well, the sighting system "hunter-killer" Challenger 2 is also one of the best.
    Very tenacious - in fact, in order to destroy the Challenger 2, it took another Challenger 2 and a successful hit in the open hatch.
    A very large ammo - 47 shots actually loaded into the tank and isolated from the crew, really, and not "22 in the AZ, and another 22 can be stuffed everywhere, but this is not necessary."
    In fact, as the British say, "we needed a tank that would fight and win the war with the BT of the USSR in a very bad situation, up to 1 to 10."

    Well, the funniest thing.
    Of all the fresh articles that are included in the Military Review cycle "little, late, useless and will be destroyed one way or another"it turns out that if you add up the "fresh" Bradleys, Strykers, M113, SV90, Marders and other "armor for the infantry", then it turns out somewhere very close to "Zaluzhny's bowlers" in 600-700 "fresh" BMP-BTRs.
    And for tanks it turns out not far from 300 pcs.
    But 500 howitzers are not visible.
    Then draw your own conclusions.
    1. -3
      23 January 2023 14: 21
      Quote: Wildcat
      But 500 howitzers are not visible.
      Then draw your own conclusions.

      The conclusion is obvious. We need more howitzers. They say they are looking for FH70 in all corners.
      There is actually one more thing. For this number of guns, thirty thousand shells would be needed. In a day.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 15: 36
        Quote: Wildcat
        A very large ammo - 47 shots actually loaded into the tank and isolated from the crew, really, and not "22 in the AZ, and another 22 can be stuffed everywhere, but this is not necessary."


        In the upper photo, on the left, there is a screen, there is a seat opposite it, the tanker who will sit in this place, if he tilts his head back, his head will hit the projectile (in this photo, the cells for the shells are not occupied), and a little higher, the cells with charges.
        Can you explain where they are really isolated from the crew?
    2. +2
      23 January 2023 15: 57
      Quote: Wildcat
      Its predecessor, the Challenger 1, hit an enemy tank from its 120mm L26A1 APFSDS crowbar at a distance of 5100m. - hit five thousand one hundred meters.

      And now the question is, did he shoot one of the company and hit the first shot? This is what it is not! Pure freebie.
      Quote: Wildcat
      Well, the sighting system "hunter-killer" Challenger 2 is also one of the best.
      One of how many? Out of 2, out of 5, or 10? The fact that there is no thermal imager in the commander's sight is already somehow ...

      Quote: Wildcat
      Very tenacious - in fact, in order to destroy the Challenger 2, it took another Challenger 2 and a successful hit in the open hatch.

      It's amazing, where does such confidence come from? You might think he can’t go on board, is he invulnerable to OB shells, or does he have a meter-long frontal armor? Well, a relatively weak (short and less speedy) sub-caliber projectile implies that the Challenger is not as resistant to impact as you think. The fact that he held RPG-7 shots well in Iraq is not yet an indicator, and these shots were not tandem, and RPGs are generally not the most powerful means.

      Quote: Wildcat
      Of all the fresh articles that are included in the cycle "little, late, useless and will be destroyed in one way or another" on Military Review, it turns out that if you add up the "fresh" Bradleys, Strykers, M113, SV90, Marders and other "armor for infantry" , it turns out somewhere very close to "Zaluzhny's bowlers" in 600-700 "fresh" BMP-BTRs.
      Very heterogeneous forces and they will not be introduced at once, even if all of the above are put in place. But not happy, yes! hi
    3. +2
      23 January 2023 20: 54
      Well, 1 to 10 was enough for them - and three tanks are enough to take him out of the standing .. Enough to damage the gun or guidance devices
  17. +8
    23 January 2023 11: 01
    Quote: YOUR
    first lay the projectile, then the cartridge case with the charge

    What heresy are you writing? Either about a unitary shot (which is true in the case of Abrams), then about separate loading ...
  18. 0
    23 January 2023 11: 04
    All the destroyed equipment must stand on Red Square, along with the burnt chevrons of the crews and the cash that will be found on them. Additionally, a flag can be placed above each unit where it was invented.
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 08: 59
      Money will immediately evaporate steamed by patriotic visitors
  19. +2
    23 January 2023 12: 26
    Probably the biggest problem will be the weight. Bridges, black soil, crossroads ... against this background, there is also speed. Moral support is provided, otherwise doubts. A leopard will be more dangerous, but also not ideal. It is unlikely that they will give the latest versions, rather from the storage of junk.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. +4
    23 January 2023 18: 46
    The Challenger is the most inconvenient tank for Ukraine. First, the heaviest NATO tank, the heaviest of all. Secondly, very specific weapons (rifled cannon) - only Britain can give shells (well, or Jordan - it seems to still be there). It's the same with service - there are many specialists and spare parts for the Leopard, but where for this?
  22. +2
    23 January 2023 20: 21
    Quote: Dimax-Nemo
    But on the Chieftain it looks like a 5-6TD diesel engine. The truth seems to be vertical. But in the end, the British refused such.


    Duc, both two are the heirs of the Yumo-204 license.
    Only the British left it standing (well, if you don’t take a cton in the form of the Napier Deltic), and we began to stuff it into a “medium tank with weapons and heavy protection”.
  23. 0
    24 January 2023 08: 19
    does not exceed 18 liters. With. per ton .. on t34 if I don’t confuse 13 hp per ton and this was considered a good indicator.
  24. -1
    24 January 2023 08: 26
    All these tanks may be good, but they have one main drawback, the number, even a couple of hundred, will not solve anything at the front, only a thousand or more and not gradually, as they are now transferred, but at a time with trained crews. Now there is just a war going on at minimum wages, the Americans need to hold out until the age of 25, when Europe finally sits down on the American kukan. They can put more, so then we will really switch to a military footing, and no matter how much equipment there is, we have more soldiers than in Ukraine, so in this case the war will end faster than 25 years due to the disappearance of the enemy. This situation is also beneficial for us, we really have to deal with industry, and not like everyone is waiting now. Yes, we pay a high price, our guys are dying, but again, there is an option to replace Ukraine in the war with China, where our guys will die an order of magnitude more, not to mention how many will die from drunkenness and drugs when they return to the 90s. Modern youth is not as stable as the Soviet men were.
  25. 0
    24 January 2023 08: 56
    Quote: YOUR
    Criticism - the loader must first lay the projectile, then the cartridge case with the charge. Also choose which one with which charges. I didn’t know, but it says here that the charge for different shells and firing conditions is different.


    A unitary projectile is unitary because the cartridge case and the projectile itself are inseparable in one set.
    And here the garbage turns out the same separate loading.
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 14: 51
      Quote: Illanatol
      Unitary projectile therefore, it is unitary, because the sleeve and the projectile itself go in one set inseparably.
      It would be more correct to say "unitary shot". And the projectile, with rare exceptions, is already unitary (We had a projectile (more precisely, an ATGM) that, before loading into a cannon, was assembled into a single whole from two halves).
      PS
      The meaning of the word "unitary"
      UNITARY, th, th. Book. United, unified, united.
      [French. unitaire]
  26. 0
    24 January 2023 09: 05
    Quote: KCA
    It’s clear that it’s not worth it, but if plutonium is more dangerous as a poisonous element than radioactive, then everything is easier with uranium, and look at the videos on the Internet, and these are not stupid bloggers, they cannot have access to uranium, but scientists, popularizers of science,


    Yep, British scientists. Like "Mythbusters" next. In fact, such a fraternity is not very different from bloggers.
    The mechanism of action of heavy metals on biochemical processes, disruption of enzymes and negative effects on the central nervous system are fairly well understood.
    And it's one thing to hold a lead sinker in your mouth for a couple of minutes, and another to get uranium for months, dissolved in groundwater, and then got into the water supply. Heavy metals are poorly excreted from the body and gradually accumulate. For the time being, this may not manifest itself, and then again - and oncology. There are statistics on the growth of cancer in Serbia after they "worked" with depleted uranium shells.
    1. KCA
      -1
      24 January 2023 12: 08
      After the bombing, the Serbs will not give such statistics, BOPS with a uranium core is used exclusively against heavily armored vehicles, were there massive tank battles in Serbia? Well, maybe they fired a dozen times, one crowbar of NATA weighs 5 kg, for any other targets, besides tanks, BOPS is nothing, what’s the point of shooting them?
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 15: 05
        Quote: KCA
        were massive tank battles in Serbia?
        In Serbia, the A-10 attack aircraft, with their seven-barreled GAU-8 / A cannon (1350 rounds of 30 × 173 mm), used shells with a uranium core without stint on everything.
        1. KCA
          0
          24 January 2023 16: 25
          I looked, I don’t know about the use of A-10 in Serbia, every 4th shell with U238 is in the cannon, the mass of U238 in the shell is 300g, don’t water it, but this is a local infection, again, the threat to people is only dust, but with the specific gravity of uranium, it will not really rise into the air, especially since Serbia is not a desert, where winds and dust storms walk, I don’t mind, perhaps there were victims, but their scale is clearly exaggerated, most likely to beg for money from anyone. Yes, I don’t approve of the use of shells with Y, the only good thing is that in the abrams there is armor with Y and in case of a hit, the crew will definitely swallow dust if they still breathe
          1. 0
            24 January 2023 22: 59
            Quote: KCA
            I looked, I don’t know about the use of A-10 in Serbia, every 4th shell with U238 is in the cannon, the mass of U238 in the shell is 300g, don’t water it, but this is a local infection, again, the threat to people is only dust, but with the specific gravity of uranium, it will not really rise into the air, especially since Serbia is not a desert, where winds and dust storms walk, I don’t mind, perhaps there were victims, but their scale is clearly exaggerated, most likely to beg for money from anyone. Yes, I don’t approve of the use of shells with Y, the only good thing is that in the abrams there is armor with Y and in case of a hit, the crew will definitely swallow dust if they still breathe

            Learn:
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275347840_Himiceskaa_i_radiacionnaa_toksicnost_soedinenij_urana

            The links in the article are also helpful.
  27. -1
    24 January 2023 09: 07
    Quote: Wildcat
    Rifled English guns are very accurate. Its predecessor, the Challenger 1, hit an enemy tank from its 120mm L26A1 APFSDS crowbar at a distance of 5100m. - hit five thousand one hundred meters.


    Then why not only in the USSR, but also in the USA (and somewhere else) did they switch to smooth-bore guns?
    A hint question: can you fire missiles from a rifled gun, for example (SAM from MANPADS or ATGMs)?
    1. 0
      24 January 2023 15: 15
      Quote: Illanatol
      Then why not only in the USSR, but also in the USA (and somewhere else) did they switch to smooth-bore guns?
      They switched to a smoothbore, since a sub-caliber projectile (the most dangerous for a tank) fired from a smooth-bore gun, other things being equal, has one and a half times more energy (and hence greater penetrating power) than a sub-caliber rifled gun.
      And the jet of a cumulative shot loses its penetrating power during rotation, therefore modern cumulative projectiles designed for firing from rifled barrels have special rotating belts that allow the projectile not to spin along the rifling.
      In general, no matter what they say, the main weapon of the tank is sharpened to fight precisely with the enemy tank.
      1. 0
        24 January 2023 23: 08
        In general, no matter what they say, the main weapon of the tank is sharpened to fight precisely with the enemy tank.


        The ability of a tank gun to hit infantry is, in fact, only affected by the caliber, the tank is a universal vehicle and its gun is universal, if you can improve one parameter without harming another, then why not implement such an improvement.
        1. -2
          24 January 2023 23: 37
          Quote: LastPS
          The ability of a tank gun to hit infantry is, in fact, only affected by the caliber

          Not quite. Bourgeois came up with cheating programmable cumulative high-explosive shells. The possibility of breaking behind an obstacle, over a shelter, etc.

          And any infantry caliber is enough, starting with 75mm.
  28. 0
    24 January 2023 09: 12
    Quote: Wildcat
    Very large BC - 47 rounds really loaded into the tank and really isolated from the crew,


    And what good does this notorious "isolation" give?
    Nothing from the word at all. Since if the armor is broken and at least part of the BC detonates, then the crew members will have a hard time, regardless of whether the BC was isolated or not. They literally shatter into atoms.
    And isolation can lead to a practical decrease in the rate of fire in combat conditions. Getting shells out of an isolated compartment by opening / closing the shutter (that is still effective armor protection, yeah) will not work very quickly.
    1. +1
      24 January 2023 23: 15
      Quote: Illanatol
      Since if the armor is broken and at least part of the BC detonates, then the crew members will have a hard time, regardless of whether the BC was isolated or not. They literally shatter into atoms.

      This is if it detonates. But if the entire BC consists of OBPS, then there is nothing to detonate there, and there can only be deflagration of charges. And the crew can easily survive the deflagration of charges, with knockout panels and a closed shutter of the BC compartment, without much damage. In general, the more explosives in BC shots, the less sense from the BC insulation used in Western tanks. In the Western concept, the tank is PTS, and almost the entire BC consists of OBPS. In the Soviet concept, the tank is a means of combined arms combat, and most of the shots in the BC are HE and KS.
    2. -2
      24 January 2023 23: 41
      Quote: Illanatol
      And isolation can lead to a practical decrease in the rate of fire in combat conditions. Getting shells out of an isolated compartment by opening / closing the shutter (that is still effective armor protection, yeah) will not work very quickly.

      Does not lead to normal crews. And abnormal people block this curtain in the open position. Just the Arabs are famous for such tuning.

      Accordingly, when you see a Western type without a tower, there were most likely such rationalizers.
  29. 0
    24 January 2023 16: 53
    one of the best cars in its time - in all respects
    and what is written, so the paper endures a lot