“Compared to Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing”: the realities of the British tank in Ukraine

159
“Compared to Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing”: the realities of the British tank in Ukraine
Especially for guests from Great Britain, Ukrainian tank crews showed the wonders of Challenger 2 cross-country ability


Gun and weight


By users tanks Challenger 2 in Ukraine is the 82nd separate air assault brigade. In addition to fourteen British tanks, the neo-Nazis are armed with 40 Marder 1A3 infantry fighting vehicles, almost a hundred Stryker armored personnel carriers, several engineering vehicles and two dozen M119 howitzers. The personnel of the 82nd underwent retraining and combat coordination in the UK.



The brigade was directly involved in the failed counteroffensive near Rabotino last summer. It was here that the thick-armored Challenger 2 made its mark. No, not a victory, but the first in stories loss of the vehicle from enemy fire. Up to this point, the only tank destroyed was Challenger 2, hit by Friendly fire. This happened in Iraq when a British tank mistakenly shot a fellow soldier, killing two crew members.

Last September in the Zaporozhye region, a British tank, trying to advance on Russian positions, was immobilized by a mine or a nearby shell explosion, and then finished off drones-kamikaze. According to the Ukrainian side, the Challenger 2 crew remained alive.

After this incident, little was known about the 62-ton monster from Great Britain. The Ukrainian command quite rightly used Challenger 2 on the plains of the Zaporozhye region. This made it possible to realize the main advantage of the tank - the high-precision L30A1 rifled gun. But, apparently, this is the only plus in the car’s karma.


Reporters from the British tabloid The Sun were not lazy and went to Ukraine to gain News about the combat use of Challenger 2. At first, everything is fine in the report. Especially with regard to the 120 mm gun.

According to journalists, the Ukrainian tank crews were able to hit a target the size of a plate with their first shot at a distance of about 1,6 km. A worthy result, although there is confidence that Russian tankers will be able to repeat this. A nationalist with the call sign "Kayfarik", whom the guests from England called the squadron commander, even allowed himself a comparison:

“Compared to the Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing.”

“Kayfarik” apparently knows what he’s talking about - before the British car, he was the commander of a Soviet-style tank.

Then unpleasant things began to happen regarding Challenger 2.

It would seem that thick and reliable armor should provide protection for the tank. But why is it needed in this form if the Kaifarika tanks operate from a distance of 2–4 kilometers?

The special operation has repeatedly proven that one of the most important qualities of armored vehicles is mobility. What Challenger 2 has big problems with. 62 tons of live weight with an engine power of 1 hp. With. - that's a lot. It is noteworthy that the British presented the tanks in almost “stock” condition. The Ukrainians not only did not provide the vehicles with vital dynamic protection, but did not even cover them with an anti-drone umbrella.

What does this mean?

British tanks are not going to be used in real battle, they play the role of ceremonial tanks. Sometimes used for psychological effects and raising morale. As soon as the Challenger 2 is driven on camera to menacing music, TsIPSO and GUR immediately start talking about the upcoming counter-offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The second reason why the tank never acquired dynamic protection packages was the excessive weight of the vehicle. Even a few hundred additional kilograms to the carcass will further aggravate problems with mobility and patency. But more on that a little later.

The most the Ukrainians were able to do was a few bars on the sides of the tanks. They installed visors on a couple of Challenger 2s at their own expense, but such cars were not shown to The Sun reporters.

Tanker complaints


Despite the high accuracy of the L30A1 cannon, its disadvantage is its unique ammunition load. For example, there is an armor-piercing projectile with a plastic explosive, but there is no special ammunition for fighting infantry. "Kayfarik" directly pointed out this shortcoming to guests from the UK. Obviously, he compared it with the M1028 Canister anti-personnel round from the American Abrams ammunition. Or I dreamed of a German DM11 with a trajectory detonation function.

Well, we can say a big thank you to the British designers for such foresight. First of all, from the Russian infantry near Rabotino.


The 62-ton vehicle is poorly adapted to the climatic and natural conditions of a special operation. The spring thaw has not yet begun in the war zone, but The Sun reporters managed to get into trouble.

The tankers decided to take the British for a ride around the outskirts of the training ground and shamefully planted the Challenger 2 in the mud almost up to the turret. It’s hard to imagine a more visual demonstration of the capabilities of an “asphalt” tank.

As the tank crew members rightly noted, a weak 1-horsepower diesel engine is added to the large mass. At one time, experts complained about the lack of additional armor on the lower frontal part of tanks supplied to Ukraine. Considering the disgusting cross-country ability of the Challenger 200, this is now rather a blessing for the nationalists.

In addition to one tank destroyed, two were damaged, and one had to have its gun barrel replaced. By the way, about the maintainability of Challenger 2. From the very beginning of deliveries of NATO equipment, analysts spoke about the complex logistics of supplying spare parts and training repairmen. It is one thing to train a tank crew to fight, and quite another thing to train competent service personnel. The squadron commander told the British:

“Getting spare parts takes a long time. The logistics are very difficult, both on this side and on yours.”

The apotheosis of the interview was the revelation that of the 14 Challenger 2 tanks supplied by Great Britain, only half are in service!

As is known, only one vehicle is considered a combat loss - all the others are idle due to a lack of spare parts and specialists. A twofold decrease in the unit's combat effectiveness in less than a year. Some components and assemblies take months to arrive from the islands. There is every reason to believe that in a similar way, the British are delivering ammunition to the front for the tanks donated to the Ukrainians.

All this speaks to the inconsistency of the concept of “armored zoos” that the Western allies proposed to Ukraine. Without technical support, not a single combat vehicle will adequately perform its functions.

The situation is aggravated by personnel shortages in the tank units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In particular, in the 82nd Air Assault Brigade. After a failed offensive last year, the tankers were demoted to infantry and forced to dig trenches. The same was done with the technical staff.

According to the tankers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the command does not have a clear understanding of the conditions under which NATO equipment should be used. In the Soviet school, a tank is a universal soldier, capable of fighting in different conditions. NATO tanks are, first of all, a means of deterring the tanks of the Warsaw bloc, and then everything else. But it’s unclear where the Challenger 2’s anti-tank capabilities could be implemented—duels between armored vehicles are extremely rare.




The Ukrainian command faces a difficult problem. How to effectively use scarce reserves of NATO equipment in conditions of chronic shortage of spare parts and service shortages? How can the Challenger 2's decent sniper abilities be converted into an advantage on the front?

It seems that if the answers to these questions have been found, no one knows about it.

Despite all of the above, the debut of Challenger 2 in Ukraine cannot be called a complete failure.

The remaining seven tanks in service are still capable of moving and firing. In the end, the vehicles can operate from closed positions and for some time act as fixed firing points to deter the advance.

Therefore, it is better to make every effort to timely detect and destroy the remnants of British tanks in Ukraine. For reference: for all interested parties, The Sun journalists know exactly the last location of the Challenger 2 squadron.
159 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    13 March 2024 04: 58
    A nationalist with the call sign “Kayfarik” - most likely he is a Narik, the substances have been detected!
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 08: 39
      This guy seems to have a barbershop in his tank Yes
      1. +12
        13 March 2024 12: 33
        For example, there is an armor-piercing projectile with a plastic explosive, but there is no special ammunition for fighting infantry.
        The Matildas supplied to the USSR during WWII also did not have high-explosive shells in their ammunition. Oh, this conservative England... How much time has passed, but the problems are still the same.
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 17: 55
          I don’t understand, in the last photo the guy with the crowbar is doing what?
          1. +2
            13 March 2024 18: 40
            Trying to press the bars. There appear to be eyelets for a tow rope.
            1. +2
              13 March 2024 18: 44
              Quote: Dost
              Trying to press the bars. There appear to be eyelets for a tow rope.

              Why, when they were cooking, didn’t you see these eyes?
              Yes, and probably lousy welding, if you can press it right at the seam.
              1. 0
                14 March 2024 00: 36
                Most likely they just gave up on them. The bars are more important.
                1. +1
                  15 March 2024 19: 59
                  Are you all blind or something, can’t you see that the grille is bent and it’s pinching the cable? Open your eyes...
          2. 0
            14 March 2024 07: 41
            ...what is a guy doing with a crowbar?

            Like what? I was going to dig a trench and prepare a coffin in case of complete failure into the bowels of Ukraine... It is better to get to the center of the Earth in a coffin than to stand and watch as you fall into the underworld.
          3. 0
            18 March 2024 07: 57
            Apparently he decided to straighten the anti-cumulative grille. smile
          4. 0
            April 1 2024 22: 47
            Ukraine is in the same swamp as the Challenger tank
        2. -13
          14 March 2024 12: 01
          And that’s why the Matildas fought the WHOLE war, from beginning to end. No tank has done this. All were modernized or rolled off the production line. For L30A1 there is OFS L31A7 HESH.
          // https://topwar.ru/127756-kto-preduprezhden-tot-vooruzhen-razvitie-tankovyh-boepripasov-stran-nato.html //
          Stop criticizing everything that doesn’t start with the T-55/62/72
          P.S.: If anything, Challenger 2 is the most protected tank in the world. The frontal projection is equivalent to 1243 mm of homogeneous armor. For comparison, T-90A Vladimir 800 mm, T-90M Proryv 900 mm, T-14 Armata 900 mm.
          P.P.S: During the Second World War, for some reason they were embarrassed to write that KRUPP armor was 14-15% superior to Soviet casting (T-34 and KV-1 have different armor). So the British had an armor plate superior to Krupp.
          By the way, Israeli tank crews preferred to go to competitions with Merkava 2-3, since it had a rifled L7, which was significantly superior in accuracy to the M246 (Rh-120)
          It was the Challenger in Iraq that hit the T-72 of the Guard from a distance of 4++ km

          It’s only Romario_Agro who gets the T-90 (without letters) equivalent of a forehead for 2.5 m
          1. +10
            14 March 2024 14: 05
            Even you have some kind of mess in your head or a bunch.
            For L30A1 there is OFS L31A7 HESH.
            This is an armor-piercing projectile of a directed explosion; for general purpose explosives, its body is too thin to form a fragmentation jacket of the projectile.
            If anything, Challenger 2 is the most protected tank in the world. Frontal projection equivalent to 1243 mm of homogeneous armor
            What type of projectile is this equivalent from, I’m embarrassed to ask, cumulative or kinetic? To be honest, this is a very lousy equivalent for a car weighing 62,5 tons. For reference: T-90 Equivalent resistance against kinetic ammunition: 800-830 mm with Kontakt-5 protection Equivalent resistance against cumulative ammunition: 1,150-1,350 mm
            During the Second World War, for some reason they were embarrassed to write that KRUPP armor was 14-15% superior to Soviet casting
            Compare rolled armor with cast armor?! Well, no comments at all.
            It was the Challenger in Iraq that hit the T-72 of the Guard from a distance of 4++ km
            The British fought in the area of ​​​​Basra, shooting was carried out at the T-55 tank, T-72 were in service with the Iraqi Guard; they were not in Basra.
            1. -8
              15 March 2024 00: 43
              1. Of course against scrap, kinetics.
              2. The ammunition load of the Challenger 2 tank includes two main types of ammunition: BOPS with an L27A1 tracer, equipped with a core made of depleted uranium, and a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a crushable warhead L31A7 HESH (this is a quote from an article on VO)
              3. It’s clear that it’s rolled, but who cares when they write the performance characteristics of WWII tanks? They don’t write that the T-34 has high-hardness armor, while the KV-1 has medium hardness. By the way, the KVs also had a welded turret; the armor thickness there was 75, not 95 as on castings.
              4. Where did you get 1350 mm for the T-90 with contact-5? )) just because you want to? 2A46-5, which on the T-90 has armor penetration even with the most modern Vacuum-1/2 BOPS 600-650 mm at 2 km (limitation on the length of the ammunition, and this figure is overestimated). М829А3/4 850-900 mm. Taking into account the castrated SOSNA-U (not everywhere they install KALINA, even with modernization) this is a lot. The favorite brainchild of our Minister of Defense, tank biathlon, shows how the “best” crews of the country shoot.
              P.S.: there is one streamer on YouTube who quite professionally (from my sofa, of course) compared the T-84 Oplot and the T-90M, including “Knife” and Kontakt-5 and “import substitution” in the production of SOSNA-U sights, in particular its location and thermal matrices, which we bought from the French. there are photos from factories, bare towers, how the Knife works, how Contact works, shelling of towers at the training ground.
              P.P.S: ask yourself why the British don’t change the L30 to the Rh-120? Other ammunition, different logistics
          2. +2
            14 March 2024 16: 56
            Quote: Aleks88
            And that’s why the Matildas fought the WHOLE war, from beginning to end.

            Actually, it was written that “Matidda” did not have OFS in the BC and they tried to fight it, but https://warspot.ru/7198-novyy-mech-dlya-matildy
            And about the Challenger, well, did you read the article under which you left comments?
            For example, there is an armor-piercing projectile with a plastic explosive, but there is no special ammunition for fighting infantry.
            1. -12
              14 March 2024 18: 57
              What ammunition are you talking about, the German DM-11, with a programmable fuse? We were talking about the OFS, which is included in the Challenger’s ammunition. If you yourself read the article to the end, then the article even contains the name of the ammunition.
              Matilda has a 40 mm cannon, what the hell is it, OFS?
              For English and American tanks. How can I tell you, the M-4 Sherman with a 76.2 mm cannon and its English version with a 75 mm cannon were the only tanks that could fight TV and T-VI. The T-34-76 did not penetrate the Tiger even into the side from 200 m.
              All tankers would prefer to fight in Shermans, Comets, and Pershings. Where there is good communication, control system and comfort.
              PS: Do you think that in a technically superbly equipped America, using modern machines, professional workers will make tanks, planes, ships worse than the children and women here in the Urals? In hastily transported and converted factories, with outdated equipment.
              Moreover, if it weren’t for the US machines that cut out the turret run >1430 mm, there would be no T-34-85.
              P.P.S.: “Memoirs of tank crews,” don’t tell my slippers, whatever the editor orders, the memoirists will draw. These "broadcasters" have the best Soviet everything. Only the chassis of Katyushas is 92% Studebakers, the command staff in Willis, Pe-2 where possible are replaced with A-20 Bostons. And after the war, Koba, by order of command, gives Tupolev the task of “reverse engineering” B-29
              1. +3
                15 March 2024 22: 02
                Quote: Aleks88
                In hastily transported and converted factories, with outdated equipment.

                When did it become obsolete? They only managed to purchase it during industrialization. Hundreds of newly built factories, equipped with the latest imported equipment, purchased with gold.
                Quote: Aleks88
                Moreover, if it weren’t for the US machines that cut out the turret run >1430 mm, there would be no T-34-85.

                Well, let's go with the old songs about Lend-Lease.
                And what is this “tower run”? With this “>” sign, do you mean that before your Lend-Lease, the Soviet “lapotniks” could not squander the shoulder straps more than 1420 mm like the T-34? You just wonder how they managed to produce a T-28 with a shoulder strap with a diameter of 1620 mm even before the war. How the IS-1943 was launched in 2, and it has 1800 mm! Of course, at that time there were metalworking machines that made it possible to process parts of a much larger diameter, without affecting the production of tanks specifically. And you with your “run”.
              2. +4
                17 March 2024 10: 46
                These "broadcasters" have the best Soviet everything.

                Yes, if you read these “broadcasters” and whom they glorify, it immediately becomes clear that the Americans and the British + the French won in WWII (they also defeated us (c) Keitl) ...
                Where do these come from?
          3. 0
            14 March 2024 17: 22
            Read the memoirs of WWII tank crews who fought on British and American tanks. Even then they were recognized as capricious and impassable. Yes, they were comfortable, everyone had walkie-talkies, but they often let us down at the wrong moment. The American ones were especially fascinated.
            1. -9
              14 March 2024 19: 08
              Don't draw outright nonsense. I wrote for memoirists, see above. For equipment failures, well, well. The first V-2 diesel engines on the T-34 had a service life of 25 hours. Who will be the first to fail? Continental. Ford, Chrysler or our indestructible diesel? We have NEVER made and never make good engines. This applies not only to tanks, this applies to aviation, gas turbines, diesel engines, and piston internal combustion engines.
              All WWII aircraft engines are licensed and unlicensed copies of Hispano-Seuss, Gnome, Daimler-Benz, BieMVi. And their subsequent forcing. We haven't developed ANYTHING from scratch.
              P.S.: Modern KAMAZ trucks are equipped with Chinese diesel engines; licensed production is right in Naberezhnye Chelny. German axles and American Allison transmission. YaMZ is installed “for the poor”. The new UAZ Patriot "Profi" knocked after 2000 km (this is my practice)
              1. +2
                14 March 2024 21: 12
                Should I believe the armchair expert, and not those who actually fought? Oh well. We always have plenty of dreamers.
              2. +4
                14 March 2024 21: 14
                As for airplanes, the Americans themselves did not adopt either the Airacobra or the Studweaker. Although our guys really liked it. And this is where it gets interesting. They praise Studebaker, the Airacobra too, but it didn’t work out with tanks. Shitty tankers?
                1. -11
                  14 March 2024 21: 28
                  Who told you this? Memoirists too? The R-39 Airacobra was in service with 5 countries, including the USA. Operated until the mid-50s. And the 63+ P-2000 Kingcobra received by the USSR did not fight, but was stored at airfields beyond the Urals. since it was essentially the only fighter that could successfully (relatively) fight the B-29, B-24. The moves for the post-war period were calculated.
                  P.S.: You don’t have to believe me, I don’t pretend to be an expert. You just need to use your brain sometimes and not mindlessly watch Zombie Box or YouTube.
                  Regarding tanks: the engine is better, communication is better (on any early T-34-76, KV-1, BT-5/7 there was no communication at all), visibility is better (our commander’s turrets from the T-IV were cut off and welded), the gun is large better, the tank is made much better... so what will tankers choose? patriotism fades into the background when the opportunity to fight with more advanced technology is given.
                  It was not for nothing that they fought on panthers, despite the fact that they were difficult to operate
                  1. +3
                    14 March 2024 23: 54
                    I think I wrote to you in Russian that I was reading memoirs, and not watching YouTube or TV. You might think you re-read the reports of the countries' defense ministries. convincing me otherwise. So where did you get the idea that your information is more truthful than mine? Did you poke around yourself or are the statistical calculations in front of you under seal?
                  2. +4
                    14 March 2024 23: 55
                    It looks like you have nothing worthwhile other than Wikipedia.
                  3. +1
                    15 March 2024 00: 05
                    I would like to bring to your attention why the P-63 Kingcobra was actually stored, because after expending its ammunition, it went into a flat tailspin (especially at high altitudes). That cost quite a few lives of our pilots. And not because you watch all sorts of nonsense like TV3 or REN TV on the box
                  4. +3
                    15 March 2024 21: 34
                    Quote: Aleks88
                    Regarding tanks: the engine is better, the communication is better (on all the early T-34-76, KV-1, BT-5/7 there was no communication at all)
                    You compare the characteristics of the first versions of our tanks with serial Western ones and are touched by it.
                    Katyushas were installed on Studebakers because they had strong frames with a bumper for ramming. And the command staff drove everything that was available, including Soviet cars.
                    Quote: Aleks88
                    We have NEVER made and never make good engines. This applies not only to tanks, this applies to aviation, gas turbines, diesel engines, piston internal combustion engines... We have not developed ANYTHING from scratch.
                    But this is a lie!
                    1. -10
                      15 March 2024 22: 21
                      I have a limited SMS limit on VO, so I won’t argue. If you name at least one engine that was developed from scratch, without the participation of the West, I will learn something new.
                      Zhiguli - Fiat, Moskvich - BMW, Gas - (Victory) Opel Capitan continue? Vesta - Nissan, Largus - Renault.
                      Regarding the engines: Just as the MiG-29 flew in 1974 on the RD-33, so it flies, just as they did the Su-17, Su-24 with the ALF-22, so the ALF-31/41 letters dance, adding. Just as the Il-76 flew on the D-30F1, it is only now being converted to the PS-90A. tank ones, like the B-2, they are “murdering” it. The Germans and French have MTU883 1500 l/s and V8X 1500 l/s, the T-72 V-46 has 780 l/s, then boosted to 840, then to 1000. Even the Kaklov 6-TD2, which is 1200 l/s in the Pakistani contract /s, 6-TD3 1500 l/s
                      P.S.: I’m generally silent about the gas turbine GTD-1000/1250. Compared to the General Electric AGT 1500, they are simply designed to work in the “near gas station” mode
                      P.S.: because of our great love for the West, we bought gas turbines for 22350, 1164 from Kaklov, from Siemens in the CRIMEA through third parties, and diesels from MAN in Grachonka
                      For 35 years, not a single ship of the first rank has been built. Since 2009 we have been making “product 30”
                      1. +1
                        15 March 2024 22: 55
                        Quote: Aleks88
                        If you name at least one engine that was developed from scratch, without the participation of the West, I will learn something new.
                        That is, in your opinion, even what you listed was not developed by us or from scratch?
              3. -5
                15 March 2024 00: 00
                The most interesting thing is that the UAZ (which was still a goat) had many spare parts made in the USA!!! But now they don’t arrive at the plant. This is a very big problem. Our goat's panel cannot be replaced under warranty, precisely for this very reason.
              4. 0
                Yesterday, 09: 43
                Straight forward argumentation. Just don’t believe the memoirists (and from both sides) but believe Alex88, he’s an expert.
      2. +2
        13 March 2024 17: 03
        for reference, Challenger 2 does NOT have ANY roof protection on top of the tower at all
        - Neither from FPV drones, nor from UAS
        Leopard and Abrams have the same bare towers
        on our T-80BVM, T-72B3M, T-90M tanks, the turret on top is covered by the Relikt DZ by 50-75%
        + canopies with networks + electronic warfare
        1. +6
          13 March 2024 17: 40
          [quote=Romario_Argo
          for reference, Challenger 2 does NOT have ANY protection for the top of the turret at all[/quote]
          But I wouldn’t pay attention to that now, neither to his shortcomings, nor to the advantages of his gun. The main thing is to find and destroy as quickly as possible. So that they do not have time to inflict even the slightest damage on us. Because his participation in a real battle is a potential threat to our fighters. Do we need it?
  2. +5
    13 March 2024 05: 02
    For reference: for all interested parties, The Sun journalists know exactly the last location of the Challenger 2 squadron.
    call them ?
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 05: 18
      San-solid edition.
      There is nowhere else.

      And the Thames is not mined yet. No one.
    2. +1
      13 March 2024 15: 14
      Quote: Aerodrome
      For reference: for all interested parties, The Sun journalists know exactly the last location of the Challenger 2 squadron.
      call them ?

      Having learned that you won’t earn much from interviews with soldiers from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, correspondents from The Sun called the hotline of the Ministry of Defense, the GRU, the FSB and the Ministry of Emergency Situations with one question - Are you interested in this?... laughing laughing laughing ,
  3. +2
    13 March 2024 05: 03
    According to journalists, the Ukrainian tank crews were able to hit a target the size of a plate with their first shot at a distance of about 1,6 km. A worthy result, although there is confidence that Russian tankers will be able to repeat this.
    There is confidence that the Hikhlopantserman is breathing as if it were breathing. Especially considering the lower survivability of rifled barrels.

    “Kayfarik” apparently knows what he’s talking about - before the British car, he was the commander of a Soviet-style tank.
    He overcame the masters. What kind of tank and what year and wear, since it is Soviet, and the Ukrainians could not master the barrels.
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 11: 48
      “There is confidence that the Hikhlopantserman is breathing like he’s breathing.”
      That's right!
      Anyone knows that the accuracy of a rifled weapon is higher. But there is a concept of enough. The accuracy of fire of our smoothbore D-81 is sufficient to hit targets intended for it.
      Well, the accuracy of the shot is determined not only by the accuracy of the gun. This includes ammunition, TBV, STV and crew training.
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 16: 37
        Quote: Alekseev
        Anyone knows that the accuracy of a rifled weapon is higher.

        I don’t understand where such confidence comes from? A feathered full-caliber HE projectile has two disadvantages compared to a rifled one of the same accuracy - it decelerates faster and is noticeably more expensive. But a sub-caliber, feathered, armor-piercing weapon with a smooth barrel does not have these disadvantages. Moreover, ALL projectiles rotate, at different speeds and for different reasons, but with a rifled one, precession and derivation also influence, although with a feathered one, the influence of the wind is greater. So accuracy and accuracy depend on the characteristics of the gun and the accuracy of the manufacture of the projectile, and not on whether it is rifled or not.
    2. 0
      13 March 2024 12: 22
      The Ukrainian command faces a difficult problem. How to effectively use scarce reserves of NATO equipment in conditions of chronic shortage of spare parts and service shortages?
      I have an answer to this burning question: Preserve the tanks and hide them in caponiers. When the Nazis are driven away, there will be something to exhibit in museums.
    3. +1
      13 March 2024 17: 29
      The main advantage of the tank is that it is hidden away from the front line. For the sake of this and other tales you will tell
  4. -2
    13 March 2024 05: 05
    The filthy end of a filthy tank! They will all die here, drown in the mud! Just as once upon a time the heavy crusaders on Lake Peipsi drowned! And how much fanfare there was when they were sent!
    1. +5
      13 March 2024 06: 34
      Quote: BAT-MENT
      Just as once upon a time the heavy crusaders on Lake Peipsi drowned!

      In Eisenstein's film...
      1. -1
        13 March 2024 17: 50
        -there will be another movie for you about your ukrofebels, who sank tanks and trot from Avdeevka...
        1. -2
          14 March 2024 06: 11
          Quote: Alexander Makov
          about yours ukrofebeley

          What is this?
    2. -3
      13 March 2024 23: 47
      There is no point in remembering Lake Peipsi; it has long been described that this battle took place in the wrong place, in the spring, when the ice had almost disappeared and had a completely different scale than in the film. There, two cavalry squads, numbering less than 1 fighters, clashed when Alexander Nevsky went to rob the Germans, in retaliation for the capture of Pskov.
      The Battle of Rakovor in 1268 was much larger in scale and had greater significance for preserving the independence of North-Western Rus'.
      1. -3
        14 March 2024 15: 45
        Quote: Dima68
        Two cavalry squads, numbering less than 1 fighters, collided there

        Approximately 50 knights were captured and approximately 500 were killed. Russian losses apparently were much greater, at least history has not preserved exact figures. So the battle was larger. Its significance is that the German intervention in Rus' was stopped. A few months before the battle on Lake Peipus, the Germans captured Izborsk and Pskov, stood about 100 miles from Novgorod where they were building a castle. The free Novgorodians then sacrificed part of their freedom for the sake of victory and invited a larger number of warriors than they usually hired. Before Rakovor, the threat from the Germans was less and the Novgorodians did not sacrifice liberties, being confident in their abilities. In Russian history, Rakovor remained as a senseless massacre caused by the wet dreams of the Germans to get Russian slaves. Although such attacks of schizophrenia-Russophobia occur regularly among German politicians. The Germans were treated quite successfully by amputation of Alsace, Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia.
        1. -1
          14 March 2024 19: 59
          Are we really talking about the Battle of the Ice? In the 13th century, the number of all knights of the order was 200 people, and in the battle there were about 30 of them. The main forces of the order at that moment were fighting in Courland, suppressing the uprising. From the side of Novgorod, the squads of Alexander, his brother and the city regiment took part in the battle. This together is in the range of 2 - 000 fighters. The Germans, taking into account the Dorpat troops, were approximately 2 times smaller.
          And by the way, the Germans did not “capture Izborsk and Pskov.” A situation similar to Ukraine occurred, the German party in Pskov broke away from the alliance with Novgorod and voluntarily joined the Order, opening the gates of the city. The Novgorodians did not like this and they hired Prince Alexander to restore justice. In turn, the Novgorodians did not have to storm Pskov, since the gates were already opened by the pro-Novgorod party.

          The battle took place on German territory, as Alexander went to plunder the local Estonians, in retaliation for the annexation of Pskov, Izborsk and Koporye to the Order. This is about the importance of the battle. But the battle of Rakovor is of a different scale and consequences.
          1. -1
            15 March 2024 01: 06
            Quote: Dima68
            In the 13th century, the number of all knights of the order was 200 people, and in the battle there were about 30 of them.

            Russian chronicles speak of the death of 400 to 800 Germans. All modern calculations follow from these data. In the history of the war of 1812, it is known that the chief of staff Berrier reported to Napoleon about the losses of 28 people at Borodino. Nechkina managed to increase the number of French losses to 000. Napoleon, for ordinary people, stated in his bill that the French lost 60 soldiers. I think that if the Livonian chronicles had not underestimated the number of killed Germans, then any thoughts about “Drang nach Osten” would have disappeared among the survivors.
            1. -2
              17 March 2024 11: 56
              Germans and Livonian knights, this is a very big difference. Someone previously wrote about 500 fallen knights, but in fact:

              Difficulties begin already when trying to determine the number of participants in the battle. The only figures we have tell us about losses in the ranks of the Germans. Thus, the Novgorod First Chronicle reports about 400 killed and 50 prisoners, the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle reports that “twenty brothers were killed and six were captured.”

              Historians Igor Danilevsky and Klim Zhukov agree that several hundred people participated in the battle.
              So, from the Germans’s side it is 35–40 brothers-knights, about 160 bollards (on average four servants per one knight) and mercenaries-ests (“a miracle without number”), who could “expand” the squad by another 100–200 soldiers . At the same time, by the standards of the XIII century, such an army was considered quite a serious force (presumably, during its heyday, the maximum number of the former Order of the Sword-Bearers, in principle, did not exceed 100-120 knights). The author of the Livonian rhymed chronicle also complained that there were almost 60 times more Russians, which, according to Danilevsky, although an exaggeration, still gives reason to believe that Alexander’s army significantly exceeded the strength of the crusaders.
              So, the maximum number of the Novgorod city regiment, the princely squad of Alexander, the Suzdal detachment of his brother Andrei and the Pskovs who joined the campaign hardly exceeded 800 people.

              I repeat once again, the Battle of the Ice is not the main event of that era. From the point of view of the clash with the crusaders, these include the battle with the Swedes on the Neva in 1240, and the already mentioned Battle of Rakovor, during which the united army of seven Northern Russian principalities came out against the Livonian Landmaster and Danish Estland.
              1. 0
                17 March 2024 15: 26
                Quote: Dima68
                I repeat once again, the Battle of the Ice is not the main event of that era.

                During the preparatory courses for the institute during the Soviet era, I was taught that the Battle of the Ice was a more important event than the defeat of the Russian principalities on Kalka and during the invasion of Batu. The Mongols were a weak side in culture, and Russia in the future, even with the most terrible defeat from the Mongols, had to restore independence and continue its existence as a historical civilization. If defeated by the Germans, Russia would have been culturally assimilated by the Germans, as happened with the Czech Republic and the Polabian and Pomeranian Slavs and Prussians. During the time of Rukovor, the military tension on Russia was not great and did not require a deep transformation of Russian civilization. Novgorod remained a merchant-aristocratic republic. Drang nach osten during the fall of Yuryev and the Battle of the Ice forced Alexander Nevsky to accept an alliance with Batu, transform the political and military structure of his environment by adopting the features of the Mongolian military administration. This later led to the creation of the Russian Empire and the expulsion of the Germans from the Czech Republic, Romania, the Baltic states, East Prussia, and Palestine (Templars). Likewise, Macron and Biden have now given China the opportunity to bully France and the United States out of Niger and Ethiopia with their clumsy attempts to overthrow Putin. Rakovor was a bloodier battle, but it did not require such tension from Russia as the defense of Yuryev, Izborsk and the Battle of Lake Peipsi.
                1. -3
                  17 March 2024 19: 02
                  When did you study, during the Soviet era? At that time, I was taught similar things, based on class theory.
                  Now historians look at what is happening differently, from the point of view of a showdown between two major feudal lords. Firstly, the Pskovites left the power of Novgorod and called on their neighbors from the Order. Secondly, there were only 2 German knights in Pskov, since the Germans, according to local laws, were within their rights. But the Novgorodians were invaders. The situation is painfully reminiscent of what is happening in French Africa, when the local junta stages a coup and invites one of the competing superpowers.
                  Thirdly, having returned Pskov, Alexander went to rob his German neighbors. And fourthly, the people of Novgorod and Pskov did not consider themselves Russians, or Russia, like the people of Vladimir, they were Slovenians.

                  As for the Horde, who said that it was weaker in culture than Kievan Rus? Suffice it to remember that the Chinese perceive the empire of Genghis as one of their northern dynasties. It was not for nothing that the “Mongols” had a state organization, bureaucracy and weapons better than in Western Europe, and there were more Chinese and Turks in government than Mongols.
                  1. +1
                    17 March 2024 22: 13
                    Quote: Dima68
                    As for the Horde, who said that it was weaker in culture than Kievan Rus?

                    Mongolian culture under the Genghisids was truly backward in all its areas except military. In a collision or interaction with other civilizations, it either completely destroyed the defeated civilization or adopted its customs and lost its identity. The Russians, Iranians and Chinese threw off the Mongol yoke about 200 years later. In general, it seems to me that it is the Russian history textbooks published under Stalin that more accurately interpret the history of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries than those published under Andropov, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin.
                  2. +1
                    17 March 2024 22: 28
                    Quote: Dima68
                    Now historians look at what is happening differently, from the point of view of a showdown between two major feudal lords.

                    Both then and now, the most adequate historical concept is that in a clash between Germans and Slavs, either the Slavs retain their state or they are slaughtered without exception. The Germans destroyed the Polabian and Pomeranian Slavs and the Prussians. During the occupation of Veliky Novgorod by the Swedes in times of troubles, its population was practically starved to death and the city lost its former splendor. In the same way, Yeltsin's rule cost the Russian people much greater human losses than the war against Hitler.
  5. +4
    13 March 2024 05: 20
    shamefully planted Challenger 2 in the mud almost up to the tower

    What are you saying! He demonstrated self-entrenchment! lol good
  6. +3
    13 March 2024 05: 26
    So you need to find the location of the remaining tanks from the air, and strike at them with Tornado S. There are no options, the equipment must be destroyed at any time and in any place!
  7. -2
    13 March 2024 05: 46
    14 tanks arrived that showed no signs of themselves and, before their appearance in Ukraine, were considered the worst examples of Western MBTs, but they screamed and intimidated to the skies. At the same time, we learned about the terrible “high buzz”
  8. +22
    13 March 2024 06: 01
    struck by Friendly fire
    Why can’t you write in Russian? Do you need to improve your English?
    1. +2
      13 March 2024 10: 26
      If I was showing off, I would write blue-on-blue fire.
  9. +18
    13 March 2024 06: 09
    The Kornet ATGM doesn't give a damn what the barrel is, what the thickness of the armor is, or how prepared the Challenger crew is.
    1. +2
      13 March 2024 12: 14
      ATGM "Cornet" what the hell barrel
      This is a tank for long-range shooting (as it did in Iraq) and it stupidly did not reach the anti-tank guns, but this is within the framework of the system. I think here it will also be used from Max distance. So, it is more likely the target of a lancet, AA, artillery.
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 14: 05
        ATGM "Cornet" minimum range to target 100m, maximum 10000m, so that chickens are counted in the fall.
      2. 0
        13 March 2024 16: 07
        There were probably no “Cornets” in Iraq. The Kornet ATGM has a range of up to 8 km. Therefore, we are not talking about any unpunished long-range direct fire - only from closed positions.
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 16: 25
          Everything flows, everything changes. Look at TTD, then speak. And on television, the media recently boasted that guards paratroopers of the 98th Airborne Division destroyed Banderlog armored fighting vehicles at a range of more than 9 km.
          1. +1
            13 March 2024 16: 36
            So even more so. But I think that in a European theater of operations, finding a tank at such a distance in the direct shot zone, much less hitting it, is a very big success. Usually the range of a direct shot, as I understand it, is much lower. So now the tank can do something on direct fire until it is discovered. And after detection, the same T-80 has a chance to escape, but Challenger has practically no chance.
      3. +1
        13 March 2024 17: 54
        A mobile cornet, if anything.... Even scouts can pull it within firing range.....
  10. -1
    13 March 2024 07: 13
    The Brits have all their tanks that are kind of awkward, but if you look at history, they have their own vision of this technology.
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 08: 43
      They also drive on the left side, and their steering wheel is on the right!
    2. 0
      13 March 2024 12: 26
      laughing Like the French cars
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 12: 37
        I don’t agree, the French have excellent cars, and it’s not in vain that they divided Europe with the poor. I had several and now it’s French, though from the capital’s factory laughing
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 12: 40
          Colleague, ironically, I am the owner of a Jaguar))
          By the way, let the author not talk in vain about the “shortage of spare parts from England.” Even now we can buy spare parts for English carts. And Ukrainians generally provide direct flights for supplies from London.
          1. -1
            13 March 2024 21: 51
            It took six months for the Aglitskaya turbine to be delivered to me at RR. Either they are on strike or something else. So I personally believe in the article)))
            1. -1
              15 March 2024 12: 21
              If you buy not through dealers, but yourself in England through aggregators/delivers, it will take a couple of weeks maximum.
        2. 0
          13 March 2024 15: 28
          I don’t agree with you here, my partner bought a new Citroen C-2009 in 4 and a year later he enjoyed it, although he said that it drives not bad, almost like a German.
  11. +2
    13 March 2024 07: 14
    This made it possible to realize the main advantage of the tank - the high-precision L30A1 rifled gun.

    And that is why the British are planning to switch to Rh-120.
  12. +6
    13 March 2024 07: 57
    Despite the high accuracy of the L30A1 cannon, its disadvantage is its unique ammunition load. For example, there is an armor-piercing projectile with a plastic explosive
    However, the British are going to equip the Challenger 3 with a 120-mm smoothbore of German origin! A high-explosive armor-piercing projectile with a plastic explosive is a very interesting ammunition! Although it was not widely used in the world, the British loved it... they even made 76-mm shells for the Scorpion light tank! The projectile is interesting because it does not have some of the disadvantages of kuma and BOPS. But in general, with high shooting accuracy, the L30A1 cannot “boast” of a high rate of fire in the presence of a piston bolt, separate cartridge loading and without AZ...
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 08: 32
      High accuracy is a relative concept... What kind of projectile, at what distance. A short-range smoothbore gun is in no way inferior. For example, our MT-12 at a distance of 1,8 km... in short, the L30A1 gun is much more accurate, I saw it myself.
      1. +2
        13 March 2024 11: 01
        If you look and read about the operation of tanks in the Northern Military District, then a rifled gun is more useful than a smoothbore.
        - A HE projectile of equal caliber is more powerful (namely, the HE projectile is the main one now)
        - launching an ATGM with a rifled barrel is possible.
        - The cumulative missile flies far and accurately.

        The only thing worse here is the BOPS, but how many tank battles have there been? How much worse will the BOPS from an equal rifled barrel be? Is it possible to replace BOPS with ATGMs?
        And for shooting with PDO, a rifled barrel is always better. An analogue of a 125mm smoothbore can be a 130mm rifled gun.
    2. +4
      13 March 2024 10: 47
      So in fact, the Challenger is a tank destroyer with a rotating turret.
      (by the way, a very useful name to avoid the attacks of idiots with the mantra “tanks don’t fight against tanks”).

      And his weapons are designed specifically for this.
    3. +2
      13 March 2024 19: 00
      L30A1 cannot boast of a high rate of fire in the presence of a piston bolt, separate cartridge loading

      It has a wedge shutter and is sealed with a Broadwell ring.
  13. +8
    13 March 2024 08: 28
    in general, based on the article, the tank sucks, it doesn’t matter, any Soviet one is much cooler, half is broken and standing, and there’s nowhere to fight with it in the Northern Military District zone.. i.e. in general, that it exists, that it doesn’t exist... so why write about such crap then and discuss it? Why then is there so much joy from knocking out “worthless” tanks?
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 12: 24
      The tank, after all, according to the British, was invulnerable; in its entire history there was only one loss, and even then from friendly fire. It’s simple, everyone understands that the British lied, but here is direct confirmation, and what kind of confirmation!
  14. +1
    13 March 2024 09: 09
    IMHO, probably the older generation already understands everything.
    The tank must be massive, since it is still a consumable material. and will save only from small and medium calibers.
    Or play the role of a mobile defense firing point.

    What was often examined in the literature about the Second World War earlier
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 08: 53
      And the soldiers sitting in it are also expendable, yeah.
      It’s especially funny to read this after the article about the Soviet stick leaders, who had never heard of “women still giving birth,” but did not spend hundreds of thousands of soldiers in one battle.
  15. -2
    13 March 2024 09: 17
    What else could the Britons write for their tank? blame him with the last words?)))
  16. +1
    13 March 2024 09: 21
    For our tank guns, a shrapnel anti-personnel projectile should also be put into production!
    Driving a tank along a forest clearing and shooting at it with a landmine is a dubious pleasure...
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 09: 33
      For our tank guns, a shrapnel anti-personnel projectile should also be put into production

      Wait, “only” two years have passed, by 2030 Chimizov will have everything in order...
    2. +1
      13 March 2024 09: 36
      “Terminator” copes well with clearing out forest belts. But you need to add shrapnel to the tank’s ammunition, you need to detonate it remotely, not blow it up on the ground.
  17. 0
    13 March 2024 09: 32
    the crew of Challenger 2 survived.

    That’s what’s important (it’s the same with a padded abrash), but can something “unparalleled” boast something similar?
    1. GGV
      +6
      13 March 2024 10: 17
      The article says: he ran into a mine or a nearby explosion, took off his Challenger shoes, and then finished him off with a drone. Question: Why is the survival of the crew in such a situation something extraordinary? Yesterday the xoxlotank (T-64 at the border) was also taken off, the crew was seen running in the video. Or do you really need to throw some shit on the fan?
  18. +2
    13 March 2024 09: 54
    whom the guests from England called the squadron commander,

    In our system this is the battalion commander
    “Compared to the Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing.”
    PR of them all
    “Kayfarik” apparently knows what he’s talking about - before the British car, he was the commander of a Soviet-style tank.
    He doesn’t know what he’s talking about... If the guns on the T-80 are nothing, then the guns on the T-64 are completely empty space. Yes, the accuracy of a smoothbore gun is slightly lower than that of a rifled gun, but the armor penetration of its BOPS and KS guns is higher, especially the former.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  19. +4
    13 March 2024 10: 12
    Quote: Max1995
    The tank must be massive, since it is still a consumable material

    However, there are tankers in tanks, you know.
    Do you also write them down as consumables?
    1. -3
      13 March 2024 11: 01
      Quote from sdivt
      Quote: Max1995
      The tank must be massive, since it is still a consumable material

      However, there are tankers in tanks, you know.
      Do you also write them down as consumables?

      If you didn’t know, in the army, when planning, they always record a certain percentage of personnel as losses.
      The people are still alive, but according to the offensive plans, the enemy will kill them.
  20. +1
    13 March 2024 10: 17
    The users of Challenger 2 tanks in Ukraine are the 82nd separate air assault brigade.

    The heaviest MBT was given to the air assault brigade. belay
    However, these are cosplayers of the Third Reich. And there was the 1st parachute-tank division "Hermann Goering" with "Tigers".
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 10: 54
      And it’s not much better for us since we also decided to equip the landing forces with “ordinary non-transportable” MBTs. In general, the adjectives “guards”, “landing”, “cavalry”, etc. in the names of units are increasingly turning into empty sounds (or “glorious traditions”, depending on who you want) - the realities of combat operations and the tactics dictated by them have become so distorted over time regarding the original intentions during their creation. And then the Northern Military District threw in... “drone troops”? "Troops for controlling unmanned vehicles"? Oh, it's hard to live in an era of change...
      1. +2
        13 March 2024 11: 18
        Quote: CouchExpert
        And it’s not much better for us since we also decided to equip the landing forces with “ordinary non-transportable” MBTs.

        It's true. However, T-72 theoretically fits into IL-76. And the Indians were even able to do this in practice, but with such dances... smile
  21. 0
    13 March 2024 10: 37
    Sending Leopards, Abrams and Challengers may seem like a strategic mistake for NATO.
    NATO fooled the Ukrainians.
    The main goal of NATO was to get rid of weapons, ammunition, equipment, equipment, etc.
    which have expired.
    NATO has turned Ukraine into a "scrap metal dump."

    The US has always wanted to sell new “military assets” to the EU.

    Ukrainians are the stupidest people on earth.
    Because of blind hatred of Russia:
    (a) Ukrainians are digging their own grave, funded by NATO.
    (b) The Ukrainians agreed to turn their country into a NATO latrine.
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 11: 15
      If they send it with metal, then why write about every damaged Abrams, Highmars, why write about rubbish?
  22. -1
    13 March 2024 10: 49
    ANY tank on planet Earth will drown in this hole.
    Use a tank to fire from cover and while stationary (like a banal cannon on wheels) instead of a mobile, mobile, and to some extent operational firing point to hit targets on the battlefield online, depending on the changing situation at a given time a specific point in time is an “interesting” decision. WHAT FOR? Isn't self-propelled guns simpler? This technique is NOT knowhow at all, literally!!!!!! And during the Second World War, both sides used this technique. There is plenty of evidence of this. Well, they didn’t act like that “out of a good life”... It was forced.
    I think analysts, real ones, professional ones, are already “scratching their turnips” about the use of tanks in drone wars. And the solution here may not be so simple and obvious. By the way, this also applies to the fleet.... Or are we waiting for more “incidents”?
    Maintainability of equipment... I won’t say with certainty, but this problem has always been a problem for Westerners. Cause? - Excessive technological effectiveness and “show off”, as it seems to me (the bastard and bastard Alizych was even forced to give a command to the factory workers not to get too carried away with painting and sanding and polishing work in the manufacture of tigers, panthers and other wickedness, fact!!!!); and, moreover, all this in conditions when the life of a tank, even on the march (!!!!!!!) has decreased dramatically, taking into account the “penny” threats from the air.
    Allow me a personal opinion: the eternal confrontation between “armor and projectile” has almost ceased to make sense! If the tank’s armor cannot be changed and improved radically and fundamentally by MATERIAL SCIENTISTS, incl. from above, on horizontal planes, there is no point in rolling out these multimillion-dollar chariots for the amusement of operators of “penny” drones. This is costly for the state economy.
  23. +1
    13 March 2024 10: 52
    Quote: Vladimir80
    the crew of Challenger 2 survived.

    That’s what’s important (it’s the same with a padded abrash), but can something “unparalleled” boast something similar?


    "And you say that too."
    With Abrams, if the curtain is not closed, the crew goes to waste.
    Challenger, Leo and Leclerc have the driver lying/sitting in an embrace with the ammunition rack.
    If it doesn’t explode, it means the tank has already fired its ammunition.
  24. 0
    13 March 2024 10: 54
    Yes, 62 tons and 1200 horses, this is certainly a distortion. The Germans also came to increase the mass of the tank, but there are limits to reasonableness. Specific engine power, ground pressure, etc.
  25. 0
    13 March 2024 11: 02
    Some kind of MBT Merkava - I don’t even know why a smoothbore? A rifled weapon is much more useful to her
  26. -2
    13 March 2024 11: 32
    To all tank buryers. The problem of drones is solved by demolishing all communication towers in the area and installing your own “tower” to calculate the operator.

    And protection of armored vehicles with a detection system and automatic smoke emission
  27. +1
    13 March 2024 11: 47
    Quote: Zaurbek
    A HE projectile of equal caliber is more powerful (namely, the HE projectile is the main one now)

    The 122 mm projectile of the rough D-25 cannon has a mass of 25 kg, while that of the smooth 125 mm cannon has a mass of 23 kg.
    Read, read and read again! Books, smart...
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 13: 41
      The 122 mm projectile of the rough D-25 cannon has a mass of 25 kg, while that of the smooth 125 mm cannon has a mass of 23 kg. Read, read and read again! Books, smart...

      Of these 23 kg, 3,5 is the useless weight of the stabilizer.
  28. +1
    13 March 2024 11: 50
    Quote: Zaurbek
    An analogue of a 125mm smoothbore can be a 130mm rifled gun.

    130 mm gun, a weapon of a completely different class with a projectile weighing 35+/- kg. OFS 33,4, and armor-piercing 36, if I’m not confused of course.
  29. +1
    13 March 2024 11: 51
    Quote: Zaurbek
    Some kind of MBT Merkava - I don’t even know why a smoothbore? A rifled weapon is much more useful to her

    It stood at L-7, then changed to Rh-120. They were chasing our T-62.
  30. +2
    13 March 2024 11: 53
    Quote from David1993
    The drone problem is solved by demolishing all communication towers in the area

    Do you really think that drones are controlled via cellular communications?
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 13: 49
      I still think that 99% of cheap - penny drones from Alik support their work through cellular communications. And without them they begin to become severely stupid, lag, reset and freeze further than 500 meters.
      Without civil infrastructure and with an abundance of simple jammers from the same Alik or from the electronic base from the same Alik in the garage. Drone attacks will become a very expensive pleasure
  31. +1
    13 March 2024 11: 55
    Quote: Grossvater
    The 122 mm projectile of the rough D-25 cannon has a mass of 25 kg, while that of the smooth 125 mm cannon has a mass of 23 kg.

    These are cannon shells. For 48 linear howitzers, whether M-30, D-30, or self-propelled guns, the OFS weighs 22 kg.
  32. 0
    13 March 2024 11: 55
    Quote: Vadim S
    The Brits have all their tanks that are kind of awkward, but if you look at history, they have their own vision of this technology.

    The Brits' entire technology is awkward, and British ergonomics are the talk of the town.
  33. 0
    13 March 2024 12: 12
    Quote: svp67

    “Compared to the Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing.”
    PR of them all
    “Kayfarik” apparently knows what he’s talking about - before the British car, he was the commander of a Soviet-style tank.
    Yes, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about... If the guns on the T-80 are nothing, then the guns on the T-64 are completely empty space

    2A46 gun on both the T-80 and T-64.
  34. 0
    13 March 2024 12: 47
    The call sign "Kayfarik" is not faceless calls. This is not “Fox”, not “Patron” and not “Sancho”. Such a call sign clearly characterizes its bearer. Apparently, Vova the Syringe’s army is quite consistent with its president.
  35. 0
    13 March 2024 13: 02
    Quote: Corvair
    Quote: Vadim S
    The Brits have all their tanks that are kind of awkward, but if you look at history, they have their own vision of this technology.

    The Brits' entire technology is awkward, and British ergonomics are the talk of the town.

    wink I know, I’ve been driving a Defender for 20 years.
  36. 0
    13 March 2024 14: 41
    It is necessary to create HK tanks from the movie Terminator, with plasma turrets, so that they would terrify the Ukrainians. But with control of artificial intelligence functions. It would look scary.
  37. 0
    13 March 2024 15: 07
    . At one time, experts complained about the lack of additional armor on the lower frontal part of tanks supplied to Ukraine.
    This is with 62 tons of weight?????
  38. -2
    13 March 2024 15: 20
    That’s why no one except the razors bought the Challenger 2, this tank might be suitable for the desert or another place with solid ground, like the Merkava, it’s just that these grabbers drag everything to themselves indiscriminately, if only they had brains they would take it better something suitable, more mobile and more widespread, and not this small-scale miracle, there are almost no companies that produced components for it, they went bankrupt a long time ago, it’s like buying a foreign car for which you can’t buy spare parts anywhere.
  39. 0
    13 March 2024 16: 48
    The example of the “Tigers” 80 years ago did not teach the Nazis anything. The black soil and mud have remained the same and are fighting with enemy equipment in the same way as 80 years ago. Only the T-80 is the T-34-85 of our time, but Challenger wants to be a “Tiger”. We should not forget how the latter ended, and where the T-34 ended the war.
  40. +1
    13 March 2024 16: 50
    From this opus, I saw only one problem with the Challenger, this is its weight per unit of power, perhaps it is not as fast as the T80, although this is not a fact yet. But the fact that the T72 with a diesel engine is not fast, what should we do about it? With the British and T72 equal in immobility, the British has a better engagement distance due to the rifled barrel. Only the T80 will beat him. And all these non-repairability by Ukrainians, lack of crews, etc. has nothing to do with the tank
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 19: 29
      Quote: alebdun2000
      From this opus, I saw only one problem with the Challenger, its weight per unit of power,

      Its mobility is worse than that of the T-72 precisely because of its weight.
      Its armor is essentially worse than that of the first T-72B.

      Quote: alebdun2000
      With the British and T72 equal in immobility, the British has a better engagement distance due to the rifled barrel.

      But all the competitions aimed at pushing this product in the form of a 120 mm rifled gun in the USA failed. And the British have no superiority over the 2A46.
  41. -2
    13 March 2024 17: 02
    I don’t know how from the Challenger, but to hit a 20 cm plate at a distance of 1.6 km. For starters, at such a distance, let them at least hit you with a sniper rifle! I didn’t shoot from a tank, I won’t lie, but I had the opportunity to shoot from an infantry fighting vehicle and its 73 mm smooth-bore gun and watch how tanks fired from a cannon. So, as they say: - “legend is easy, but hard to believe”!
  42. 0
    13 March 2024 17: 17
    According to journalists, the Ukrainian tank crews were able to hit a target the size of a plate with their first shot at a distance of about 1,6 km.

    I remember this funny program that was shown on Discovery a long time ago. British tank crews with Challenger 2 had to smash a safe the size of a washing machine.

    In general, from the stated distance of 900 meters, with the first two shots they pathetically missed this safe, first with a “crowbar”, then with a high-explosive one.

    Then some incomprehensible installation followed, and the safe was nevertheless destroyed, it is not clear by what or how.

  43. 0
    13 March 2024 17: 38
    In Iraq, they were planted tower-high in sand, in the outskirts - in black soil and bushes))) He might as well drown on a concrete highway)))
  44. -3
    13 March 2024 17: 51
    Everything is decided by the crew and the battle conditions. Cornet doesn't care about the gun.
  45. -1
    13 March 2024 18: 07
    Well, if The Sun journalists know exactly the last location of the Challenger 2 squadron, then Petrov and Boshirov should know this too.
  46. 0
    13 March 2024 19: 25
    almost a hundred Styker armored personnel carriers

    Still, not a Sticker, but a Stryker.
  47. -1
    13 March 2024 19: 26
    One of the most stupid tanks in terms of design. With bad armor and an even worse weapon. Your division, to compare this piece of insane British demiurgery with the 2A46 and declare that this ancient and dull G is better than the gun on the T-80 can only be an idiot or some character with the mindset of an untermensch.
  48. -4
    13 March 2024 20: 15
    As for the superiority of the Ang Tank's cannon, this is bullshit. Anyone who knows Ukrainians and their nonsense will immediately understand this. For those who don’t know, it’s enough to remember how they extolled the Javelins, then even dissed the Hymers. But neither one nor the other turned out to be a miracle weapon and will not be able to save ukrov from defeat.
  49. 0
    13 March 2024 23: 54
    62 versus 46-47 tons T-72/T-80. And the range of a 125 mm gun due to the ATGM is 4-5 km. The NATO price is 3-4 times higher. The same thing with German and American hippos.
  50. 0
    14 March 2024 06: 24
    Quote: Blackgrifon
    an even worse weapon.

    You will laugh, but the gun there is not bad at all. For firing OFS, a rough one is better suited than a smooth one.
    True, the Angles wouldn’t be Angles if they didn’t wonder. The gun is rifled, but there is no OFS for it.
    How is Conan Doyle's Arthur Ours doing?
    “This is how you begin to study family portraits and believe in the transmigration of souls.” I’m talking about the lack of OFS for the English 2 pounds. WWII guns laughing.
    And the L11 and its development L30 guns are very good. Unfortunately, we can’t cut trunks that cleanly. We tried it with the D-54, but whatever. Gases whistle along the rifling.
  51. 0
    14 March 2024 09: 10
    Eventually machines can operate from closed positions

    What kind of projectile? There is no landmine.
  52. 0
    14 March 2024 10: 59
    Quote: neri73-r
    Eventually machines can operate from closed positions

    What kind of projectile? There is no landmine.

    These are all the consequences of the parade on September 7, 1945. Just as the Allies had an involuntary bowel movement at the sight of the IS-3, everyone can’t come to their senses and the idea that the tank’s main enemy is “infantry” and “artillery” targets just can’t enter their heads.
  53. 0
    14 March 2024 13: 52
    .Smooth-bore 125 mm guns have cumulative and HE shells with fins..which reduces accuracy...But sub-caliber ones...at a distance of 1500 meters into the stance of a tank target..that’s how it is..He’s either a bastard or just...
  54. 0
    14 March 2024 17: 52
    Impartial means dispassionate. Author, don’t write articles, read the primer.
    1. 0
      18 March 2024 05: 57
      I don’t carry a primer with me, and when I heard this word, I thought on a whim that impartial is someone/something with an unpleasant face, and even if I had a primer, I wouldn’t have thought to look there, it’s so obvious, but I absolutely don’t understand how to see impartial here, and this is complete nonsense impose the meaning impartial on impartial, why does everyone who invents a language need to distort it - go go gee gee ugh
    2. 0
      18 March 2024 06: 03
      but, try to tell a respected person in front of everyone that he is impartial, I’m sure not only everyone will understand... wassat angry
  55. -1
    14 March 2024 19: 43
    The T-80 is fast, I think it will point its turret at the Challenger faster
    A target that is moving can only be hit with a rocket.
    Whether a tank needs a gun is another question. To get there you have to stop; it’s very difficult to hit the target right away. But if it’s a rocket, you just give it coordinates.
    Terminators, I think, are much more mobile and effective than tanks on the battlefield, but there are few of them
    A dozen terminators in general would create hell on the battlefield.
    1. -1
      14 March 2024 19: 49
      Well, for example, not being able to shoot down a projectile is a plus, and I think the penetration ability of the projectiles is higher.
      The missiles burn through the shell of the tank more
  56. 0
    14 March 2024 20: 18
    Actually, to be truthful, the Armata is also used only for shots at the maximum distance from deep in the rear. And so far, according to Chemezov, there are no other plans for the Armada.
  57. 0
    15 March 2024 05: 09
    What about attaching a log to the tracks so that it can be pulled out by itself? I don’t have the brains to attach it?
  58. +2
    15 March 2024 07: 15
    Quote: Aleks88
    It was the Challenger in Iraq that hit the T-72 of the Guard from a distance of 4++ km

    I apologize for the caps, but it obviously won’t work out any other way:
    T-72 TANKS WERE NEVER DELIVERED FOR EXPORT; T-72M tanks were supplied. Having MONOLITHIC armor protection, SIGNIFICANTLY inferior in projectile resistance to the COMBINED armor protection of T-72 tanks.
  59. 0
    15 March 2024 10: 04
    Quote: deddem
    Quote: Vladimir80
    the crew of Challenger 2 survived.

    That’s what’s important (it’s the same with a padded abrash), but can something “unparalleled” boast something similar?


    "And you say that too."
    With Abrams, if the curtain is not closed, the crew goes to waste.
    Challenger, Leo and Leclerc have the driver lying/sitting in an embrace with the ammunition rack.
    If it doesn’t explode, it means the tank has already fired its ammunition.

    Abrams' carrier sits between two hefty fuel tanks.
  60. 0
    15 March 2024 10: 08
    Quote: A vile skeptic
    The 122 mm projectile of the rough D-25 cannon has a mass of 25 kg, while that of the smooth 125 mm cannon has a mass of 23 kg. Read, read and read again! Books, smart...

    Of these 23 kg, 3,5 is the useless weight of the stabilizer.

    Okay, 20 kg. The 48-line howitzer has 22 kg. Fundamental difference?
    1. 0
      26 March 2024 14: 12
      Fundamental difference?

      Naturally. The presence and absence of parasitic mass, which is not used to increase the power of the projectile, is the fundamental difference.
      And yes, if you expect dialogue, use the Reply function. I only saw your answer by chance.
      PS Replacing the first, heavier option with OFS for the D-25 with a lighter OFS for the M-30 and others like it looks like an attempt to get out of an internal understanding of being wrong lol
  61. +1
    15 March 2024 10: 11
    Quote from sdivt
    Quote: Max1995
    The tank must be massive, since it is still a consumable material

    However, there are tankers in tanks, you know.
    Do you also write them down as consumables?

    Demagoguery, my dear, demagoguery. And in the company that this tank supports or does not support, it’s about everything and the cost, a hundred people. How many of them will die if a tank is not available at the right time, in the right place, due to its high cost and, accordingly, small number?
    1. 0
      16 March 2024 09: 05
      if at the right time, in the right place of the tank, due to its high cost

      Well, it turns out that everything has already been invented before us, BMP2 is the cheapest support, T55 of which is cheap and there is a lot of it, then BMP3, T62 are smaller, then T72, T90, well, the top of this star is T15, the terminator is still somewhere here, something like this
  62. 0
    15 March 2024 10: 22
    Quote: Aleks88
    KRUPP armor is 14-15% superior to Soviet casting (T-34 and KV-1 have different armor). So the British had an armor plate superior to Krupp.

    Oh! “Here you sit here and don’t know anything! It turns out that pussy is called *** laughing"!
    I’m embarrassed to ask, but on what tank in history was Krupp armor used? Especially when you consider that processing armor using the Krupp method, namely this kind of armor is usually called “Krupp” for sheets thinner than 100 mm, is practically impossible?
    And how do you imagine MASS production of tanks using Krupp armor? Just like that, after rolling, each sheet was coated on the back and ends with clay, then in pairs they were placed in special ovens for a couple of weeks. And they circulated lighting gas between the front sides. Then they heated them in a salt bath, released them, and manipulated them with powerful hammers. They marked it on the plaza, cut it according to templates, planed the edges, drilled holes, heated it again, released it again.
    By the way, what about fastening the armor? Is it impossible to cook heterogeneous armor?
    If you meant homogeneous armor produced by the Krupp concern, then what does the comparison with English armor have to do with it? This is heterogeneous ship armor, I repeat, the armor processed according to the Krupp method among the Naglichans was quite good, although it was still inferior to the Czech one.
    Sorry, but it’s a bad habit to write words whose meaning you don’t understand.
  63. +2
    15 March 2024 20: 24
    Quote: Aleks88
    so what will tankers choose? patriotism fades into the background

    Alex, you are terribly far from military service. tankers “choose” what the commander orders. And about patriotism, no comment at all. You understand military affairs like a pig knows oranges. Just show-offs.
  64. 0
    15 March 2024 22: 22
    In general, the conclusion is this: “Compared to the Challenger 2, the power of the gun on the T-80 is unstoppable!”
  65. 0
    16 March 2024 10: 26
    The same shit tank as Ariete. They'll switch to everything from Lipard if they want a real NATO tank.
  66. 0
    17 March 2024 13: 42
    If I’m not very much mistaken, during exercises NATO tank crews shoot at shields 2x2 meters at 2 km. And they don't always get there. And here on the plate....
  67. 0
    17 March 2024 15: 59
    There were no miracle tanks, they were hit from various systems, guns, anti-tank rifles, grenades, anti-tank guns, etc. The question is the training of the crews and the tactics of the tank units. And all this noodles about the invincibility of leopards and challengers is a PR move for journalists And so the tanks burned and will continue to burn.
  68. 0
    18 March 2024 12: 30
    There is a mistake in the title of the article.
    It should be: “Compared to the Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is something!!!” laughing
  69. 0
    18 March 2024 17: 51
    No, well, the Challenger gun is accurate. Yes for 4 km. It might shoot. One question, where can I get a line of sight zone of 4 km? From a standard human height, the horizon line is only 5 km. And considering the joke with the location of the sight on the challenger. That is, the actual firing range is no more than a couple of kilometers.
  70. +1
    19 March 2024 12: 07
    “Compared to the Challenger 2, the gun on the T-80 is nothing.”

    Why then don’t the Shavers want to install this miracle rifled gun from Challenger 2 on their new Challenger 3. They want a smoothbore gun from a leopard.
  71. +1
    19 March 2024 17: 51
    “After an unsuccessful offensive last year, the tankers were demoted to infantry and forced to dig trenches”... it turns out that the management is not interested in tankers with some experience... This whole Ukrainian PR company was a PR company, like the entire counteroffensive. ..
  72. 0
    April 13 2024 22: 58
    Any gun is leveled by distance. Let's take the Battle of Prokhorovka. The T-34 could not penetrate the armor of tigers at long distances. But he punched from 700 meters or less. Therefore, the enemy suffered irreparable damage in this battle. The same thing is happening now. Immobilized, attacked.
  73. 0
    April 14 2024 15: 50
    "Member", damn...)))
  74. 0
    April 23 2024 19: 35
    British SUV...