[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 3 per post.


There's no discharge in the war!

File: 1456666273688.jpg (3.05 MB, 3600x2346, 600:391, challenger.jpg)

951bee No.323668

Is there anything more OP in terms of armour then a Challenger 2? Can we have an armour / defensive systems general?

951bee No.323670

>>323668

From wiki:

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and, while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[20] The crew survived, remaining safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later, after repairs had been done. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[21]

In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars. The tank, which had already been hit by 10-15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken.[citation needed] Its driver, Trooper Sean Chance, lost part of his foot in the blast; two more of the crew were slightly injured. Chance was able to reverse the vehicle 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the regimental aid post despite his injuries.

Then they fixed that by adding EVEN MORE ARMOUR.


36dd5c No.323671

owning a tank would be so cool…


951bee No.323672

>>323671

I'd love to have one and just drive it around Ferguson to see if any dindus can figure out a way to wreck it.


29104d No.323677

I love that you bongs are still rocking a rifled main cannon, I don't know why 'merica hasn't seriously considered it given they have mainly been lobbing HE at sandpeople for the lest 25 years.

inb4 73 eastings, HEAT and HESH would have wrecked that trash just as easily


c30c2f No.323678

probably some battleship is more armored.

still challenger is undeniably good


951bee No.323679

>>323677

It's not even that hard to design sabots that work with rifled barrels.You just have to include a freely rotating section in the center for the most part.

>>323678

It's weird how we still think of ships being heavily armoured when I really can't think of a single one that is in the modern era.


29104d No.323680

>>323679

>I really can't think of a single one that is in the modern era

Ships are big and expensive so they are generally modernized several times before being retired. Just because a hull was launched in 1970 doesn't mean it doesn't have radar and targeting systems from 2010.

Since ww2 they also rely more on compartmentalization than hull armor as warheads got so big they can't be defeated.


951bee No.323687

>>323680

Supposedly even the Nimitz class carrier only has a minimalistic 2" of Kevlar armour in key areas.


29104d No.323690

>>323687

This guy does a great job of explaining why it is this way.

Basically they can't armor against direct hits so instead just armor enough to protect from the frag of a near miss.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=45989&s=471ca075b12b2ba855059f869fdff34f&p=526672&viewfull=1#post526672


98c4f5 No.323694

>>323671

I heard that in Britbongistan they are road tax exempt or some shit like that so a few people drive them round London.


bd07c0 No.323695

File: 1456671727692.jpg (163.1 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, 1453163095820.jpg)

>Is there anything more OP than the Challenger 2's armor?

Top-down fire and forget ATGMs.


fbc371 No.323697

>>323694

Sounds pretty urban legend, besides whatever you saved in road tax you'd probably be spending at least that much again on fuel.


24ffd8 No.323699

>>323695

Wait is that a missile on the end of the gun barrel?

I know it sounds pretty retarded but the Russians are THAT crazy.


439a29 No.323701

>>323677

>>323679

Not worth the loss in velocity.


6d0868 No.323703

Challenger and Abrams have the same armor, it's just in slightly different locations.

>>323679

That's because ships get hit with supersonic projectiles which then explode inside them, and they get torpedos and mines exploded beneath them which flexes their entire structure to the breaking point. Pretty sure armor is difficult to design for that event.

Also nukes.


6d0868 No.323704

>>323699

No, it's a sensor for testing.


fbc371 No.323706

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>323695

>How does I shot SAM?


951bee No.323708

>>323706

Future weapons is so corny, I love it.


fbc371 No.323814

>>323708

I know, it's ridiculous, but as you say - you've got to love it. Besides, I couldn't be arsed hunting through youtube for a serious video about the Starstreak or Thor.


ade9fe No.323862

File: 1456701201013.jpg (218.6 KB, 633x758, 633:758, Viking feels.jpg)

>>323706

>the Thor of the 21st century is just as powerful, just deadly, except this one is no myth, this one is real


4bcda3 No.329887

>>323694

>>323697

They are road tax exempt, which is pretty stupid, as road tax is supposed to pay for road maintainance, and a tank will damage the roads more than anything.

No one drives them for that reason though, because as pointed out, you'd spend more than you saved due to the immense fuel costs.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]