Lol

Looking at the performance of the Russian tanks so far, we would be alright with a couple of chieftains.

@@AdhocHoopla it makes me wonder what would have happened if they’d decided to invade BAOR back in the day. Looking at their performance now, when they have apparently modernised, I think they’d have been left nothing more than a smouldering line of dead all the way back to Moscow.

🤔

Why tomorrow?

Yet the Americans lost a lot of tanks while claiming they’re the best military in the world which I find hilarious

@@YorkshireMemes "Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=Of%20the%20nine%20Abrams%20tanks,2%2C500%20metres%20(8%2C200%20ft). Weird how we are better at killing our own tanks then the enemy is ours. Challenger tank was also knocked out by their own, it was a HESH.

@@Dwagonier_XAceX101 all that proves is Americans can’t fight for shit (that’s true, they can’t fight without the English and British helping them). Alps your comment doesn’t exactly disprove my original comment

@@Dwagonier_XAceX101 Only because it went through an open hatch.

@@michaelcraig8860 i know. That was pretty wide spread. Not like a closed hatch with like 20mm RHA would stop it too

than*. Basic English.

Chally 2 is better than the US Abrams as well I’ll add that in even if the video didn’t 😂

Hahahaha, I was just thinking the same. Typical!

@@alexwood724 us abrahams is overrated and really is a sub par tank challenger 111 is definitely better

The fact that the challenger 1 still has the longest kill tells you everything.

But lets remove rifling from the barrel for sure right? XD

​@@jamescpalmer The rifled barrel was kept bc of budget constraints, not bc it's the better gun. Rifling can mess with modern fin stabilized ammunition like APFSDS, is redundant bc the ammo is already stabilized by the fins, and requires more maintenance than smooth bore guns in tanks like Leopard 2, Abrams, Leclerc, Ariete, Merkava, and basically every modern tank. Challenger 1 and 2 are good tanks- their armor in particular offers exceptional protection- but like any other tank they're not perfect and have flaws. If the rifled gun was better than smooth bore, they would keep it for the Challenger 3 and it would have been the NATO standard. We are talking about hundreds of millions worth of R&D by some of the best specialists in the field with decades of combat experience to draw from. I think they know what they're doing...

That record will fall eventually.

@@markhammar3977 Of course , all records do 🤦‍♂️

@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 the javelin throw record will never be beaten, there are more if you look?

No point, nato Is large enough with bases all over the world. They can already stop russian and China if they wanted to.

@@Licmebro the UK has about 200 main battle tanks, and is getting just over 100 challenger 3s. If Russia is now our main threat, we need to re-arm with tanks. You say this like the UK isnt a part of that NATO army, a huge part of the European part of it infact. We need more tanks.

@@Licmebro Nope

As an arrogant nuclear power there comes a point were it would be more economical to just deploy a nuke. The UK has plenty of firepower for those fights without nuclear weapons. Against someone like Russia, well first you've got nato but then it would escalate to a point the UK would just use a nuke if it felt threatened enough so there's really no point in having 1000 tanks etc. A war with Russia wouldn't be won or lost on the battle ground, it would be nuclear

Because of budget and political reasons, all branches of the British military have had to adopt a quality over quantity mentality. Thats why there are only sub-200 MBTs in the British army. And at this current time the actual problem isn’t tank numbers, its actually the fact that the army doesn’t have enough men to crew them, and right now it’s a priority role to fill for recruitment.

Well, you *can* but it's harder. APFSDS rounds for rifled guns use spinners to isolate the dart. The British Army sure did love HESH, though, which needed a rifled barrel. The new smart rounds for smoothbores are finally good enough to persuade them to change

@@talltroll7092 the rifled barrel is the main reason we aren't using APFSDS, using APDS instead

@@seansamurai1981 of course you do! For example L27A1.

The problem is that Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun is the most common gun on the market, Even the US uses it. Some like Israel and South Korean make it under license Very few actual make their own As such, it has a lot of options

@@verdebusterAP you are incorrect. US uses M256 which is a modified variant of Rheinmetall L44, yet not the same and especially the gun installed in Challenger 3 as the latter is equipped with L55A1. Israeli MG251 and MG253 are based on L44 but are neither copies of the german gun nor are these produced under license. South Korean K2 tank is equipped with the indegeniously developed CN08 120mm L/55 gun, while K1A2 tanks are equipped with indegeniously developed CN03 120mm L/44 gun and K1A1 with KM256, which is a license produced version of M256. Yet, KM256 is most likely out of production. And apart from that - what problem are you talking about?

It really is a powerful looking tank. Our cousins across the pond have a winner here and I'm VERY relieved that instead of getting rid of its armor, the British are REALLY upgrading it. Well done UK. Greetings from North Carolina btw... Rule Britannia

Oooooooh Yeeeeeeeah !

Yeah, I notices the long dis of rifled barrels and the very short acknowledgement of longest tank kill. Like to two things are completely unrelated.

@@mattmcc72 I dont think Sabots need rifled barrels anyway? Theyre fin stabilized, after all.

The only reason for the rifled barrel is because of the present use of HESH, I think

Rifled barrels are more accurate APFSDS rounds don’t need a rifled barrel it’s just more accurate with a rifled barrel this applies to HESH the main difference between the 2 rounds is how they are fired HESH gets used more like an artillery round so it’s more lobbed than fired.

@@forbiddenexceed8295 Yes, rifled barrels now seem kind of old hat an unnecessary. We have new, modern and advanced rounds that either don't need them, or cant work with them. But the problem with new, modern and advanced, is the extra words that need to be tagged on. Expensive and slow to make. So they available in limited numbers and replacements aren't going to arrive very fast should we run out of them. Should that happen, cheap, fast to make, but still accurate, dumb spinning lumps of steel and explosives may come in really handy.

Ton is imperial, tonne metric

@@stompcity4085 Ok, so what about tone?

🤣🤣🤣... it's the musical variation

@@stompcity4085 They say and show "tones" in the video.

@@C_Becker The voice is clearly text-to-voice. So: wrong text, wrong speech. Irrtum → Irrtum. _edit_ Irrtum :D

Anti tank weapons have moved on a lot since even a decade ago. Even NLAWS are designed to knock out any MBT

Or has he is it a comet?

This video is pretty sloppily written and put together tbh. Got some good ideas and animation assets but there's image, spelling and script errors all through it.

@@dynamo1796 totally agree

@@tonyrichard2705 Its not a comet, you can distinguish the two immediately due to length and turret shape, that is literally just a Cromwell

This video is sorta a joke. It has 'Tones' instead of Tonnes, it has a standard Cromwell instead of Challenger and is just poorly written in general.

"And the C2 didn't have 'Chobham' armour,, it has 'Dorchester' armour." Different names for the same thing.

Dorchester is gen 2 chobham Armour if I'm not mistaken?

Rheinmetall provided a solution to fire the beloved HESHs from the smooth 120 mm.

its the same thing

Potato Tomato

A problem with Challenger 2 was the priority of it's gun and protection, which added a lot of weight compared to Leopard. That made it too heavy and underpowered for muddy places, where it would just get stuck and start to sink. The sheer weight made it only 37mph

Challenger 3 and leopard 2a7+ are the best for sure. Abrams are expensive and crappy specs. Should be more cooperation with the Europeans, learn from eachother....

Amazing! Didn't know that. So the Chieftain actually saw combat.

I was not expecting to see my country mentioned in a comment section about an upcoming British MBT. I'm glad to hear our military achieved some success during the invasion. Most of what I heard involved our airforce which supposedly managed, at least initially, to shoot down about 10 Iraqi fighters for every Kuwaiti one shot down [I imagine that some of this might be remnants of romanticised propaganda to keep the resistance morale up following the fall of the Kuwaiti government and military and leading up to the liberation.] The surviving pilots on the Kuwaiti side reportedly also returned to combat during Desert Storm but were quickly removed from active combat after they reportedly refused to follow orders to disengage when the Iraqi military retreated.

The Chieftain actually has a superb battle record. Not really reported. The main advantage: a long-range accurate gun that can knock out almost anything at 2 miles and very effective armour.

Whatever happened to all the armoured regiments? I can remember BAOR fielding hundreds of AFVs during the seventies - too many cuts and now , we’ve nothing to speak of , trying to play catch up. It’s not going to cut the mustard , that psycho in the Kremlin has got the jump on us all -- too much talk and bullshit is not going to stop him -- we need to rapidly increase our armoured forces ,not spend wasted money on proclaiming how good they could be in the future-- the Russian bear understands only strength - we must be prepared to stand up to him .

@@idanceforpennies281 eh it doesnt. The chieftain has a very poor battle record. 35-40% failure rate of engine and drivetrain under regular conditions. In the Iran-Irak War, Iran lost 600 of its 900 Chieftains in combat vs iraki T-55, T-62, Gazelle and Mi24´s. The average casualty numbers of MBT´s were 3 Chieftains for 1 T-55 or T-62. During the battle of the bridges, the kuwaiti 35th armored brigade (2 44 strong Chieftain Bataillons, 1 Mech Infantry Bataillon and an Artillery Bataillon) could muster 36 of 88 Chieftains, due to mechanical failures on the barracks grounds and on the short road march. They barely managed to destroy 30 AFV´s, of wich 90% were BMP´s etc. After that, they fell back and vacated Kuwait with 21 Chieftains. Kuwait owned pre invasion 136 Chieftains, after the invasion and recapture, they owned 21, wich got replaced with M-84´s (T-72M Export Models with a few upgrades, wich were better than chieftains) The atrocious performence of Chieftain in the Iran-Irak War and Invasion of Kuwait was the primary reason why the UK tank industry was in its last death throes in the late 90´s, due to lack of export customers for close to 20 years and died in the early 2000´s after the final Challenger 2´s were delivered. They closed their doors in 2008 for good. (The UK didnt export anythign of relevance between 1980 and 2008, except the 400 second hand Challenger 1´s to Jordan, that bascly immediately got mothballed by jordan, due to this and a severe lack of orders from the UK MOD, Alvis-Vickers closed production and dissolved into BAE, wich didnt continue its legacy)

1 ton vs dead crew? Small price to pay.

No an whole extra tone 😅😂

@@jons6125 how much does a Tone weigh I wonder, I’ve met several different sized Tone’s so I’m unsure which was the standard

@@calv1nandh0bbes in this its referring to a metric tonne (spelt that way) which is 1000kg but it’s pronounced wrongly in this video as if its a musical “tone”. Several other imperial “Ton” or tons exist Edit but you knew that 😅

​@@jons6125 Tanks are rated on the engine tone these days, didn't you know?

The Abrams also uses Chobham armour, but what seems to separate them is that the Chally has a superior track-and-fire system. Both great MBTs, though.

@@feliscorax The challenger 2 used an upgraded version of chobham called dorchester....who the hell knows what this is going to be using...from this challenger 3 looks like a serious upgrade.

@@omegacentauri73 M1A2 tanks In Yemen were export versions that didn’t even have the Abrams actual armor.

@@brycewalker3726Modern ATGMS still kill the Abrams tho. At least those without trophy

@@omegacentauri73 They aren't exported with the reactive armour as it's usually considered secret tech. They won't perform the same.

And Op Telic instead of Iraqi Freedom

🤣

Was a foot or a toe ? I heard lost a toe.

@@MrGrim2u1987 3 toes and part of his foot apparently. Not from a TOW ATGM which would have been epic.

A smooth bore can fire higher velocity rounds and also smooth bore gun has longer fin rounds !

Challenger 9000 will be badass

the challenger 3 owes its superiority to the germans. thanks to the German 120mm smoothbore gun, it will be able to break through the T 90s and T 14s head-on. the old standard engine from the challenger 2 is to be replaced by a German 1500hp engine which is supposed to bring the challenger 3 up to 100 km/h. the tower was redesigned and completed by the germans. a large part of the electronics is also German. The Challenger 3 project was completed in cooperation with Germany, since the British tank industry was technically behind and had to catch up. so it is written. Thats what happens when rheinmetall, KMW havin a threesome with british bae systems lol. The guys who founded the tank and the guys who figured out how to use tanks. In my opinion the best tankcooperation ever done.

@@Future183 shit ,,,

@@andrewmcateer5406 Rheinmetall AG is a German automotive and arms manufacturer. So, not BS.

@@andrewmcateer5406 on the challenger 3 u can see what the germans are able to do technically. If they wanted they could produce a tank wich would be better than the t 14 aramata or k2 black panther.

Plenty of T-72's, 80's and 90's smoldering in the Ukraine right now not many if any T-14's so i don't think they'd have to worry about modern MBT's for the moment.

All modern British tanks have boiling vessels, I believe they added them in in the Centurion Mk 1 but I could be wrong. After all, the only reason the Challenger 2 has the longest range tank kill is because the crew had afew cups of tea before hand!

@@cookiecraze1310 Challenger 1 has the longest range tank kill, Iraqi T-55 that was 4.7km away

The 135 is overkill imo. Not yet needed

A larger gun would increase the weight of the turret , extra weight increases wear of drive train and running gear !

Exactly, it is Johnson´s government trying to cover up another cut in defence spending, the British army has never been so small in number as under the last 11 years of Tory rule.

Totally agree. In just two weeks, Russia has already lost more tanks in Ukraine than the UK plans to acquire.

Johnson getting the big calls wrong yet again

In the age of airpower and drones I think both points of view can be true.

Tanks still have their place, they just aren't the dominating factors of warfare anymore (and maybe haven't been for decades, its just not been tested against an equal opponent). Tanks are very effective for shock warfare against enemies who lack the firepower to respond in kind, though vulnerable to helicopter or drone strikes and more modern shoulder launched munitions.

Looks like something that will do nothing but explode. There's no such thing as armor that can stop something that over matches it with out deflection. That tank has an awful lot of horizontal flat surfaces.

@@AsttoScott We fear nothing, except the sky falling on our heads. (Asterix / Obelix the Gallier)

@@AsttoScott Oh my god, are you still stuck in world war 2 with your thinking about armor? If you think tanks today are designed with shells bouncing off of sloped surfaces you should go back all the way to the 1940s with that line of thought Like have you heard about Sabots? A direct hit from another tank would always knock a tank out today. Designs aren’t about driving into danger guns blazing hoping to block everything the enemy throws at you, that’s the dumbest line of thought and it wasn’t even all that applicable for WW2 either. The Gun and the Armor of a tank are one of the less important considerations of a tank, believe it or not. Reliability, Speed, Efficiency, Cost, etc. are what matters. And that’s also irrelevant if the reconnaissance isn’t there.

@@AsttoScott There is no deflection against apfsds. Only at round >80° impact angle the apfsds doesnt dig into the armor anymore but still doesnt bounce. It shatters. Modern composit armor basically grind the incoming dart till its no more while alo beeing able to hold of HEAT by using ceramics or glass. The reason many surfaces are still angled is because angeling the same amount of armor means the projectile needs to dig trough more of the same armor. That always happens when you hit any surface with an angle because then you increase the diameter you have to go trough. Simple

Yes it we'll be like their car's... overly complicated and expensive to fix when thay break down..never get any military equipment made by a country that's that close to Russia geographically..the untire manufacturing must remain in the UK..and who has time to use all that technology in the heat of a fire fight or a ambush...the thing with tank's is KEEP IT SIMPLE , STUPID!!.💕🇬🇧🇺🇦

Apparently just before brexit Germany offered 200+ leopard 2s for nothing, MOD said no as the British public would be outraged.

Britain owns Germany shocker they were never German in the first place

Improves! Challenger 2s will be modified. The same happens with the army rifles l85

@@mightvedroppedjury5324 explain? 🙏

@Patrick H The Modifikation is made by Rheinmetall BAE Land Systems. Which is a british company in the joint Venture of BAE Systems and Rheinmetall. The gun is one of the few parts actually built in Germany. The Rest will be done in Britain. And Germany now spends 100 Billions to improve the Bundeswehr. So dont worry. We can do this!

they always made the best guns, with a few notable exceptions.

Always. Tanks are quickly becoming obsolete

@@multipl3 The APS might make all the difference though. Something that RU tanks have sorely lacked.

Trophy system and bar armour spaced above can defeat top down tandem HEAT explosives. With blow out armour as well, they are as likely to survive against that as any other AT munitions. Emphasis on AT

@@multipl3 tanks are gonna be around for a couple more decades

@@multipl3 Yawn. That dit has been said for decades.

@@stokes8626 Oh Vladimir, please don’t tell me that you believe Provda do you…?

@@stokes8626 I can watch it sure, but is a documentary from 2016 going to tell me that the Russians aren’t losing badly in March of 2022? That’s all we are talking about here, not the historical reasons for the conflict which are probably due to American meddling in foreign affairs.

The Leopard 2 are using the L55 currently. There is no Leopard with L44 anymore in Germany. But there are some still out there, some older models using L44

@@cvdheyden I'm pretty sure only the Leopard 2a6 uses the L55 and below that they all use the L44. Then the L55a1 is only used on the Leopard 2a7 and Challenger 3.

@@AB-gi3qy There is no Leopard 2 A4 in Germany anymore. And most countries do upgrade them as you need the L55 for the new ammo types.

@@cvdheyden There are still countries who use Leopard 2a4 & a5 which is what I was referring to. I should have been more specific.

@@AB-gi3qy Yes ur right

Why not? British invented the tank, german figured out how to use them, good combo in my opinion.

Guess that makes it the top 1 tank now

I remember many voices in the British Army quite in favor of buying Leopards . That would be a twist in history 😂

@@davidrussell8689 why not?

@@davidrussell8689 Yeah I think we still have a couple of V2 on stock. And hey how about some U-BOATS!!!

If no one is watching the driver probably rubs their own helmet.

Russia is using armor and equipment from the cold war... What we already have is more than enough.

That is the reason for APS, to defeat threats such as Javelin.

so why has Zelenskiy asked for 1% of NATO's main battle tanks, 200 Challenger Mk 1's would do them very well.

the thing is Tanks are at their most vulnerable when fighting in urban environments. Tanks used is western battle doctrine are mainly used to finish a fight and scatter the enemies as a moral breaker. Their value on the battlefield these days is more of the psychological effect they bring to a fight rather than what they can do practically, the weapons systems in place are just so they have combat capability if they need it but the reality is that's not why they're deployed.

This is why tanks must be used correctly in combat to mitigate these weaknesses. Most of the situations you raise are usually found in urban warfare so having an effective infantry is vital to avoid easy urban tank kills.

Lay off the computer games bro. Tanks are no easy picking!

@@TheRigby1985 Go on reddit, go to r/combatfootage and see for yourself. over 80 tanks destroyed in a couple of weeks. They are easy pickings from the ground and air.

You are not wrong when you say they must be used right but they are not obsolete.

@@BurningSovereign Definitely not obsolete, but aren't as effective in conventional warfare as they used to be

@@lynx8437 I mostly agree. I'd say it's very situational and not to underestimate the training that chally 2 crews go through. But as stated, training can't save you from certain things

it IS a mistake. Even with an upgraded engine it still has the WORST hp/ton ratio of any western MBT.

Don't take Russian use of tanks as their full capability, there is definitely still a place for heavy armour in militaries to fight across difficult ground with the armour to shrug off artillery and light AT fire (Something your proposal could never do). All we have learnt is you need proper logistic and infantry support, something that Russia has apparently completely forgotten.

The problem is - and getting past using the Russians as an example of good use of armour (Ukraine is like France 1940 except at least the Germans took most if not all of their targets when expected if not quicker) - it''s all swings and balances. Let's say one nation pulls this switch. They liquidate all their heavy armour and go for light manoeuvrable vehicles with heavy AT weapons. Now the opponent, in theory at least, can make the switch themselves to light AT. Suddenly your opponent has a lot more capability to deal with your forces than before, because instead of arming every platoon with a heavy AT team to deal with your tanks, they can arm every fireteam in the platoon with light AT instead. So now what do you do? Well, you start investing in armour again so that the enemy needs specialist units to deal with the threat. And around goes the merry-go-round. At the end of the day, what you're describing is essentially just your typical HAT team. In NATO's case this is something like a Javelin team with transport. Of course they have no APS but they don't need one - who in their right mind fires an ATGM at 2 infantrymen and a quadbike?

Tanks don't operate in a vacuum. Russia just screwed it up, didn't manage air superiority like it needed to, thereby allowing more defenders to organize. If tanks are used properly, with other forces, still very powerful

@@TopHatHat it’s amazing how poorly they’ve handled parts of that invasion. There’s clearly two levels going on. The more elite well trained forces getting certain things done and the apparently completely lost conscripts.

Drones of this type will not remain effective for long...I can't believe the Russians haven't figured out how to jam them yet, or got an air defence system that's able to engage them...You can bet your life NATO and countries like Israel will be reexamining their own anti drone capabilities following events in the Ukraine....

Right, right. Just magically put oil under its soil and hey! Job done! Genius.

We do it is owned by India.

Answer is this is the newest generation of MBT's here, it depends what is going to be used. If the Russians go full with the T-14 Armata, the USA or China comes out with something new it might change, for now I'd say Challenger 3 will be at least on par with what's currently in use if not better thanks to the APS.

@@stokes8626 lets just hope it doesn’t drag the rest of Europe into the war!

will you hide in tanks from radiation? The British Isles, this is the first place where Russian missiles will fly

@@TheDrAstrov I don't understand your line of questioning. "Will I hide in tanks from Radiation?" Me personally, no. But Tanks crews, almost certainly yes. As to where a first strike would happen, well, everywhere, thats the whole point, not just the UK. ALL targets deemed a threat to Russia would be hit. Lets not forget the rest of nato currently has its nukes pointed at Russia too. There are no winners in a Nuclear war, only loosers.

@@justandy333 war with Russia will be without tanks

Although one tank will still be needed for provocation. Let it be the Challenger

@@TheDrAstrov Your not making any sense mate. Ciao

Not really, the fsds rounds don't need rifling as they are fin stabilized. In a rifled gun they need added bearings so the round doesn't spin in the barrel, slowing the round down and decreasing its range and accuracy. Just British press hyping up our tank. If anything the challenger 3 needs a 130mm gun with a auto loader to keep up with other tanks

@Matt Kerr Surely not the same type of autoloader that we can see cooking off tanks and crews in Ukraine just now ? Afterall the abrams now the most successful tank in the last 30 yrs does not use autoloaders either Some attempts at technological advances are actually trips down the wrong and highlighted in Ukraine dangerous paths

@@geraldgallagher825 it's the way the Russians place their ammunition. It's around the bottom of the turret. Ammo gets hit and boom, turret blown off. The Abrams has a separate compartment for the ammunition and blow off plates in case of a detonation. And with the bigger round comes weight, the crew can't be expected to move such mass quickly and for a long time.

@Matt Kerr So many are cooking off after even the slightest hit Looks like Iraq all over again Abrams kill rate 171/1 Outwardly it looks like the much vaunted Russian armour has some serious flaws and years of catching up to do Going by this recent conflict and the hype beforehand can we seriously believe the latest generation is it Armata is going to be any better? And if it is will they have the fuel to run them ?

@@geraldgallagher825 like I said, ammo placement

...Other than the Abrams?? Or are you meaning 120mm smoothbore chobham tanks in general?

@@carsono311 Other than??? My point was that no Chally 2 has ever been destroyed by enemy fire. Over 70 RPG rounds into 1 tank and it was up and operational within 7 days. The only time a Challenger has suffered very severe damage was during a nighttime engagement and was hit by another Chally. During both Desert Shield and Desert Storm the Americans lost around 9-12 M1 MBT's.

@@LetsSWITCHGames Okay, so most proven in the context of survivability. Sure, I will agree with you. Interesting that you mention friendly fire though, as that accounted for most of the loses during Desert Storm...

Does seem odd, maybe it’s a space & weight thing, plus there are other vehicles on the battlefield with 50.cal’s

It will take a long time before higher caliber gun equipped tanks will enter service. Currently only few are working towards such guns, the MGCS and maybe T-14 Armata probably being the earliest candidates. As for now, the L55A1 is perfectly suitable as it will be able to fire future 120mm APFSDS rounds and its probably the most capable 120mm tank gun in the world.

Challenger doesn't need a null hull since the Hull is much better than the 2a5 granted the 2a5 has a better gun but armour on the challenger is way better than 2a5 2a5 trades armour for speed and mobility

Brexit benefit.

@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach tbh driver port is a weak spot for most tanks these days including the 2a5 Hull armour wise it isn't as strong on the upper Hull the 2a5 wouldn't bounce any kinetic rounds these days either whereas a shot on a challys upper Hull has a high chance of absorbing it even if it doesn't deflect

I think he said UF

Well our pink LGBTQ - Defense Minister (Mrs. Lambrecht), she would go for it.

Hopefully the camouflage will be inclusive and diverse. One with the face of Gourge Floyd on the front would be a start.

@@danielminor1693 😂😂😂😂😂😂

What do you even mean+?

The fat lady?

Ehh.. not really.

No the best British tank ever is the centurion. And it is my favorite tank over all.

A bit chubby to be a Leo

Modern ammunition and aiming systems make smooth bore guns just as accurate and have a larger range of ammo

if you dont understand how bad this reasoning is nobody can help you....

This is the same argument as saying the spitfire is better than the F-35 because it has more air to air kills.

Cope

The SA80 always worked. I had one single issue in my entire time using it and it was a broken firing pin at the very start of a live fire exercise in Otterburn. It was and always has had reliability issue because of the fact we over cleaned the hell out of the rifles. Scrubbing them to the point of diminishing the working parts was the issue. Not the rifle itself which was highly accurate and a great piece of kit. The nonsense from civives that is talked about the SA80 and the rubbish talked by those who left in the early 90s when the FAl was replaced created the myth.

@@AlphaBravoCheeseCake Overcleaning did not wear out the SLR , FN must have used higher quality metal. It was common for Winchester 1906 .22 pump action rifles to wear out rifling from use and still operate. Thought the jungle formula insect repellent melted the plastic ?