It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Britain Has a New Tank.....

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:45 AM

Heres a new concept.....this thing can do a whole mess of tasks.....
I like this machine......though the technical aspects may be prone to the usual bugs that crop up when you try to make something do too many different things....
as I cannot embed yet...youll have to go the the link to see this weird looking war buggy....
What say the experts?
edit on 13-2-2016 by bandersnatch because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:49 AM
a reply to: bandersnatch
Your link not work, least not for me. Would be interested in seeing this new tank.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:50 AM
yeah, link no work.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:55 AM
a reply to: Tiamat384

Try This

It looks more like a Transformer, and could be the new sting in the British Army's tail. The 'Swiss Army Knife' combat vehicle, so dubbed because of is armoury of tools, now comes complete with a telescopic investigation arm, an upgrade on the existing Terrier ordered by defence chiefs.

Looks weird

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 09:58 AM
The 'Terrier' swiss army tank unveiled by Britain....
the telegraph

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: bandersnatch

It is a very interesting armoured vehicle, but to call this a tank is somewhat over the top. For a start it has no cannon, or anti-material guns on board what so ever. The machine gun mount is hardly a qualifying factor which would make this beast into what I would call a tank.

If I saw this rolling down the street, I would report that an angry looking plant vehicle had invaded our town, rather than reporting that a tank had just rolled down the street. That may be because I live only a mile and a quarter from a military testing range, and have ridden about in a few tanks in my youth, when the ranges had their family open days (my father used to work there).

Still... awesome bit of gear, assuming that it works reliably, and that a failure of one system does not lead to incapacity in all. Very impressive.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:16 AM
Interesting but hardly what our boy's should be getting as an armoured fighting vehicle, it look's old fashioned, high hull side's and is obviously not intended as an MBT or even a BT but rather a construction, mine clearance and general utility armoured vehicle with some battle capability probably for defensive purpose rather than offensive, the high profile is a poor design except for these stated probable aim's in which the modern NATO/UN role the british army is often seen in is more about reconstruction after they move into an area.

There are theatres and time's this vehicle would excell I am certain but can not help but see it as the result of a shoe string budget under an idiological osterity driven government.

We do still have a good tank in the form of the the Challenger MBT but it is aging and was a reassignment for a cancelled tank as it was actually intended for export to Iran before the revolution, our boy's got it as the concelation prize after cut's meant the development of the tank they were supposed to get was stopped and the remaining fund's used to redesign and upgrade the Challenger from it's export status.
Still compare it to the other top current tank's, it's is still good but not a world leader by any stretch and it is aging fast.
Now the Leopard, there is a tank.
edit on 13-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:22 AM
a reply to: bandersnatch

All caps in thread titles not allowed and against Ts. and Cs. Mods?

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:28 AM
a reply to: LABTECH767

The Challenger 2 tank, as fielded by our military here in the UK is one of the most well defended, where direct fire is concerned, and has one of, if not the most accurate gun of any tank currently being fielded for operations, anywhere in the world, and still holds the record for the longest tank-to-tank kill. Our guns are rifled, and are the only rifled gun barrels on any main battle tank in the world, the others all being smooth bored.

The Challenger is a beast of a thing. No, it is not the fastest, or most advanced. But it can kill an enemy tank from an awful lot further away than most other tanks can, and you have also to consider the training that goes into the crew. Our tankers are serious people, about serious business. When it comes to getting the business ends of their tanks, pointing at the armour and fortified positions of the enemy, our lads are a tough act to beat, and I doubt there is a force out there that could match them for accuracy either. It is not about the kit all of the time. Sometimes its about who is using it.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Jeezuz who made you the freaking hall monitor...take a chill pill hey?

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:52 AM
This came immediately to my mind:

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:26 AM
Sell that one to the Egyptians it shoots running backwards....

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: bandersnatch

That's a support vehicle for the Royal Engineers and not a tank.

As TrueBrit stated,the Challenger 2 is the MBT of the British Army and very capable,as are the troopers that sit in them.

I was a loader,driver and gunner in the Chieftain,gunner and driver in the Scimitar and loader in the Challenger 2.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: Ericthedoubter
Eric, Eric...the headline of the article says tank....relax gunner.....
Personally id prefer the army was equipped with a whole flock of similar vehicles...and ran around helping poorer blokes out rather than bashing their bloody brains out , supporting one or another brutal dictator, or making the world safe for corporate rapine....

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:46 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

If I remember correctly that gun was actually intended for the chasis that bugjet cut's denied our army back in the 70's and 80's, they had even taken the chasis they were intended for to almost production stage when the government cancelled, as for our armour, well at it's base it is the famous Chobham composite overlaying the steel hull of the tank and Chobham armour is yet to be bettered by anyone, even the Yank's use it on there leopard chassis based abrams with the varient they incorporate depleted uranium into there licenced version of the armour which is a layer I am not certain we use but it would not surprise me if we did.

The closest to equalling the stopping power of Chobham composite was the later development by the soviets of shaped reactive charge plating which you will sometime's see also used today by the Yank's and other's, unlike composite which uses other method's to deflect or absorb the force of a shaped charge the reactive armour plates actually use explosive against explosive to deflect the incoming shaped plasma cone of the standard type of anti tank munition with a shaped charge blowing outward away from the under hull thus neutralizing the incoming plasma which would otherwise eat through the hull and fill the vehicle interior with high temperature gas and vaporised hull material.

Other recent development's which we are unlikely to see deployed any time soon, also a british development was the use of a mutli skinned electrical discharge armour, instead of the soviet development of reactive explosives this uses a high voltage capacitive layer, when the shaped charge pieces the outer skin exposing one capacitive layer (at a time) it discharges an extreme high voltage blast of electron's which much like a lighting bolt if you like discharged explosively into the incoming plasma, this has the effect of dissipating the plasma even more effectively than a shaped reactive plate but is far more expensive to deploy (and far less re-usable) and hence we are as far as I know not yet using it.

But like I say you are correct, the Gun system and Targeting system (which can cope with a high speed moving vehicle crossing rough terrain while maintaining target tracking) though copied by our allies were innovative and still are world leading as is the armor (not the only thing's the systems on our harriers were better than those the Yank's still use as were our missile targeting systems and guidance systems) but the chasis to which they were married was not the one they were intended for originally (at least not in there first incarnation but of course the challenger has seen heavy modification and improvement since that time).

Also if I remember our original MBT which was cancelled had a lower profile (And the power plant in the challenger was also intended for that chassis) than the challenger which is better for close range high speed tank battles as envisaged if the cold war had gone hot, remember this was the original purpose and aim of our's and other nato tank's to play a part in a Cold war deterrence force and if necessary to form an effect fighting force against the overwhelming soviet deployment numbers if Soviet aggression had occured and stayed non nuclear.

Of course the challengers high profile does have advantages over longer range, it is a superior view to many lower vehicles and like any tank it can adopt a hull down posture exposing only it's main gun though against old T72's it was not even remotely challenged, especially when you consider those T72's in Iraq were soviet export model's which were substandard to there own and especially the Russian's own army's version's.

Also YOU are correct about the importance of superior tank crew training, our soldiers do not and did not operate on the outmoded idea of "Specialists" like the Yank's used too and maybe still do I don't know?, so each member can take over any of the role's in the tank effectively were as the Specialist role mean's that an operator is only trained to one role, another similar point is a British sniper is trained to work Solo but can use a spotter, a US sniper usually relies on a spotter but can work solo.

Though we have seen some degrading of the quality of our armed forces over the past twenty years due to the anti bullying regime now in effect (I hate bully's don't get me wrong) and the namby pamby approach now taken in our armed forces they are still perhaps the best armed forces in the world on a numbers by numbers basis with undeniably the very best in the world by far elite forces such as the SAS and SBS.

But remember how it went from Stormin Norman saying how fantastic our soldiers were to by the time of the Afghan campaign some of the US top brass being less then impressed by our forces, this was not down to outmoded technology but a direct result of the anti bullying, namby pamby approach taken today as opposed to that much harsher (and crueler) training our soldiers used to be subjected too.

I used to know a guy whom actually performed field work for the MOD's weapons research and back after the Iraqi's fled Kuwait city he was sent to analyse some of the wreckage to study impact on the Iraqi T72's, being mild steel hull's they were easy to depopulate and one weapon used was a stilletto typle dark which pierced the tank hull, a small explosive wrapped in liquid mercury would detonate, this would litterally liquify any occupants as the metal would simply pass through them but leave the tank almost intact except for a few dials and plastic fitment's etc, he mentioned that they litterally had to hose the inside of the tank's down to appraise the damage and see if they were salvable, not that we would use them but the idea was so that you could turn enemy weapon systems against them, at the same time the yank's were apparently testing other far more effective weapon systems on the iraqis including by some account's on this site EMP projector's.

edit on 13-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:10 PM
That thing looks like a WWII era piece of junk. Maybe it can team up with the US jeep that was reintroduced so that IEDs are more effective for the enemy.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Sherman tank, it is very similar at first glance near to the front but for completely different reason's, it does though look like an older style piece of tank dozer equipment, still give it a chance to prove itself and it may surprise us especially if it is deployed correctly for the role it is intended to fill.

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:27 PM
It's an AVRE (assault vehicle Royal Engineers). We've been using them in some form since WW2. They are not designed for attack, they are used to support an armoured unit by filling in/destroying AT obsticles, denying airfields, rapidly building berms and fighting positions etc. They are armoured to give protection from IDF and limited DF. This one is designed to replace the one in service which still uses the chassis of the old Centurion tank. It's essentially a giant armoured tractor.
edit on 13-2-2016 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:37 PM
a reply to: bandersnatch

No one. Once the mods made sure I changed all mine. I believe it was explained to me all caps is like SHOUTING (with text).

Hey. I didnt make the Ts and Cs, I just agreed to them. Just trying to help ya here......

The Use Of All Caps In Thread Titles--All Members Please ...
edit on 13-2-2016 by mysterioustranger because: add

posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 01:44 PM
a reply to: bandersnatch

Additionally? As you suggested? No thanks friend. You can keep your pills. Just tryin' to help....


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in