Talk:Challenger 2

message: One guy lost his leg in April 2007, it was amputated above the knee. Sources:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/my-son-is-a-casualty-of-war-326294
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2562528/Back-to-war-on-just-1-leg.html 
Another one lost his toes in August 2006:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html
The german wikipedia mentions both events, I guess the english should, too.
I guess the toes incident mentioned for April 2007 is a mixup of those two events.
Poster of the above comment is entirely right, the mixup of injuries from the 2006 and 2007 incidents was introduced in an edit on 7 April, 2012 and the discrepancy with other languages was annoying. I've taken upon myself to get it fixed. It's better now I hope.
Trapiella (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger 2 operational history apparently not correct 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/
*:Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Some time back there was discussion about the successor being a smaller, lighter "tankette" version more suited to air transport. Recently nothing. The article currently states no successor is intended due to lack of perceived threat. I feel this article should discuss the issue in some depth. Britain will continue to be engaged in power projection as part of its international commitments. Only the tank can survive and advance in the open under heavy fire, and this is likely to remain the case for some time. So how does Britain intend to project force on the open battlefield when the Challenger 2s wear out ? Rcbutcher (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Forces TV clip on Challenger 2 Mk 2 "Black Night" here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The Challenger 2 programme is being extended to 2035.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Successor ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214142612/http://www.janes.com:80/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What idiot could not understand the part where it says "based on the Challenger 1 hull"?  217.248.6.37 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved CRARRV to CR1 page and linked. 13 January 2023 Atomix330 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRARRV 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403214407/http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf to http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0%2C%2C931139%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608011154/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119164824/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf to http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf
*Added  tag to http://mc.nstl.gov.cn/pages/2009/86/01/%282%29.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've been trying to find information on challenger 2 doctrine, I know the doctrine for the challenger 2 is classified but there was a post of someone saying and talking about BAOR doctrine back in the late 80s and late 90s, I mainly want to know how the challenger 2 engages a enemy tank,I heard about how the challenger 2 was supposed to counter the soviet threat and would primarily hull down and engage one at a time. Hopefully someone can give me a link or info on this topic,thanks Irishbeast241 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger 2 doctrine 

message: Apparently, the AESP documentation for the Challenger 2 was leaked online recently. Is this sort of incident notable enough to be included, considering how long the vehicle's specs have been closely-guarded secrets? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: not at the moment. the extent and significance of the "leak" is yet to be known and currently seems non-notable. give it a bit and see what happens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please leave the citations alone! 91.98.179.128 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: this is basically just a paragraph of two sentences. one cite alone would cover it. more cites do not make the text any more referenced - they are all working from same material GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  the excerpts of themselves (as opposed to within a news article discussing them)  would also fall under the proscription against linking to copyright violations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classified specs leak 

message: 14 vehicles have been promised to Ukraine. They have not yet been handed over or deployed at time of writing. Until then, it is inappropriate to confirm that they have been used in the current war or are being used by the AFU. Atomix330 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved now tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. Atomix330 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Deployed at least for the present. In the video, it's on fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3MRfjUmTQ Halfcookie (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine 

message: There's a comment in the Telegraph in relation to shipping some to Ukraine that maintenance is complicated by the way that - because of its origins in the Challenger 1 design? - the hull needs a toolkit with imperial (inches) sizes, but the turret needs a toolkit with metric sizes. Any better sources for that? Lovingboth (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegraph (unpaywalled version)should be good enough per WP:RSP. Of course it would be better to have another source confirm. Schierbecker (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial hull, metric turret 

message: The Challenger 2 has always had the Rolls Royce CV 12 engine and not Perkins. I used to do second line repair on the Power Packs. 2003:CB:9F4A:2900:5489:EC37:C8A5:FF75 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine 

message: The 'Operational history' section describes an incident during the 2003 Iraq invasion where a Challenger 2 tank was subject to 70 HITS by RPG type weapons. It uses a BBC (UK government sponsored media) which quotes a Mr. Tusa, who is a editor at Defence Analysis, who provides no evidence or verification of this event, and appears to be regurgitating some information that he obtained second hand. This is often how erroneous folklore is born.
It's hard to imagine a human CONVEYOR BELT of 70 Iraqi RPG gunners (assuming there weren't more, since 70 hits on the vehicle is the claim, and not 70 gunners, which would imply the Iraqis had a 100% accuracy rate, or there were substantially more RPG gunners, some of whom did not score hits), lining up and taking shots at the vehicle from a single aspect (again, we are not told anything about the extent of the damage or placement of hits).
It's also hard to even imagine the 70 Iraqi RPG gunners hitting the same spot, over and over again, without any results, as the article implies. Any proficient gunner would soon realize that hitting other aspects of the vehicle, such as the flanks or rear, which are easily penetrated by even older generations of RPG-7 warheads was futile, and seek a better shot.
In short, the entire claim strains credulity, does not hold up to even basic scrutiny and the realities of combat. Since this is merely a second-hand claim by a third party private industry analyst, and the MoD has never revealed the affected vehicle nor displayed any information about the damage sustained, I think we are safe to disqualify this claim as simply "made up" or badly distorted hearsay that was played up by UK national media to helo foment the myth of their property's battlefield durability. 
As such I recommend removal of this claim, or insertion of a statement that challenges this narrative.
Podlesok86 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of 70 RPG Hits?

message: > In September 2023, Ukrainian Air Assault Forces Command published a video interview with a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew member who stated that the tank was a "sniper rifle among tanks" due to its accuracy. The anonymous crew member also praised the tank's protection which was more favourable than that of the T-62, T-72, and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed.
I think this statement should be removed, the source is a propaganda video so it should be scrutinized and there is a lot to scrutiny here 
First of all what does it mean by "T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed", as far as i know Ukraine does not use any T-62s besides a few T-62M tanks in use by territorial defense units, and what T-72 and T-80 tanks is he specifically talking about? A T-72AV and T-72AMT zr 2022 are going to be a comically huge difference 
Also the  "sniper rifle among tanks" statement is just blatantly stupid, this implies that the challenger 2 is one of the most accurate tanks in the world, but, correct me if i am wrong, as far as i know it's FCS is not that impressive, the tank hasn't received major FCS changes since the 90s, i would be very highly surprised if it is more accurate than the T-72B3 or T-64BV zr 2017
Also the statement on the challenger 2 having good armor is also pretty questionable to me, i know that it's a heavily armored tank but it hasn't received major armor upgrades since the Gulf war not counting ERA, right? I doubt it has impressive armor by 2023 standards, i would rather be inside an M1A2 SEP 3 or Leopard 2A6 D1d2d3d29 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So you reject a source for your own anecdote or opinion? Its fine so long as the paragraph clearly indicates the source. Atomix330 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, this is not my opinion, i think it's an objective fact that the challenger 2 does not have an impressive FCS and this article doesn't contradict that, so a statement that implies the opposite is clearly sus and should be either removed or changed so that it's not so prominent  D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a section in the operational history that i find questionable 

message: I find the claim that the challegner 2 is apparently "a sniper among tanks" fairly dubious, hasn't the tank not received major FCS modernizations since the early 2000s? Not to mention the fact that as far as i know the reputation of it's FCS is fairly poor when compared to contemporaries like abrams, leopard 2 and leclerc.
Also the statement about it having superior armor to the T-64/T-72/T-80 is vague to the point of uselessness, there are more T-64/T-72/T-80 versions than people in some villages and their armor can vary wildly, i somewhat doubt a T-64BM bulat, T-80BVM or T-72B3 can be lumped into the same category as a T-72A, T-80B or T-64B armor wise, in fact i would be highly surprised if the armor of the T-64BM or T-72B3 is universally worse than a challenger 2, making such generalized statements about the T-series is fairly unacademic.  D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sniper among tanks"