Originally Posted by Koz

So?

tanks are supposed to fight wars, not win competitions.

What competition is he talking about, anyway? I want to find out more about it.

Originally Posted by Doug97

What competition is he talking about, anyway? I want to find out more about it.

the Canadian Army Trophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1_tank

I think that wikipedia article pretty much covers it. It had real problems shooting on the move and a crappy fire controll system. It was also unreliable and hard to maintain. Another nifty problem was sub-par NBC defense... mmmmm nothing like suffocating inside your tank.

But the Challenger 2 is an amazing tank, my favorite. They really should have changed the name to something else since it's nothing like the Challenger 1.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

But the Challenger 2 is an amazing tank, my favorite. They really should have changed the name to something else since it's nothing like the Challenger 1.

I agree, but the name will still have to start with a 'C' for the sake of tradition.

How about ... the CHEESEMONGER!

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I think that wikipedia article pretty much covers it. It had real problems shooting on the move and a crappy fire controll system. It was also unreliable and hard to maintain. Another nifty problem was sub-par NBC defense... mmmmm nothing like suffocating inside your tank.

But the Challenger 2 is an amazing tank, my favorite. They really should have changed the name to something else since it's nothing like the Challenger 1.

still, this does not mean the Challenger 1 is a bad tank

It operated fine in war time conditions. You could have a tank with the most accurate FCS in the world but if it doesnt work under combat conditions, well then it's useless isn't it.