• supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 minutes ago

      Do you realize Europe is essentially at war with russia or do you think that is just a joke or something?

      • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 minutes ago

        I don’t see how that makes it necessary to post every minor development in weapons industry to this community. And I find it especially weird that it is so often an account from a canadian instance posting these news.

        • supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          42 seconds ago

          I would not describe the Challenger 3 as a minor development? I would rather say it is one of the larger developments?

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It has a active protection system which can handle incoming missiles, that will be a solid defence against drones too. Russia has developed an APS which they’ve used successfully in the invasion, but they only had it ready a few months before their full-scale invasion started, so it’s only on newly-built or fully-refurbished tanks. It also has the drawback that it was initially designed to deal with missiles; Ukraine figured out that it could eventually be overwhelmed by just sending enough drones at it to drain its relatively limited ammo, something that would be impractical with expensive missiles, but until then it apparently handles incoming drones pretty effectively. The Challenger’s one has the benefits of being designed with the knowledge of what drone warfare looks like

      It’s also worth noting that nobody publishes videos of drone attacks failing. A cheap little quadcopter with a grenade strapped to it is, ultimately, jut a way to throw a grenade unusually far. A tank like this can shrug off a grenade. Attacking them requires bigger, heavier, more expensive drones carrying bigger, heavier, more expensive munitions. Or you use the drone to sight artillery. But the point remains that even in the age of drone warfare, tanks are still harder to kill. There’s a reason both sides are still using them

    • supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I can’t think of something MORE drone resistant really if it is anything like the challenger 2.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Weren’t those wrecked in Ukraine? AFAIK there are currently no such tanks out there. Russia is trying something lately.

        • supersquirrel@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          No, some were lost, they are also very heavy because they are so well armored. There just wasn’t a big enough of a supply chain plus the rifled tank cannon has its own esoteric industrial pipeline unlike all the other 120mm smoothbores… but no with all that in mind I still don’t think it was shown as a bad tank not at all.

          • Mihies@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Not bad, but as Ukraine showed us, any tank can be destroyed by a few cheap drones. Tanks have to adapt.