comment: >
  
  Conventional artillery is very limited in its effectiveness against main battle tanks.
  MLRS is more effective, but it’s still extremely difficult and costly to attack armour with indirect area weapons.
  Doctrinally in the west we don’t even consider tanks a viable target for conventional artillery. Wasteful and generally ineffective unless as a specific part of an offensive or defensive operation (fixing in kill zones, supporting break-contacts before withdrawal/delay, etc).
context: Western tanks will outclass & outgun anything the Russians can put up against them.. >
  
  No joke I think only one of our challenger 2 has been destroyed in combat, Correct me if I’m wrong but it took 3 anti tank missiles and 14 Rpg rockets and was back in service after 12 hours of repair. >
  
  One blue on blue in Basra.
  Challenger 2 is always called outdated by Russians. 4th Gen tank that was upgraded in 2008 and 2014. Ironic for the guys driving 1960s and 1970s tanks into battle.
  Like The Chieftan and Mark Hertling said. It has the optics and thermals etc to be the first one to get off a shot. It's armour is more than capable of taking multiple 125mm shots and fighting on at 100% capability. The Russian armour will not be afforded the same luxury from it's 120mm.
  This assumes a well trained crew. Challenger 2 will clap Russian armour senseless.
  It's main issue will be amassed artillery and lack of air superiority.
  Oh and it has a Rifle cannon with HESH for fucking up entrenched troops from afar. Russian armour due to losses has being used as makeshift howitzers which they struggle with. The Challenger 2 has it as part of its design. >
  
  I think it has a unique armour system to, with plates that can be quickly replaced when damaged. >
  
  Challenger armour is still highly classified but has Chobham armour which is pretty much the base for UK/US armour protection. Highly capable and then the European standard version has a number of ERA playes to assist with warding off different types of attack weapons.
  The drawback of the Challenger is it is a chonky boy. Heaviest of all MBTs in the West with only the SEPv3 Abram being close. But it's drawback is also it's strength. It's weight is largely just armour. 
  Leclercs are incredible tanks - Fast and lethal
  Leopard 2 - amazing all rounders and most importantly there is a massive infrastructure in Europe for them.
  Challenger 2 is the heavy weight boxer of the European tanks. Its design philosophy was only directed at its ability to fuck up Russian or similar tanks in principle.
  But large issue will be Massed Artillery, Lack of Air Superiority and small number.