To date the only Challenger destroyed by incoming tank fire was one hit by the fire of another Challenger.
FFS, you're advocating a flapper's charter.
That's the second time you've accused people of flapping because they've decided to return fire faster. Given that you haven't faced incoming fire from opposing armour (or from anything?), I suggest you get back in your f*cking box and stop judging soldiers who have.
Probably the major reason CR2 hasn't been destroyed is because we managed to hit opposing tanks faster than they could hit ours. Hits from the wrong angle from almost any main armament will comfortably K Kill any tank in the world, no matter how much applique armour you bolt to the front so increased rate of fire increases survivability.
Safety angle prescribed by SASC is a 'training only' safety rule., governing where you point the weapon, not how you operate it.
The argument I was responding to was the suggestion that safety standards should apply equally on ops and training. Where you're allowed to point your weapon is a clear instance where that standard differs.
Last edited: