<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank &#8211; British innovation in armored vehicles tested in Iraq</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq</link>
	<description>The Newest Military Weapon Systems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:31:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Si</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-38378</link>
		<dc:creator>Si</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-38378</guid>
		<description>Why is every website so behind the times? The project to refit Challenger 2 with the smoothbore gun was cancelled by the new Coalition government in the UK over a year ago. Instead, new three part Tungston ammunition is being developed to mach the performance of the German and US smoothbore rounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is every website so behind the times? The project to refit Challenger 2 with the smoothbore gun was cancelled by the new Coalition government in the UK over a year ago. Instead, new three part Tungston ammunition is being developed to mach the performance of the German and US smoothbore rounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-22590</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-22590</guid>
		<description>Challenger 2 probably the best tank in the world today with the Abrahams a close second. Fact is both tanks saw action in the gulf war and both tanks obliterated  the T72 and T80 tanks. I have to laugh at the comment that the british cant build tanks since we invented the tank!! The crusader was a really good tank that was a match for the german panzers although it had reliability issues. The centurion was another great tank which totally destroyed russian tanks when used by the Israelies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Challenger 2 probably the best tank in the world today with the Abrahams a close second. Fact is both tanks saw action in the gulf war and both tanks obliterated  the T72 and T80 tanks. I have to laugh at the comment that the british cant build tanks since we invented the tank!! The crusader was a really good tank that was a match for the german panzers although it had reliability issues. The centurion was another great tank which totally destroyed russian tanks when used by the Israelies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Lord Jesus</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-21276</link>
		<dc:creator>The Lord Jesus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-21276</guid>
		<description>I think the british challenger is very stinking, the chinese are way better, Owned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the british challenger is very stinking, the chinese are way better, Owned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: God</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-12377</link>
		<dc:creator>God</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 01:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-12377</guid>
		<description>Rex if that was the case how come the Abrham uses British chabom armour?
The challenge two is by far the worlds most supperior tank designed specificaly for fast long range warfare the primary requirement of any tank.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rex if that was the case how come the Abrham uses British chabom armour?<br />
The challenge two is by far the worlds most supperior tank designed specificaly for fast long range warfare the primary requirement of any tank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: roger patten-williams</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-11724</link>
		<dc:creator>roger patten-williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 07:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-11724</guid>
		<description>two coments are wrong . the challenger would be the the first tank i would choose to go to battle the leoard would be my next chose</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>two coments are wrong . the challenger would be the the first tank i would choose to go to battle the leoard would be my next chose</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rex</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-11639</link>
		<dc:creator>Rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 08:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-11639</guid>
		<description>British never knew how to make tanks!
Nothing has changed!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>British never knew how to make tanks!<br />
Nothing has changed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: boomq</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-10089</link>
		<dc:creator>boomq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-10089</guid>
		<description>I wonder what other thanks in the world could withstand the pounding mentioned above....:)

god bless british armour desing and secresy lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder what other thanks in the world could withstand the pounding mentioned above&#8230;.:)</p>
<p>god bless british armour desing and secresy lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Someone</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-8185</link>
		<dc:creator>Someone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:51:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-8185</guid>
		<description>I think id trust this tank over anything else. The modern day King Tiger</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think id trust this tank over anything else. The modern day King Tiger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bexiii</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-7251</link>
		<dc:creator>bexiii</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-7251</guid>
		<description>Tanks of World War II 
The armoured vehicle listings are primarily organized by country of origin. Over 200 tanks listed have detailed and standardized specifications of armor protection, fire-power, mobility and general information.while heavy armer and all-terrain  mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield. Tanks were first made by the French,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tanks of World War II<br />
The armoured vehicle listings are primarily organized by country of origin. Over 200 tanks listed have detailed and standardized specifications of armor protection, fire-power, mobility and general information.while heavy armer and all-terrain  mobility provide protection for the tank and its crew, allowing it to perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield. Tanks were first made by the French,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-6362</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-6362</guid>
		<description>The challenger is one sexy tank
I honestly think that the Leapord II, Challenger II, and Abrahms A2 are in a class of their own, power, beauty, effectiveness, what else could you ask for?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The challenger is one sexy tank<br />
I honestly think that the Leapord II, Challenger II, and Abrahms A2 are in a class of their own, power, beauty, effectiveness, what else could you ask for?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Armor Damage Idea - Project Reality Forums</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-2574</link>
		<dc:creator>Armor Damage Idea - Project Reality Forums</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:03:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-2574</guid>
		<description>[...] Armor Damage Idea     to improve realism, i think that armored units should have higher total hit points, combined with more of a chance for bits to go wrong,    by this i mean that it is more likely to have a track come off or turret disabled, but more of a chance of the unit being able to be fixed by an engineer, so a tank can be taken out of action by disabling it, (making the crew inside no option but to ether sit an be helpless until a field repair or they have to brave the out side) but only totally destroyed by extended light AT attack (RPG),  this would mean that the engineer would become a far more important asset to a team then they are now    &quot;n one encounter in Iraq, one Challenger 2 was hit by 8 RPGs in close range and one MILAN anti-tank missile and managed to escape to be repaired.&quot;  The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank - British innovation in armored vehicles tested in Iraq [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Armor Damage Idea     to improve realism, i think that armored units should have higher total hit points, combined with more of a chance for bits to go wrong,    by this i mean that it is more likely to have a track come off or turret disabled, but more of a chance of the unit being able to be fixed by an engineer, so a tank can be taken out of action by disabling it, (making the crew inside no option but to ether sit an be helpless until a field repair or they have to brave the out side) but only totally destroyed by extended light AT attack (RPG),  this would mean that the engineer would become a far more important asset to a team then they are now    &quot;n one encounter in Iraq, one Challenger 2 was hit by 8 RPGs in close range and one MILAN anti-tank missile and managed to escape to be repaired.&quot;  The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank &#8211; British innovation in armored vehicles tested in Iraq [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AARON BEFOH</title>
		<link>http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq/comment-page-1#comment-2076</link>
		<dc:creator>AARON BEFOH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:20:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-british-challenger-2-main-battle-tank-british-innovation-in-armored-vehicles-tested-in-iraq#comment-2076</guid>
		<description>even with the 120 rifled gun the challenger two does fire DU rounds the mod to smooth bore allows it to fire standard nato 1 peice ammo and heat ammunition</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>even with the 120 rifled gun the challenger two does fire DU rounds the mod to smooth bore allows it to fire standard nato 1 peice ammo and heat ammunition</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.397 seconds -->

