Could British Army's Challenger 3 tank be too heavy?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2023
- Could Challenger 3's weight be preventing it from being as effective as it could potentially be?
Doctor Jack Watling, a Senior Research Fellow for Land Warfare at the defence and security think tank Royal United Services Institute, has suggested that the new 66-tonne Challenger 3 main battle tank (MBT) currently being developed, might be too heavy.
More: www.forces.net/technology/lan...
#forcesnews #tank #military #war #army #rusi
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews
65 tons is used for the tea making facilities, the tank only weighs 1 ton
Tonnage allocation well spent.
That tea making facilities are essential to fight war. The tank is an added bonus
The true British design
Oh, another tea making gag, so hilarious 🥱
@@LeeTillbury mate take a joke, im British and made the joke
It makes sense if you were sending the tank one-by-one but as a battalion it makes a huge difference when you've got to prioritise and focus fire, taking 2-3 hit before being disabled makes a huge difference. Especially if the battalion is comprised with lighter and faster vehicles.
That sounds like a great point!
@@Ihategoogle-xb2hiThat will probably be where Ajax comes in
As for bridges, we take our own into battle don't we? They are capable of taking Chally 2 and 3....
You can't have enough bridge layers for every farm road or track that has a bridge across water. Tanks also tend to 'bog in' on drainage ditches and soft verges at the side of those tracks and roads, the added weight adds to the likelihood of this happening and increases the demands on the Armoured Recovery Vehicles - one per squadron of 14 tanks and associated vehicle assets.
I respectfully disagree with the doctor. Tanks have been accurate enough for multiple hits for a long time, but tanks fighting other tanks is just one engagement type of many. Modern autocannons and light AT are getting higher penetration and the armour of modern tanks has to be enough to comfortably shrug this off.
Armour is certainly not useless, focusing on strategic maneuver will just result in a tank that can be shredded by light and cheap weapons rather than forcing the use of heavy and expensive ones. If by having even a few MBT's it forces every enemy squad to have to carry heavy javelin-equivalent weapons you've already made a difference.
He suggesting 54 tonnes so not going shreadable instead a bit lighter.
@@davidhouseman4328 depends what your layout is.
3 crew in an armored capsule, automated turret etc, then 55t is doable (and surprise you got that concept already in T-14 Armata and in the intended Leopard 3 (MGCS))
If we were talking about a fleet of 500+ maybe it would matter but there's only going to be 150 of them and is nothing more than a token force at those sort of numbers with only about 100 available for frontline combat at any one time.
A WWII German Armored Battalion/Brigade only had 128 tanks. At 500 tanks, you're talking about an entire armored division (128 X4). Ukraine's current armored forces amount to about one Division in total.
Tosh. Heavy armour is also needed and that’s been proven over the last year or so.
Would you like to explain how so? I follow the conflict quite a lot - and I also have a deep fascination for heavy armour, and I'd hate for them to disappear...
But - they have not had anywhere near the effect you seem to think. All those MBT's Ukraine cried out for? They've barely been used. And when they have been used, they've run into mines, been targeted by artillery or knocked out by ATGMs and Ka-52s.
Tank on tank combat simply has not happened in anywhere near enough numbers. They've mostly been reduced to an indirect fire role, and frankly... you don't need a 66 tonne tank to perform that role.
If you think the leopards and challengers have had little effect then maybe you should ask the Ukrainians that aren’t sat behind a keyboard. And when the Abram’s come they’ll add even more weight to the argument, that only very few seem to be having.
Tanks will be front and foremost in every major break through in Russia’s defensive line. Try doing that in a Bradley or light weight French six wheeled tank. They’d get obliterated
66 tonnes is perfect, stop knocking it before it’s even out
Maybe they have customers in the Middle East. The Challenger is a good desert tank.
M10 booker from America would be a good choice
I suspect "TES" maybe higher still.
We may now be at a similar point to the Germans in the 1950s where they determined that the then HEAT rounds would defeat any useful amount of armour (unless you resort to metres thick) and opted for the Leopard 1 type concept where Firepower and Mobility are given extra importance in the design triangle than Protection, or Protection now shifts from the current armour schemes to more APS based or new protection based on new technology. The Offence / Defence dance goes on.
The Yanks had the M10 "Achillies" in WW2, speed and fire power at a cost of thinner, lighter armour...here we are some years later, same thoughts for modern day tanks.
That's likely just it's base weight, add another ten tons for up-armour and other kit for operational use. It's also down to ground pressure, not just weight, to determine the mobility.
Yep. No tank in history has ever decreased it's weight throughout it's upgrading cycle. It had always gained weight. So this design clearly aims for a 75 ton tank in the future...
@@korana6308 this is a brand new tank, British naming it Challenger 3 doesn't mean it's an old tank.
@@niweshlekhak9646 I know, I'm just saying that all tanks in history start small in weight and later increase it's weight. There has never been a tank which decreased in weight. They go through upgrade cycles and always increase their weight, hence why it will eventually get heavier.
@@korana6308 it depends on the circumstances, if you want Urban warfare, a light tank will do better but if you want to go in open terrain a heavy armored tank will do better.
@@niweshlekhak9646 In urban warfare heavy tank is still preferable.
A millennial offering his experience and expertise whilst having neither.
One persons opinion versus the British army who were the first Nation to use tanks. I think Challenger 3 will be just fine.
The British armies choice was based on more than just the best tank. Most notably cost.
@@davidhouseman4328Don't understand that dude🤔
@@LeeTillbury Challenger 3 is an upgrade rather than blank sheet tank design. It's not necessarily what the British army think is the best tank, just the best they can get for the cost.
Absolute nonsense. Try telling that to the tank crews that they're not in a great tank, merely the cheapest.😂😂
@@LeeTillbury no one said they weren't great, just not the best. Upgrading is undeniable cheaper than a new design would be.
Maybe a Boxer with a John Cockerill 120mm turret system module would act as a offset for light rapid deployment before the heavy haulage logistics can be implemented, as the boxer (without module) is air transportable
Or even the Ajax system with 120mm as demonstrated on the ASCOD with the OTO-Melara 120mm Hitfist turret, making it a "40 tonne Medium Tank"
Maybe what is needed is a modern version of the French AMX 13 tank, heavier yes, but with the emphasis still on speed and mobility.
Main battle tank - yeah we want them to look more like light - medium cav vehicles........ let's just scrap the entire make up of what is currently the best tank in terms of survivability and lethality - what could go wrong?! Can we run the army by the army and for the army?
I don't even know why this man's opinion is getting air time, the Challenger 3 will be superb
@@LeeTillbury agreed. Only problem is we only end up having what, 135 of them. Hopefully soon we get people in charge that push for a better force and not once to be hollowed out.
The 20 tons is taken by the teamaker machine
best performing tank in Ukraine, officially NATO's most lethal tank because of it's heavy armour and rifled barrel and BAE systems talking about getting rid of both...?? The mind boggles
The use of this tank in Ukraine has shown that it guarantees the highest level of survival for the crew when the tank is hit . This tank has not yet shown its deadly qualities there - there was no direct contact with the enemy .
Best performing tank in Ukraine? Where on earth are you getting that from? I follow the conflict and I've seen almost zero evidence of it being used in anger.
Sure, it protected the crew in the one that was destroyed - but the Leo 2 has protected all of its crew in losses as well.
So very interested to know how you are evaluating the performance to make that conclusion.
@@PobegayloVladimir I think it's because it uses depleted uranium shells the Ukrainians are asked to keep it's activities very quiet... It's currently fielded in Robotyne
@@stephengilmore2741 Challenger 2 has actually destroyed enemy positions something Leopards have failed to do.
So would it fail a BFT, for being too heavy!
The Challenger 3 has been described as an interim tank anyway.
Not a problem!
Its more a case like with the end of WW2/Cold War guns and ammo are starting to vastly outpace armour again and so a big heavy armour is not as good as it use to be. The Challenger having great armour is still useful as it wont be taken out in 1 hit unlike with some of Natos lighter tanks its just no longer able to trade shots like it could in the past. That been said if it is able to take a hit or two before the armour is going to fail is still helpful as it would hopfuly allow it to withdraw before been fully taken out. In a few years armour will start to catch up again and with active defence heavy armour will likely start to make a come back then a few years later guns/ammo will jump ahead again and the cycle never ends.
So many want lightness and speed. Why the latter? Speed carries multiple engineering complications together with frequent reduction on crew capacity as we found out in the sixties/seventies. Leopard/Chieftain/Centurion would arrive in that order. Leopard co7ld not shoot till crew settled, Chieftain shot coming in and Centurion moved the landscape and shot coming in! So we want Chieftain style, ground pressure not exceeding 12 psi or less and a speed and economy more accurate to gun laying and crew attention. We need engines and gearboxes and auxiliary generators that are reliable and quiet and to examine PV type recharging on surveillance to reduce detection if that would be possible- possibly not at the moment. As ever the biggest problem is track survival from exploding charge. With limited numbers this can serious damage operational input. If we are looking at north Europe should we be talking to the Swedes about their knowledge of limited traverse gun systems? We have new partners coming onto NATO make use of them!
Isn't the American M10 Booker based on the same platform as the Ajax? With a 105mm gun?
No.
They both started of being based on the ASCOD, just so many changes they don’t really have anything in common.
Hull design similar to ASCOD , M10 now has hydro-pneumatic suspension because torsion bars and rotary dampers did not work with weight gain on Ajax , suppose they did not want, isolation mounts extra thick comfy seats and special noise cancelling headsets on M10 to mitigate problems !
Sounds sensible.
Yes, active protection for the win. Although it's true we already have the hulls and have a mix of other capabilities
Put a 120mm gun in ajax and you got a tank he wants
That just wouldn't work and you know it.
Really ought to have gone to a new MBT design and produce them from the ground up
Doesn't make sense to go alone, challenger 3 bridges the gap others like Germany or the US are looking for a new design.
So that's 15 years of development and x 3 the price? End result would have the same capabilities.
Nah, Chally 3 tides us over until we get to a new MBT. Probably the French or European projectm
@@regarded9702 Could be a joint project with South Korea...
@@meme4one Not necessarily. A lot of the tech is already kicking about and I think three times the price per unit is an exaggerated amount. Other options are working with SK or European powers tho I'd say avoid France
I respectfully disagree. A more powerful engine like the Cummins Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) with Bigger Turbo's and Injectors to double the original power. Or simply modify the original engine.
They are modding the CV12. It's getting common rail diesel injection, a new breathing system, uprated transmission, and will develop 1500hp. All part of the HAAIP initiative.
1500BHP is that all? Can get that out of a Honda K20. Needs double the power say 3000 horses.@@thewomble1509
@@thewomble1509 9 Alpha does not have common rail, problems with condensation and heat from exhaust ejectors to tanks 2 and 3 helps grow bacteria in diesel. This eats fuel sponges and fuel bags over time. Common rail needs a very clean system or pump gets damaged and injectors can stick open . You missed new IMH and radiators, by breathing system you must mean cyclones design on air filter housing and filters that can be blown out. As the seal and filter construction are similar to old type it makes you wonder why they could not be cleaned !
Maybe we should go back to the old days and have light,medium and heavy tanks then weight wouldn’t be a problem.
Ajax essentially is a light tank.
@@davidhouseman4328 all we need now is a medium
This guy is right.
The Japanese have a next gen MBT weighing 48 tons at full combat load, the Type 10
The Koreans also have a MBT weighing 56 tons, the K2 Black Panther
They’re both capable in mountainous terrain aswell
It’s absolutely possible to make it so the next gen Challenger weighs less
However neither the Japanese, or Korean tank, is anywhere near the capablity of the Challenger 3, plus we have several hundred light tanks. We call them scouting tanks (AKA Warrior, Bulldog, and Stormer, as well as 589 Ajax being built plus we currently have 539 Boxer at this time) that is what the japanese tank you are talking about is to be used for!
@@thetruthhurts7675 Warrior and Ajax are Infantry Fighting Vehicles not tanks. The Type 10 and K2 are not IFVs, they’re full on Main Battle Tanks, lighter than western MBTs still
The family of CV90 is perfect....but that would be too easy....
Absolutely, with NATO interoperability out of the box. Build under licence in UK
Name one CV90 MBT? and before you blindly answer, remember the key lettering being M.B.T.
@@bootlegpete7984 CV90120-t Uses the 120mm smoothbore.....and no its not an MBT, but according to this "expert" none of todays MBTs meet the 54 ton max....
Armor's weight needs to go down if it wants to be survivable for future warfare
Trying to build this on the cheap .. haven’t we learnt anything ?? Look at how woeful leopard 2s have failed in turkey etc due to lighter armour .. keep cr3 as it is .. as this is going to be yet another late out of date procurement….
Nato tanks are already around 66 tons. They are still useful but lighter, fast moving, manouevrable tanks are going to be back in (something like an IFV but with a tank gun and UGVs and UAVs added in and networked) and used mostly as self propelled guns. its got to the point no armour will stop enemy anti tank missiles so you need active counter measures, mobility, more awareness and speed.
Id be concentrating more on IFVs in the future anyway. Give them decent built in anti tank missiles alongside the 50mm bushmaster and they are just as deadly as tanks but carry the infantry needed more than ever for the vehicles defence with them.
Probably why m10 booker exists
No.
Next question.
Simplier, but more of them
Dr Watling seems as if he is very knowledgeable and so he won't mind if I say in fun that I think the tank is the wrong colour and possibly needs a bigger pair of shoes.
I certainly hope that it is very good for the Brits.
I think the designer know that already. Remote tanks are the answer IMO
And yet no military agrees with you, what do you think that might mean?
@@jb76489military leaders once thought walking into machine guns was a tactical marvel
@@cjjk9142 did they stop using infantry all together or did they change tactics?
@jb76489 Revolutionary technology was introduced in the shape of the tank. Perhaps the next iteration IS the unmanned ground vehicle.
Japanese type 10 just weights at 48 tons (max)
Axial play in MK 3 suspension cylinders due to excess pitch thread clearance might be a problem . if the decision to fit made by a manager with no grasp of engineering ! , are KPI 's more important than safety ? That would put £250,000 KPI fine as the value of a life when cylinder flies off along with the track !
It is an offence under the Road Traffic Act section 76 to supply of fit defective vehicle parts . To knowingly fit is work of loon !
This is hardly a revelation in terms of research! Armoured vehicle designers have had to consider the Iron Trinity: lethality, protection and mobility since the advent of the first armed vehicles.
The increased power and prevalence of MANPATS on the modern battlefield over the last couple of decades have necessitated a different solution than adding thicker, heavier physical armour hence the introduction of active protection systems. This has been known since the earlier to mid 2000s!
The RUSI “expert” wants to decrease the weight to improve mobility and by doing so sacrifice protection for the crew, this is not original research by any stretch of the imagination…..
Where is it stated that this is original 'research'? Or are you just giving a straw man a bit of a beating?
@@stephengilmore2741 Paraphrasing: “An expert in land warfare is writing a new book in 2023 about the arms of a future battlefield”
In doing so regurgitating already well researched (thoroughly discussed and problems which have been known for well over a decade) problems with armoured vehicles, weight of armour and the effectiveness of modern MANPATS, the future battlefield he is writing about is today’s battlefield.
Once again, the British Armed Forces are behind the curve in terms of capability due to wasted research money going over well trodden ground. This is the same as when UKAF went into Iraq in 2003 (snatch land rovers, tanks set up to fight across the East German plains, poor fitting and low quality body armour, guns that jammed etc etc etc).
Same mistakes being made today in the 2020s as were made in the 2000s due to poor future capability analysis.
The days of tanks are over I'm afraid....cover for ground troops at best....
Tanks nowadays 😂 better walking basically sitting on a ⏲️ 💣
Autoloaders have been known to fail during battle....
Simple solution-buy some ASCOD 120mm and evaluate its performance
ASCOD torsion bar suspension was out of date by 1980 !
@@peterwait641 ASCOD makes sense because it is ultimately what AJAX is based on as well as the new US Griffin
You have shares lol@@SworBeyE16
AI drone tech will reduce the weight.
Is it going have to pay for mot and insurance 🤣🤣
So heavy that it becomes a challenger to itself?! 🤔
The complaints about, tea jokes in this thread..🤔. I bought a mirror for my bedroom ceiling so my wife could watch herself, having a headache 😳 😒
challenger 3 baby....😀
Could it take a hit from a future heavy kamikaze drone ?. If so, scrap it and buy drones...😅
depends where that war is taking place !!! - Fat , overweight Nazi tanks had a terrible time during the battle of the Bulge , barely a bridge they could cross , despite their wide tracks
Ajax…. 🤣😂🤣
Don't think I'll trust a journalist think tank over other experts, he makes a good point about bridges but we arent fighting in open fields anymore
This guy needs to go back to his pretty little office like the good Armchair General he is and actually look at what his doctrine has done for the Russians.
This tank will perform well only in desert and open terrain.
Fat shaming... I thought the British military was more woke than this!🤔
Amazing what you can find out from real world research at the cost of innocent people.....Ukraine 🇺🇦
Imagine if Russia wasn't annexing Ukrainian lands.
SLAVA UKRAINI🎺💛💙🔰🔱💪👍🥾💤👀= FREEDOM
Us Brits are still playing a catch up game to current MBTs. We need something entirely new in my opinion at least
Chally2 is one of the best MBT's there is right now mate, dunno what you're talking about
Overstating it. Challenger 2 needs some updates but it's getting them with 3 but regardless it's still in the top tier of tanks.
@@nathanwoodward6295 yeah it's good but the Abrams, leopard, K2 Black Panther and Type 10 all outperform it. The challenger doesn't have a thermal commander site, no blow out panels, a rifled gun and is slower and heavier. I do love the challenger 2 and it is my favourite but it is very outdated as it was made in the 90s.
Who are you planning on fighting?
@@meme4one huh?
Could 777 weight be a problem in flight??
Conclusion : Challenger is trash ; Leclerc is best Mbt in the world with light weight and fast reload speed and enough armor
Tanks are yesterdays weapon easily taken out by a helicopter or infantryman with a missile
But they were easily taken out by helicopters yesterday too... I think, Andrew, you might not understand how war works.
See, an Apache, for example, will always be able to destroy a tank. Doesn't matter if it's today or 1990. The important thing is keeping those helicopters away to begin with. Same with your 'infantryman with a missile' - it's called combined arms. The tank shouldn't be anywhere near them.
Your argument is atrocious. It's like saying: "Planes are yesterday's weapon, easily taken out by a SAM" - Yeah. Maybe don't fly them over the god damn SAM to begin with.
🥱🥱😘@@stephengilmore2741
Soon to burn 🔥 on the eastern steppes
No matter how much armor a tank has, the treads will always be exposed and weak. And as long as a $500 RPG can take out a $100 million tank, tanks have become redundant. Much like the 16th Century infantry military revolution that made knights in plate army redundant. the tank is now a thing of the past.
Source: trust me bro
Did you know a $0.30 bullet can kill an infantryman? Infantry are a thing of the past
You know a chally once took 50 rpgs when its track was disabled and the was recovered and repaired the next day
LoL Too true. @@jb76489 But, you're missing the military subterranean infantry revolution going on right in front of our eyes. He who controls a supplied subterranean infantry presence is still a contender. True since the Battles of Stalingrad, Iwo Jima and the Vietnam War.
@@olivergrundy5205 Yes, Quite, tank recovery is a basic function of the Quartermaster services. That assumes that all enemy small arms cover has been cleared. However, stop a tank temporarily and a couple of RPGs and it's well gone.
I don’t know a tank that cost anywhere near $100 million dollars??
Why not just scrap the Challenger 2 series and buy generic Leopard 2 tanks, rather than wasting all this money downgrading a handful of Challenger 2 tanks into knock-off Leopard 2 tanks.
They looked at it, it would have cost roughly twice as much.
Leo 2 's are older than Challys.
After 1 century, the tank is no longer the boss, now they can be taken out with cheap portable drones.
There are technologies being developed to counter this. So far the Trophy active protection system has worked good on RPGs and ATGM systems in combat. I'd say they could defeat a kamakazee drone for sure but not APFSDS main rounds from a enemy tank(They are working on that). The US has now a laser system that works on their Stryker vechiles that are now going into service and they are very capable of shooting down drones. When there is a will there is a way. When tanks first came out there has and always been since then a see saw affect of something new a tank has. In attack and defence and to counter that with new technologies. They have been saying the tank is dead for years but they still come back. It is a weapon that is needed on most modern battlefields.
Drones being completely invulnerable to literally everything and totally without counter
Godbless the unwarranted confidence of the stupid