The Most Lethal New Tank in the World? Challenger 3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- The Challenger 2 main battle tank entered service in the British Army in 1994, although its development dates back to the 1980s. Since then, it has served in Yugoslavia, Eastern Europe, and Iraq in the Middle East, and not one model has ever been lost to enemy fire.
Despite its impressive firepower and armor, the tank's turret is outdated by modern standards, especially its rifled gun barrel.
Consequently, almost 25 years after its introduction on the battlefield, the British Army has decided to replace it with an improved version, the Challenger 3.
According to the military, this new model will become the most lethal tank in all of Europe. - Наука та технологія
That's such a bad-ass tank. I remember watching a documentary years ago about a Challenger2 crew in Iraq that got stuck. They were pelted by RPGs for hours, but it never got penetrated. Just so tough.
Old rpgs? How would it take a Javelin?
@@ZacLowing Depends on a variety of factors. Assuming the Javelin is in a concealed position and set to top attack and the tank is alone, lacking APDS, yes it would work. In most other scenarios, no.
@@ZETH_27 even without top attack if the Challenger is not equipped with addon armor on the sides, the Javelin can penetrate the Challenger 2 from anywhere on the side other than the frontal half of the turret.
This would apply to any MBT in existence tho.
@@ZacLowing Probably not well. But I'm sure they took them into consideration when designing the Challenger3 turret.
@@ZacLowing Nothing will take a Javelin! Including Abrams or Leopard. Unless you have APS
3:49 I'm a child... The poor driver getting t-bagged every time the turret turns.
Given that the T-14 has already proved incapable of carrying out its primary mission of parading around Red square, I think the Challenger 3 can relax. 😊😊
I always thought Russia was the buggieman growing up. Now they're just like Rasputin. It's only a matter of time before the country is poisoned or shot dead
🤣🤣🤣
😂👍🇺🇸
i suggest you do some research before spreading rumors. the driver hit what you would call an e brake in a car and didn't know how to turn it back off which also showes that the Russian really doesn't train there soldiers well 🤔
@@rajaydon1893 Well you just proved Michaels point then, besides which, the T-14's clockwork turret ain't much to shout about either, the design is pretty iffy and the state of supplies to the various factories is completely compromised by the mafia and that is statement of fact. Any countries that have been offered the opportunity to purchase the overseas versions of russian hardware have come up against the same issues that jets, transports and helicopters have shown, they are crap.
sexy tank.
also fun fact the Challenger 2 may not have been destroyed by enemy fire but in 2003 one was destroyed by another Challenger 2 which gives it a 100% friendly fire death rate
Like all tanks, I wonder how many have been lost to simple molotov cocktails. While most modern tanks can withstand a hit from a multi million dollar rocket or RPG etc, most can't handle a 50 cent molotov lol. I've always found that to be kind of ironic
@@hughgrection3052 You're talking out your arse. Modern tanks have CBRN filtration systems, and are immune to molotovs. Also RPGs don't cost 'multi millions'.
@@hughgrection3052 Usually they can be damaged by a Molotov, but they won't be destroyed. You might overheat the engine or burn a few parts on the outside with enough Molotovs, but the crew will be fine and if they have supporting elements (which they should), the tank, even with a damaged engine, will be recovered, repaired in a few hours to days and be back in service. If you really want to kill a tank, you have to use AT weapons or large amounts of explosives.
Its only been used against goat herders with stones so thats not really much of an achievement.
@@joshjackson6064 you're reading comprehension skills are lacking. Try reading what I said better before trying to make a snarky comment. I said one can survive a theoretical multi million dollar rocket, "OR" an RPG. I didn't imply a dam RPG costed that much. But many modern ones are however alot more expensive that you may think and can yes cost around 200k just for the missile alone with one's like the Javelin. Not including the launcher.
The war in Ukraine has proved that the Russian T72 tank is the worlds most lethal tank, sadly for the crews !
Agreed. Ruskis dont understand you need infantry support with tanks...
Their turrets do fly well though
@@stephenbesley3177 i must give it to to the Russians they even attempt to fire their turret at the enemy as a last resort
😁This is the B.S you hear all the time about Russian SHIT ARMY Tanks all there equipment is shit .. ALL THEY DID IN THE SYAIN WAR WAS CARPAT BOON THE F*&%K out of the city's
It has proven that tanks aren't invincible. We've seen the m1 and leopard tanks fare no better. The only difference is tge scale of deployment. What you see in Ukraine is Peer combat, not tank vs goat herders with some fertilizers. The US military expects to be out of tanks within 9 months of peer combat.
I've raced a challenger 2, I was in a V6 and on a gravel track and it was on very uneven grassland covered in ruts and small ditches, I beat it but man did that thing shift and keep up surprisingly well, it was throwing mud 15ft in the air out the back end too which looked insane
Wtf 🤣
@@pompano_jedi172 I live very close to the largest training ground in the UK and the land is open to the public with the exception of certain areas when live fire exercises are being carried out.
You regularly come across all sorts of military hardware and ive been in the middle of many a convoy in my car.
Solders are big kids and when i was driving parallel to a challenger 2 it went full throttle and the race was on lol, i had a rally level dust trail out the back of my vehicle from the dirt track i was on and the Challenger was throwing mud out the back like it was a farmers muck spreader, it was a lot of fun!
@@stevefox3763 I used to live at Moreton Station and my regular journey to London took me on the backlane routes where the wood land and heathland training ground extended north of the coast of the range at Bovington as those lanes were fun to drive fast and generally empty of vehicles . I can say that the red triangle warning signs with a tank symbol were very useful . Rarely did the odd tank collide with civilian vehicles but only through the stupidity of the civies . The road from Wareham to Bovvy was often used by the C2s and they were plenty quick enough on tarmac and difficult to overtake if in convoy . I recall a filmed sequence of a C2 v a rally car at the Lulworth ranges many years ago to see if the C2 was able to " kill" a fast moving object on that terrain and the C2 won . Was that you in the rally car ?
The T14 is a Russian myth and has met with nothing but problems . The C2 is more than capable and many are now in Eastern Europe and the RLC have been delivering them since March via the ferry at night . Let's face it , we don't need tanks in the UK for defence , better they be sent and used where they are most needed . Of course the whole world knows Bovington Camp and Lulworth ranges , but their relocation in Eastern Europe is secret I'm afraid but I have met some interesting people , private contractors from Eastern Europe moving large luxury caravans from my region for use as accommodation on the ferry .
@@georgerobartes2008 I used to rag my cars senseless on the tracks, its fun isn't it, hitting 90 on a dry dirt track leaves a dust trail over a mile long on calm days!
I've been to the tank museum in Dorset but never explored the ranges your taking about, Dont know if you have ever been on it but my playground is Salisbury plain army training area, its massive!
Got one dude in the comments who's made a 'oh did you now, good for you' comment like I'm full of it, while I Dont have footage of me racing, I do have hundreds of photos and scores of videos of me on the plains, that would shut him up, he probably an american who can't grasp that the army let's us on thier training areas!
@@twowheels833 why the tone like I'm talking crap? Have you ever even been on any of the ranges?
I dont think its fair to call the turret in challenger 2 obsolete because it has a rifled gun. The rifled gun is for HESH rounds that are inline with british tank doctrine, namely infantry support. The gun is obsolete when you cant field rounds for it. That hasnt happened.
Tank crews that I've spoken to in the past claim the rifled gun was much more accurate too and often was the deciding factor in shoot out competitions with other nations. Whilst I totally get the whole inter-operational NATO thing (as big'd up by the top brass) but wonder what actual challenger gunners really make of it all?
@@leonskevington As the British Army hasn't won the Canada Cup for years now,I think your point is mistaken
As I say I wonder what the opinion is of actual challenger gunner’s, the best i can do is speculate.
@@stevenbreach2561 you mean the Canadian Army Trophy? if so no one has won that for years as the last time it was run was in 1993.
Today it’s called Worthington tank Challenge
The new Challenger features enhanced armor protection compared to its predecessor, Challenger 2. The tank incorporates advanced composite and modular armor, as well as additional armor modules for increased survivability on the battlefield. The main armament of the new Challenger is the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun, capable of firing a variety of ammunition types, including APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot) rounds and HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds. It also features improved targeting and fire control systems, allowing for better accuracy and engagement capabilities. The new Challenger is expected to incorporate an active protection system (APS) to counter incoming threats, such as anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The APS helps intercept and neutralize these threats before they hit the tank. The Challenger 3 is likely to have improved mobility features, including an upgraded power pack, transmission, and suspension systems. These enhancements are designed to provide better off-road performance, increased speed, and maneuverability. The Challenger 3 is expected to feature a digital architecture and advanced communication systems, enabling seamless integration with other armored vehicles and command networks. This digital infrastructure improves situational awareness and allows for better coordination on the battlefield. This tank is truly badass and will make the British Army a formidable force.
The 'old' Challenger still holds the record for the longest range tank kill in history. Not bad for a gun that's considered obsolete! Was just over 4km, if memory serves.
Difference rifled gun is more accurate then a smooth bore gun and might be wrong but I’m sure it has a longer range using the hesh round but again might be wrong on that with the latest ammunition.
@@danbatesy5492
The only other tanks that have come close to breaking the Iraq record are Chally 2s. Rifling increases velocity and reduces drag on the projectile. The primary reason for going smooth bore is for interoperability with other NATO platforms and munitions which should lower costs.
@@darthwiizius I think a good reason for smooth bore is the barrels life expectancy: 400 full charge shells fired for the rifled Challenger 2 gun and >1500 for the Rh120 smooth bore used by the Leopard 2 and the Abrams.
@@gustavmeyrink_2.0
Yes, a very practical reason as well. No doubt more self propelled munitions can be produced that could be launched through a smooth bore too giving the range advantage back and with guided munitions advancing accuracy too. I think it's just the case where rifling no longer gives the advantages of the past.
@@darthwiizius the apdsfs round actually needs bearings to nullify the riffling, so the dart doesnt spin. the riffling was only for the hesh round for the traditional reasons
I'd just like to add in a little fact........
In 1991, Desert Storm.. Iraq. A Chally 1, tank no 11B of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards was sitting and scanning for the enemy, the crew spotted Iraqi tanks way off in the distance, I mean a long way off...
The gunner focused on a tank, a T-72, and asked the commander if he have a go, the commander said "yeah, why not!" He lasered the tank (which was a small blob on the horizon in his sight) and it was about 5km, he fired the 120mm rifled gun and a short time later, he saw the tank explode on the horizon in his sight..... and that was history, the longest tank on tank kill with its main gun ever. Some say it was about 5.4km and some say it was a trifle under 5km, this confusion and debate was cleared up when the commander came out and said it was a trifle under 5km, about 4.8km...... that's 3 miles away in a tank built in the 80's. Not bad eh?
Nothing at all has come close to it since....
The RAF could have done that with Jaguar!
It is great that they were able to update it and still bring it a higher standard that will keep it current for years to come.
Love your work! And love the slower delivery, works really well and sounds real sleek!
I've got my eye on you!
Agree!!! 🤘
It's actually an upgraded Challenger 2, with a new turret and gun developed by German manufacturer Rheinmetall. RM went into a JV with BAE Systems to keep things domestic, which is important for sovereignty. The official manufacturer will be RBSL (Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land) and therefore a UK company.
The tank is awesome, but it's not a new tank, it's still an upgrade.
It remains to be seen how it will compare to the new German "Panther" (59 metric tons with 130mmm cannon) or the upgraded US Abrams M1A2C, a 74 metric ton beast.
I don't think Germany is interested in Panther,because they are working with France on Leopard and Leclerc replacement,currently known as EMBT.
The US Abrams M1A2C, is an upgrade too and the original US M1 Abrams first went into service in 1980 and its armour has never been as good as the Challenger It uses Chobham (Given to them by the British made under licence) and ERA. The Gun on the Challenger 1 still holds the record for a tank on tank kill Challenger 2 has an upgraded version of this gun. Challenger 2 uses Dorchester armour an upgrade over Chobham, it has never been defeated except by another Challenger 2. I was hoping we would never find out Which was better US Abrams, Challenger or Leopard 2 but but with recent events the ex servicemen/ex designers/enthusiasts may no longer be a matter of UA-cam discussion boards. Good luck and all best wishes to all tank crews in the Ukraine You all have Great Tanks and Great instructors. May you all come back safely !!!!
@@Togz100 nice comment but 1 correction, the Dorchester wasn’t defeated as the shell went through the commander hatch n not the hull.
@@carwyngriffiths Thank you and good to know!
I worked on the development and manufacture of the Chieftain MBT & the Challenger 1, even then it was a world beater, a great successor to the Chieftain. Very impressive and imposing tanks.
It is just sad that in the 21st Century we still need to have such weapons and machinery, and it is looking increasingly more and more likely that our tanks are going to be rolling across parts of Europe again, even if they are being used by other forces or allied forces other than the British Arm.
But, if we have to have them for our defense then it is better that we have the best kit possible to defend ourselves against the likes of Putin or whomever tries to dominate and invade the UK, EU & Nato allies and peaceful sovereign states.
My dad served on both challengers 1 and 2 and the chieftain in places like iraq, northern ireland, bosnia and eastern europe. Said he loved the Challenger 2 the most because of the air con
It's a shame your prediction came true, Challenger 2 being sent to Ukraine.
Was that on scotswood Road, Newcastle by any chance?
Similar background, I drove Chieftain and even trained in a Centurion 😂
@@BaeNana6583 none of them tanks served in Northern Ireland
Challenger 2 started service in 1998 it replaced the Challenger 1. The Challenger 3 is a Challenger 2 upgrade not a new tank so not a new tank and should be called the Challenger 2 mkIV. Also bare in mind the record for the longest tank kill is still held by a Challenger 1 from the Gulf War.
That is completely true about the longest kill shot and everything else
With a rifled barrel! As a matter of curiosity does a smooth barrel have to be turned as a rifled one or is my technology now well out of date as I am very old?
not just tank technology, but crew's skill
Challenger 2 and 3 can be upgraded with 130mm. The new Panther 130mm was first fitted on a Challenger 2 a few years back during a demonstration. You can find the video on UA-cam.
True but that would be a logistical nightmare for a 2nd hand source, best to leave that to the people developing them like America and Germany
They just don't make enough of them.
The 130 mm would add extra weight to a already heavy tank!
I am an ex-Chieftain tank crew loader. I have to say that over the last few months that I have felt very sad for the Russian boys being cooked alive in those suicide coffins called T-72's! Watching them 'brew up', is frightening and very profound! We may view them as Putin's puppets or just some lads from a backward village that no one can pronounce, but they are some mothers son, who was ordered to die in a useless war!
Criminal. They had their lives thrown away by a nutcase.
Ukrainians call ruZZian tanks 'ovens.'
Those mothers though are also extremely racist, uneducated and immoral in many cases. Fnck em.
@Dawn Razor So says the civilian.
Pissed me right off early on in the war reading a Daily Mail article, gloating over footage of a Russian T-72 brewing up, plus all the gung-ho keyboard warriors in the comments below cheering about it...
I thought to myself, we just watched a video of three young lads, probably no older than about 21, being burned alive in a steel coffin, and people are laughing and cheering over it.
Another three young lives vaporised because of the stupid decisions of politicians.
Wow, Challenger 3 is a beautiful Machine! Leopard tanks are cool too.
All of Dark Techs videos about weapons coming out of Germany made by Rheinmetall has me seriously considering investing in this company.
This is the British subsidiary, not just that company involved though.
you should have done it before the Ukraine war started
the stocks went up 300% since 2014
@@mikeycraig8970 the subsidiary, RBSL, is 51% Rheinmetall owned.
The UK does not have any relevant MBT, IFV and APC developement capabilities left and is dependant on external input
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 it still has the workforce and intellectual property, there’s just no wholly-British company in existence because the orders are no longer what they used to be
No way. It’s the new German Tank w a 130mm cannon
Well it isn't yet deployed. It's still a prototype.
Which may or may not happen. Currently Germany and France are planning on a joint tank to replace Leo 2 and Leclerc. The French want their Nexter 140 mm gun, while Germany is understandably pushing the Rheinmetall 130 L/51.
Last time i checked BAE and Rheinmetall are now owned by Britain.
@@v4skunk739 its not rheinmetal owns bae but its a independant german company thats works as a contractor so it doesn't work for anyone until it gets a contract thats why kf51 exists even while EMBT and chally 3 are in development
Also the KF 51 isn't just for Germany its mostly advertised as an export vehicle which is inviting as it has strikes shield which is said to stop modern apfsds and top attack. And of course probably the best mobility in the EU around 50 tons with a 1500hp engine
I love that our closest ally has the other most lethal tanks in Europe! 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇧
Gotta keep the Germans on their toes somehow.
And let's not forget the Germans, French, Israeli and South Koreans. Based on what's going on in Ukraine, the Free World's got it covered.
It’s just a pity the democrats are trying to break up the UK.
@@phucknuts.7065 huh?
@@phucknuts.7065 They may as well stop trying.....It's simply never going to happen, and that from a True Scot, never mind how many immigrants get to Scotland.
It’s not just the tank. It’s the crew as well
Having spoken to a friend who was a tank commander, he said the challenger 2 didn't enter active service until 1996. They were completed and ready for active service but due to problems and extended trials they were combat ready in 1996. He's now heading back to BAE for trials on the challenger 3
No one ever seems to announce they are developing the 2nd most lethal battle tank!
i think Rheinmetall announced a new Tank in the latest defence show in France
@@masteryoda394 The KF51 "Panther". check it out and make of it what you think👌
@@jonson856 yes I saw it on the news
Russia has just knocked on the door.
@@harryhanz1690 LOL was going to say except Italy. Let them off for great food and footballers.
3:41 Bro, watching the drivers head almost get whacked off like inches away!!!💯😬😬 When they were swinging that Turret around!!😂😂 Nahh Im good!🤦
It all sounds like a worthwhile upgrade, but let's hope that the MOD gets more than 148 of the Challenger 3s.
I would have thought even double that number was completely inadequate. Lets’s see how the war in Ukraine changes opinions about the long term need for MBTs
I love the Chally. I hope they do it proud with the 3 upgrade. I am in love with the new Rheinmetall Panther KF51 tho
The modest 10 mm increase in bore size actually yields a massive 50% increase in kinetic energy over the standard 120 mm round. 130mm gun should be mandatory
@@ach_ja For the new modular armor you need and for the future-proofing, you need 130mm. Rheinmetall had the correct idea in their new tank. Newly developed Chobham armor is expected to take a 120mm round and survive. Personally, I would listen to Rheinmetall and not yourself!
i wonder what their faces must have been like when they realised just making the gun a little bigger will make it better lol
@@topbanana.2627 The French company Nexter is also upping the game and has started testing a massive 140mm main gun as part of the future tank program. Possibly 70 percent more effective than the existing Nato standard 120mm tank gun.
With the new tanks from France and Germany expected to have a non-standard Nato round the question will be ... 130mm might end up being the new standard Nato round???
130mm will be 50% more effective with a longer range.
The driving force behind the demand appears to be the Armata which boasts a 125mm main gun with more capable ammunition.
The idiots in charge have no vision but only tunnel vision. Technology is progressing rapidly. WWII proved that we have no capability to keep up with the opposition.
@@topbanana.2627 In the past, we have offered an export tank with 130mm ironically as an option for an upgrade to the tanks that we was selling
@@philliphenshall8870 With the next generation of MBTs having very good armour like on the armata apparently has 900mm effective i dont think anything can penetrate that 120mm apfsds wise, and with the new addition of APS systems, its going to be interesting
The new Panther is pretty sweet too. Time will tell what's best!
Cheers for that video. I love the Challenger. Such a cool tank. I guess that the BV doesn't need upgrading?
Challenger 2 had the neatest aiming device. It kept the gun bang on target while traversing the roughest terrain.
This made it vastly different from Challenger 1. I'm sure it'll continue with 3.
in NATO tank competitions it's nowhere near the other NATO tanks
@@webcrawler9782 but more importantly no losses in combat and the longest ranged confirmed kill on record
@@daviddines479 vs a T-55.
You could have done that with a Tiger II
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 No Leopard's scoring the longest range kill in combat or practice tanking low grade RPG's. Combat experience is combat experience. Looking at the russians today they likely wouldnt have been as successful with their armour and they are using T-72's so i find your comment disingenuous.
@@daviddines479 those 2 kills were the 3rd or 4th shot after several ranging shots.
the Targets were T-55A with 150-180mm frontal armor.
You could have hit them with an 8.8cm Flak and penetrated.
Those kills tell a different story.
A story of lack of discipline and disobedience by the tank crews, who insubordinated their standing orders and engaged targets way outside their effective combat range with expensive, limited supply, ammunition.
And yes, those shots could have been made by Leo1, Leo2, M1 and every other in service NATO MBT of the time.
For the rifled barrels sins - it still made the longest range tank to tank kill record.
I’ve heard that the Ukes have got some even longer kills in the current war, but I guess we’ll have to get through this mess before we know for sure.
@@twoeggcups there’s zero proof for those claims - rumour isn’t fact
@@ghostwriter2031 yeah, that’s what I wrote
No, because numbers equal effectiveness. UK doesn't have enough. There is a reason they have never deployed anywhere the US Army wasn't there.
This is just what the British do, let the Americans so all the hard work and they come in when its all clear and take credit.
@@pt17171 Or take both world wars, where the Americans sat on their asses until it was nearly over in the first one, and were happy to watch Nazis take over Europe until the tiny country of Japan spanked their ass.
No US forces in the Falklands.
Go read a history book not written by an American.
Superb tank. Rifled gun works just fine!
Good show I haven't seen any episodes of machine guns yet the challenger sound it would be awesome on the battlefield
If what was said in the video is true that the Challenger 2 upgrade to 3 will cost less than $2M per tank, that's an incredibly cheap deal compared to the cost of a brand new tank (Probably in the neighborhood of about $6M). From the description, just about the only things retained from the 2 are the hull, tracks and bogeys. The turret and everything in it will be replaced (Maybe a combination of remanufacturing and recycling?), the engine and layers of armor are all being replaced.
-- About time. Watched a Modern Marvels episode over 20 years ago with them highlighting upgrades, focusing on a whole new turret. We got to the moon faster. C2 rolls coal. Wonder if they upgraded the hydrodynamic transmission? Little I know of C3, it's still behind the Abrams, but more fuel efficient and just as fast. C2 was as well.
There s a separate upgrade program for suspension and the power pack running alongside the turret upgrade, should bump it up from 1200bhp to about 1500bhp, and upgrade the hydro gas to deal with the xtra...
i spent my final years at the Armour Centre hearing about the plan.... looks good.....
@@johnhughes8016 -- Good. It needed it. Any word on bhp per ton with the C3? Though, I suppose I could just go do the math.
The suspension was mentioned at 07:40
Well don't be too hard on them they can't help it they're British. Bless their little hearts.
@@megamind1359 -- Yes, yes. They tried to abort us. But the Rolls Royce Merlin made up for it :) No problem with the Brits here.
Great video!
When you see the chally chugging along from a distance.. it still reminds me of the tiger 1 tank ha. Great 👍
Whether smoothbore or rifled is better just depends on what doctrine the British army wants to use. Challenger's gun was designed with the goal of infantry support first with its HESH shells, and then Anti-tank support second.
amp is way better than hesh, there's 0 reason to use rifled
There was also the not-so small matter of the existing stockpiles of ammo made for Cheiftan
You dont do infantry support with HESH. HESH is an old form of anti-armour. Infantry support is done with HE.
@@csjrogerson2377 ... Exactly and rifled guns cant fire HE. It's old tech and old thinking that tanks should support infantry. That should be done with IFV's. Tanks should fight tanks.
The T-14 struggled to drive across a parade ground, I'm not sure that performance terrified their opponents
Gonna miss the look of the old turret with the gunner sight above the gun
Excellent video
Great thing about this tank is that the ammunition itself is inert while inside.
That's brilliant. No mag pop offs. Their naval roots showing through.
I was fascinated by the chelubham armor and the fact that you can hang composite armor on it in the additional High threat areas, the composite armor is composed of Ceramics Steel in a combination I'm not familiar with but it's able to take a anti-tank round
Very much depends on what kind of anti tank round. A modern ATGM will not be stopped by addon armor side skirts of any kind i'd say. An RPG is much easier to stop tho witjout making the tank weigh a 100 tons.
Chobham armour.
Chobham armour that was my uncles baby when he worked for the MOD, he wrote a book about Military Metallurgy he was on the shortlist to be the first Brit in space
Chobham is composite we put ERA over the top
@@dellawrence4323 Dorchester armour replaced it!
3:33 A tank sweater..... That's adorable.
It's just like the sweater my grandma makes her poodle wear. "0_o"
3:44 DAMN. It's huge! Badass 😎
One of the main focuses of this program is to improve electrical performance as that's the main limitations on MBT nowadays and well as to standardize ammo. Like the 5.56 and 7.62. It becomes pick up and play ammo
No use if a drone dropped from height bomb's and rockets into the inch thick armour on the turret hatch 🐣
@@frankthompson6503 I feel that comment has little to do with my informative point, but that flaw is suffered by most MBTs. Some soft and hard kill defences will stop this in addition with new anti drone tech.
@@frankthompson6503 Since most anti-tank weapons use either a plunging or overfly attack I would assume the majority of MBT's now have much more heavily armoured roofs.
@@frankthompson6503 You have watched one too many videos from ukraine of abandoned tanks with their hatches open having grenades dropped on them!!
@@ninjay2k317 no disrespect it's our boy's in the tanks not eukraine soldier's.
As an ex British army infantryman that has worked along side all sorts of armour, challengers, warriors, AS nasties (artillery I know, same shit) this excites me. The capabilities of the new challenger three is awe inspiring
Yep, the Germans are well known for making the best armor for sure.
@@Diemerstein The challenger 2 used classified chobbam armour. I think only the americans had access to that tech.
@@daviddines479 Chobham armor is nothing more than a lose term for composite armor.
Many tanks including M1A2, Leopard and so on all use composite armor, everyone of these tanks use a different formula to make composite. The Challenger 2 is way behind the curve sort to speak compared to the latest Leopard 2. Don't get me wrong, in no way am I saying the Challenger 2 is not good, it's just behind 2 generations behind the Leopard 2 A7V.
Unlike the Challenger 2, the German company Rheinmetall never stopped improving the Leopard 2 and this is why the Germans where chosen to modernized and improved the Challenger 2 to what we see now in the Challenger 3. Rheinmetall's redesign of the Challenger as good as it may be is not their best, just look what they were working on in the new Panther. This company is at the forefront of armor technology.
@@Diemerstein Whilst the term chobbam armor may refer to composite armor packages it was invented in britain, ours is classified and only the british and americans have confirmed deployment of it.
@@daviddines479 Correct on both counts.
Yes, this is the most lethal tank in the world for its crew.
Important - make the driver sit lower so the turret doesn't take his head off before you fit a new barrel and fancy gadgets.
8 years to upgrade 140ish tanks seems like a long time for so few.
Nein, Klaus und Hermann vill be very busy mit zis verk. Zey vill haf to do ein und half panzerwagen each month. Zere ist ein grosse amount das verk.
Yes the challenger 3 may well be a great tank, however given that the British government in its wisdom has decided that those 148 will be our entire tank force, a few thousand second generation T72’s would are more than a match. I would be happier if we were getting a least 1000 challenger3’s
@@GeofenceVictim I think most western think tanks are too preoccupied with pronouns and feelings at the moment . A tank shell,missile or bullet doesn’t care about any of that and neither does Russia. NATO and the west needs to rediscover it’s spine if it wants to counter threats to its security.
Couldn't agree more AND it will be 4 years before we get them!
in a tank battle a C2 would be expected to kill 15 t-72 then piss off to rearm and come back to kill another 15 and so on the T-72 is a truely aweful tank, even when used correctly. The Russian armour can not sustian a hit from any western MBT. The Main cannon of the T-72 has a low probability of penitration on the side armout of a C2, and an almost 0 chance on the front armour. Thats before you get into the see first shot first battle were the T-72 falls off a cliff vs any western tank, they are heavily outranged.
@@jjb9256 kind of guessed you where trolling 1000 tanks need to get to Falklands in the first place
Remember thats just the first order, im sure alot more will come...
1:13 I didn't know the Challenger 2 didn't have the independent thermal viewer/firing post for the commander which is quite important for 3rd generation MBTs. However, what kind of generation can the Challenger 3 be defined? 3.5 or 4 generation?
Awsome start building them now we gonna need them
My main concern for this tank design is the lack of an active protection system. Going by how modern man-portable anti-tank systems have been so effective in Ukraine against tanks without these systems, it really seems to me that such defensive systems are going to be needed on any tank going into unfriendly terratory.
its has the most avanced in the world chobham armour
The Rafael "Trophy" active protection system has been ordered for some CR3's .
The upgrade should include batteries turning the Challenger II tanks into diesel hybrids, I saw a BBC TV news report about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, showing two Challenger II tanks that ran out of diesel and were unable to enter Basra City, hybrid tanks will have greater range, less emissions and able to run quieter and produce less heat detectable by infrared sensors and missile operating in battery only mode.
Only 2 bruh.
Hybrids will have a slightly higher range, batterys are also very very heavy. In fact this tech is already being looked at and its main advantage will be being able to run of the battery for 2-3 miles with out making much noise because of no running engine. Full EV military vehicles will never happen.
@@v4skunk739 it will never happen now.
Perhaps the next century or late this century we will have EV MBT tanks.
Would there be a problem with emp?
2027!! We need this next year. 148 is no good. We need 1000 of them. Especially with the tension in the world at the moment. If it’s our main battle tank for a few decades to come, it’s a sound investment.
Your forgetting that If we ever needed a large number of tanks we would have all the thousands of nato tanks with us aswell but still 148 is too little maybe 250
*programme, thank you very much! ;)
The British like to upgrade equipment rather than replace it.
One example was the L85A3 rifle. The British had their rifles upgraded by Heckler & Koch at a cost of $800 per rifle rather then replace them with new M4 or M16 rifles that would have cost less. So it makes sense they would let another German company upgrade their tanks.
Sorry not entirely correct. Hk was used to do the upgrade to the A1 version. It was because BAE systems had brought HK. And a number of other arms companies. But HK was on verge of collapse.. so to stop it going bust.. we gave it the contract to do the upgrades. Which were already meant to of happened before the rifle was released I to service.. it was British politics interference that caused the problems. Namely they did not want to pay for fixing the rifle before it entered service. Or for the different mods. Like left hand firing.
A big problem started in that the US insisted that we all used 5.66mm ammo.. as that believed they would have the contracts to make the ammo. This leas to a very sudden design change being needed for the new rifle. And the lead to then Enfield copping the m16 bolt. But had not taken account of problem with that bolt system. Add that to cutting corners on manufacturing... and the first version of the rifle being introduced with know flaws at the time we were deploying for a war. Got what is actually a very good rifle a very bad reputation. Mostly from people who have never used it... or think that other bits of kit they have never used is better.
Personally I liked my SA80. Having started my services career on the SLR.. having used the M16a1, M4, AK and many many other weapon systems. Me personally I'd use an SA80 over the SLR, AK, M4, M16 or AR15 . That's not to say its the best rifle... fare from it.. I would love to totally redesign it.
But it's a weapon system I have used for over 30yrs.. and know it well.
It'd a bit like Apple or Samsung. Or Mac or PC. Each end user will use like what they are used to.
Bloody hell... The US also upgrades good kit. Let's start with the B52, first introduced into service in 1955... then there's the M16, introduced in 1960... Bell UH1 Iroquois... M1 Abrams...
Wrong they sent it h&k to upgrade the a1 model and fix the problems a2 and a3 is really solid rifle
Tbh it’s not about the platform, but indeed cost in my humble opinion. Successive governments have been bleeding the British forces almost dry for decades. The new armour package and other upgrades are great, but simply put the British government likely didn’t want to buy brand new tanks. They actually wanted to get rid of the of the tanks not that long ago and entirely mothball them.
We don't really need them. Better to spend the money on the airforce and navy.
I would want intergration with scout units or Ground forces sharing plot points for quick delivery of armaments. Also I would want ease of shipping and Transport with decisively quick replacement of major parts and engines
Im glad they didnt get rid of the challenger, even if it dosnt become the best its a sexy tank
challenger is the most lethal MBT in europe!
KF51 panther: "here, hold my 🍺!" 🍻
Kf51 is not battle tested, challenger is so it's one up on the panther
@@mrmadmax4523 Where and when was the Challenger 3 battletested?
It's pretty much a chally 2
@@heinerheise703 In the same place where the KF51 was, on a propaganda shoot.
Neither tank will ever be produced in numbers, Germany can't make Jack Sheet without cheap oil and gas to keep the factories running, so to Britain.
I bought a new R-Line Passat last year, waiting 3 months now to hear when the VW main dealers can service it. With diesel at over 2 Euro a litre, will there be any fuel or parts by the Winter?
@@rightiswrongrightiswrong806 Exactly! Speaking for Germany, it looks like we don't even need an real enemy, our political leadership will bring us down on their own.
I hope you'll get your new Passat soon. Nice car over all.
wait....the Challenger 2 can fire on the move, thats not a 3 upgrade...what?
You got a lot of details wrong. I know this after serving 10yrs in the armoured corp British army. despite that, great video. You always deliver entertaining information.
Well, they've got high hopes on this new model. Just like an ant can't move a rubber tree plant.
The Challenger 2 was already an outrageously deadly powerful tank. Challenger 3 is overkill. The upgrades cost more than a brand new Challenger 2 unfortunately
well, challenger 2 was an already obsolete MBT at introduction...
They will be brand new tanks though, they get fully stripped down to bare hulls and rebuilt bran new with all the new upgrades.
@@stuartcotterill9475 not everything
New or old, good or bad, were going to need a lot more tanks than that, and WELL before 2030. We could always ask putin to wait a bit though i suppose, before he takes the rest of the old soviet countries back. I say produce millions of small drones and beat him with those. Death by a million air dropped hand grenades.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Already obsolete, yet has the best combat record for modern MBTS to see combat... yep makes perfect sense. While we are at it let call the F15 piece of shit for having a shit ton of confirmed kills and no losses. Shake my head, cant argue with stupid.
Maybe the reason a Challenger tank has never yet been lost in battle is thanks to its second-generation 'Chobham' armour (a honeycomb structure similar to a Cadbury's Crunchy Bar and made out of a secret alloy). The full details of the structure of the Chobbham armour are also classified but it is said to have a mass efficiency more than twice that of rolled homogeneous armour against high explosive anti tank projectiles. The latest and even more advanced variant of Chobbham armour currently in use on Challenger II tanks is called 'Dorchester'
Think the American tanks use Chobham armour has well.
@@MrBadBean I think you're right - it was developed in the UK.
Americans use the original chobham, only challenger has the upgraded Dorchester variant
Another factor may be that challenger 2 has never been up against anything at All unless you consider Saddam Hussein's old Soviet junk as a "battle"
@@highplainsdrifter842 but it was dedtroyed by, wait for it... a challenger 2
Challenger II, best tank in the world. The Leopard II gets all the praise, But the Challenger II is the best in the World. Has just won the Iron spear competition, best armoured, survivability, gun with longest kill. And a tea maker!. Hopefully the Challenger III will be better.
Listening to a x challenger 2 gunner. He laughs when people say it's an inferior gun.
He says there are things that you don't know. But the British love their HE squash head rounds.
Whether it is a tank or fortifications it turns the armour or whatever the enemy use for defending, into the weapon itself with a devastating effect.
The only challenger 2 that has been lost, was being engaged by another challenger 2. They can weigh up to 70 tons (depending on amour).
Plus the CHOBHAM armour is classed as secret, the US has started using it
Active protection?!
How are armor vehicles being made without active protection systems!?
That would be passive protection, which is just armour.
Challenger is lilke the UK version to M1A2 SEPV3 and V4 why? Because it still had the same platform with only the updated systems and subsystems and upgraded 120mm Smoothbore Gun from the 120mm Rifled Gun. Same chassis same turrets woth only the difference of the commanders independent capula and other targeting system and range finder, very SEPV3/V4 thing. I hope Rheinmetall would continue developing the 4th generation KF-51 Panther because it gives more upgradability and modularity to it's designed and the new 130mm round pack the punch while still retaining 4 crew even with autoloader and the role of the autoloader become a radio/drone operator to survey the battlefield for incoming and hiddin threats.
????? The only thing staying the same from CR2 to CR3 is the hull and engine block / gearbox. Everything else is brand new. New turret, new gun, new hydrogas suspension, new everything else. It shouldnt even be called CR3.
The thing looks like a beast
One of them,they're all pretty lethal
7:30
Challenger 3 won't get a new more powerful engine. It'll continue to use the same'ol Perkins CV12 1200hp engine.
The engine will be updated to increase reliability but disappointingly the power to weight ratio will remain abysmal and hence Challenger 3 will continue to be a slower platform compared to other NATO MBTs, similar to what Challenger 2 currently is now.
Sad, they didn't progress further with the Challenger 2E program and the EuroPowerPack.
As I understand it, cross country Chally is faster than anything because of its suspension.
@@glennridsdale577
Chally 2 with TES upgrade weighs in at 74.8t. Coupled that with an engine that produces 1200hp @ 2300rpm. And you think having hydropneumatic suspension will help it zoom past other NATO tanks?
The main advantage HSU brings to Chally is crew comfort and better firing accuracy on the move.
The engine is being upgraded with new head, turbo, internals and fuel injection system. Pretty much a new engine. The Challenger2 is also as fast as any other tank off road because of the hydrogas suspension. LecLerc and K2 are the most mobile tanks off road.
@@GammaMorser The main advantage of better suspension is faster off road capability. Like in a 4x4! Look at how a Trophy truck can drive off road at 80mph while a LandRover on the same track would only be able to go 20mph.
I think the KF51 will be better.
Not even been made yet
You can have a big well equipped up-to-date military and in an address at the same time you have to pick one I'm glad they're finally getting an upgrade the last time I tried lead to got any type of upgrade was what 07 for optic ? Also 2024 replacing the standard issue rifle
Sure would like a ride in one of these !
Is there any research on remotely controlled tanks? They could be made smaller, cheaper, and faster without crew accommodations.
Yes. I know we (USA) have adopted a small crew support “tank” called the Ripsaw for testing. But i dont think itll carry a true tank gun, as its not big enough. I think they were testing it with anti-tank rockets and an auto cannon (probably 20-30mm).
We (UK) had a working remote AI back in the mud and late 80s . It was being tested while I was working on trials and development. Was before the Challenger 2 program. It was fully operational working vehicle. We were also working on fully autonomous armed UAV's at the time..
The tech gave the ability for the AI to Identify and classify targets, select what it deemed to be the main threats. And target them in order of threat. It was also able to select the most appropriate ammunition/weapon systems to be used to kill or immobilise a target with out human intervention.
However in the mid/ late 80s to Early 90s. Many things happened that changed what sort of weapons and equipment would be developed..
1. There was a huge concern about arming UAVs and UCVs ( unmanned aerial vehicles / unmanned combat vehicles). Partly fueled by the Terminator films). So initially these types of equipment were to be used for Reconnaissance only and not armed... no one wanted a computer going rouge.. or failing. Also the fear was that these types of equipment could fail or somehow be blocked or intercepted by the enemy. Who could take control of them and use them against us.
There was a huge miss trust in the technology of the time. What was to stop them misd Identifying a target and start engaging... but that target wasn't the enemy snd was a friendly or civilian..
The 2nd factor was the end of the cold war.. the perception of threat from the Soviets was gone. So no need to buy or develop lots of new hardware.
However with tye end of the cold war. We were then sucked into different types of smaller limited wars against lower peer armies. Like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
These had very different needs for equipment than what we had or had developed for the cold war.
It's worth noting. That Challenger 2 was not the Tank that UK was originally developing for its new tank. The UK was designing a much smaller and lighter tank. With key designs being transportation, rapid global deployment and a 3 man crew.
However events in the early 80s meant UK would take on the challenge tanks. These proved very good to fill a gap. And contry to the famous competition. They wer actually out performing their alien counter parts. But did have a few flaws. At the end of the 80s.. Vickers started a project of their own back to to offer a new improvement on Challenger to offer the British Army. The current future battle tank project was running into problems. And what became Challenger 2 was put forward as a quick fix to the future main battle tank program.
It should be noted that many in the senior command and government were at that time leaning towards the idea of using helicopter gunships instead of tanks.. and wanted the Apache instead..
However in early 1990s. The Iraq situation showed we had a need for tanks. At the time we only had the Challenger (1) that was a good tank. Buy had many flaws. Mainly mechanical. This forced the UK government and military commanders to drop the future tank program and adopted the Vickers design based on the current Challenger.
However we conducted many many trials between the M1 Abrahams. The Leopard 2 and the proposed Vickers tank.
The Vickers tank still had issues with the Hull and mechanical problems.. namely lack of speed or reliability.
The Leo 2 was fast and agile. But was severely lacking in armour. Especially on sides and rear.
And both the M1 and The Leo2 were at that time using the smooth bore L44 120mm cannon. And again contry to all the hype about the smooth bore over the rifled gun.
The L55 Charm gun the British wanted to use was far superior. It had higher muzzle velocity. Greater accuracy. And much greater range. And again contry to believe. It could be loaded and fired faster.
The British gun system could engage and destroy targets much further away. Much faster with higher accuracy. And it was fare more accurate while firing on the move at higher speeds than the M1 or the Leo2.
The M1 also had the issue of using a Gas Turbine.. which was not liked by thouse in command or government.
So the development teem asked the Germans if we could buy their hull/chassis and we would modify it and build it under license and put our new turret and gun on it.
The Germans point blank refused.. wanting to sell us complete tanks..
However the German Tanks were built with entirely different battle fighting concepts in mind.. to how the British want to design and use a tank ( these concepts were based on how each country was to fight the cold war).
So the Vickers design and development team... took long long look at the Leo2 chassis.... they then came up with similar ideas to build a new improved Challenger 2 chassis..
The problem being that Vickers ( later BAe systems) had been given the project based on 2 premises.
1. Commonality with the Challenger 1. So we could in theory just upgrade them. And or to keep supply and maintenance simple...
This never happened. With the Challenger 1s being sold to Jordan.
2. The government wanted a UK company to produce our military hardware. This is understandable. But short sighted.
In the end we got the now Challenger 2. But it was still a stop gap tank.. only realy meant to fill a temporary hole and still based on fighting the cold war in Europe. With a few improvements thrown in for what we learnt In the first Gulf war.
Unfortunately... with the cols war an ever distant memory.. and the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts dragging on. Politicians and military cheifs became blinkered and only saw insurgency type wars. They ( as most of the world has done) neglected tanks. Or tank designs or development. With many saying what they have kept saying since the tank was invented. That tanks are obsolete. Truth is. Tanks will never be obsolete. Their designs and use will change. But they will always have a place.
With the government constantly wanting to cut costs. And our tanks not really I use in their designed roles.. then our government started to close down our now nationalised military factory's. We closed our vehicle production lines I Leeds a nd Telford. We then closed our factory's that made our ammunition... and so on. We started to scrap our tanks.
We put no effort or money into any future designs of development. Instead... sitting back in effect saying 'if we need something. We will just go buy something as we need it'....
Then..when we suddenly started to see the world change again... the cold war while over... has returned. The need for a tank in near future has become a very real threat.
( it's not just UK. This was the same for the USA, France, Germany and even the Russians).
So now we are clutching at straws trying to desperately update/upgrade what's left of our now nearly 30yr old + design tank. Instead of developing a new tank.. we brought a large chunk of the German Rhian Metal company ( with them in turn buying part of BAE land systems.) They will help build a new turret with their newer l55 120mm smooth bore gun. We will upgrade the chassis. And we will call it Challenger 3.. ( it realy Challenger 2a2).
We have chosen the German L55 120mm Smooth Bore. Not because it's a better gun.... it isn't. But it now gives us the ability to use common ammunition across our alies. And also gives better support when it comes to barrel replacement and services.
The other advantage being that British tanks can now fire HEAT type shells and a range of anti personal shells.
Germany and France have now started a new future tank development programme. Which the British are sitting on fence as 'Observers'. And may join if the project looks any good. And the Germans and French don't fall out over it and scrap the project.
Thr USA have taken similar route... updating/upgrading... while still deciding on possible née tank designs and development.
A few companies have come our past year or so and started touting new designs like the Geman Panther. But these are generally private ventures and still designs based on fighting the cols war.
The wiesel can be remote controlled
@@agile-heliuk1801 that new south korean tank looks pretty cool. I know we would never adopt something like that not made in the US/Europe tho
@@John_Redcorn_ it's not so much about buying a foreign made tank.
It's more that every tank ( or any military equipment) is designed and built to fill a specific set of requirements and for specific uses.
Everyone builds their tanks for instance according to how and where they expect operate.
This is why so many big multi national projects ultimately fail. As countries want different things. And different uses. Ie some want slower heavy armour with high power long rang guns. Some want a smaller lighter faster vehicle with less armour and a gun for use in close battles..
These differences are why projects like the MBT70, Eurofighter, Trigat and many others often fail. Or member end up leaving to make their own kit.
Because just because a tank or plane looks cool... it may be its designed for a specific purpose. Not all equipment is the same.
Personally I have always been a huge fan of the Israeli markova. Some of the design features are outstanding. But as I learnt while I was working on the Challenger 2 development project back in the late 80s early 90s. One size doesn't fit all.
No, I rate the new Panther KF51 higher.
The only reason for the Challenger 2's rifled gun is to shoot HESH rounds (High explosive squash head) (which are highly effective against tanks, APCs and bunkers)
HESH is obsolete not programable APMHE can make that but better but a rifled guns can't use those modern proyectiles.
@@viceralman8450 Challenger 3 will have a smooth bore gun. Challenger 2's rifled gun can still fire APFSDS. HESH does not depend on velocity.
@@johncostello3174 HESH is obsoleto thanks to composite armor, APMHE is not APFSDS, a smoothbore gun was about time.
@@viceralman8450 I never said APMHE is APFSDS but the rifled bore of the challenger 2 can deal with most targets
@@johncostello3174 Could in the past but as their ammunition has two pieces that limits the length of the APFSDS proyectiles, so it is less effective than other NATO counterparts.
KF51 looks to be the latest in tank technology.
If it works And I Mean in a REAL BATTLE not in tests
The rifled gun still has the record for longest tank kill ever and the yanks with there smooth bore guns have been struggling to match that ever since , bit of a downgrade so we save money on ammunition and kiss goodbye to hesh! (the main round used by the vehicle) 😆
Challenger 3 is smoothbore
Just because the longest tank kill ever was with a rifled gun doesnt mean rifled guns are better. Its a single statistic made out to say x is superior to y while it doesnt prove anything at all. Most gun deaths in the US are a .22, does this now automatically make .22 the best gun caliber? No.
Smoothbores are proven to do better than rifled guns when firing APFSDS and most importantly have much longer barrel life. Also modern MPAT and programmable HE munitions outperform HESH in every single way. Im not trying to shit on the challenger, and yes that 5km tank kill is very impressive, but modern smoothbores really have no issue engaging at those ranges at all, we just dont see engagements at those ranges often.
@@Yung_pindakaas I guess people just don't know how to use them very well, the smooth bore guns have been in conflict far far more than the rifled challenger and only scored close range kills however the Bradley has proven more successful at tank killing in conflict at long ranges with missiles. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
It might be an old gun. But it still holds the record for the longest tank kill ( tho that was a Challenger 2)
No, Challenger 1 got that kill that still stands as a record, different gun to Challenger 2s. Challenger 2s rifled gun was an upgraded version of Challenger 1s gun.
@Rondole Dingle Yet "any" tank didn't did it, only one tank did 😂
@Rondole Dingle Well it does.
It's like claiming you could have shagged a supermodel. The fact that you haven't doent mean you can't.... you just need to prove it.
@@Dezzasheep Ahhh, but then there are some people that make claims, but never do anything more than that. The worlds tanks have had 30+ years to prove their 'claims'.
The rifled barrel may be obsolete but did score the longest tank on tank kill.
True but Restricts the TYPE of Ammo that can be used
@@zenko247 -. Very true but still a great shot.
Challenger 3⃣ is gonna be bad ass,
Seems that just like their Battleships, the British like to underwhelm with their tank’s gunnery. Since they’re doing the upgrade Rheinmetall could put their 130mm barrels instead of the 120mm the UK MOD is settling for… 🤷🏻♂️
You mean like HMS warspite?? The ship with the longest range hit against a moving target. Stupid comment. And that was a world war 1 battleship in world war 2.
@@lancsladgaming7146 No, you prat, like HMS Vanguard.
You Brits were still sporting puny 15in/381mm on Vanguard, your ‘Top of the Line’ BB after your Japanese protégés used 18in/460mm guns.
You claim to be “gaming” but apparently never played a World of Warships Game, anyone who’s played that game knows RN ships are only good for starting fires with their undersized guns… 🙄
Standardised ammo with friendly country.
@@adarret World of Warships is rubbish. If you base your facts off of that, you're not exactly the smartest fellow.
Sure, your Nippon steel japanese megaship and it's super guns may be able to knock a big hole in anything, but allied ships tended to have far better fire control and ranging systems. You can have your cake but you must be able to eat it, too.
@@JostVanWair I agree about World of Warships, but even that sh!t game, given it’s developer’s love of spreadsheets, gets the gun sizes correct, at least in millimeters…
Great tank and will easily be number two behind the M1A2 Abrams …. But being 2nd to a legendary tank makes it legit.
Lol. How many M1A2's have been destroyed?
*no3 behind M1A2 Abrams
The only problem with the Challenger 3. Is we do not have enough of them
Ameteur military historian and Anglophobe here,
As good as the Chally 2 was, it had some serious flaws. And the Chally 3 program seeks to correct all of those problems, yes, but they're changes that should have happened with the Chally 2.
As in, there should have been more technology in an MBT made new in *2003* , whereas the Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 Abrams were outclassing it in most aspects before it had even rolled off the production line. It should have had a smoothbore gun, but because of our reliance on HESH, instead of more conventional HE or later HEAT-MP rounds, we stuck to Rifled guns and suffered in AP performance. Nor could we load HEAT rounds or otherwise. The original sights and rangefinders for the tank were well out-of-date at that point and the only good-ish things the tank could rely on were it's engine, which was okay enough I suppose, and it's armour, which was probably the best part about it.
Speaking of engine, it was strong enough, but at roughly 1200hp, it isn't really efficient at pulling a *65-ton* tank around. And that weight also must have factored in with why the Challenger 2 never saw any proper upgrades throughout it's career. Any extra bits and pieces would put strain on everything. And the UK Armed Forces are hardly the most well-funded army out there anyways...
Overall, the Challenger 3 is just what the Royal Army needed... 10-20 years too late.
Oh well, at least it looks cool
Wow. Where to start. Challenger 2 was actually state of the art in 1997 when it was introduced into service. It has had incremental upgrades over the past 25 years to protection, mobility, digital systems and fire control. However it has reached the stage of obsolescence and needs a more fundamental upgrade.
It's gun was built around the Army's doctrine of using tanks for infantry support, where the punch of the HESH round was invaluable for bunker busting and other roles where the application of large lumps of high explosives were useful. The round is no longer made, and the Army (not Royal Army, by the way... that's Oman) has been forced to concede that HESH is no longer available. However, similar capability is available on the L55 gun in new ammunition types. Plus the L55 will be upgradeable to the new 130mm once it is in general service around NATO.
As for accuracy, the Challenger 1 retains the record for the longest range hit on another tank from Gulf War 1, when a T55 was destroyed at just over 5000 metres range. Challenger 2s CHARM gun was an incremental upgrade of that gun. Make of that what you will...
Amateur historian and Ex British Army signing off.
Amateur military historian??? Then you would think you would know that there is no such thing as a Royal Army
@@momachine74 imagine taking such a title seriously. How did you not figure out I knew nothing? Honestly lol
@@ScienceChap Good for you? I'm just a sarcastic asshole seeing who he could piss off in a comment section that takes itself way too seriously. As far as I'm concerned: Hook, line and sinker!
Fun fact: in the challenger 2 there is a small tea maker for the crew. I wonder does the challenger 3 have this option
All armoured vehicles in the British army have a boiling vessel so you don’t need to get out to boil water to heat mre
If a Boiling Vessel doesn't work it also means the whole tank is technically "out of service" until it's repaired, true story
if not, the whole tank will be doomed!
There'd be a general mutiny if there wasn't a BV...!
Wouldn't be British if it didn't. Who'd ya think developed the concept of "NATO standard" tea?
That beast is a juggernaut. Gigantic, but still maintains that European elegance, that the U.K. and the Continent seem to have in their weapons of war.
You can make tea,but there is no outlet for tea leaves
Seriously impressive that not 1 challenger has been lost on the battlefield. It is outdated now, but challenger 3 will be world class when finished and ready for the modern world.
About time they adopted the L55A1. Idk what theyve been waiting on the last 30 years. But i believe newer NATO MBTs are looking to go to a new 125-130mm gun, so really itd make sense just to go ahead and design the C3 to use the newest gun (if the chassis can handle it, which i’m sure it could. The Abrams is looking to be fitted with it so not much diff i wouldnt think. Both tanks are pretty similar to one another)
They liked the squash head round, which can't be fired from a smoothbore. The gun was equally effective, it simply meant they didn't have complete compatibility with all nato ammo.
The 130mm upgrade has already been trialled and the turret architect has had the potential upgrade factored in... the reason for going to the 120mm smooth bore now and not the 130mm is ammunition supply (the UK would be the only user at the moment, and the ammo would be prohibitively expensive), and the fact the 130 is not proven .... yet.
"About time they adopted the L55A1. Idk what theyve been waiting on the last 30 years"
The L55a1 is not the L55 currently in use by other NATO members but an updated, modernised variation on the gun that went into production last year iirc. As for 130mm, they took a look at it, but the turret would have to become pretty huge at that point and few users so they decided not to as it doesnt really add that much when it really comes down to it in a combined arms force.
As for sticking to the British L11 then L30, was most likely to do with the rounds usable and also stocks of ammunition, swapping to a completely new munitions stockpile is expensive as at the time the UK made its own ammunition too.
@@mitchverr9330 The L55A1 is also the gun selected and already installed on several Leopard 2A7V and will be used in several other upgraded Leopard 2 packages (e.g. the Danish 2A7).
CR3 will be able to take a 140mm gun with an autoloader.
Im glad we are keeping the Challenger program. Its good to invest in (mostly) British technology instead of relying on other countries, it shows our prowess and advancment
you mean, letting the germans fix your challenger and then claim it is british, like the L85A1?
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 alright fine, to phrase it another way "Im glad we are keeping a brtish DESIGN and modifying it with help from another allied country instead of just buying a new tank from them". And its not only Germans improving it, there are gonna be English engineers also as they understand the rest of the tank better
@@dumbproto3749 okay that sounds already better.
But on the other hand, for the same price, you could have bought Leopard 2A7 or M1A2 sep.V3 to replace ALL current in service Challenger 2´s and the Reserve BEFORE 2027.
The main problems with Cr2 are only partially adressed with Cr3.
Current generation gun, fcs, optronics (including finally a CITV) and modern composite armor arrays in the turret are state of the art 2016 not 2027. But it is already a big step forward, bringing british MBT´s on an equal footing to other MBT´s for the first time in 40-50 years. But again 10 years too late to be state of the art.
The other major problems like the extremly underpowered powerpack and drivetrain, the extremly high maintenance requirements for the suspension, Cr2 being grossly overweight for even central european road and bridge infrastructure (already it weights in 75t, about 7-10t heavier than competitors, but at the same time, due to its 30+ years old composite arrays and that ridiculus drivers hatch etc has worse armor than M1 or Leo2), it is the slowest NATO MBT by far (every other NATO MBT is 10-15km/h faster, has 10hp/t better power to weight ratio, better torque, better mobility and agility. Cr2 is just a brick on tracks) .
Cr3 keeps those flaws and even increases them, pushing its weight up and close to 80t combat weight.
It is about time, that the UK says good bye to the Challenger platform and gets a modern competitive MBT quickly.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 That is true yes. I still think we should design a new tank however, instead of buying one from a different country. It looks better for our country and our engineering in general
@@dumbproto3749 and there is the next major problem.
The UK has no relevant tank design and developement capability left currently.
This is the result of the british "cottage style" Tank Production with Challenger 1 and 2 in the 80´s and 90´s.
Both hat more or less zero export sucess, Cr2 even significantly worse than Cr1.
Due to that, Alvis Vickers closed down its plants and research departments in the late 90´s and early 2000´s.
It will take more than a decade and extensive external help before the UK is again able to design and build a domestic MBT design, wich is up to current standarts. (Challenger 1 and 2 were both not state of the art when designed and introduced, but lagged behind in FCS and optronics by about 5-10 years and with their maingun about 20 years for Cr1, Cr2 about 35 years etc)
The big question is: is it worth to maintain a cottage style production`?
Cottage style meaning, low production numbers, more or less no export, production only for domestic use.
This is extremely expensive and inefficient and results in "special" equipment, that is not compatible with other partners.
a great example for the lost know how in the tank branch of the UK arms industry is Ajax.
Based on an already existing design, modified to fit UK demands, not servicable due to those modifications
My grandfather told me he was in a dingo and raced a Tiger 2 to to a fuel depot on the Luneburg Heath in 1945. He easily outpaced it.
That implies your grandfather was fighting for the... Nevermind..
@@alisterazimuth06 Yep the Nevermind was an amazing army!
Better get started on the Mk. 4 from scratch. I’ve a feeling there going to be needed.