@@AdhocHoopla it makes me wonder what would have happened if they’d decided to invade BAOR back in the day. Looking at their performance now, when they have apparently modernised, I think they’d have been left nothing more than a smouldering line of dead all the way back to Moscow.
Hilarious - you can tell its a US video "the most lethal tank in Europe" , can you imagine the British Army saying we don't want it to be better then anywhere outside Europe we only want to be best in Europe lol lol
The one thing that I do admire about the Challenger tank especially the Challenger 2 is during the Invasion of Iraq they lost 0 tanks. They got hit by everything and it still ran because of the second generation Dorchester/Chohbam armor. It just a very well protected tank that did it's job. When you can lose 0 tanks especially after getting hit by anti tank missiles you got great armor to protect your crew.
@@YorkshireMemes "Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=Of%20the%20nine%20Abrams%20tanks,2%2C500%20metres%20(8%2C200%20ft). Weird how we are better at killing our own tanks then the enemy is ours. Challenger tank was also knocked out by their own, it was a HESH.
@@Dwagonier all that proves is Americans can’t fight for shit (that’s true, they can’t fight without the English and British helping them). Alps your comment doesn’t exactly disprove my original comment
I really hope that the new security situation in Europe pushes the government into rethinking the value of armour, and they expand our numbers of tanks, even stockpiled and maintained so they can relatively rapidly expand active units as needed in the future. Cant help but look at situations like Ukraine and think the UK has been a little complacent with armour numbers and air defence systems outside of fighter aircraft.
@@Licmebro the UK has about 200 main battle tanks, and is getting just over 100 challenger 3s. If Russia is now our main threat, we need to re-arm with tanks. You say this like the UK isnt a part of that NATO army, a huge part of the European part of it infact. We need more tanks.
As an arrogant nuclear power there comes a point were it would be more economical to just deploy a nuke. The UK has plenty of firepower for those fights without nuclear weapons. Against someone like Russia, well first you've got nato but then it would escalate to a point the UK would just use a nuke if it felt threatened enough so there's really no point in having 1000 tanks etc. A war with Russia wouldn't be won or lost on the battle ground, it would be nuclear
Because of budget and political reasons, all branches of the British military have had to adopt a quality over quantity mentality. Thats why there are only sub-200 MBTs in the British army. And at this current time the actual problem isn’t tank numbers, its actually the fact that the army doesn’t have enough men to crew them, and right now it’s a priority role to fill for recruitment.
Ironic how the challenger 1s rifled barrel also holds the record for longest confirmed tank on tank kill........The loss of rifled barrel is mainly about opening up options for ammunition. You can't use certain ammo types in a rifled barrel.
Well, you *can* but it's harder. APFSDS rounds for rifled guns use spinners to isolate the dart. The British Army sure did love HESH, though, which needed a rifled barrel. The new smart rounds for smoothbores are finally good enough to persuade them to change
The problem is that Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun is the most common gun on the market, Even the US uses it. Some like Israel and South Korean make it under license Very few actual make their own As such, it has a lot of options
@@verdebusterAP you are incorrect. US uses M256 which is a modified variant of Rheinmetall L44, yet not the same and especially the gun installed in Challenger 3 as the latter is equipped with L55A1. Israeli MG251 and MG253 are based on L44 but are neither copies of the german gun nor are these produced under license. South Korean K2 tank is equipped with the indegeniously developed CN08 120mm L/55 gun, while K1A2 tanks are equipped with indegeniously developed CN03 120mm L/44 gun and K1A1 with KM256, which is a license produced version of M256. Yet, KM256 is most likely out of production. And apart from that - what problem are you talking about?
This vid criticises the Challenger II gun and armour, whilst being forced to acknowledge its superb accuracy and survivability (because of, you know, facts). Now, the upgrades look pretty good - so long as we aren't losing what was best about Challenger II in the process (which, to be fair, it doesn't appear we are). This vid is happy to criticise the old, whilst glomming over the new without any real analysis. Shallow.
Rifled barrels are more accurate APFSDS rounds don’t need a rifled barrel it’s just more accurate with a rifled barrel this applies to HESH the main difference between the 2 rounds is how they are fired HESH gets used more like an artillery round so it’s more lobbed than fired.
@@forbiddenexceed8295 Yes, rifled barrels now seem kind of old hat an unnecessary. We have new, modern and advanced rounds that either don't need them, or cant work with them. But the problem with new, modern and advanced, is the extra words that need to be tagged on. Expensive and slow to make. So they available in limited numbers and replacements aren't going to arrive very fast should we run out of them. Should that happen, cheap, fast to make, but still accurate, dumb spinning lumps of steel and explosives may come in really handy.
@@jamescpalmer The rifled barrel was kept bc of budget constraints, not bc it's the better gun. Rifling can mess with modern fin stabilized ammunition like APFSDS, is redundant bc the ammo is already stabilized by the fins, and requires more maintenance than smooth bore guns in tanks like Leopard 2, Abrams, Leclerc, Ariete, Merkava, and basically every modern tank. Challenger 1 and 2 are good tanks- their armor in particular offers exceptional protection- but like any other tank they're not perfect and have flaws. If the rifled gun was better than smooth bore, they would keep it for the Challenger 3 and it would have been the NATO standard. We are talking about hundreds of millions worth of R&D by some of the best specialists in the field with decades of combat experience to draw from. I think they know what they're doing...
It really is a powerful looking tank. Our cousins across the pond have a winner here and I'm VERY relieved that instead of getting rid of its armor, the British are REALLY upgrading it. Well done UK. Greetings from North Carolina btw... Rule Britannia
It always frustrates and annoys me when they always say the Abrams is the best in the world. Challenger holds the record for longest kill. It also has seen action and had the most hits from anti tank and not lost a single tank or crew member (one driver injured) yet all claims are the Abrams and Leopard are better? Am I missing something or do all the facts point to the challenger being the best MBT!
Challenger 3 and leopard 2a7+ are the best for sure. Abrams are expensive and crappy specs. Should be more cooperation with the Europeans, learn from eachother....
When I was visiting England in 2009, at an event in Kent, I met the crew of a Challenger 1 which was privately owned! This video is the first I had heard Rheinmetall had joined with BAE Systems. I have heard the Chobham armour technology is still secret! Regardless of how effective the armour of any AFV is, the track is still vulnerable with a shoulder mounted RPG still able to carry out a mobility kill of an MBT by disabling the track. Once the tank is immobilised, a molotov cocktail on the engine deck is still a low technology way of carrying out a gun kill (crew have to bail out - guns no longer effective). Though, it would take a fanatic gutsy enemy to get that close to a tank who usually have infantry with it. Cos of RPGs and molotovs, all AFVs including MBTs are still very vulnerable in urban warfare. At Eurosatory (Defense Expo) at Le Borget Paris in 1998, I saw a demo of a fire suppression system by Kidde which had the fire out in less than one second. I wonder if AFVs now have such systems. Retired Aussie Armoured Corps soldier here.
You’ve got a picture of a Cromwell instead of a Challenger as your first Challenger. Challenger had the 17lb er they fitted onto the firefly, but had to build a very boxy shed like turret to house it
This video is pretty sloppily written and put together tbh. Got some good ideas and animation assets but there's image, spelling and script errors all through it.
the challenger 3 owes its superiority to the germans. thanks to the German 120mm smoothbore gun, it will be able to break through the T 90s and T 14s head-on. the old standard engine from the challenger 2 is to be replaced by a German 1500hp engine which is supposed to bring the challenger 3 up to 100 km/h. the tower was redesigned and completed by the germans. a large part of the electronics is also German. The Challenger 3 project was completed in cooperation with Germany, since the British tank industry was technically behind and had to catch up. so it is written. Thats what happens when rheinmetall, KMW havin a threesome with british bae systems lol. The guys who founded the tank and the guys who figured out how to use tanks. In my opinion the best tankcooperation ever done.
@@andrewmcateer5406 on the challenger 3 u can see what the germans are able to do technically. If they wanted they could produce a tank wich would be better than the t 14 aramata or k2 black panther.
Should also mention that the Kuwaiti Chieftains were very Successful at the Battle of the Bridges, Decimating the Iraqi Republican Guard Armour and successfully Withdrawing to Saudi Arabia after they ran out of Ammo. Pretty much the only Kuwaiti Success during the 1990 Invasion and the same Unit also played a significant part during Desert Storm, Actions perhaps worth a Video of their own on the Channel.
I was not expecting to see my country mentioned in a comment section about an upcoming British MBT. I'm glad to hear our military achieved some success during the invasion. Most of what I heard involved our airforce which supposedly managed, at least initially, to shoot down about 10 Iraqi fighters for every Kuwaiti one shot down [I imagine that some of this might be remnants of romanticised propaganda to keep the resistance morale up following the fall of the Kuwaiti government and military and leading up to the liberation.] The surviving pilots on the Kuwaiti side reportedly also returned to combat during Desert Storm but were quickly removed from active combat after they reportedly refused to follow orders to disengage when the Iraqi military retreated.
The Chieftain actually has a superb battle record. Not really reported. The main advantage: a long-range accurate gun that can knock out almost anything at 2 miles and very effective armour.
Whatever happened to all the armoured regiments? I can remember BAOR fielding hundreds of AFVs during the seventies - too many cuts and now , we’ve nothing to speak of , trying to play catch up. It’s not going to cut the mustard , that psycho in the Kremlin has got the jump on us all -- too much talk and bullshit is not going to stop him -- we need to rapidly increase our armoured forces ,not spend wasted money on proclaiming how good they could be in the future-- the Russian bear understands only strength - we must be prepared to stand up to him .
@@idanceforpennies281 eh it doesnt. The chieftain has a very poor battle record. 35-40% failure rate of engine and drivetrain under regular conditions. In the Iran-Irak War, Iran lost 600 of its 900 Chieftains in combat vs iraki T-55, T-62, Gazelle and Mi24´s. The average casualty numbers of MBT´s were 3 Chieftains for 1 T-55 or T-62. During the battle of the bridges, the kuwaiti 35th armored brigade (2 44 strong Chieftain Bataillons, 1 Mech Infantry Bataillon and an Artillery Bataillon) could muster 36 of 88 Chieftains, due to mechanical failures on the barracks grounds and on the short road march. They barely managed to destroy 30 AFV´s, of wich 90% were BMP´s etc. After that, they fell back and vacated Kuwait with 21 Chieftains. Kuwait owned pre invasion 136 Chieftains, after the invasion and recapture, they owned 21, wich got replaced with M-84´s (T-72M Export Models with a few upgrades, wich were better than chieftains) The atrocious performence of Chieftain in the Iran-Irak War and Invasion of Kuwait was the primary reason why the UK tank industry was in its last death throes in the late 90´s, due to lack of export customers for close to 20 years and died in the early 2000´s after the final Challenger 2´s were delivered. They closed their doors in 2008 for good. (The UK didnt export anythign of relevance between 1980 and 2008, except the 400 second hand Challenger 1´s to Jordan, that bascly immediately got mothballed by jordan, due to this and a severe lack of orders from the UK MOD, Alvis-Vickers closed production and dissolved into BAE, wich didnt continue its legacy)
The envy of pretty much every country, including the USA. Only the Challenger and Abrams took direct hits during the Iraq war and kept rolling. Truly stunning
@@feliscorax The challenger 2 used an upgraded version of chobham called dorchester....who the hell knows what this is going to be using...from this challenger 3 looks like a serious upgrade.
@@stokes8626 I can watch it sure, but is a documentary from 2016 going to tell me that the Russians aren’t losing badly in March of 2022? That’s all we are talking about here, not the historical reasons for the conflict which are probably due to American meddling in foreign affairs.
Interesting, the UK Ministry of Defence have reduced our tank arm numbers to such an extent that it makes us look almost ineffectual no matter how sophisticated the weapons upgrade. Ben Wallace (ex-Army) the defence secretary has made it clear he thinks the day of the tank is over, but critics argue this is a smokescreen to disguise the real aim which are cuts in defence expenditure. (UK)
Exactly, it is Johnson´s government trying to cover up another cut in defence spending, the British army has never been so small in number as under the last 11 years of Tory rule.
Tanks still have their place, they just aren't the dominating factors of warfare anymore (and maybe haven't been for decades, its just not been tested against an equal opponent). Tanks are very effective for shock warfare against enemies who lack the firepower to respond in kind, though vulnerable to helicopter or drone strikes and more modern shoulder launched munitions.
@@calv1nandh0bbes in this its referring to a metric tonne (spelt that way) which is 1000kg but it’s pronounced wrongly in this video as if its a musical “tone”. Several other imperial “Ton” or tons exist Edit but you knew that 😅
Because you’re referring to British tanks, it should be known desert storm is the name of the american operation in kuwait. The british operation was called Granby
The description of the rifled barrell in challenger 2 is too simplistic. Rifling doesn't reduce the power of rounds, it actually increases the power and accuracy of certain types of ammunition, but prevents the tank from using modern smooth bore ammunition
Good overview of the differences between the challenger 2 and 3. Could you make a similair overview between the Challenger 3 and the latest Leopard main battle tank?
A problem with Challenger 2 was the priority of it's gun and protection, which added a lot of weight compared to Leopard. That made it too heavy and underpowered for muddy places, where it would just get stuck and start to sink. The sheer weight made it only 37mph
Looks like something that will do nothing but explode. There's no such thing as armor that can stop something that over matches it with out deflection. That tank has an awful lot of horizontal flat surfaces.
@@AsttoScott Oh my god, are you still stuck in world war 2 with your thinking about armor? If you think tanks today are designed with shells bouncing off of sloped surfaces you should go back all the way to the 1940s with that line of thought Like have you heard about Sabots? A direct hit from another tank would always knock a tank out today. Designs aren’t about driving into danger guns blazing hoping to block everything the enemy throws at you, that’s the dumbest line of thought and it wasn’t even all that applicable for WW2 either. The Gun and the Armor of a tank are one of the less important considerations of a tank, believe it or not. Reliability, Speed, Efficiency, Cost, etc. are what matters. And that’s also irrelevant if the reconnaissance isn’t there.
@@AsttoScott There is no deflection against apfsds. Only at round >80° impact angle the apfsds doesnt dig into the armor anymore but still doesnt bounce. It shatters. Modern composit armor basically grind the incoming dart till its no more while alo beeing able to hold of HEAT by using ceramics or glass. The reason many surfaces are still angled is because angeling the same amount of armor means the projectile needs to dig trough more of the same armor. That always happens when you hit any surface with an angle because then you increase the diameter you have to go trough. Simple
Yes it we'll be like their car's... overly complicated and expensive to fix when thay break down..never get any military equipment made by a country that's that close to Russia geographically..the untire manufacturing must remain in the UK..and who has time to use all that technology in the heat of a fire fight or a ambush...the thing with tank's is KEEP IT SIMPLE , STUPID!!.💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
@Patrick H The Modifikation is made by Rheinmetall BAE Land Systems. Which is a british company in the joint Venture of BAE Systems and Rheinmetall. The gun is one of the few parts actually built in Germany. The Rest will be done in Britain. And Germany now spends 100 Billions to improve the Bundeswehr. So dont worry. We can do this!
As we have seen in Ukraine, tanks are basically metal coffins when not used right. Especially given the fact that all infantry can carry an anti tank weapon, NLAWS, M72 LAW, PANZERFAUST 3s and so many more which can disable them. not to mention the threat of drones. Tanks are an easy target of the battlefield today
@@TheRigby1985 Go on reddit, go to r/combatfootage and see for yourself. over 80 tanks destroyed in a couple of weeks. They are easy pickings from the ground and air.
@@lynx8437 I mostly agree. I'd say it's very situational and not to underestimate the training that chally 2 crews go through. But as stated, training can't save you from certain things
1:25 That’s not at all the problem. Spin increases velocity and accuracy, but works poorly as rounds get thinner and more penetrating. Rifling worked great for the UK because they favoured HESH rounds but as Spall Blankets become more prevalent it behooves them to use Fin stabilised rounds which can be thinner and thus apply more force on impact.
Honestly the war in Ukraine would have me rethinking the value of massed, very-heavy armour that you need to get moving across infrastructure. APS combined with an MRAP-style vehicle with ATGMs integrated with drone sighting to launch over the horizon would be better than any tank tbh.
Don't take Russian use of tanks as their full capability, there is definitely still a place for heavy armour in militaries to fight across difficult ground with the armour to shrug off artillery and light AT fire (Something your proposal could never do). All we have learnt is you need proper logistic and infantry support, something that Russia has apparently completely forgotten.
The problem is - and getting past using the Russians as an example of good use of armour (Ukraine is like France 1940 except at least the Germans took most if not all of their targets when expected if not quicker) - it''s all swings and balances. Let's say one nation pulls this switch. They liquidate all their heavy armour and go for light manoeuvrable vehicles with heavy AT weapons. Now the opponent, in theory at least, can make the switch themselves to light AT. Suddenly your opponent has a lot more capability to deal with your forces than before, because instead of arming every platoon with a heavy AT team to deal with your tanks, they can arm every fireteam in the platoon with light AT instead. So now what do you do? Well, you start investing in armour again so that the enemy needs specialist units to deal with the threat. And around goes the merry-go-round. At the end of the day, what you're describing is essentially just your typical HAT team. In NATO's case this is something like a Javelin team with transport. Of course they have no APS but they don't need one - who in their right mind fires an ATGM at 2 infantrymen and a quadbike?
Tanks don't operate in a vacuum. Russia just screwed it up, didn't manage air superiority like it needed to, thereby allowing more defenders to organize. If tanks are used properly, with other forces, still very powerful
@@TopHatHat it’s amazing how poorly they’ve handled parts of that invasion. There’s clearly two levels going on. The more elite well trained forces getting certain things done and the apparently completely lost conscripts.
Drones of this type will not remain effective for long...I can't believe the Russians haven't figured out how to jam them yet, or got an air defence system that's able to engage them...You can bet your life NATO and countries like Israel will be reexamining their own anti drone capabilities following events in the Ukraine....
Okay..New gun and engine is cool.. I was worried about it because MOD said it will be designed to fight asymetric war...sooo mainly peacekeeping ops and fighting old russian tanks like T54 totally forgeting about its capability to fight against tanks on the same tech level... Same thing they did with CR1 and 2.. They are really good at taking hits by RPGs or old tanks but they are no match to modern tanks. BUT the most important question.Does it have the most important feature...the boiling vessel? :D
Plenty of T-72's, 80's and 90's smoldering in the Ukraine right now not many if any T-14's so i don't think they'd have to worry about modern MBT's for the moment.
All modern British tanks have boiling vessels, I believe they added them in in the Centurion Mk 1 but I could be wrong. After all, the only reason the Challenger 2 has the longest range tank kill is because the crew had afew cups of tea before hand!
This Tank for me can just sit back at great range with its state of the art automatic target detection and tracking system. and work the line with greater velocity to destroy oncoming targets, even before they see it , even better at night ! with its long-range thermal imaging cameras.
Little question about changing the Gun which was planed for the Challenger 3 upgrade...from planed Rheinmetall newest L51/L52 130mm (with autoloader) to the "Leopard 2A7V" Gun (also from Rheinmetall) L55A1?? Sure.. the L55A1 is the best 120mm gun in the world at the moment but the german 130mm is already developed and ready for use... this L51/L52 bring 50% more Power. There is since 1-2 years a Demonstrator (german new turret with the new 130mm) on a Challenger 2 Base. Why UK dont use this superior new model as first country??? By the way.. the new Rheinmetall MBT KF51 Panther use also this new 130mm!! I think, that all MBT in next 5-10 will use bigger caliber than 120mm.
Rheinmetall have a 135 mm MBT gun in development , but I am guessing that everything has to fit within the limits of the Challenger platform seeing that this upgrade over a complete new platform. the Rheinmetall gun is proven platform fitted to many western tanks and from the Nato point of operational use means all ammunitions can be shared between the Nato nations MTB forces . Still this is a better option than nothing in the short term .
Too nice video about British Challengers-3 video clearly explained all its superier characteristics which obtained & gathering most powerful specific characteristics of ( Abrams, leopard, Challenger 2 ).....it's Great British project for nearly future ...thanks ( Engeneering Tech) channel for sharing this video
As good as Rheinmetall is at making tank or retrofitting older tanks, I have a sneaking suspicion that we might need them a bit sooner than 2027! Challenger 2 I think for the current crisis if Nato does commit.
@@TheDrAstrov I don't understand your line of questioning. "Will I hide in tanks from Radiation?" Me personally, no. But Tanks crews, almost certainly yes. As to where a first strike would happen, well, everywhere, thats the whole point, not just the UK. ALL targets deemed a threat to Russia would be hit. Lets not forget the rest of nato currently has its nukes pointed at Russia too. There are no winners in a Nuclear war, only loosers.
Ridiculous that 50 yrs ago everyone bought their main gun off Britain (L7 105 mm world class ) and yet now everyone buys their gun off the Germans (rhinemetal)…
Looks like a good upgrade but not sure tanks are the way forward. I know the Russian tanks aren’t up to much and generally lighter but they are getting mullered by shoulder launched systems that are more mobile, can be quicker and way cheaper. Think about it, what would Ukraine forces rather have right now, a few tanks or a boat load of Javelin’s?
the thing is Tanks are at their most vulnerable when fighting in urban environments. Tanks used is western battle doctrine are mainly used to finish a fight and scatter the enemies as a moral breaker. Their value on the battlefield these days is more of the psychological effect they bring to a fight rather than what they can do practically, the weapons systems in place are just so they have combat capability if they need it but the reality is that's not why they're deployed.
This isn't a new tank in anything but name btw. It's essentially a Challenger 2A5 at most, but they've not even given key upgrades like, finally getting a new Hull for the Challenger, or getting a higher calibre gun like most other nations are, and so on. And they haven't even selected the best turret upgrade package either. Just another dumb choice as per usual.
It will take a long time before higher caliber gun equipped tanks will enter service. Currently only few are working towards such guns, the MGCS and maybe T-14 Armata probably being the earliest candidates. As for now, the L55A1 is perfectly suitable as it will be able to fire future 120mm APFSDS rounds and its probably the most capable 120mm tank gun in the world.
Challenger doesn't need a null hull since the Hull is much better than the 2a5 granted the 2a5 has a better gun but armour on the challenger is way better than 2a5 2a5 trades armour for speed and mobility
@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach tbh driver port is a weak spot for most tanks these days including the 2a5 Hull armour wise it isn't as strong on the upper Hull the 2a5 wouldn't bounce any kinetic rounds these days either whereas a shot on a challys upper Hull has a high chance of absorbing it even if it doesn't deflect
Not really, the fsds rounds don't need rifling as they are fin stabilized. In a rifled gun they need added bearings so the round doesn't spin in the barrel, slowing the round down and decreasing its range and accuracy. Just British press hyping up our tank. If anything the challenger 3 needs a 130mm gun with a auto loader to keep up with other tanks
@Matt Kerr Surely not the same type of autoloader that we can see cooking off tanks and crews in Ukraine just now ? Afterall the abrams now the most successful tank in the last 30 yrs does not use autoloaders either Some attempts at technological advances are actually trips down the wrong and highlighted in Ukraine dangerous paths
@@geraldgallagher825 it's the way the Russians place their ammunition. It's around the bottom of the turret. Ammo gets hit and boom, turret blown off. The Abrams has a separate compartment for the ammunition and blow off plates in case of a detonation. And with the bigger round comes weight, the crew can't be expected to move such mass quickly and for a long time.
@Matt Kerr So many are cooking off after even the slightest hit Looks like Iraq all over again Abrams kill rate 171/1 Outwardly it looks like the much vaunted Russian armour has some serious flaws and years of catching up to do Going by this recent conflict and the hype beforehand can we seriously believe the latest generation is it Armata is going to be any better? And if it is will they have the fuel to run them ?
As what many have commented on the Media and various Defence analysts etc. continue to highlight Challenger 2s failings, and yet it’s combat record is impeccable in terms it’s protection and firepower with no crew lost to the enemy, my point exactly. Yes it’s digitisation and networking my not have kept pace with Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc, but will still probably provide far superior overmatch when engaging anything that Putins forces are fielding at the moment! Even Abrams had hulls knocked out during the wars in Iraq, albeit with no crew losses as far as I am aware!
I'm with you...if it ain't broke don't fix it , and having our military equipment made by a country that geographically close to Russia is just stupid...the tanks must be made in Britain with British components it's the only way to keep the manufacturing going during war time!!.💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
Hey now you actually get the good old german l55 smoothbore. Always thought the biggest disadvantage of the challenger was its rifled gun. Glad to see our nato allies get upgrades and be more efficient, we need to stand together
Trophy system and bar armour spaced above can defeat top down tandem HEAT explosives. With blow out armour as well, they are as likely to survive against that as any other AT munitions. Emphasis on AT
Yon mentioned one of the differences between the Chieftain and the Challenger was the engine, private collectors comments go something like "they took out the best engine ever fitted in a tank and fitted the worst engine ever fitted in a tank"
they should build way more way faster but i will give the challenger credit on one front over the m1 Abrams, that ability where it did take 70 rockets and survive where as the m1 has been disabled and knocked out by 1 or 2 in combat multiple times
The new gun isn't actually any longer than the current gun, they are both 55-calibre. I think you meant longer than the older L44 smoothbore used by earlier the lepard 2's.
The Leopard 2 are using the L55 currently. There is no Leopard with L44 anymore in Germany. But there are some still out there, some older models using L44
@@cvdheyden I'm pretty sure only the Leopard 2a6 uses the L55 and below that they all use the L44. Then the L55a1 is only used on the Leopard 2a7 and Challenger 3.
The 17 pounder was a British anti tank gun used in Africa before the USA turned up, later it was fitted to Shermans to reduce the incidence of them being called Tommy cookers as they did brew up rather easily.
Apologies if I heard you wrongly but, the Challenger 2 already fires a SABOT round. Having served in the RTR for over 2 decades, it is the most proven MBT in real world combat. With the starting then stopping then starting again of the Black Night upgrade programme, I am all for anything that increases crew survivability and having TAPS sounds great, but there are already weapons in development that bypasses that system. In the end we will just have to wait and see.
@@carsono311 Other than??? My point was that no Chally 2 has ever been destroyed by enemy fire. Over 70 RPG rounds into 1 tank and it was up and operational within 7 days. The only time a Challenger has suffered very severe damage was during a nighttime engagement and was hit by another Chally. During both Desert Shield and Desert Storm the Americans lost around 9-12 M1 MBT's.
@@LetsSWITCHGames Okay, so most proven in the context of survivability. Sure, I will agree with you. Interesting that you mention friendly fire though, as that accounted for most of the loses during Desert Storm...
Rifled Barrels reduce Effective Range? Yet the Challenger 1 holds the Record for the Longest Range, Tank on Tank Kill in History and the C2 has a Better Gun and Aiming System than that.
I curious of how vulnerable these new tank optics/periscopes are to rifle rounds. Does .50 BMG AP/HE bullet to those optics/periscope glasses take the tank out of fight. Normal armored glass can stop .50 BMG bullet, but the bullet damages normal armored glass making grapefruit/football size area complete opaque. Tranparent aluminium takes the hit better, but that is insanely expensive and still HE bullet most likely would crater and cinch orange/grapefruid size area obstruction aiming a lot. Or molotov, or even just glass-bottle filled with paint thrown to the optics.
This is why tanks must be used correctly in combat to mitigate these weaknesses. Most of the situations you raise are usually found in urban warfare so having an effective infantry is vital to avoid easy urban tank kills.
This is amazing technology from the English. You could use it to defend your cities against foreign hordes. Oh, wait, you already lost your cities to foreign hordes. At least you can use them to defend the foreign hordes against the English who might actually resist their own ruin one day.
The proof pressure of the existing rifled L30 Barrel is around 38.5 Tonnes per Square Inch, seems unlikely to me the new Smooth Bore Gun runs at a higher pressure
Thank God that the U.S , NATO, and Israel have such superb MBTs. Thousands of pure quality, manned by excellent crews. This latest V will be a good addition to the 'Family'.
Soon we shall have a challenger 4 Hopefully it shall have a module for 4 special forces soldiers on the tank. This would give the tank infantry support without the APC boxer warrior APC support vehicle infantry. This means the tank can go up to the front line and beyond with built in infantry support.
I'll just go and pick some dosh off the money tree, then wave my magic wand to create all the industrial capacity to do so. Oh, then recruit and train the necessary manpower to operate them, not forgetting all the support troops, logistics and additional armoured infantry to protect them in close country, or in built-up areas. Which brings us back to Warrior and AJAX ...
1:00 thats a cromwell not a 17 Pdr challenger 1:25 Rifled guns are not inferior to Smoothbore. The require more regular replacement, but offer the advantage of greater effect and accuracy of HESH and Smoke ammunition. At time of adoption it was also believed to have better accuracy, but this was revealed to be moot. Britain is swapping to Smoothbore because it's cheaper to buy modern advanced NATO ammunition than develop their own unique modern ammunition for their gun. 3:18 You used an image of chally 1 instead of 3 History section at the end is pretty good though
They are totally inferior. Hesh and Smoke rounds are total nonsense on the battlefield of today because HEAT-MP can basically due the same but better. You know why everybody uses Smoothbore guns? because they are cheaper, as you said and are better in any regard with modern ammo types. Rifled guns are a relict of old times...
@@karlheerwagen2972 HEAT-MP is not quite as good, but it is good enough to make the advantages of HESH not really viable. A gun that is more expensive to use but otherwise comparable isn't 'totally inferior and a relict of old times'. You probably will want to replace it, but its hardly obsolete
Fantastic. Now all we need is about 500 of them tomorrow, as I suspect 2027 may be a tad late.
Lol
Looking at the performance of the Russian tanks so far, we would be alright with a couple of chieftains.
@@AdhocHoopla it makes me wonder what would have happened if they’d decided to invade BAOR back in the day.
Looking at their performance now, when they have apparently modernised, I think they’d have been left nothing more than a smouldering line of dead all the way back to Moscow.
🤔
Why tomorrow?
Hilarious - you can tell its a US video "the most lethal tank in Europe" , can you imagine the British Army saying we don't want it to be better then anywhere outside Europe we only want to be best in Europe lol lol
than*. Basic English.
Chally 2 is better than the US Abrams as well I’ll add that in even if the video didn’t 😂
Hahahaha, I was just thinking the same. Typical!
@@alexwood724 us abrahams is overrated and really is a sub par tank challenger 111 is definitely better
The fact that the challenger 1 still has the longest kill tells you everything.
The one thing that I do admire about the Challenger tank especially the Challenger 2 is during the Invasion of Iraq they lost 0 tanks. They got hit by everything and it still ran because of the second generation Dorchester/Chohbam armor. It just a very well protected tank that did it's job. When you can lose 0 tanks especially after getting hit by anti tank missiles you got great armor to protect your crew.
Yet the Americans lost a lot of tanks while claiming they’re the best military in the world which I find hilarious
@@YorkshireMemes "Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire and two intentionally destroyed to prevent capture by the Iraqi Army"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#:~:text=Of%20the%20nine%20Abrams%20tanks,2%2C500%20metres%20(8%2C200%20ft).
Weird how we are better at killing our own tanks then the enemy is ours. Challenger tank was also knocked out by their own, it was a HESH.
@@Dwagonier all that proves is Americans can’t fight for shit (that’s true, they can’t fight without the English and British helping them). Alps your comment doesn’t exactly disprove my original comment
@@Dwagonier Only because it went through an open hatch.
@@michaelcraig8860 i know. That was pretty wide spread. Not like a closed hatch with like 20mm RHA would stop it too
I really hope that the new security situation in Europe pushes the government into rethinking the value of armour, and they expand our numbers of tanks, even stockpiled and maintained so they can relatively rapidly expand active units as needed in the future. Cant help but look at situations like Ukraine and think the UK has been a little complacent with armour numbers and air defence systems outside of fighter aircraft.
No point, nato Is large enough with bases all over the world. They can already stop russian and China if they wanted to.
@@Licmebro the UK has about 200 main battle tanks, and is getting just over 100 challenger 3s. If Russia is now our main threat, we need to re-arm with tanks. You say this like the UK isnt a part of that NATO army, a huge part of the European part of it infact. We need more tanks.
@@Licmebro Nope
As an arrogant nuclear power there comes a point were it would be more economical to just deploy a nuke. The UK has plenty of firepower for those fights without nuclear weapons. Against someone like Russia, well first you've got nato but then it would escalate to a point the UK would just use a nuke if it felt threatened enough so there's really no point in having 1000 tanks etc. A war with Russia wouldn't be won or lost on the battle ground, it would be nuclear
Because of budget and political reasons, all branches of the British military have had to adopt a quality over quantity mentality. Thats why there are only sub-200 MBTs in the British army. And at this current time the actual problem isn’t tank numbers, its actually the fact that the army doesn’t have enough men to crew them, and right now it’s a priority role to fill for recruitment.
Ironic how the challenger 1s rifled barrel also holds the record for longest confirmed tank on tank kill........The loss of rifled barrel is mainly about opening up options for ammunition. You can't use certain ammo types in a rifled barrel.
Well, you *can* but it's harder. APFSDS rounds for rifled guns use spinners to isolate the dart. The British Army sure did love HESH, though, which needed a rifled barrel. The new smart rounds for smoothbores are finally good enough to persuade them to change
@@talltroll7092 the rifled barrel is the main reason we aren't using APFSDS, using APDS instead
@@seansamurai1981 of course you do! For example L27A1.
The problem is that Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun is the most common gun on the market, Even the US uses it. Some like Israel and South Korean make it under license
Very few actual make their own
As such, it has a lot of options
@@verdebusterAP you are incorrect. US uses M256 which is a modified variant of Rheinmetall L44, yet not the same and especially the gun installed in Challenger 3 as the latter is equipped with L55A1. Israeli MG251 and MG253 are based on L44 but are neither copies of the german gun nor are these produced under license. South Korean K2 tank is equipped with the indegeniously developed CN08 120mm L/55 gun, while K1A2 tanks are equipped with indegeniously developed CN03 120mm L/44 gun and K1A1 with KM256, which is a license produced version of M256. Yet, KM256 is most likely out of production.
And apart from that - what problem are you talking about?
This vid criticises the Challenger II gun and armour, whilst being forced to acknowledge its superb accuracy and survivability (because of, you know, facts). Now, the upgrades look pretty good - so long as we aren't losing what was best about Challenger II in the process (which, to be fair, it doesn't appear we are). This vid is happy to criticise the old, whilst glomming over the new without any real analysis. Shallow.
Yeah, I notices the long dis of rifled barrels and the very short acknowledgement of longest tank kill. Like to two things are completely unrelated.
@@mattmcc72 I dont think Sabots need rifled barrels anyway? Theyre fin stabilized, after all.
The only reason for the rifled barrel is because of the present use of HESH, I think
Rifled barrels are more accurate APFSDS rounds don’t need a rifled barrel it’s just more accurate with a rifled barrel this applies to HESH the main difference between the 2 rounds is how they are fired HESH gets used more like an artillery round so it’s more lobbed than fired.
@@forbiddenexceed8295 Yes, rifled barrels now seem kind of old hat an unnecessary.
We have new, modern and advanced rounds that either don't need them, or cant work with them.
But the problem with new, modern and advanced, is the extra words that need to be tagged on. Expensive and slow to make. So they available in limited numbers and replacements aren't going to arrive very fast should we run out of them.
Should that happen, cheap, fast to make, but still accurate, dumb spinning lumps of steel and explosives may come in really handy.
The old version still holds the record for the longest tank kill
But lets remove rifling from the barrel for sure right? XD
@@jamescpalmer The rifled barrel was kept bc of budget constraints, not bc it's the better gun.
Rifling can mess with modern fin stabilized ammunition like APFSDS, is redundant bc the ammo is already stabilized by the fins, and requires more
maintenance than smooth bore guns in tanks like Leopard 2, Abrams, Leclerc, Ariete, Merkava, and basically every modern tank.
Challenger 1 and 2 are good tanks- their armor in particular offers exceptional protection- but like any other tank they're not perfect and have flaws.
If the rifled gun was better than smooth bore, they would keep it for the Challenger 3 and it would have been the NATO standard.
We are talking about hundreds of millions worth of R&D by some of the best specialists in the field with decades of combat experience to draw from.
I think they know what they're doing...
That record will fall eventually.
@@markhammar3977 Of course , all records do 🤦♂️
@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 the javelin throw record will never be beaten, there are more if you look?
Important things aside, Ive always thought the challenger tanks looked the best!
It really is a powerful looking tank. Our cousins across the pond have a winner here and I'm VERY relieved that instead of getting rid of its armor, the British are REALLY upgrading it. Well done UK.
Greetings from North Carolina btw... Rule Britannia
Oooooooh Yeeeeeeeah !
It always frustrates and annoys me when they always say the Abrams is the best in the world.
Challenger holds the record for longest kill.
It also has seen action and had the most hits from anti tank and not lost a single tank or crew member (one driver injured) yet all claims are the Abrams and Leopard are better?
Am I missing something or do all the facts point to the challenger being the best MBT!
Challenger 3 and leopard 2a7+ are the best for sure. Abrams are expensive and crappy specs. Should be more cooperation with the Europeans, learn from eachother....
When I was visiting England in 2009, at an event in Kent, I met the crew of a Challenger 1 which was privately owned! This video is the first I had heard Rheinmetall had joined with BAE Systems. I have heard the Chobham armour technology is still secret! Regardless of how effective the armour of any AFV is, the track is still vulnerable with a shoulder mounted RPG still able to carry out a mobility kill of an MBT by disabling the track. Once the tank is immobilised, a molotov cocktail on the engine deck is still a low technology way of carrying out a gun kill (crew have to bail out - guns no longer effective). Though, it would take a fanatic gutsy enemy to get that close to a tank who usually have infantry with it. Cos of RPGs and molotovs, all AFVs including MBTs are still very vulnerable in urban warfare. At Eurosatory (Defense Expo) at Le Borget Paris in 1998, I saw a demo of a fire suppression system by Kidde which had the fire out in less than one second. I wonder if AFVs now have such systems. Retired Aussie Armoured Corps soldier here.
Anti tank weapons have moved on a lot since even a decade ago. Even NLAWS are designed to knock out any MBT
You’ve got a picture of a Cromwell instead of a Challenger as your first Challenger. Challenger had the 17lb er they fitted onto the firefly, but had to build a very boxy shed like turret to house it
Or has he is it a comet?
This video is pretty sloppily written and put together tbh. Got some good ideas and animation assets but there's image, spelling and script errors all through it.
@@dynamo1796 totally agree
@@tonyrichard2705 Its not a comet, you can distinguish the two immediately due to length and turret shape, that is literally just a Cromwell
This video is sorta a joke. It has 'Tones' instead of Tonnes, it has a standard Cromwell instead of Challenger and is just poorly written in general.
The rifled barrel was required on the C2 for HESH ordnance. And the C2 didn't have 'Chobham' armour,, it has 'Dorchester' armour.
"And the C2 didn't have 'Chobham' armour,, it has 'Dorchester' armour."
Different names for the same thing.
Dorchester is gen 2 chobham Armour if I'm not mistaken?
Rheinmetall provided a solution to fire the beloved HESHs from the smooth 120 mm.
its the same thing
Potato Tomato
Challenger 3 is badass! It will serve the British Army well in the United Kingdom! Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 did! 🇬🇧
Challenger 9000 will be badass
the challenger 3 owes its superiority to the germans. thanks to the German 120mm smoothbore gun, it will be able to break through the T 90s and T 14s head-on. the old standard engine from the challenger 2 is to be replaced by a German 1500hp engine which is supposed to bring the challenger 3 up to 100 km/h. the tower was redesigned and completed by the germans. a large part of the electronics is also German. The Challenger 3 project was completed in cooperation with Germany, since the British tank industry was technically behind and had to catch up. so it is written.
Thats what happens when rheinmetall, KMW havin a threesome with british bae systems lol. The guys who founded the tank and the guys who figured out how to use tanks. In my opinion the best tankcooperation ever done.
@@Future183 shit ,,,
@@andrewmcateer5406 Rheinmetall AG is a German automotive and arms manufacturer. So, not BS.
@@andrewmcateer5406 on the challenger 3 u can see what the germans are able to do technically. If they wanted they could produce a tank wich would be better than the t 14 aramata or k2 black panther.
Didn't know tones were a measure of weight, I've heard of tonnes though lol
Ton is imperial, tonne metric
@@stompcity4085 Ok, so what about tone?
🤣🤣🤣... it's the musical variation
@@stompcity4085 They say and show "tones" in the video.
@@C_Becker The voice is clearly text-to-voice. So: wrong text, wrong speech. Irrtum → Irrtum. _edit_ Irrtum :D
Should also mention that the Kuwaiti Chieftains were very Successful at the Battle of the Bridges, Decimating the Iraqi Republican Guard Armour and successfully Withdrawing to Saudi Arabia after they ran out of Ammo. Pretty much the only Kuwaiti Success during the 1990 Invasion and the same Unit also played a significant part during Desert Storm, Actions perhaps worth a Video of their own on the Channel.
Amazing! Didn't know that. So the Chieftain actually saw combat.
I was not expecting to see my country mentioned in a comment section about an upcoming British MBT. I'm glad to hear our military achieved some success during the invasion. Most of what I heard involved our airforce which supposedly managed, at least initially, to shoot down about 10 Iraqi fighters for every Kuwaiti one shot down [I imagine that some of this might be remnants of romanticised propaganda to keep the resistance morale up following the fall of the Kuwaiti government and military and leading up to the liberation.] The surviving pilots on the Kuwaiti side reportedly also returned to combat during Desert Storm but were quickly removed from active combat after they reportedly refused to follow orders to disengage when the Iraqi military retreated.
The Chieftain actually has a superb battle record. Not really reported. The main advantage: a long-range accurate gun that can knock out almost anything at 2 miles and very effective armour.
Whatever happened to all the armoured regiments? I can remember BAOR fielding hundreds of AFVs during the seventies - too many cuts and now , we’ve nothing to speak of , trying to play catch up. It’s not going to cut the mustard , that psycho in the Kremlin has got the jump on us all -- too much talk and bullshit is not going to stop him -- we need to rapidly increase our armoured forces ,not spend wasted money on proclaiming how good they could be in the future-- the Russian bear understands only strength - we must be prepared to stand up to him .
@@idanceforpennies281 eh it doesnt.
The chieftain has a very poor battle record.
35-40% failure rate of engine and drivetrain under regular conditions.
In the Iran-Irak War, Iran lost 600 of its 900 Chieftains in combat vs iraki T-55, T-62, Gazelle and Mi24´s.
The average casualty numbers of MBT´s were 3 Chieftains for 1 T-55 or T-62.
During the battle of the bridges, the kuwaiti 35th armored brigade (2 44 strong Chieftain Bataillons, 1 Mech Infantry Bataillon and an Artillery Bataillon) could muster 36 of 88 Chieftains, due to mechanical failures on the barracks grounds and on the short road march.
They barely managed to destroy 30 AFV´s, of wich 90% were BMP´s etc.
After that, they fell back and vacated Kuwait with 21 Chieftains.
Kuwait owned pre invasion 136 Chieftains, after the invasion and recapture, they owned 21, wich got replaced with M-84´s (T-72M Export Models with a few upgrades, wich were better than chieftains)
The atrocious performence of Chieftain in the Iran-Irak War and Invasion of Kuwait was the primary reason why the UK tank industry was in its last death throes in the late 90´s, due to lack of export customers for close to 20 years and died in the early 2000´s after the final Challenger 2´s were delivered. They closed their doors in 2008 for good.
(The UK didnt export anythign of relevance between 1980 and 2008, except the 400 second hand Challenger 1´s to Jordan, that bascly immediately got mothballed by jordan, due to this and a severe lack of orders from the UK MOD, Alvis-Vickers closed production and dissolved into BAE, wich didnt continue its legacy)
You forgot the MOST IMPORTANT piece of equipment. - The Tea brewing device.
The envy of pretty much every country, including the USA. Only the Challenger and Abrams took direct hits during the Iraq war and kept rolling. Truly stunning
The Abrams also uses Chobham armour, but what seems to separate them is that the Chally has a superior track-and-fire system. Both great MBTs, though.
@@feliscorax The challenger 2 used an upgraded version of chobham called dorchester....who the hell knows what this is going to be using...from this challenger 3 looks like a serious upgrade.
@@omegacentauri73 M1A2 tanks
In Yemen were export versions that didn’t even have the Abrams actual armor.
@@brycewalker3726Modern ATGMS still kill the Abrams tho. At least those without trophy
@@omegacentauri73 They aren't exported with the reactive armour as it's usually considered secret tech. They won't perform the same.
we have them on the ranges at Castlemartin , you can hear them firing quite plainly and we are 20 miles away ! Love the Chally !
The additional good news is Russian armor appears to be mostly outdated junk. It’s great to see the Ukrainians giving them more than they can handle.
@@stokes8626 Oh Vladimir, please don’t tell me that you believe Provda do you…?
@@stokes8626 I can watch it sure, but is a documentary from 2016 going to tell me that the Russians aren’t losing badly in March of 2022? That’s all we are talking about here, not the historical reasons for the conflict which are probably due to American meddling in foreign affairs.
Interesting, the UK Ministry of Defence have reduced our tank arm numbers to such an extent that it makes us look almost ineffectual no matter how sophisticated the weapons upgrade. Ben Wallace (ex-Army) the defence secretary has made it clear he thinks the day of the tank is over, but critics argue this is a smokescreen to disguise the real aim which are cuts in defence expenditure. (UK)
Exactly, it is Johnson´s government trying to cover up another cut in defence spending, the British army has never been so small in number as under the last 11 years of Tory rule.
Totally agree. In just two weeks, Russia has already lost more tanks in Ukraine than the UK plans to acquire.
Johnson getting the big calls wrong yet again
In the age of airpower and drones I think both points of view can be true.
Tanks still have their place, they just aren't the dominating factors of warfare anymore (and maybe haven't been for decades, its just not been tested against an equal opponent). Tanks are very effective for shock warfare against enemies who lack the firepower to respond in kind, though vulnerable to helicopter or drone strikes and more modern shoulder launched munitions.
The active protection system adds an extra ton!
1 ton vs dead crew? Small price to pay.
No an whole extra tone 😅😂
@@jons6125 how much does a Tone weigh I wonder, I’ve met several different sized Tone’s so I’m unsure which was the standard
@@calv1nandh0bbes in this its referring to a metric tonne (spelt that way) which is 1000kg but it’s pronounced wrongly in this video as if its a musical “tone”. Several other imperial “Ton” or tons exist
Edit but you knew that 😅
@@jons6125 Tanks are rated on the engine tone these days, didn't you know?
It’s tonnes not tones. Also when you do graphics can you make the dashed line actually go to show the item you mention? They were all over the place.
Because you’re referring to British tanks, it should be known desert storm is the name of the american operation in kuwait. The british operation was called Granby
And Op Telic instead of Iraqi Freedom
As long as they still keep the inside kettle for our tea, all's good! But, If they added a mini-fridge, then it would be the best Tank ever!
The description of the rifled barrell in challenger 2 is too simplistic. Rifling doesn't reduce the power of rounds, it actually increases the power and accuracy of certain types of ammunition, but prevents the tank from using modern smooth bore ammunition
A smooth bore can fire higher velocity rounds and also smooth bore gun has longer fin rounds !
Yes I'd like to see the full battle armoured Austin Allegro 1100 HL in action please👍
Never mind the fire power...can you still make a pot of tea inside? If it doesn't have tea making facilities then it will rejected....
But did they upgrade the tea making facilities?
Most beautiful British tank
70 hits from rocket propelled grenades? I bet the crew had a headache.
Good overview of the differences between the challenger 2 and 3. Could you make a similair overview between the Challenger 3 and the latest Leopard main battle tank?
A problem with Challenger 2 was the priority of it's gun and protection, which added a lot of weight compared to Leopard. That made it too heavy and underpowered for muddy places, where it would just get stuck and start to sink. The sheer weight made it only 37mph
Finally. About time we got a next gen kettle.
8:04 it made it back but the driver did lose a foot in the second incident 😐 that area has since been strengthened (of the tank not his foot 🦶)
🤣
Was a foot or a toe ? I heard lost a toe.
@@MrGrim2u1987 3 toes and part of his foot apparently. Not from a TOW ATGM which would have been epic.
British and German engineers work together to make this great tank! congrats to this inteligent project.
Looks like something that will do nothing but explode. There's no such thing as armor that can stop something that over matches it with out deflection. That tank has an awful lot of horizontal flat surfaces.
@@AsttoScott We fear nothing, except the sky falling on our heads. (Asterix / Obelix the Gallier)
@@AsttoScott Oh my god, are you still stuck in world war 2 with your thinking about armor? If you think tanks today are designed with shells bouncing off of sloped surfaces you should go back all the way to the 1940s with that line of thought
Like have you heard about Sabots? A direct hit from another tank would always knock a tank out today. Designs aren’t about driving into danger guns blazing hoping to block everything the enemy throws at you, that’s the dumbest line of thought and it wasn’t even all that applicable for WW2 either.
The Gun and the Armor of a tank are one of the less important considerations of a tank, believe it or not. Reliability, Speed, Efficiency, Cost, etc. are what matters. And that’s also irrelevant if the reconnaissance isn’t there.
@@AsttoScott There is no deflection against apfsds. Only at round >80° impact angle the apfsds doesnt dig into the armor anymore but still doesnt bounce. It shatters. Modern composit armor basically grind the incoming dart till its no more while alo beeing able to hold of HEAT by using ceramics or glass.
The reason many surfaces are still angled is because angeling the same amount of armor means the projectile needs to dig trough more of the same armor. That always happens when you hit any surface with an angle because then you increase the diameter you have to go trough. Simple
Yes it we'll be like their car's... overly complicated and expensive to fix when thay break down..never get any military equipment made by a country that's that close to Russia geographically..the untire manufacturing must remain in the UK..and who has time to use all that technology in the heat of a fire fight or a ambush...the thing with tank's is KEEP IT SIMPLE , STUPID!!.💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
A British-German tank...
What's next? Flying cars? Space tourism? An alien invasion? Time travelers?
Why not? British invented the tank, german figured out how to use them, good combo in my opinion.
Guess that makes it the top 1 tank now
I remember many voices in the British Army quite in favor of buying Leopards . That would be a twist in history 😂
@@davidrussell8689 why not?
@@davidrussell8689 Yeah I think we still have a couple of V2 on stock.
And hey how about some U-BOATS!!!
Looks very futuristic!
"Germany Builds British Main Battle Tank! "
Shocker....
Apparently just before brexit Germany offered 200+ leopard 2s for nothing, MOD said no as the British public would be outraged.
Britain owns Germany shocker they were never German in the first place
Improves! Challenger 2s will be modified.
The same happens with the army rifles l85
@@mightvedroppedjury5324 explain? 🙏
@Patrick H The Modifikation is made by Rheinmetall BAE Land Systems. Which is a british company in the joint Venture of BAE Systems and Rheinmetall.
The gun is one of the few parts actually built in Germany. The Rest will be done in Britain.
And Germany now spends 100 Billions to improve the Bundeswehr. So dont worry. We can do this!
Rheinmetall is now making the gun of the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard. That's insane.
they always made the best guns, with a few notable exceptions.
As we have seen in Ukraine, tanks are basically metal coffins when not used right. Especially given the fact that all infantry can carry an anti tank weapon, NLAWS, M72 LAW, PANZERFAUST 3s and so many more which can disable them. not to mention the threat of drones. Tanks are an easy target of the battlefield today
Lay off the computer games bro. Tanks are no easy picking!
@@TheRigby1985 Go on reddit, go to r/combatfootage and see for yourself. over 80 tanks destroyed in a couple of weeks. They are easy pickings from the ground and air.
You are not wrong when you say they must be used right but they are not obsolete.
@@BurningSovereign Definitely not obsolete, but aren't as effective in conventional warfare as they used to be
@@lynx8437 I mostly agree. I'd say it's very situational and not to underestimate the training that chally 2 crews go through. But as stated, training can't save you from certain things
you review a lot of things that are interesting. some videos are just horrible in their information that they have. keep up the good work cappie.
Challenger 3 is a Beast and also a Thing of Beauty a Very Welcome to the British Armed Forces.
1:25
That’s not at all the problem. Spin increases velocity and accuracy, but works poorly as rounds get thinner and more penetrating. Rifling worked great for the UK because they favoured HESH rounds but as Spall Blankets become more prevalent it behooves them to use Fin stabilised rounds which can be thinner and thus apply more force on impact.
Honestly the war in Ukraine would have me rethinking the value of massed, very-heavy armour that you need to get moving across infrastructure. APS combined with an MRAP-style vehicle with ATGMs integrated with drone sighting to launch over the horizon would be better than any tank tbh.
Don't take Russian use of tanks as their full capability, there is definitely still a place for heavy armour in militaries to fight across difficult ground with the armour to shrug off artillery and light AT fire (Something your proposal could never do). All we have learnt is you need proper logistic and infantry support, something that Russia has apparently completely forgotten.
The problem is - and getting past using the Russians as an example of good use of armour (Ukraine is like France 1940 except at least the Germans took most if not all of their targets when expected if not quicker) - it''s all swings and balances.
Let's say one nation pulls this switch. They liquidate all their heavy armour and go for light manoeuvrable vehicles with heavy AT weapons. Now the opponent, in theory at least, can make the switch themselves to light AT. Suddenly your opponent has a lot more capability to deal with your forces than before, because instead of arming every platoon with a heavy AT team to deal with your tanks, they can arm every fireteam in the platoon with light AT instead.
So now what do you do? Well, you start investing in armour again so that the enemy needs specialist units to deal with the threat. And around goes the merry-go-round.
At the end of the day, what you're describing is essentially just your typical HAT team. In NATO's case this is something like a Javelin team with transport. Of course they have no APS but they don't need one - who in their right mind fires an ATGM at 2 infantrymen and a quadbike?
Tanks don't operate in a vacuum. Russia just screwed it up, didn't manage air superiority like it needed to, thereby allowing more defenders to organize. If tanks are used properly, with other forces, still very powerful
@@TopHatHat it’s amazing how poorly they’ve handled parts of that invasion. There’s clearly two levels going on. The more elite well trained forces getting certain things done and the apparently completely lost conscripts.
Drones of this type will not remain effective for long...I can't believe the Russians haven't figured out how to jam them yet, or got an air defence system that's able to engage them...You can bet your life NATO and countries like Israel will be reexamining their own anti drone capabilities following events in the Ukraine....
That hex camo looks sick 🤘🔥
Okay..New gun and engine is cool.. I was worried about it because MOD said it will be designed to fight asymetric war...sooo mainly peacekeeping ops and fighting old russian tanks like T54 totally forgeting about its capability to fight against tanks on the same tech level... Same thing they did with CR1 and 2.. They are really good at taking hits by RPGs or old tanks but they are no match to modern tanks.
BUT the most important question.Does it have the most important feature...the boiling vessel? :D
Plenty of T-72's, 80's and 90's smoldering in the Ukraine right now not many if any T-14's so i don't think they'd have to worry about modern MBT's for the moment.
All modern British tanks have boiling vessels, I believe they added them in in the Centurion Mk 1 but I could be wrong. After all, the only reason the Challenger 2 has the longest range tank kill is because the crew had afew cups of tea before hand!
@@cookiecraze1310 Challenger 1 has the longest range tank kill, Iraqi T-55 that was 4.7km away
Perfect, now it truly deserves the name of the challenger!
I just hope with everything that’s going on in Ukraine that the MOD doesn’t regret the decision to get rid of a lot of of our armour and personnel!
@@stokes8626 lets just hope it doesn’t drag the rest of Europe into the war!
You had my attention until you said "tones". Good grief... 🤣
This Tank for me can just sit back at great range with its state of the art automatic target detection and tracking system. and work the line with greater velocity to destroy oncoming targets, even before they see it , even better at night ! with its long-range thermal imaging cameras.
Little question about changing the Gun which was planed for the Challenger 3 upgrade...from planed Rheinmetall newest L51/L52 130mm (with autoloader) to the "Leopard 2A7V" Gun (also from Rheinmetall) L55A1?? Sure.. the L55A1 is the best 120mm gun in the world at the moment but the german 130mm is already developed and ready for use... this L51/L52 bring 50% more Power. There is since 1-2 years a Demonstrator (german new turret with the new 130mm) on a Challenger 2 Base. Why UK dont use this superior new model as first country??? By the way.. the new Rheinmetall MBT KF51 Panther use also this new 130mm!! I think, that all MBT in next 5-10 will use bigger caliber than 120mm.
60 MPH might be a mistake. I think they meant KPH.
it IS a mistake. Even with an upgraded engine it still has the WORST hp/ton ratio of any western MBT.
nice bit of kit as an engineer I would love a look around the telford factory
Rheinmetall have a 135 mm MBT gun in development , but I am guessing that everything has to fit within the limits of the Challenger platform seeing that this upgrade over a complete new platform.
the Rheinmetall gun is proven platform fitted to many western tanks and from the Nato point of operational use means all ammunitions can be shared between the Nato nations MTB forces .
Still this is a better option than nothing in the short term .
The 135 is overkill imo. Not yet needed
A larger gun would increase the weight of the turret , extra weight increases wear of drive train and running gear !
Too nice video about British Challengers-3 video clearly explained all its superier characteristics which obtained & gathering most powerful specific characteristics of ( Abrams, leopard, Challenger 2 ).....it's Great British project for nearly future ...thanks ( Engeneering Tech) channel for sharing this video
As good as Rheinmetall is at making tank or retrofitting older tanks, I have a sneaking suspicion that we might need them a bit sooner than 2027!
Challenger 2 I think for the current crisis if Nato does commit.
will you hide in tanks from radiation? The British Isles, this is the first place where Russian missiles will fly
@@TheDrAstrov I don't understand your line of questioning. "Will I hide in tanks from Radiation?" Me personally, no. But Tanks crews, almost certainly yes. As to where a first strike would happen, well, everywhere, thats the whole point, not just the UK. ALL targets deemed a threat to Russia would be hit. Lets not forget the rest of nato currently has its nukes pointed at Russia too. There are no winners in a Nuclear war, only loosers.
@@justandy333 war with Russia will be without tanks
Although one tank will still be needed for provocation. Let it be the Challenger
@@TheDrAstrov Your not making any sense mate. Ciao
The 17 pdr gun was not the "US 17 pounder gun". It was an entirely British design, Royal Ordnance 17 Pounder QF.
Better speed that timeline for delivery up boys . Vladimir isn’t going to wait that long !!
Russia is using armor and equipment from the cold war... What we already have is more than enough.
Ridiculous that 50 yrs ago everyone bought their main gun off Britain (L7 105 mm world class ) and yet now everyone buys their gun off the Germans (rhinemetal)…
Looks like a good upgrade but not sure tanks are the way forward. I know the Russian tanks aren’t up to much and generally lighter but they are getting mullered by shoulder launched systems that are more mobile, can be quicker and way cheaper. Think about it, what would Ukraine forces rather have right now, a few tanks or a boat load of Javelin’s?
That is the reason for APS, to defeat threats such as Javelin.
so why has Zelenskiy asked for 1% of NATO's main battle tanks, 200 Challenger Mk 1's would do them very well.
the thing is Tanks are at their most vulnerable when fighting in urban environments. Tanks used is western battle doctrine are mainly used to finish a fight and scatter the enemies as a moral breaker. Their value on the battlefield these days is more of the psychological effect they bring to a fight rather than what they can do practically, the weapons systems in place are just so they have combat capability if they need it but the reality is that's not why they're deployed.
3:20 It's actually 2x ADDITIONAL TI back and front, plus the original Periscope TI. 3 in total on CR3
This isn't a new tank in anything but name btw. It's essentially a Challenger 2A5 at most, but they've not even given key upgrades like, finally getting a new Hull for the Challenger, or getting a higher calibre gun like most other nations are, and so on. And they haven't even selected the best turret upgrade package either. Just another dumb choice as per usual.
It will take a long time before higher caliber gun equipped tanks will enter service. Currently only few are working towards such guns, the MGCS and maybe T-14 Armata probably being the earliest candidates.
As for now, the L55A1 is perfectly suitable as it will be able to fire future 120mm APFSDS rounds and its probably the most capable 120mm tank gun in the world.
Challenger doesn't need a null hull since the Hull is much better than the 2a5 granted the 2a5 has a better gun but armour on the challenger is way better than 2a5 2a5 trades armour for speed and mobility
Brexit benefit.
@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach tbh driver port is a weak spot for most tanks these days including the 2a5 Hull armour wise it isn't as strong on the upper Hull the 2a5 wouldn't bounce any kinetic rounds these days either whereas a shot on a challys upper Hull has a high chance of absorbing it even if it doesn't deflect
Does the change to smoothbore mean that the HESH round will no longer be used?
I remember reports of the old Challenger 2 being very successful due to the very fact it did have a riffled barrel and was far more accurate
Not really, the fsds rounds don't need rifling as they are fin stabilized. In a rifled gun they need added bearings so the round doesn't spin in the barrel, slowing the round down and decreasing its range and accuracy. Just British press hyping up our tank. If anything the challenger 3 needs a 130mm gun with a auto loader to keep up with other tanks
@Matt Kerr Surely not the same type of autoloader that we can see cooking off tanks and crews in Ukraine just now ? Afterall the abrams now the most successful tank in the last 30 yrs does not use autoloaders either
Some attempts at technological advances are actually trips down the wrong and highlighted in Ukraine dangerous paths
@@geraldgallagher825 it's the way the Russians place their ammunition. It's around the bottom of the turret. Ammo gets hit and boom, turret blown off. The Abrams has a separate compartment for the ammunition and blow off plates in case of a detonation. And with the bigger round comes weight, the crew can't be expected to move such mass quickly and for a long time.
@Matt Kerr So many are cooking off after even the slightest hit
Looks like Iraq all over again Abrams kill rate 171/1 Outwardly it looks like the much vaunted Russian armour has some serious flaws and years of catching up to do Going by this recent conflict and the hype beforehand can we seriously believe the latest generation is it Armata is going to be any better? And if it is will they have the fuel to run them ?
@@geraldgallagher825 like I said, ammo placement
As what many have commented on the Media and various Defence analysts etc. continue to highlight Challenger 2s failings, and yet it’s combat record is impeccable in terms it’s protection and firepower with no crew lost to the enemy, my point exactly. Yes it’s digitisation and networking my not have kept pace with Abrams, Leopard 2 or Leclerc, but will still probably provide far superior overmatch when engaging anything that Putins forces are fielding at the moment! Even Abrams had hulls knocked out during the wars in Iraq, albeit with no crew losses as far as I am aware!
I'm with you...if it ain't broke don't fix it , and having our military equipment made by a country that geographically close to Russia is just stupid...the tanks must be made in Britain with British components it's the only way to keep the manufacturing going during war time!!.💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
The 17 pounder gun fitted in WW2 was British not US. How many other errors are there in this video?
I think he said UF
Hey now you actually get the good old german l55 smoothbore. Always thought the biggest disadvantage of the challenger was its rifled gun. Glad to see our nato allies get upgrades and be more efficient, we need to stand together
Current events have I think exposed armour vulnerability from a top attack mode Javelin/NLAW strike. Would it also be vulnerable?
Always. Tanks are quickly becoming obsolete
@@multipl3 The APS might make all the difference though. Something that RU tanks have sorely lacked.
Trophy system and bar armour spaced above can defeat top down tandem HEAT explosives. With blow out armour as well, they are as likely to survive against that as any other AT munitions. Emphasis on AT
@@multipl3 tanks are gonna be around for a couple more decades
@@multipl3 Yawn. That dit has been said for decades.
Yon mentioned one of the differences between the Chieftain and the Challenger was the engine, private collectors comments go something like "they took out the best engine ever fitted in a tank and fitted the worst engine ever fitted in a tank"
The UK needs to be energy and technology independent and have a steel industry.
Right, right. Just magically put oil under its soil and hey! Job done! Genius.
We do it is owned by India.
they should build way more way faster but i will give the challenger credit on one front over the m1 Abrams, that ability where it did take 70 rockets and survive where as the m1 has been disabled and knocked out by 1 or 2 in combat multiple times
The new gun isn't actually any longer than the current gun, they are both 55-calibre.
I think you meant longer than the older L44 smoothbore used by earlier the lepard 2's.
The Leopard 2 are using the L55 currently. There is no Leopard with L44 anymore in Germany. But there are some still out there, some older models using L44
@@cvdheyden I'm pretty sure only the Leopard 2a6 uses the L55 and below that they all use the L44.
Then the L55a1 is only used on the Leopard 2a7 and Challenger 3.
@@Cravendale98 There is no Leopard 2 A4 in Germany anymore. And most countries do upgrade them as you need the L55 for the new ammo types.
@@cvdheyden There are still countries who use Leopard 2a4 & a5 which is what I was referring to. I should have been more specific.
@@Cravendale98 Yes ur right
The 17 pounder was a British anti tank gun used in Africa before the USA turned up, later it was fitted to Shermans to reduce the incidence of them being called Tommy cookers as they did brew up rather easily.
Send one to Ukraine as a get well soon gift
Definitely looks the part, bedroom poster look!
Apologies if I heard you wrongly but, the Challenger 2 already fires a SABOT round. Having served in the RTR for over 2 decades, it is the most proven MBT in real world combat.
With the starting then stopping then starting again of the Black Night upgrade programme, I am all for anything that increases crew survivability and having TAPS sounds great, but there are already weapons in development that bypasses that system. In the end we will just have to wait and see.
...Other than the Abrams?? Or are you meaning 120mm smoothbore chobham tanks in general?
@@carsono311 Other than???
My point was that no Chally 2 has ever been destroyed by enemy fire. Over 70 RPG rounds into 1 tank and it was up and operational within 7 days.
The only time a Challenger has suffered very severe damage was during a nighttime engagement and was hit by another Chally. During both Desert Shield and Desert Storm the Americans lost around 9-12 M1 MBT's.
@@LetsSWITCHGames Okay, so most proven in the context of survivability. Sure, I will agree with you.
Interesting that you mention friendly fire though, as that accounted for most of the loses during Desert Storm...
Rifled Barrels reduce Effective Range? Yet the Challenger 1 holds the Record for the Longest Range, Tank on Tank Kill in History and the C2 has a Better Gun and Aiming System than that.
Modern ammunition and aiming systems make smooth bore guns just as accurate and have a larger range of ammo
if you dont understand how bad this reasoning is nobody can help you....
This is the same argument as saying the spitfire is better than the F-35 because it has more air to air kills.
Tones?
thing needs a 50.cal on the cmdrs hatch one thing i hate about my nations tanks is that they dont do that
Does seem odd, maybe it’s a space & weight thing, plus there are other vehicles on the battlefield with 50.cal’s
We don’t need tanks we need anti-tank and anti-aerial vehicle missiles.
18 tanks🤦♂️
I curious of how vulnerable these new tank optics/periscopes are to rifle rounds. Does .50 BMG AP/HE bullet to those optics/periscope glasses take the tank out of fight.
Normal armored glass can stop .50 BMG bullet, but the bullet damages normal armored glass making grapefruit/football size area complete opaque.
Tranparent aluminium takes the hit better, but that is insanely expensive and still HE bullet most likely would crater and cinch orange/grapefruid size area obstruction aiming a lot.
Or molotov, or even just glass-bottle filled with paint thrown to the optics.
This is why tanks must be used correctly in combat to mitigate these weaknesses. Most of the situations you raise are usually found in urban warfare so having an effective infantry is vital to avoid easy urban tank kills.
Tones???? Who is singing???
What do you even mean+?
The fat lady?
"Tones?" No my friend, it should be 'tons.'
Do they have a pink camo one for the LGBTQ+ brigade?
Well our pink LGBTQ - Defense Minister (Mrs. Lambrecht), she would go for it.
Hopefully the camouflage will be inclusive and diverse. One with the face of Gourge Floyd on the front would be a start.
@@danielminor1693 😂😂😂😂😂😂
0:54 - Oh, that Mark VLLL Challenger is awesome....
a British Leopard
Ehh.. not really.
No the best British tank ever is the centurion. And it is my favorite tank over all.
A bit chubby to be a Leo
Does the "3" represent the number of tanks the army will get?
I like your THINKING WOODY!!.😂😂💕🇬🇧🇺🇦
the most lethal tank in Europe!
the world..... THE WORLD!!!!!
You know what at 3:10 as Challenger 3 is posted actually Challenger 1...
This is amazing technology from the English. You could use it to defend your cities against foreign hordes. Oh, wait, you already lost your cities to foreign hordes. At least you can use them to defend the foreign hordes against the English who might actually resist their own ruin one day.
Cope
The proof pressure of the existing rifled L30 Barrel is around 38.5 Tonnes per Square Inch, seems unlikely to me the new Smooth Bore Gun runs at a higher pressure
Thank God that the U.S , NATO, and Israel have such superb MBTs. Thousands of pure quality, manned by excellent crews. This latest V will be a good addition to the 'Family'.
What a monster! The Challenger 3 combine firepower with protection.
Soon we shall have a challenger 4
Hopefully it shall have a module for 4 special forces soldiers on the tank.
This would give the tank infantry support without the APC boxer warrior APC support vehicle infantry.
This means the tank can go up to the front line and beyond with built in infantry support.
we need 1000 of these now!
I'll just go and pick some dosh off the money tree, then wave my magic wand to create all the industrial capacity to do so. Oh, then recruit and train the necessary manpower to operate them, not forgetting all the support troops, logistics and additional armoured infantry to protect them in close country, or in built-up areas. Which brings us back to Warrior and AJAX ...
@@DraftySatyr :-)) looking at the Nato countries how much money they pouring in to Ukraine there must be some secret money Tree
lets hope the drivers get to keep their legs and toes when they operate this one ehhh?
They didn't die.
Will it be good in Siberia and Tibet.
Probably great. But you put also a lot of pics of the German new Panther Tank on the Screen
1:00 thats a cromwell not a 17 Pdr challenger
1:25 Rifled guns are not inferior to Smoothbore. The require more regular replacement, but offer the advantage of greater effect and accuracy of HESH and Smoke ammunition. At time of adoption it was also believed to have better accuracy, but this was revealed to be moot. Britain is swapping to Smoothbore because it's cheaper to buy modern advanced NATO ammunition than develop their own unique modern ammunition for their gun.
3:18 You used an image of chally 1 instead of 3
History section at the end is pretty good though
They are totally inferior. Hesh and Smoke rounds are total nonsense on the battlefield of today because HEAT-MP can basically due the same but better. You know why everybody uses Smoothbore guns? because they are cheaper, as you said and are better in any regard with modern ammo types. Rifled guns are a relict of old times...
@@karlheerwagen2972 HEAT-MP is not quite as good, but it is good enough to make the advantages of HESH not really viable.
A gun that is more expensive to use but otherwise comparable isn't 'totally inferior and a relict of old times'. You probably will want to replace it, but its hardly obsolete
I'm glad they are building the Challenger 3. And hopefully they will build more than 200 tanks. Only the best for our British Troops.