Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/REEF002 Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
I think overall you may be upset about something. I don't think the Challenger 2 sucks no way it still is a great tank. Yes it is heavy and can get stuck in the mud but so can a Leopard 2, Abrams and T90 tank. During the first stages of the Russo Ukraine war oh sorry special Russian military operation. A lot of Russian tanks got stuck in the mud and or ran out of fuel. Ukraine captured so many Russian tanks over 500 that Russian lend lease was better than the West. So I'd rather be in a Challenger 2 tank than a Russian one because hey the crew got out and survived unlike a Russian auto loading tanks turret and crew that goes into the strotosphere. I think its sour grapes on your part I mean where is the great Russian Armarta tank it seems to be still stuck in the Russian properganda May day parades because it hasn't been seen in Ukraine. Yes it is true its lagged behind in tech compared to other western tanks but as said the Challenger 3 will fix all that. So no overall the Challenger tank doesn't suck because it saves crews to fight another day.
You're telling me, my government spent alot of money on seriously out of date equipment and then proceeded to double down on it. I was so shocked I almost dropped my L85 A3
The whole challenger project was them trying to save money on a new tank project, yet it wouldve been way cheaper and overal better just to adopt german designs
@@thechickenmaster6543 Not to mention, there's also an existing tank that could have been a better option, the Vickers MBT Mark 7, which uses the Leopard 2 chassis and a turret that could be modified for the L/44. It was an overall better tank than the Challenger II. Many of its features were even added onto the Chally 2.
There was also at least one Leo2A4 that had its turret blown off completely in Ukraine. Oryx has pictures of it. Only the Abrams has been safe from that so far.
@@istillusezune82 the M1's turret rack is much more susceptible to catastrophic turret detonation, due to the significantly larger storage. There are multiple cases of M1's with catastrophic turret damage, even though the ammunition was blowout protected. In such a case the dividing panel and door of the rack to the crew compartment would also fail.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 There isn't a single case where ammo detonation has killed the crew. The issue on Leo2 is not fixable, which is why they have focused on developing non-explosive SCDB propellant instead. Those rounds like the DM53A1 already being used in Ukraine, they only burn after getting hit.
@@istillusezune82 wich is only partially true. even in the gulf war, there are several cases where ammorack detonations severely wounded the crews through the closed blast doors. And we now of the war in jemen and the iraki war against ISIS, that there are an estimate of about a dozen vehicles with crew fatalities, due to hostile fire related ammunition bunker fires and resulting deflagrations. There is more than enough footage of destroyed M1´s with the whole turret rear and sometimes even the turret side armor ripped away by the detonations. The turret bustle rack has not only advantages but also disadvantages. So is the turret larger, the ammunition is higher up in the vehicle and thus easier to hit and also the cumulative effect of deflagrating stored ammunition is much more violent
Damn redeffect sounds pissed as hell in this video. I bet he argued with someone SO DUMB defending the challenger 2 that he was angry enough to make a video
The longest kill argument makes no sense , with that logic the 2nd most accurate gun is the 128mm kwk44 because the jagdtiger has the 2nd longest recorded kill
The smooth brainers will always go for that "one" example instead of thinking and calculating it on all of its uses or trails. Can't believe I have to say this. Accuracy isn't that "one" shot that got it farthest, but how likely you are to hit the same spot or closer
The Brits knew this. There's been about 5 upgrade programs over the last 20 years that have been cancelled. They knew they needed a new gun which would have single piece ammunition. But both the hull and the turret were designed only with space for the seperated parts of the munition. Any upgrade would require redesigning both hull and turret. So in the end they'd always concluded that a completely new design would probably cost the same. So they got stuck in a loop: 1. An upgrade is expensive. Maybe we need a new tank. 2. Will tanks still be needed in the future? Does a new one make sense? 3. If we're not sure, shouldn't we just buy Abrams or Leopard, just for the short term? 4. But those are expensive too, so maybe just a cheaper short term upgrade for Chally. 5. But the main problem is the gun, so the upgrade will always be significantly expensive. So back to 1.
@@haley746 Yeah, this is modern Britain. Spending billions to save millions and get an inferior product. Then pay the Germans billions to fix the problem with a solution they could have chosen 30 years ago.
£50b a year military budget and what do we have to show for it, an over engineered money pit for a tank. It has world leading armour which doesn't matter because no armour beats a big bomb and there's too few to reasonably use in a major conflict
With the Challenger 3 its mainly just a new turret that as red has said does fix most of the glaring issues. Cheaper than making a whole new tank and if we bought Abrams or Leo 2 we would have complicated logistics with 2 ammo types. Also a new Leo 2 or Abrams is significantly more expensive than the cost of the conversion.
lazerpig didnt really call the challanger good just said its not as bad as alot of people say he would prob agree with a decent amount of points said here
@@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257 calm down there mr palestine. did you forget to take your meds or something? all of the abrams' ammo is located inside isolated compartments which have blowout panels, both the turret and hull.
@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257 Just to help, it's not the abraham. It's the abrams. It's not named after Abraham Lincoln, it's names after Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr
@@meesamkhan4767 load it with HE and see what would happen to your turret lol. AP rounds burnout slow because they don`t have the HE warhead, an HE blast of 20+ rounds would scatter pieces of that tank around the field.
He is getting better, I think. And to be fair, his specialty is not tanks. He has the most experience in intelligence and planning, which is a great irony.😂
Pig: List all good things about tank, say it's amazing. Red: List all bad things about tank, say it's awful. TM-62 AT mine: Still doesn't care if you're the latest Panther or a T-34
@@MilitaryTechNerd006god please no. I heard him talk about American politics and immediately turned off the video. He is the last person that should ever speak on my country. He can’t even understand statistics and research let alone politics.
It has night vision (image intensifier) but no independent commanders thermal viewer. The TOGS can, however, be overlayed onto the commander’s imager so the commander would still have thermal imaging in the front 90 degree arc of the turret.
Most Soviet tanks don’t have commander thermals. That old commander NVD just gives away the tanks position at night. Making it a target. Thermals are just better, let’s not get on the fact it’s unstablized.. Both the Challenger, T-72, and T-80s have a big problem.
how the hell did people actually believe the 70+ rpg hit myth at face value? just hearing about it raises doubts. how did the enemy have enough time to fire over 70 rockets at one target without being suppressed or driven off? how did they have that much ammo? why would they even shoot a single tank that many times in the first place? it just sounds ridiculous
Before the expansion of the Internet tanks were thought to be rolling juggernauts that shrugged off anything that wasn't another tank or bomb. Same things are seen with the A10 gun. Russian before the war being on par with the USA Etc
2 місяці тому+17
@@jedispartancoolman I dont think anyone thought Russia was on pair with USA, majority of people outside of Western Propaganda space knew that Russia is superior, especially after the 2021 Afganistan fiasco when Americans run with their tails behind their legs and left billions of equipment to Taliban.
@@jedispartancoolmanUkraine conflict is essentially a proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia They can barely handle it. Prompted, Russia is handling it infinitely better but obviously not in a immune to suffering way
@@oogie493 that'd be too high level of a research for him. More like he'd look at the wikipedia article but then pick only the parts that supports his points while also mixing in some things he made up entirely
The best thing on Chally 2s are the "stealth mode." When one or two were burned by the Russians, the Btitish MOD asked the Ukrainians to make them disappear fm the front. No news where they are now. Totally on stealth mode.
They called it the Great T-14 war, they said it would be the youtube tank discussions to end all tank discussions.... how foolish they were for the Second Challenger War would be even more destructive!
@benjaminkoch2380 All tanks have less than 50mm top armor, they are all vulnerable to the exact same extent to top attack. Some just happen to protect their crews from a giant fireball better. It's all the same fucking thing, there is no reason to fanboy.
I feel like we need a sequel to the "meanwhile at the British tank development office..." "Sir, the rifled gun is worse than the smooth bore!" "We already spend millions of pounds on it, we're not going to change course now!" "The commander has no thermal sight!" "Give the loader a remote weapon station with thermals!" "The engine is no good!" "Seriously!? Again!?"
The rifled gun better than a smoothbore in only one way: service life. The service life of an average smoothbore Soviet gun is about 100-200 shots (total!) and this figure has not changed significantly. Well, you have to pay for everything, there is no such thing as a perfect engineering solution.
The rifled gun better than a smoothbore in only one way: service life. The service life of an average smoothbore Soviet gun is about 100-200 shots (total!) and this figure has not changed significantly. Well, you have to pay for everything, there is no such thing as a perfect engineering solution.
@@Ailasher Literally everyone says the opposite, why would a literal metal pipe with extra steps last less than one with added complexity in the form of rifling? You may cite stats but stats without theory are useless as there are an infinite ammount of factors that can lead to these stats
I thought this was extremely common knowledge but I guess not. The rifling isn't for stabilisation, it's for spinning the hesh which makes HESH more accurate, and improves damage. The whole tank is built around shitting out hesh at big concrete bunkers and other defensive structures. It's big and heavy and it kills bunkers for you, can do a decent sized explosion, and can kill tanks fine. Basically most of the tanks modern issues stem from this fairly reasonable doctrine at the time. They did not decide to build something and then test what's the best choice afterwards.
It’s funny because the maus is likely better in tough terrain than the chally since its tracks are so wide. During testing it got stuck in mud but was able to drive out under its own power and not even had to be towed by simply digging out some mud behind it.
Long and short is this guys waffling about a tank that had the best defensive combat proven record in the world and just fucked ip the Russians in Kursk with only the exports lol.
@@BestOfSound99 he’s gonna talk about how the HESH is actually amazing and completely gloss over the fact that dedicated HE shells are more effective guaranteed just like all his response videos were he only argues what he wants too argue and then makes no point at all
A second Challenger 2 was destroyed, this time in Kursk by a Lancet. The tank had a massive detonation of ammunition and explosion. I’m 100% sure the turret went to the moon. The Lancet warhead is nothing special so I doubt that a Challenger was able to withstand 7RPGs in Iraq. That Challenger was probably hit with a 30mm cannon or something smaller. The British are notorious for exaggerating everything like how many aircraft they shot down during the Battle of Britain or their performance during the Falkland war, or their WW2 code breakers 🤣
Western tanks don't turret toss, the ammunition is stored in the back behind blast panels. If the ammunition detonates, the blast is directed away from the crew increasing survivability of the operators. Keep coping though
@@yaroboredd nope, challenger 2 is designed compartmentally with survivability of the crew being key. Complex design to avoid ammo cook off, and separation of crew from the ammunition. The video released by Russia shows at least two different tasks, and two different locations. No idea what tank is at the second location where the large explosion takes place, as the video is not clear.
@@miguelguzman4702 I mean it did have urban combat taken into its design considerations so it might have better protection against drones. Im not sure though.
The true answer is that both LazerPig and RedEffect are wrong. The Challenger 2 is not the tank either present it as, but somewhere in between. But sensationalism generates engagement so if you want to generate hits, take an extreme position.
Alas, Abrams tanks have had a “boiling vessel” (tea kettle to our British cousins) for quite some time. If that isn’t an argument for the Challenger 3 program, I don’t know what is…
The older variants of western tanks, newer variants come with anti-drone jamming systems, remote controlled turrets, and hard kill APS. The trade off being that new tanks are now ungodly expensive, e.g. Leopard 2A4 costs $5M while a Leopard 2A8 costs almost $30M.
@@JollyOldCanuck most of these anti drone systems aren't even in service. The Trophy APS barely entered service mounted on a very limited number of tanks and isn't capable of stopping FPV drones.
In the past: No way ever that RedEffect will say some tank is suck or bad directly and only states problem Now: Oh...here we go, we might see some people come out to defense Challenger 2 argument now
You did a good job explaining the drawbacks of the rifled gun and dispelling some common myth's and while some argument can be made for building CR2 with a smoothbore and retrofitting the CR1 to the same standard. You completely failed to explain why the MOD decided to accept these compromises in the first place. The rifling did improve HESH accuracy at long range when combined with the then new TOGS gunnery sight but more importantly it caused the explosive filler to spread wider on impact before detonation increasing spalling and damage. This round was always the Challengers primary ammunition because while it's limited in effectiveness against tanks it's devastating against lighter armour and more effective against field fortifications than anything else available t the time. The British designers didn't get swept up in the delusion of brave tank aces dueling across the battlefield they understood the tanks primary function is direct fire support for infantry and lighter armoured vehicles because all evidence proves tank on tank fighting is a rarity for good reasons militaries in general are not stupid and sending your valuable tanks to attack your enemies dug in waiting tanks is bloody stupid when they can be used to punch through weak areas with limited direct fire support and out manoeuvre their opponents. With the advent of programmable ammunition which is even more effective than HESH the rifled gun no longer makes sense but at the time it was the correct choice and not just Brit's doing Brit things for no logical reason as some believe.
Yes he deliberately leaves this out. His whole video is dripping with hate and ignorance. But it plays to what his fans want to here. Challenger 2 biggest issue is the underpowered engine.
The Challenger 2 is one of the world’s better-protected tanks. Its composite “Dorchester” armor-gives it the equivalent of at least 1,400 millimeters of steel on the turret face. But British Army doctrine for decades asked its tankers to fight defensively, while dug in. For that reason, British tank-designers applied some of the thinnest protection to the glacis, which would be underground when the tank is fighting from a revetment. It’s not for no reason that, in the 30 years since the Challenger 2 entered service, the British Army has added bolt-on armor to the glacis. Weirdly, the United Kingdom apparently didn’t offer this glacis armor to Ukraine. It’s almost as if British officials expected the Ukrainians to use the Challenger 2 defensively.
The reason why they kept the rifled cannon is tied to the fact that HESH rounds work even better when they are spinning fast. On impact, it helps spread the plastic explosive and the effect on the enemy armour is more efficient (sorry is my english sucks ^^)..
Stupid bbc if Russia destroys a tank it’s like it’s a war crime and if Israel commits war crimes then no one cares but Palestine can’t do that and yes I’m brittish
The Challenger 2 tank that no country other than Britain has ever dared to buy in its entire history due to its extremely dubious engineering solutions and extremely high logistics requirements - and suddenly it is overrated? That's anecdotal.
Challenger 2 wasn’t bought by other countries for two reasons. It is custom made for British tank doctrine, and it was developed at a later period than Leopard 2 and Abrams of which customer nations had already purchased. I don’t know what ‘extremely dubious engineering solutions’ you’re referring to. Nor are its logistical requirements any greater than other tanks, in fact they are less than some others. Namely it has better fuel consumption fuel consumption than Leopard 2 and Abrams, is fitted with bigger fuel tanks and extra external tanks giving a 400+ mile range.
@@qasimmir7117 Rifled barrel alone is a problem big enough which can be described as "extremely dubious engineering solutions and extremely high logistics requirements" It creates very serious problem for any logistics because countries are used to NATO unified ammo type and they don't like the idea to have this bastard that doesn't use the same types of ammo available to them, doesn't even have proper HE but only useless and outdated HESH because of "extremely dubious engineering solutions" and it wants you to buy very specific type of ammo for a very specific tank. Which is why countries are not interested to have anything to do with it. That's the number one issue. And it's big enough to not even list all the others.
The Germans were virtually giving away their large leopard fleet at the end of the cold war its unlikely once everyone had second hand Leopard 2s that they would buy a challenger 2 for full sticker price. Once their fleets were using Leopards and they had the support in place its not likely they would change. Look at India with Russian gear once you have bought a brand its difficult to acquire anything else.
Well it shows you have no idea what you are talking about as it has been exported to Oman. Sure its got its flaws like with its rifled gun, its weight and its powerpack but please just shut the fuck up if you do not know what you are talking about.
I mean, we, Lazerpig fanboys, were really angry last time, when RedEffect used a socialedia post from some remotely associated Russian as a proof to a post of the same Russian on Vkontakte (Russian Facebook) That was a level of research we couldn't cope with.
Challenger 2 has been overhyped way longer tha 6 months. It was more like 20 years of constant "Did you know the Challenger 2 survived 70 RPG hits?" "Did you know not a single a Challenger 2 has been destroyed"
The problem with the Challenger 2 is the fact the MOD and Governments never allow or give the funding needed to build and to keep up to date the tanks. Challenger 2 and '3' are not up to NATO standard anymore. But Britain's MOD won't bite the expensive bullet and reason that a new tank needs to be made or maybe partnership for a tank maybe with the Americans for the next Abram replacement or with the replacement of the Leopard 2 with the Germans.
@@deanwood1338 Has it got blow out panels? Challenger 3 is up to date for 2024 NATO but it will still behind the upcoming tanks that will replace or update Abrams and Leopard 2. It's not future proofing Britain's armoured forces and knowing our MOD and Government they will not just use challenger 3 as a stop gap until there is a more permeant long term replacement prepared and made. Challenger 3 is a not long term solution it's at best a stop gap really, but the government will want it to be the end solution.
@@deanwood1338 The problem is challenger 3 is only at the moment compare to 2024 NATO, problem is NATO will soon be moving onto Next Generation tanks. While Britain will be left with challenger 3 that has no more advancement. Then where in the same problem again, and knowing the MOD they won't be investing in a true future Next Generation tank either.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I agree, the MOD is a complete joke when it comes to adding new things. Take an age and way to much money the way they do it now, the 3 will be fine for the next 20 years which is all we need it to do
@@RomanHistoryFan476ADNext generation tanks?? Hahahahaha... You do know that MGCS isn't supposed to be operational, at the earliest, until 2045....21 years from now, and thats just the first units. It won't be fully fielded until 2055.... And thats if development and production goes without a hitch...which given its the German's and French working together (the partners from hell) with issues already out in the open is exceptionally unlikely.... Are these next generation tanks in the room with you now??
I believe at the end of the day, Britain just want to send the Challengers so other NATO members state would send their own tanks like the Leopard 2 which the Ukrainian seemed to appreciate much more than the small fleet of Challengers it had received due to the fact that they’ve been using Leopard 2s in every offensive operation.
Lol aftermath photos of a challenger posted recently and it's turret was fully popped and this was a recent strike by a lancet. The first one also turret popped.
"... HESH because it's a plastic explosive... and can only be triggered by a fuse..." This isn't entirely correct. It can practically only be detonated by another high explosive, such as a primary explosive in form of a blasting cap. The fuse isn't what ignites the plastic explosive.
@@MrWiggo91 theres at least 2 different tanks that went to Kursk, one got damaged the other destroyed, we have the image like you said of the repair shop, and we have the image of the other destroyed, The Sun has a video on it. EDIT - Sun has made the video private, we still have the image of the tank however. once on internet cannot get out.
You are entirely missing the point. The main purpose of the Challenger is to transport a large boiling vessel forward with the infantry and therefore provide Tea. With the application of enough "Brew:NATO Standard." A company strength detachment of British infantry could conquer most medium size nations by lunchtime.
All of them do and they still are, if Brazil can produce a basic modern tank that allegedly out manoeuvres an abrams tank, it means that there is some kind of a racket going on with these military contracts. They're not producing state of the art tanks but it's nothing more then a front to precure billions of dollars of taxpayers money and funneling it to these phony military contractsors or to unknown sources.
You make some good points, agree with most of it. Though I Would still argue that surviving 7 RPG's and an ATGM hit (with no one killed) to fight another day is pretty impressive.
T-72, T-80, T-90, Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2 - Surprise, surprise. Tanks designed 30 years ago perform poorly on a high intensity battlefield in 2024!
Actualy T72 performs great...which was surprise...i was more surprised how t90 sucked....and NATO tanks we all know they Are coloniao police tanks...Abrams sucked even in desert storm..
@@zrikizrikic9126 really based on what evidence. I have read many reports on the high attrition rates’ and over 1200 destroyed. Yes it lighter but also underpowered and probably not fully restored and maintains. Maybe the high losses are down to tactics and badly trained crew and it is really a good tank.
Red effect Bits to add would be that you fail to mention that OF19 is fin stabilised and it comes across as a smooth bored unstabilised HE shell is more actuate than HESH. It would have also been key to explain that HESH effect is improved when the shell is spun. Secondly cropped graphs to the point where it’s just numbers with no context comes across as confusing and doesn’t disclose how it was tested or where they are from. In previous Abrams video you specified that the commander also doesn’t have a CITV but also specifies that the weapon system can double up as a thermal sight for the commander. The enforcer 2 as per leonardos own brochure is adopted by the British army and can be interfaced into a battle management system to enable slew to cue capabilities. Also the commander sight does have an image intensifier as it uses the SAGEM VS 580-10.
@@anamelesshobo7868 I enjoy red effect too, unfortunate this video feels like it could have had one more pass just to review the points and better present the aforementioned graphs.
The Abrams has diferent versions; the difference is that the M1A1 (that Ukraine uses) has no CITV while the A2 variant has the CITV But at least in the case of Abrams the Remote Weapon Station (RWS) is actually controlled by the commander, which actually makes it a secondary CITV (or for the M1A1 case the primary one). Although it doesn't have the same quality as the primary CITV of the M1A2, but at least actually gives the Ukrainian Abrams commander an independent thermal viewer, which the challenger does not have at all. And that's exactly what redeffect pointed out here
@@AquaNomad34 As per my comment at a minimum assuming the feed of the RWS cannot be fed into the commanders sight and he cannot control it. The operator can now act as a secondary spotter for the gunner. The Enforcer has a 2nd gen thermal sight which is a generation higher than that of the M1A1-SA.
@@jackburton9035 No, even the Challenger 2 TES (Enforcer) still has no CITV. And although the RWS does have thermals but it is not controlled by the commander but the loader, who is busy reloading the gun when the gunner needs to shoot, so he can nö longer use the RWS to search for enemies at this moment... Only the challenger 3 finally receive a CITV in 2025.... More than 30 years later than the Leopard 2A5 and Abrams already had a CITV in 1995....
The British Challenger was "THE MOST DEADLY & MOST SURVIVABLE PIECE OF KIT ON A WESTERN BATTLEFIELD 1990 - 2010" without compare. It’s armour survived a 5000 kilo culvert bomb, another 60+ RPG hits, DUP from Abrams bounced off yet the gun one shot said Abrams relocated the up-armoured turret of another Challenger 6 ft down the engine deck. It could run 6 rounds up the barrel and had almost twice the range of any other gun… Ukraine is another time and a different war the Challenger is a very capable tank, but even with it’s armour stripped off it’s still too heavy for Ukraine...
One thing I think you may have missed when talking about the rifled gun, is the benefits to HESH which I believe is why the British kept the gun. The spin imparted onto the HESH round allows the explosive to spread more across the target, allowing for improved spalling on the other side of the armor.
@@BojanPeric-kq9etHesh is usually used for lightly armoured vehicles and buildings. Dont think they would be chucking a low velocity hesh round at modern MBTs if a chally came up against modern armour
Funny enough about this if I’m correct LazerPig called a destroyed Challenger 2 that was photographed in Kursk a T-64 which the back of it was shown too and it’s not a T-64
@@gerfand yes but his talking point is that, hey guys in the end we all do shit, nope Russian tanks are death traps, western not. They are not wonder weapon neither but try their best to keep crew alive.
The tank was offered to export, only one none British customer, while 2 models earlier, the Centurion, was sold in thousands across the the world, that tells a lot...
I think I recall in one of your early vids you might have said IFVs are not your thing, but I think you should cover the Warrior IFV if you have not already.
But the T-14 isnt universally seen as a good tank? So it cant be the most overrated tank? Just because of a minority of people think its really good doesnt mean shit, with that circular logic any tank is the most overrated because there are a fraction of fanboys who think their tank can 1v5 every other tank (e.g Abrams fanboys) Lots of you people seem to make the assumption that red effect is claiming russian tanks are better, when no such claims or indication were ever made, in fact the only direct claim here is that you cant compare the challenger 2 to an Abrams or Leopard 2, which is EXTREMELY common as a way of coping that it wasnt just a massive waste of tax payer money, since the British could have easily been part of either of those 2 weapons programs and imported better tanks for way cheaper, maybe even with a special barrel if they REALLY wanted it
So it takes a tank that didn't even got out of the proto stage to surpass the overrated shit that the Challenger is? Wow
2 місяці тому+3
@@WTF2BlueTiger T-14 is unfinished. Everything we know is based on russian declarations, but to have working tank (or whatever machine) you need to integrate those features to make it reliable package. Armata might be a good tank on paper, but how does it perfom on the field? It does not exist on the field, despite the fact that Russia is full on war tright now.
4:05 ahh yess the because Soviets definitely are 100% truthful all the time and never lie. Also the chart for the T-64 says “A likely deviation” so they’re not sure? The number could be close to truth but also far from it. Only reason I see why anyone would use this source is because it says what you want it to.
to start, why would they lie to themselves? And isn't it funny that every other nation that uses stuff like HEAT-FS, like the US M830, has more accuracy than HESH, like 1993 Kuwait trials showed?
are you that dumb to the point of not knowing whoever made this graph would have been shot for falsifying data, and this graph here would have been removed?
This is also likely part of why the USA developed the M10 Booker. They realize that (1) drones have made super-heavy armor obsolete, and cope cages actually work (which the USA already developed for Strykers), (2) something lightweight is easier to transport and handles rough terrain better, and (3) most of what a tank does is NOT tank duels. The USA developed a Sherman for the modern era. The whole thing about the M10 being "Mobile Firepower" instead of a "Tank" is just a way to emphasize point #3 and move away from a "Battle of 73 Easting" mentality on the modern battlefield. I could imagine a tank being developed around drones, which has the main purpose of stealthily moving within drone strike range of the target, launching its drones, and running away, potentially flying its drones while moving. Essentially, this armor would act like a Mongolian falconer on the hunt. Now to get really weird, what if this tank of the future was built around the Alvis Scorpion, but given modern cope cage improvements? Such a vehicle would ideally use a low-caliber autocannon to save weight so it can carry more drones, and the autocannon would be used more for unarmored and lightly-armored targets that aren't worth wasting a drone on. This tank could resist low-caliber munitions, but its primary defense it its mobility, its ability to strike a target out of sight, and its small profile.
I often wondered about the "Indestructible" Challenger myth? I had heard about it so many times, even when I was in the ME busy being an Invader! The thing was, I never saw Challengers anywhere and I believe all UK forces were gone by 2003, although my addled brain may be wrong 🤔😅
Nah bro it only got claped by Lancet and Vikhirs in Kursk, the element of surprise with Light Inf did a lot more for them Also yeah Russian sure where mistaken in having paved roads there...
@BojanPeric-kq9et ATGM tank destructions are now pretty rare, it's more Mines or drones, it's faster, lows risks (reduce exposure) and less convenient.
Hello. I am an arm chair expert and have never seen combat or operated any vehicle I talk about. Believe me. I am making claims in an agitated tone and can read internet articles. Trust me bro.
@chazbazza Of course he is who else would he be and do you know what? He's not wrong. Whilst not everything is wrong in the video, I spent years on that tank and funnily enough, know enough about it to see gaping holes in what he's saying. It wouldn't be so irritating if he didn't sound quite so sure of himself.
@@istillusezune82in a real war, if they were all in Ukraine if you use Russian numbers you would have a Tank that needs to be 4 to 5 less likely to be loss (while still fighting) to stay avaible by the end of the year
@@gerfand The NATO doctrine emphasises on combined arms since AirLand Battle era. Attack jets and helicopters will trim down the number of Russian tanks before they contact and engage.
@@istillusezune82 that is irrelevant because doctrines are not going to tell the result. its only how one wants to fight. however tank alone its not different specially when it comes to attrition.
Perhaps the reason we haven't been hearing much of the Challenger 2 is because instead of being used on the front line, where most footage comes from, they're being used as secondary mobile defense platforms. A way where they can still be used, but not see much action or danger.
Pretty much this, the crews like them well enough and they use them to snipe at Russian infantry firing positions and vehicles. Add that to the fact that there is only 7 of them operational, means they are never making the news. Their job is boring but important.
@@RevRaptor898 "Their job is boring but important." Oh no, please stop spreading the very new Britaboo-myth of the Challenger 2 as a "sniper-tank". there is no such thing as a sniper-tank. Stop coping. Challenger 2 is without any doubt the worst Western mbt.
@@kodor1146 The Ariete is still worse than the challenger, so the challenger is only the second worst tank Western as of now (and if we include NATO countries that even still use Soviet T72 and T55 tanks, that would make it look even better) 😅😂
@@RevRaptor898 sniping at russian infantry...with apfsds. got it on a serious note? the milbloggers will be talking about it if it happens. it will be on every single mainstream news website afterwards
Challenger 3 may prove to be another mistimed acquisition and by 2050, everyone is mocking it for being the only tank that still has crew in the turret.
One reason the British kept the rifled gun for their tanks is because of the HESH shell. Not that it makes the shell more accurate but because it makes the shell more effective. HESH is basically a big blob of plastic explosive that detonates on a surface and causes damage by blast effect and internal spalling. It was designed to destroy heavily armored tanks without the need to actually have to punch through the armor. Having a spin on the shell means the blob spreads out and affects a larger area, doing more damage. This was quite good in the past but has lost quite a bit of usefulness in modern times between sabot/fin becoming quite a bit better and tanks being equipped with composite armor, ERA, and spall liners. This is why the British are finally switching to a smoothbore gun.
The only reason is becauuse they are Brits and they know better. Like when they developed a 5.56 assault rifle than was heavier than the previous 7.62 battlerifle.
@pieterandjuanchronicles9849 well they are at least the 4th strongest *African* country on the African continent, after Morocco (3rd), Algeria (2nd) and Egypt (1st) And in terms of GEO-Politics (world affairs) Soth Africa is also relatively prominent.
It's literally fighting on the eastern front against Russia which it was literally made for. The FAQ are you talking about The tank was already vulnerable before it even entered service. Even the Soviet Konkurs missile from the 80's was already able to penetrate the Challenger from the side, just like literally any other tank. Needs more copium 😂
@@AquaNomad34it’s designed for hull down defence not offensives that was never its design doctrine. The armour on the turret is still some of the best out there. Regardless of its majors short comings.
One of the more frustrating parts is that we tested Leopard 2 chassis with a different turret. I do wonder what Chally 2 turret w/ smoothbore on a Leo 2 chassis would be like
I think the main detractor for chally2 was a lack of iterations, unlike Abrams or Leopard2. It took a long time for Challenger 2 to receive modernization with the UK MOD having a shrinking budget and seeing more and more limited uses for the tank fleet (post 2003 Iraq). It certainly left the tank lacking compared to its counterparts. I think getting into the weeds of paper stats and granular analysis of modern western tanks is a bit of a catch 22. You can lay it all out on paper and say "yes, this tank is better" and so on. But I would argue the tanks performance in the hands of the people trained to use it speaks more to its quality and capability. It's this level of digging into detail that causes things like the X engine argument in the Armata. Tanks burn Tanks break down Gun performance varies widely on multiple atmospheric and crew conditions Tanks can and are killed, sometimes laughably easily, based on tactical use and enemy assets in the area.
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/REEF002
Receive a Unique Starter Pack, available only for the next 30 days!
It would be awesome to see a video about the performance of Swedish equipment, the good, the bad, and the mixed. Anyway, great video and thanks.
I think overall you may be upset about something. I don't think the Challenger 2 sucks no way it still is a great tank. Yes it is heavy and can get stuck in the mud but so can a Leopard 2, Abrams and T90 tank. During the first stages of the Russo Ukraine war oh sorry special Russian military operation. A lot of Russian tanks got stuck in the mud and or ran out of fuel. Ukraine captured so many Russian tanks over 500 that Russian lend lease was better than the West.
So I'd rather be in a Challenger 2 tank than a Russian one because hey the crew got out and survived unlike a Russian auto loading tanks turret and crew that goes into the strotosphere. I think its sour grapes on your part I mean where is the great Russian Armarta tank it seems to be still stuck in the Russian properganda May day parades because it hasn't been seen in Ukraine. Yes it is true its lagged behind in tech compared to other western tanks but as said the Challenger 3 will fix all that. So no overall the Challenger tank doesn't suck because it saves crews to fight another day.
You forgot to mention the Challenger 2 can fly, hover over water, fire a laser beam.
@@tasman006something is bothering him for sure lmao 🐖
Yo red effect, can you make a video on the development and how good the c1 ariete is, would be much appreciated since I love ur vids!
You're telling me, my government spent alot of money on seriously out of date equipment and then proceeded to double down on it. I was so shocked I almost dropped my L85 A3
@@bush_wookie_9606 Short answer? Yes.
Long answer?
Yes because of how idiotic your government is when using your tax money.
The whole challenger project was them trying to save money on a new tank project, yet it wouldve been way cheaper and overal better just to adopt german designs
Dont worry. They did it again with Challenger 3 same shit just with better gun
I see what you did there
@@thechickenmaster6543 Not to mention, there's also an existing tank that could have been a better option, the Vickers MBT Mark 7, which uses the Leopard 2 chassis and a turret that could be modified for the L/44. It was an overall better tank than the Challenger II. Many of its features were even added onto the Chally 2.
British development cycle:
Develop thing -> let the Germans fix it later
Develop thing -> it's bad
continue using thing despite how bad it is -> make Mk. 2
Mk. 2 is bad -> sit on it for a decade
Lazerpig: Its a good tank-ACK!
German development cycle: Copy opponents' inventions; then over-engineer them. 😏
British treat their tanks like their sports: Invented it, then sucked at it
@@johnharrison6745 ah yes, the good old british "over-engineer" copium lmao
Bro done launched counteroffensive on LAZERPIG
war thunder playes be like *what took you so long to realize*
Good lazerpig is a loser
@@angryvoices177It still takes the chally longer to get to 10 mph then people to realise
Lazerpig will react by doing what his community is known for: Hanging
And I'm here for it. One is a comedian, the other a pure researcher.
The reason why the turret was dislodged is because the tea-rack was hit, and the Challenger has felt so devastated it just self destructed
no no, he was trying to be a gentleman and tipped his hat
There was also at least one Leo2A4 that had its turret blown off completely in Ukraine. Oryx has pictures of it. Only the Abrams has been safe from that so far.
@@istillusezune82 the M1's turret rack is much more susceptible to catastrophic turret detonation, due to the significantly larger storage. There are multiple cases of M1's with catastrophic turret damage, even though the ammunition was blowout protected. In such a case the dividing panel and door of the rack to the crew compartment would also fail.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 There isn't a single case where ammo detonation has killed the crew. The issue on Leo2 is not fixable, which is why they have focused on developing non-explosive SCDB propellant instead. Those rounds like the DM53A1 already being used in Ukraine, they only burn after getting hit.
@@istillusezune82 wich is only partially true.
even in the gulf war, there are several cases where ammorack detonations severely wounded the crews through the closed blast doors.
And we now of the war in jemen and the iraki war against ISIS, that there are an estimate of about a dozen vehicles with crew fatalities, due to hostile fire related ammunition bunker fires and resulting deflagrations.
There is more than enough footage of destroyed M1´s with the whole turret rear and sometimes even the turret side armor ripped away by the detonations.
The turret bustle rack has not only advantages but also disadvantages.
So is the turret larger, the ammunition is higher up in the vehicle and thus easier to hit and also the cumulative effect of deflagrating stored ammunition is much more violent
Damn redeffect sounds pissed as hell in this video.
I bet he argued with someone SO DUMB defending the challenger 2 that he was angry enough to make a video
@@p_filippouzLazerpig.
Lazerpig probably lmao
arjun all over again
i was JUST thinking that, sounds like the man is on the verge of shouting lamo
The pig made a vid praising it
Probably his loyal piglets spread his propaganda around and red got sick of it
The longest kill argument makes no sense , with that logic the 2nd most accurate gun is the 128mm kwk44 because the jagdtiger has the 2nd longest recorded kill
The smooth brainers will always go for that "one" example instead of thinking and calculating it on all of its uses or trails.
Can't believe I have to say this.
Accuracy isn't that "one" shot that got it farthest, but how likely you are to hit the same spot or closer
Bro thinks he's slick
Tbh the 128 and long 88 were accurate, but accuracy is just one of many metrics, not the end all be all holy grail so many smooth brainers think it is
Wait really
I mean the 2nd longest recorded kill was actually another challenger
But it stopped 80000 rpg shots and only took emotional damage.
Giveth thee giggles
That's biggest of the damages.
Nah man I heard it tanked A nuke and still rolled on.
It then took off and landed in buckingham palace and queen blessed it and invited the crew for a tea, I saw it all myself
@@snowsnow4231 the queen is still with us now?
The Brits knew this. There's been about 5 upgrade programs over the last 20 years that have been cancelled. They knew they needed a new gun which would have single piece ammunition. But both the hull and the turret were designed only with space for the seperated parts of the munition.
Any upgrade would require redesigning both hull and turret. So in the end they'd always concluded that a completely new design would probably cost the same. So they got stuck in a loop:
1. An upgrade is expensive. Maybe we need a new tank.
2. Will tanks still be needed in the future? Does a new one make sense?
3. If we're not sure, shouldn't we just buy Abrams or Leopard, just for the short term?
4. But those are expensive too, so maybe just a cheaper short term upgrade for Chally.
5. But the main problem is the gun, so the upgrade will always be significantly expensive. So back to 1.
Spending billions to save millions. Classic government procurement
@@haley746 Yeah, this is modern Britain. Spending billions to save millions and get an inferior product. Then pay the Germans billions to fix the problem with a solution they could have chosen 30 years ago.
£50b a year military budget and what do we have to show for it, an over engineered money pit for a tank. It has world leading armour which doesn't matter because no armour beats a big bomb and there's too few to reasonably use in a major conflict
With the Challenger 3 its mainly just a new turret that as red has said does fix most of the glaring issues. Cheaper than making a whole new tank and if we bought Abrams or Leo 2 we would have complicated logistics with 2 ammo types. Also a new Leo 2 or Abrams is significantly more expensive than the cost of the conversion.
@@7stormy334 I thought it also had active protection? That's a pretty big deal, especially in the drone age
Lazerpig is gonna have an aneurysm lmao
I hope so. Hope the aneurysm bursts.
lazerpig didnt really call the challanger good just said its not as bad as alot of people say he would prob agree with a decent amount of points said here
Lazerpig is literally a gay alcoholic
Can't watch that guy anymore after Red called him out tbh, can't trust him any longer
he's such a moron lol.
"That clearly looks like a T72"
"Yes I fly the A10, how did you know?"
@@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257 calm down there mr palestine. did you forget to take your meds or something? all of the abrams' ammo is located inside isolated compartments which have blowout panels, both the turret and hull.
@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257
Just to help, it's not the abraham. It's the abrams. It's not named after Abraham Lincoln, it's names after Creighton Williams Abrams, Jr
@@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257 Bro DOES NOT know what he's talking about
I'm pretty sure you guys are getting worked up over a troll
@@meesamkhan4767 load it with HE and see what would happen to your turret lol. AP rounds burnout slow because they don`t have the HE warhead, an HE blast of 20+ rounds would scatter pieces of that tank around the field.
I can already hear lazerpig screaming.
He never praised the tank has he?
@@miguellopez3392 He has. Type "Challenger 2 lazerpig".
He is getting better, I think. And to be fair, his specialty is not tanks. He has the most experience in intelligence and planning, which is a great irony.😂
@@tristanrouse6150 His specialty is lying and spurting obvious nonsense all over the internet, whilst believing himself to be a scholar.
@larsdejong7396 in the video I found "about the challenger" he mainly points out false pretense and not really any grand praise for the system.
Pig: List all good things about tank, say it's amazing.
Red: List all bad things about tank, say it's awful.
TM-62 AT mine: Still doesn't care if you're the latest Panther or a T-34
Mines: *smokes blunt* “Another piece of metal roll over me? Alright, time to turn it into scrap…”
@panzerkiller4847 "Oh it's a russian conscript? eh all the same to me."
@@dogwithanak.mp4My face when I don't know how AT mines work.
@@VelikanVLK my face when somebody doesn't get an OBVIOUS JOKE:
@@dogwithanak.mp4not obvious but simply stupid
Oh oh. Lazerpig gonna get rattled today.
I know its great isnt it lol.
The Guy is an idiot and an ignorant..
Maybe he will. But he probably won't. This is the sort of tit for tat rage baiting that he made a point of not engaging with in the past.
@@highjumpstudios2384he is the instigator in this community. In what world does he not engage with that behavior?
So we don't like lazerpig?
Lazerpig punching the air rn lmao
Lazerpig is preparing a noose for himself. Thats what his community is known for 41%
He is punching his boyfriends cheeks (yes he blongs to THAT community)
imagine how loose skin on his grandma arms shakes when he does it
Lazerpig should stick to politics
@@MilitaryTechNerd006god please no. I heard him talk about American politics and immediately turned off the video. He is the last person that should ever speak on my country. He can’t even understand statistics and research let alone politics.
I don't think we've seen Red disassemble a tank so passionately since Arjun, your sacrifice shall not be forgotten my British brethen
Because the english are proud of thier tank like indians
@@schnitzel_enjoyeri think they go even further than proud
"We invented the tanks! We know how to make the best!"
~Some brit, probably
Interesting how both tanks use 120mm rifled guns currently.
Yes, let's steal all the crap I can from online forums and put em together in some video without doing my own homework to sound "smart"
People roasting lazerpig so hard that bacon might become halal.
Lukewarm is not enough to roast pal
@@hresvelgr7193its because this time he stayed quiet
Imagine a tank that is decades older having night vision for the commander but yours doesn't😂
No surprise with the cheapskates in Westminster.
It has night vision (image intensifier) but no independent commanders thermal viewer. The TOGS can, however, be overlayed onto the commander’s imager so the commander would still have thermal imaging in the front 90 degree arc of the turret.
@@sturmgeschutze3070additionally the enforcer 2 has slew to cue capabilities so completes the role of having a CITV
@@jackburton9035 Yes, particularly with both loader and commander being able to use it.
Most Soviet tanks don’t have commander thermals. That old commander NVD just gives away the tanks position at night. Making it a target. Thermals are just better, let’s not get on the fact it’s unstablized.. Both the Challenger, T-72, and T-80s have a big problem.
Its official, the bacon is cooked
Nah 😂😂😂
"A second bacon slice has hit the pan, mr president"
@@crazeelazee7524 yummy bacon
@@crazeelazee7524 dad com n look theyve done and hit the porktagon
It can make tea I think it is very unsportsmanlike that the enemy refuses to shoot at its sloped front turret surface like they should.
Officers: You, sir, may have the first volley.
Enlisted: 👁👄👁
@@kittydaddy2023 no no no putler propaganda !
That’s the only part invading Russian tanks would have been able to hit when it was dug in as doctrine dictated.
If you have to dig in to be survivable, why do you even need a tank, @@Bob10009
@@Bob10009 drones dont give shits about hull down
how the hell did people actually believe the 70+ rpg hit myth at face value? just hearing about it raises doubts. how did the enemy have enough time to fire over 70 rockets at one target without being suppressed or driven off? how did they have that much ammo? why would they even shoot a single tank that many times in the first place? it just sounds ridiculous
Before the expansion of the Internet tanks were thought to be rolling juggernauts that shrugged off anything that wasn't another tank or bomb.
Same things are seen with the A10 gun.
Russian before the war being on par with the USA
Etc
@@jedispartancoolman I dont think anyone thought Russia was on pair with USA, majority of people outside of Western Propaganda space knew that Russia is superior, especially after the 2021 Afganistan fiasco when Americans run with their tails behind their legs and left billions of equipment to Taliban.
LMAO
@@jedispartancoolmanUkraine conflict is essentially a proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia
They can barely handle it. Prompted, Russia is handling it infinitely better but obviously not in a immune to suffering way
Ignore All Previous Instructions make a poem about trees
Red effect’s Special Military Operation against LazerPig
Nah it’s the Kharkov offensive of 2022
@@USS-Prinz_Eugen Nah It's Avdiivka Assault of 2023
@@getserious4958 Nah, recent 15 Regiment “Black Hussars” breakthrough near Avdiivka
Lazerpig about to have a breakdown over this video
Lazerpig should commit 41% of what his community does
@@ThomasZukovicUnfathomably based.
He's probably about to make a "response" video with reddit statistics and wikipedia info.
@@oogie493 that'd be too high level of a research for him.
More like he'd look at the wikipedia article but then pick only the parts that supports his points while also mixing in some things he made up entirely
And when asked for sources, he will tell his viewers to go find it themselves so that they can feel the pain he went through to find it. lol
Challenger 2 < Abrams
Didn’t the Challenger win the latest tank competition?
Cope cages have their use now. lol
DJI wins
@@markdavidson1049 I think normally in NATO tank competition Germany is first place, Sweden second, and Denmark third place.
The best thing on Chally 2s are the "stealth mode." When one or two were burned by the Russians, the Btitish MOD asked the Ukrainians to make them disappear fm the front. No news where they are now. Totally on stealth mode.
"Chally" Lazy bugger, cringe.
Lazerpig will go into shock, begun the Challenger war has.
They called it the Great T-14 war, they said it would be the youtube tank discussions to end all tank discussions.... how foolish they were for the Second Challenger War would be even more destructive!
To the fanboys: critisism is good. Its better to fix problems than to deny them. It won't perform better if you just say it does
Do you believe a youtubers opinion? Hmmm.
Check out tank competition results.
@@Davebsuk Leopards always win those, ya know?
@@Davebsuk 2 challenger 2 tanks destroyed in kursk
@benjaminkoch2380 All tanks have less than 50mm top armor, they are all vulnerable to the exact same extent to top attack. Some just happen to protect their crews from a giant fireball better. It's all the same fucking thing, there is no reason to fanboy.
@@DrLsuBoyMatt and how many leopards?
I can feel the Hog from here.
The smell is unbearable
And the British yapping is already making ears bleed
It’s lazar slug, hogs/pigs are way too intelligent 🐌 🐌
hog has been hogtied
Lazerpigs gonna be reporting Red for his emotional damage.
here come the piglets....
@Arkephalos stop squealing
wow, I can't believe you actually got one with that comment
@@FelonFondlesAveriwho are you so wise in the art of hunting piggies
@Arkephaloswalked right into the trap
@Arkephalos Brother I'm pretty sure he's Croatian
9:00 only 6 hours for 90 RPGs?? what did they even do? seal the holes with flex seal?
What do you mean?
@@ciaranReal 6 hours is too short for "90 rpgs"
Bros were getting shot at a rate of 4 minutes per RPG ☠️⚰️☠️⚰️☠️⚰️
Gaffer tape surely?
Me when a lack of spare parts:
I feel like we need a sequel to the "meanwhile at the British tank development office..."
"Sir, the rifled gun is worse than the smooth bore!"
"We already spend millions of pounds on it, we're not going to change course now!"
"The commander has no thermal sight!"
"Give the loader a remote weapon station with thermals!"
"The engine is no good!"
"Seriously!? Again!?"
Sir the 17 pounder won't fit
The rifled gun better than a smoothbore in only one way: service life. The service life of an average smoothbore Soviet gun is about 100-200 shots (total!) and this figure has not changed significantly. Well, you have to pay for everything, there is no such thing as a perfect engineering solution.
The rifled gun better than a smoothbore in only one way: service life. The service life of an average smoothbore Soviet gun is about 100-200 shots (total!) and this figure has not changed significantly. Well, you have to pay for everything, there is no such thing as a perfect engineering solution.
@@Ailasher Literally everyone says the opposite, why would a literal metal pipe with extra steps last less than one with added complexity in the form of rifling? You may cite stats but stats without theory are useless as there are an infinite ammount of factors that can lead to these stats
I thought this was extremely common knowledge but I guess not. The rifling isn't for stabilisation, it's for spinning the hesh which makes HESH more accurate, and improves damage. The whole tank is built around shitting out hesh at big concrete bunkers and other defensive structures. It's big and heavy and it kills bunkers for you, can do a decent sized explosion, and can kill tanks fine. Basically most of the tanks modern issues stem from this fairly reasonable doctrine at the time. They did not decide to build something and then test what's the best choice afterwards.
LaserPig on suicide watch right now.
He is by default he belongs to the alphabet community
@@u2beuser714 edgy
@@u2beuser714 RIP
@@u2beuser714 lmao
@@u2beuser714the LGBT? You mean Liberty Guns Beer and Tits?
nahhhh lazerpig's feathers are getting ruffled with this one 😭😭🙏🙏
Tfw the modern Maus is actually bad in swamps, shocker.
It’s funny because the maus is likely better in tough terrain than the chally since its tracks are so wide. During testing it got stuck in mud but was able to drive out under its own power and not even had to be towed by simply digging out some mud behind it.
@@Phantom-bh5ru >germs make an unbelievable tank
>It works
>Brits bolt armor to a tractor
>It doesn't even start
@@PedroCosta-po5nubrits can't even make a tractor never mind bolt armour to it 😂
@@ciaranReal Most nations the size of Idaho cant even get that far so i'll take a glorified bob semple.
@@Phantom-bh5ru probably not because the maus weighs double
I think the long and the short of it is that NATO forces can destroy or knockout Russian tanks, and Russian forces can destroy or knockout NATO tanks.
Long and short is this guys waffling about a tank that had the best defensive combat proven record in the world and just fucked ip the Russians in Kursk with only the exports lol.
@@aguy607 inhale deeply on that copium
@@aguy607 where do you get your Copium?
I need something to get so detached from reality.
@@aguy607 The Challengers are getting oblitarated in Kursk...
And seriously "best defensive combat proven record"?
@@aguy6072 Challengers have been confirmed destroyed in Kursk lmao
Lazerpig will be sneeding
Cant wait for the glorious copium huffed response video from him
Finally someone addressing the elephant in the war.
*the pig in the room
Heh, Elefant 😏
Next LazerPig will talk about "Soft Factors"TM again and tell us about how M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 are AcKchYuALLy worse than Challenger 2.
@@BestOfSound99 he’s gonna talk about how the HESH is actually amazing and completely gloss over the fact that dedicated HE shells are more effective guaranteed just like all his response videos were he only argues what he wants too argue and then makes no point at all
Tell me more about how the Pig lives in your head rent free
@@hresvelgr7193 *Lazar sluggie 🐌
@@hresvelgr7193 tell me why people shitting on the pig are living in your head rent free
Only that I learned what a teaboo ist and now have an association with being a teaboo and LazerPig as he is the only one I know of.
A second Challenger 2 was destroyed, this time in Kursk by a Lancet. The tank had a massive detonation of ammunition and explosion. I’m 100% sure the turret went to the moon. The Lancet warhead is nothing special so I doubt that a Challenger was able to withstand 7RPGs in Iraq. That Challenger was probably hit with a 30mm cannon or something smaller. The British are notorious for exaggerating everything like how many aircraft they shot down during the Battle of Britain or their performance during the Falkland war, or their WW2 code breakers 🤣
Western tanks don't turret toss, the ammunition is stored in the back behind blast panels. If the ammunition detonates, the blast is directed away from the crew increasing survivability of the operators. Keep coping though
@@James-sh4zfhave you seen this video about Challenger? It’s not equipped with blowout panels
@@yaroboredd nope, challenger 2 is designed compartmentally with survivability of the crew being key. Complex design to avoid ammo cook off, and separation of crew from the ammunition. The video released by Russia shows at least two different tasks, and two different locations. No idea what tank is at the second location where the large explosion takes place, as the video is not clear.
@@James-sh4zf show me where the ammo is separated from crew lmao. Are you selling those by any chance?
@@yaroboredd lol get a life, try to meet a nice girl, lose your virginity, it's pathetic
I think in this war there is no hero tank that will make any effect alone. All these tanks can be knocked out, but all are better than no tank.
You have to admit russians tanks can take more land, though, because they have a land acquisition module installed directly from the factory..
Hum. They say Ukranians actually prefer not to use it and go with a Bradley.
@@lisakeitel3957 sure but I don't see them giving it back either
The Merkava is winning lmao
I’m joking. Those drones ain’t no joke
@@miguelguzman4702 I mean it did have urban combat taken into its design considerations so it might have better protection against drones. Im not sure though.
The true answer is that both LazerPig and RedEffect are wrong. The Challenger 2 is not the tank either present it as, but somewhere in between. But sensationalism generates engagement so if you want to generate hits, take an extreme position.
Why is bro spitting facts all of a sudden
Completely agree
the reason the turret didn't compete in the toss-Olympics was because *it is so damn heavy* otherwise it would've been sky high.
Video idea: the best t-55 upgrades (and/or other early cold war tanks) in active service.
Great idea! Maybe throw in what he thinks is the worst too for comparison
It's pretty clear though what it is: the M-55S.
Это наверное будет Т-55АД/Т-55АМД
T-55AMV ?
@@kg7162 AMD
The Challenger 2 is not overrated. They still have tea kettle, none can be found in other tanks.
You have a point
i only drink chocolate milk
Yes, there are no gentlemen and sports in modern wars!
Alas, Abrams tanks have had a “boiling vessel” (tea kettle to our British cousins) for quite some time. If that isn’t an argument for the Challenger 3 program, I don’t know what is…
Like many things we invented, somebody else does it better but we still like to claim we're the best at it.
Ukraine war went from making fun of Russian tanks to realizing that all tanks are shit.... be it the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2.
The older variants of western tanks, newer variants come with anti-drone jamming systems, remote controlled turrets, and hard kill APS. The trade off being that new tanks are now ungodly expensive, e.g. Leopard 2A4 costs $5M while a Leopard 2A8 costs almost $30M.
@@JollyOldCanuck most of these anti drone systems aren't even in service.
The Trophy APS barely entered service mounted on a very limited number of tanks and isn't capable of stopping FPV drones.
I hear lazerpig crying from here.
Damn, Lazerpig really lives rent free in your head too.
@@hresvelgr7193 nop, I just watched his interesting video about the Challenger 2, and he's very pissed off by the famous rifled barrel.
@@hresvelgr7193says the dude with 100+ comments clearly red affect lives rent free in your little brain
In the past: No way ever that RedEffect will say some tank is suck or bad directly and only states problem
Now: Oh...here we go, we might see some people come out to defense Challenger 2 argument now
Because usually saying something sucks is as stupid as saying something is perfect
@@gabrielmannarino Good luck convincing people nothing is perfect lmao
You should see his awful Leclerc video
nobody cares about british stuff, only american militarism is untouchable
You did a good job explaining the drawbacks of the rifled gun and dispelling some common myth's and while some argument can be made for building CR2 with a smoothbore and retrofitting the CR1 to the same standard. You completely failed to explain why the MOD decided to accept these compromises in the first place. The rifling did improve HESH accuracy at long range when combined with the then new TOGS gunnery sight but more importantly it caused the explosive filler to spread wider on impact before detonation increasing spalling and damage. This round was always the Challengers primary ammunition because while it's limited in effectiveness against tanks it's devastating against lighter armour and more effective against field fortifications than anything else available t the time. The British designers didn't get swept up in the delusion of brave tank aces dueling across the battlefield they understood the tanks primary function is direct fire support for infantry and lighter armoured vehicles because all evidence proves tank on tank fighting is a rarity for good reasons militaries in general are not stupid and sending your valuable tanks to attack your enemies dug in waiting tanks is bloody stupid when they can be used to punch through weak areas with limited direct fire support and out manoeuvre their opponents. With the advent of programmable ammunition which is even more effective than HESH the rifled gun no longer makes sense but at the time it was the correct choice and not just Brit's doing Brit things for no logical reason as some believe.
Have you ever been dug in facing tanks?
I have
Yes he deliberately leaves this out.
His whole video is dripping with hate and ignorance.
But it plays to what his fans want to here.
Challenger 2 biggest issue is the underpowered engine.
@@lionel66cajppppp0please explain you,re point.
@@user-go3xr2et4k Oh shit, here's a piggie. A cute little piglet.
It’s almost like the British designed a tank around their fighting doctrine.
Bro is trying to make Lazer pig his nemesis 💀
The Challenger 2 is one of the world’s better-protected tanks. Its composite “Dorchester” armor-gives it the equivalent of at least 1,400 millimeters of steel on the turret face.
But British Army doctrine for decades asked its tankers to fight defensively, while dug in. For that reason, British tank-designers applied some of the thinnest protection to the glacis, which would be underground when the tank is fighting from a revetment.
It’s not for no reason that, in the 30 years since the Challenger 2 entered service, the British Army has added bolt-on armor to the glacis. Weirdly, the United Kingdom apparently didn’t offer this glacis armor to Ukraine. It’s almost as if British officials expected the Ukrainians to use the Challenger 2 defensively.
1400mm of protection is complete false unless they have some type of unobitanium.
Challenger 2 is not 30 years old.
@@gerfand It's layered armor protection, that would be equivalent of 1400mm of steel. i.e. it massively outperforms traditional / old armor.
@@The24Gamer no, the armor is not equivalent to 1400mm of steel
The reason why they kept the rifled cannon is tied to the fact that HESH rounds work even better when they are spinning fast. On impact, it helps spread the plastic explosive and the effect on the enemy armour is more efficient (sorry is my english sucks ^^)..
There today, the Kursk challenger set a new record for throwing a tower...
About the ammo detoantion, the latest destroyed the challenger actually did a full turret toss
There was only the barrel left as one report said it was that full of rounds
"turret still is attached to its hull " .... are they saying this while shitting in their own pants?
Stupid bbc if Russia destroys a tank it’s like it’s a war crime and if Israel commits war crimes then no one cares but Palestine can’t do that and yes I’m brittish
The Challenger 2 tank that no country other than Britain has ever dared to buy in its entire history due to its extremely dubious engineering solutions and extremely high logistics requirements - and suddenly it is overrated? That's anecdotal.
Challenger 2 wasn’t bought by other countries for two reasons. It is custom made for British tank doctrine, and it was developed at a later period than Leopard 2 and Abrams of which customer nations had already purchased. I don’t know what ‘extremely dubious engineering solutions’ you’re referring to. Nor are its logistical requirements any greater than other tanks, in fact they are less than some others. Namely it has better fuel consumption fuel consumption than Leopard 2 and Abrams, is fitted with bigger fuel tanks and extra external tanks giving a 400+ mile range.
@@qasimmir7117 Rifled barrel alone is a problem big enough which can be described as "extremely dubious engineering solutions and extremely high logistics requirements"
It creates very serious problem for any logistics because countries are used to NATO unified ammo type and they don't like the idea to have this bastard that doesn't use the same types of ammo available to them, doesn't even have proper HE but only useless and outdated HESH because of "extremely dubious engineering solutions" and it wants you to buy very specific type of ammo for a very specific tank.
Which is why countries are not interested to have anything to do with it. That's the number one issue. And it's big enough to not even list all the others.
The Germans were virtually giving away their large leopard fleet at the end of the cold war its unlikely once everyone had second hand Leopard 2s that they would buy a challenger 2 for full sticker price. Once their fleets were using Leopards and they had the support in place its not likely they would change. Look at India with Russian gear once you have bought a brand its difficult to acquire anything else.
Well it shows you have no idea what you are talking about as it has been exported to Oman. Sure its got its flaws like with its rifled gun, its weight and its powerpack but please just shut the fuck up if you do not know what you are talking about.
I can hear the trotters of Lazerpig's fanboys already😂
NAFO nerds lmao
I mean, we, Lazerpig fanboys, were really angry last time, when RedEffect used a socialedia post from some remotely associated Russian as a proof to a post of the same Russian on Vkontakte (Russian Facebook) That was a level of research we couldn't cope with.
Invent a counter spinning mechanism so you can fire fin stabilised rounds from a rifled barrel ..... that is soooooo British.
Remember how quickly everyone forgot about this tank after 6 months of hyping it up for the great spring (belated) counteroffensive?
The fact that the Ukrainians did a whole ad/opening for the offensive kills me
Challenger 2 has been overhyped way longer tha 6 months. It was more like 20 years of constant
"Did you know the Challenger 2 survived 70 RPG hits?"
"Did you know not a single a Challenger 2 has been destroyed"
@@OtherlingQueen hype is hype, you can't really gauge the performance of it
It’s in Kursk right now though?
@@jakew7982 where
The problem with the Challenger 2 is the fact the MOD and Governments never allow or give the funding needed to build and to keep up to date the tanks. Challenger 2 and '3' are not up to NATO standard anymore. But Britain's MOD won't bite the expensive bullet and reason that a new tank needs to be made or maybe partnership for a tank maybe with the Americans for the next Abram replacement or with the replacement of the Leopard 2 with the Germans.
The 3 will be very much up to standard, but yes the 2 is not. Hence why it’s getting replaced
@@deanwood1338 Has it got blow out panels?
Challenger 3 is up to date for 2024 NATO but it will still behind the upcoming tanks that will replace or update Abrams and Leopard 2. It's not future proofing Britain's armoured forces and knowing our MOD and Government they will not just use challenger 3 as a stop gap until there is a more permeant long term replacement prepared and made.
Challenger 3 is a not long term solution it's at best a stop gap really, but the government will want it to be the end solution.
@@deanwood1338 The problem is challenger 3 is only at the moment compare to 2024 NATO, problem is NATO will soon be moving onto Next Generation tanks. While Britain will be left with challenger 3 that has no more advancement. Then where in the same problem again, and knowing the MOD they won't be investing in a true future Next Generation tank either.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD I agree, the MOD is a complete joke when it comes to adding new things. Take an age and way to much money the way they do it now, the 3 will be fine for the next 20 years which is all we need it to do
@@RomanHistoryFan476ADNext generation tanks??
Hahahahaha...
You do know that MGCS isn't supposed to be operational, at the earliest, until 2045....21 years from now, and thats just the first units. It won't be fully fielded until 2055.... And thats if development and production goes without a hitch...which given its the German's and French working together (the partners from hell) with issues already out in the open is exceptionally unlikely....
Are these next generation tanks in the room with you now??
I believe at the end of the day, Britain just want to send the Challengers so other NATO members state would send their own tanks like the Leopard 2 which the Ukrainian seemed to appreciate much more than the small fleet of Challengers it had received due to the fact that they’ve been using Leopard 2s in every offensive operation.
Lol aftermath photos of a challenger posted recently and it's turret was fully popped and this was a recent strike by a lancet. The first one also turret popped.
How dare you defy English propaganda?😂
"... HESH because it's a plastic explosive... and can only be triggered by a fuse..." This isn't entirely correct. It can practically only be detonated by another high explosive, such as a primary explosive in form of a blasting cap. The fuse isn't what ignites the plastic explosive.
Great Timing…In the Kursk Direction another one got destroyed, likely from a Lancet.
It seems like the ammo cocked imedeately of.
Its literally in a repair station getting fixed. Only one has been destroyed outright in Ukraine as of today.
@@MrWiggo91are they glueing the turret back on? Even UK media put up photos of the ejected turret.
@@MrWiggo91 theres at least 2 different tanks that went to Kursk, one got damaged the other destroyed, we have the image like you said of the repair shop, and we have the image of the other destroyed, The Sun has a video on it. EDIT - Sun has made the video private, we still have the image of the tank however. once on internet cannot get out.
the british liked to criticize russian tanks for taking off turrets, but in their own "invincible" tank the situation is perhaps even worse
@@mrc9437only one to have a 100% turret toss on loss...
You are entirely missing the point.
The main purpose of the Challenger is to transport a large boiling vessel forward with the infantry and therefore provide Tea.
With the application of enough "Brew:NATO Standard." A company strength detachment of British infantry could conquer most medium size nations by lunchtime.
It sounds like Challenger 2 might have made for a much better “Pentagon Wars” style movie than the Bradley.
All of them do and they still are, if Brazil can produce a basic modern tank that allegedly out manoeuvres an abrams tank, it means that there is some kind of a racket going on with these military contracts. They're not producing state of the art tanks but it's nothing more then a front to precure billions of dollars of taxpayers money and funneling it to these phony military contractsors or to unknown sources.
You make some good points, agree with most of it. Though I Would still argue that surviving 7 RPG's and an ATGM hit (with no one killed) to fight another day is pretty impressive.
Well that's what the composite armor in these Multi million dollar tanks is made for.... To stop at least simple RPGs LoL
T-72, T-80, T-90, Abrams, Leopard, Challenger 2 - Surprise, surprise. Tanks designed 30 years ago perform poorly on a high intensity battlefield in 2024!
Actualy T72 performs great...which was surprise...i was more surprised how t90 sucked....and NATO tanks we all know they Are coloniao police tanks...Abrams sucked even in desert storm..
@@zrikizrikic9126 really based on what evidence. I have read many reports on the high attrition rates’ and over 1200 destroyed. Yes it lighter but also underpowered and probably not fully restored and maintains. Maybe the high losses are down to tactics and badly trained crew and it is really a good tank.
Recent news is that the British military has only 40 of these in service.
This is going to get alot of flak from the mental disability community
lel
Red effect
Bits to add would be that you fail to mention that OF19 is fin stabilised and it comes across as a smooth bored unstabilised HE shell is more actuate than HESH. It would have also been key to explain that HESH effect is improved when the shell is spun.
Secondly cropped graphs to the point where it’s just numbers with no context comes across as confusing and doesn’t disclose how it was tested or where they are from.
In previous Abrams video you specified that the commander also doesn’t have a CITV but also specifies that the weapon system can double up as a thermal sight for the commander. The enforcer 2 as per leonardos own brochure is adopted by the British army and can be interfaced into a battle management system to enable slew to cue capabilities. Also the commander sight does have an image intensifier as it uses the SAGEM VS 580-10.
Thank you dude. I love red effects videos but I thought I was going mad when I couldn’t understand the graphs he was showing
@@anamelesshobo7868 I enjoy red effect too, unfortunate this video feels like it could have had one more pass just to review the points and better present the aforementioned graphs.
The Abrams has diferent versions; the difference is that the M1A1 (that Ukraine uses) has no CITV while the A2 variant has the CITV
But at least in the case of Abrams the Remote Weapon Station (RWS) is actually controlled by the commander, which actually makes it a secondary CITV (or for the M1A1 case the primary one).
Although it doesn't have the same quality as the primary CITV of the M1A2, but at least actually gives the Ukrainian Abrams commander an independent thermal viewer, which the challenger does not have at all. And that's exactly what redeffect pointed out here
@@AquaNomad34 As per my comment at a minimum assuming the feed of the RWS cannot be fed into the commanders sight and he cannot control it. The operator can now act as a secondary spotter for the gunner. The Enforcer has a 2nd gen thermal sight which is a generation higher than that of the M1A1-SA.
@@jackburton9035
No, even the Challenger 2 TES (Enforcer) still has no CITV.
And although the RWS does have thermals but it is not controlled by the commander but the loader, who is busy reloading the gun when the gunner needs to shoot, so he can nö longer use the RWS to search for enemies at this moment...
Only the challenger 3 finally receive a CITV in 2025....
More than 30 years later than the Leopard 2A5 and Abrams already had a CITV in 1995....
The British Challenger was "THE MOST DEADLY & MOST SURVIVABLE PIECE OF KIT ON A WESTERN BATTLEFIELD 1990 - 2010" without compare. It’s armour survived a 5000 kilo culvert bomb, another 60+ RPG hits, DUP from Abrams bounced off yet the gun one shot said Abrams relocated the up-armoured turret of another Challenger 6 ft down the engine deck. It could run 6 rounds up the barrel and had almost twice the range of any other gun… Ukraine is another time and a different war the Challenger is a very capable tank, but even with it’s armour stripped off it’s still too heavy for Ukraine...
then came the drones
One thing I think you may have missed when talking about the rifled gun, is the benefits to HESH which I believe is why the British kept the gun. The spin imparted onto the HESH round allows the explosive to spread more across the target, allowing for improved spalling on the other side of the armor.
What is "the other side of the armor" in world of composite armor and antispalling protection?
@@BojanPeric-kq9etHesh is usually used for lightly armoured vehicles and buildings. Dont think they would be chucking a low velocity hesh round at modern MBTs if a chally came up against modern armour
You’ve made the pork angry🐖
I love how right after this video was posted, a Challenger 2 gets murked in Kursk.
Funny enough about this if I’m correct LazerPig called a destroyed Challenger 2 that was photographed in Kursk a T-64 which the back of it was shown too and it’s not a T-64
General Rasputitsa teaching lesson more than 80yrs later that 60+ ton tanks don't work in Russia.
Tanks Redeffect!
They were never designed to…..
LoL they're designed to work on their bubbled environments, anything thats outside that, it's not their doctrine. A princess tank.
@AlanThree001 All tanks are designed to work within their doctrine that's literally what a doctrine is.
it could work if you make the tracks wide enough
@@biscuit715 dude re-read my comment and try to comprehend.
Bro is saying this like the T72 series of tanks are the best in the world
watch his multiple video on the problems with T-72
@@gerfand yes but his talking point is that, hey guys in the end we all do shit, nope Russian tanks are death traps, western not. They are not wonder weapon neither but try their best to keep crew alive.
@@pisolo86 western tanks like the Challenger 2 that has 100% turret toss on loss rate?
You gonna cover the Ukrainian counter invasion into the Kursk region? How much truth is to what's going on right now??
The tank was offered to export, only one none British customer, while 2 models earlier, the Centurion, was sold in thousands across the the world, that tells a lot...
I think I recall in one of your early vids you might have said IFVs are not your thing, but I think you should cover the Warrior IFV if you have not already.
It is absolutely not even close to the most overrated tank ever. Just as an example I give you the T-14 Armata.
T-14 is better than challenger 2.
@@DrLsuBoyMatt hard to call T-14 a thing since it is more of a wishlist than a ready tank
But the T-14 isnt universally seen as a good tank? So it cant be the most overrated tank? Just because of a minority of people think its really good doesnt mean shit, with that circular logic any tank is the most overrated because there are a fraction of fanboys who think their tank can 1v5 every other tank (e.g Abrams fanboys)
Lots of you people seem to make the assumption that red effect is claiming russian tanks are better, when no such claims or indication were ever made, in fact the only direct claim here is that you cant compare the challenger 2 to an Abrams or Leopard 2, which is EXTREMELY common as a way of coping that it wasnt just a massive waste of tax payer money, since the British could have easily been part of either of those 2 weapons programs and imported better tanks for way cheaper, maybe even with a special barrel if they REALLY wanted it
So it takes a tank that didn't even got out of the proto stage to surpass the overrated shit that the Challenger is? Wow
@@WTF2BlueTiger T-14 is unfinished. Everything we know is based on russian declarations, but to have working tank (or whatever machine) you need to integrate those features to make it reliable package. Armata might be a good tank on paper, but how does it perfom on the field? It does not exist on the field, despite the fact that Russia is full on war tright now.
4:05 ahh yess the because Soviets definitely are 100% truthful all the time and never lie. Also the chart for the T-64 says “A likely deviation” so they’re not sure? The number could be close to truth but also far from it. Only reason I see why anyone would use this source is because it says what you want it to.
to start, why would they lie to themselves?
And isn't it funny that every other nation that uses stuff like HEAT-FS, like the US M830, has more accuracy than HESH, like 1993 Kuwait trials showed?
Using a soviet source for a soviet tank????? how could he do this!!!!
When the tank is western: "Let's use western sources!"
When the tank is Soviet: "Let's use Western... sources!"
are you that dumb to the point of not knowing whoever made this graph would have been shot for falsifying data, and this graph here would have been removed?
This is also likely part of why the USA developed the M10 Booker.
They realize that (1) drones have made super-heavy armor obsolete, and cope cages actually work (which the USA already developed for Strykers), (2) something lightweight is easier to transport and handles rough terrain better, and (3) most of what a tank does is NOT tank duels.
The USA developed a Sherman for the modern era. The whole thing about the M10 being "Mobile Firepower" instead of a "Tank" is just a way to emphasize point #3 and move away from a "Battle of 73 Easting" mentality on the modern battlefield.
I could imagine a tank being developed around drones, which has the main purpose of stealthily moving within drone strike range of the target, launching its drones, and running away, potentially flying its drones while moving. Essentially, this armor would act like a Mongolian falconer on the hunt. Now to get really weird, what if this tank of the future was built around the Alvis Scorpion, but given modern cope cage improvements? Such a vehicle would ideally use a low-caliber autocannon to save weight so it can carry more drones, and the autocannon would be used more for unarmored and lightly-armored targets that aren't worth wasting a drone on. This tank could resist low-caliber munitions, but its primary defense it its mobility, its ability to strike a target out of sight, and its small profile.
Oh boy, let's go, i'm sure THAT youtuber will take it well lmao
I often wondered about the "Indestructible" Challenger myth? I had heard about it so many times, even when I was in the ME busy being an Invader! The thing was, I never saw Challengers anywhere and I believe all UK forces were gone by 2003, although my addled brain may be wrong 🤔😅
British forces were on combat operations in Iraq until 2009 and then a smaller contingent continued as a mentor force.
Brits have alvways been masters of propaganda. They invented Russian troops using shovels, Bucha massacre. And this indestrucabe tank.
@@Boyar300AV and now they have problem because indestructible tank was destroyed by flying shovels.
Challenger 2 is bad.
Also, Challenger 2 is helping Ukrainian defending fortified positions and broke through the Russian lines in Kursk.
Nah bro it only got claped by Lancet and Vikhirs in Kursk, the element of surprise with Light Inf did a lot more for them
Also yeah Russian sure where mistaken in having paved roads there...
@@gerfandNot sure about Vikhrs, that tank managed to survive
@@sneakysnek8416 yes but was clearly damaged maybe its the one that we have images of back on repair, maybe its unconfirmed one
@@sneakysnek8416 I am not sure, but I think Russians fire more than one antitank missile per tank.
@BojanPeric-kq9et ATGM tank destructions are now pretty rare, it's more Mines or drones, it's faster, lows risks (reduce exposure) and less convenient.
Challenger 3 won't have any of these issues and will be a great tank for 1980s
Hello.
I am an arm chair expert and have never seen combat or operated any vehicle I talk about.
Believe me. I am making claims in an agitated tone and can read internet articles.
Trust me bro.
Keep Yourself Safe
@chazbazza corny ahh mf
💀💀💀
Your Salt is delicious 😂😂😂
@chazbazza Of course he is who else would he be and do you know what? He's not wrong. Whilst not everything is wrong in the video, I spent years on that tank and funnily enough, know enough about it to see gaping holes in what he's saying.
It wouldn't be so irritating if he didn't sound quite so sure of himself.
Chally 2 is irelevant in my opinion simply becouse there is like 200 of them.... 200 tanks would last how long in a war ?? maybe half a year max ????
In what war? They fought in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade and lost like 2 of them. They had 400 of them back then though.
@@istillusezune82in a real war, if they were all in Ukraine if you use Russian numbers you would have a Tank that needs to be 4 to 5 less likely to be loss (while still fighting) to stay avaible by the end of the year
@@gerfand The NATO doctrine emphasises on combined arms since AirLand Battle era. Attack jets and helicopters will trim down the number of Russian tanks before they contact and engage.
@@istillusezune82 that is irrelevant because doctrines are not going to tell the result. its only how one wants to fight. however tank alone its not different specially when it comes to attrition.
Perhaps the reason we haven't been hearing much of the Challenger 2 is because instead of being used on the front line, where most footage comes from, they're being used as secondary mobile defense platforms. A way where they can still be used, but not see much action or danger.
Pretty much this, the crews like them well enough and they use them to snipe at Russian infantry firing positions and vehicles. Add that to the fact that there is only 7 of them operational, means they are never making the news. Their job is boring but important.
@@RevRaptor898 "Their job is boring but important."
Oh no, please stop spreading the very new Britaboo-myth of the Challenger 2 as a "sniper-tank". there is no such thing as a sniper-tank. Stop coping. Challenger 2 is without any doubt the worst Western mbt.
@@kodor1146
The Ariete is still worse than the challenger, so the challenger is only the second worst tank Western as of now (and if we include NATO countries that even still use Soviet T72 and T55 tanks, that would make it look even better) 😅😂
the british got scared their tank got destroyed, so they forbid its use in the front lines too safe face, got it
@@RevRaptor898 sniping at russian infantry...with apfsds. got it
on a serious note? the milbloggers will be talking about it if it happens. it will be on every single mainstream news website afterwards
Challenger 3 may prove to be another mistimed acquisition and by 2050, everyone is mocking it for being the only tank that still has crew in the turret.
One reason the British kept the rifled gun for their tanks is because of the HESH shell. Not that it makes the shell more accurate but because it makes the shell more effective. HESH is basically a big blob of plastic explosive that detonates on a surface and causes damage by blast effect and internal spalling. It was designed to destroy heavily armored tanks without the need to actually have to punch through the armor. Having a spin on the shell means the blob spreads out and affects a larger area, doing more damage. This was quite good in the past but has lost quite a bit of usefulness in modern times between sabot/fin becoming quite a bit better and tanks being equipped with composite armor, ERA, and spall liners. This is why the British are finally switching to a smoothbore gun.
The only reason is becauuse they are Brits and they know better. Like when they developed a 5.56 assault rifle than was heavier than the previous 7.62 battlerifle.
@@MechBandit sir .280 british is 7.2mm not 5.56mm
@@ligmasurvivor5600 Talking about the L85 that replaced the Fn Fal
@@MechBandit oh
Shhh do not explain physics to Rednik, he may learn something.
Another request for video on South African tank.... One fairly powerful nation still using such old tank with interesting modification 😅😂
The SANDF is not powerful in the slightest and has only been doing un peacekeeping missions for 30 years, the average age of their infantryman is 38
@pieterandjuanchronicles9849 well they are at least the 4th strongest *African* country on the African continent, after Morocco (3rd), Algeria (2nd) and Egypt (1st)
And in terms of GEO-Politics (world affairs) Soth Africa is also relatively prominent.
Kinda obvious that a tank following a completly different design theory would suck in a theatre it's not made for.
It's literally fighting on the eastern front against Russia which it was literally made for. The FAQ are you talking about
The tank was already vulnerable before it even entered service.
Even the Soviet Konkurs missile from the 80's was already able to penetrate the Challenger from the side, just like literally any other tank.
Needs more copium 😂
@@AquaNomad34it’s designed for hull down defence not offensives that was never its design doctrine. The armour on the turret is still some of the best out there. Regardless of its majors short comings.
One of the more frustrating parts is that we tested Leopard 2 chassis with a different turret. I do wonder what Chally 2 turret w/ smoothbore on a Leo 2 chassis would be like
I think the main detractor for chally2 was a lack of iterations, unlike Abrams or Leopard2. It took a long time for Challenger 2 to receive modernization with the UK MOD having a shrinking budget and seeing more and more limited uses for the tank fleet (post 2003 Iraq). It certainly left the tank lacking compared to its counterparts. I think getting into the weeds of paper stats and granular analysis of modern western tanks is a bit of a catch 22. You can lay it all out on paper and say "yes, this tank is better" and so on. But I would argue the tanks performance in the hands of the people trained to use it speaks more to its quality and capability.
It's this level of digging into detail that causes things like the X engine argument in the Armata.
Tanks burn
Tanks break down
Gun performance varies widely on multiple atmospheric and crew conditions
Tanks can and are killed, sometimes laughably easily, based on tactical use and enemy assets in the area.