I wonder if the Battle tank will have drone tech on board fitted with eyes in the sky? Design a tank that is designed from top to bottom by Tank operators. Not boffins in a lab. Those with the experience of a tank wars need to be guiding the production of this tank.
What's really depressing is that we sent almost as many troops (3/4) troops to Gulf War 1 as we actually have in the Army today! And that was on top of maintaining commitments in NI, the Falklands, the UK and elsewhere around the world at the time. Challenger 1 (221 deployed in total) at the time was a very capable platform and actually scored the longest tank on tank kill at 4700m.
The problem is a complete lack of protection improvement. No hardkill, no soft kill, no era, no additional armor package. Lacking survivability on the modern battlefield is a recipie for disaster. The mobility and firepower increases are significant however if you don’t get the first shot off, you lose. Why not integrate a small recon quadcopter? Or perhaps A telescoping sight
Served 18 yrs, did my gunnery on Chieftain, converted to CR1 full crewman, then CVRT full crewman/cmdr, then CR2 arrived and had to train on that. The difference between the generations is huge and im hoping that will carry on with this new gen. My reservations are that are that the battlefield is getting to hostile for MBT's with drones etc, too complicated to survive the rough handling of the crew and the logistics are going to put it out of reach of most potential customers. Plus...going to smoothbore....EEEWWWWW!
I own a Chiefain MBT MK10 04EB32. Love the sound of the engine it howls and roars with authority. We have restored this old vickers creation only left to do is come miner restoration within the turret and respray the outside. Take a look at my channel if you so wish - I will be posting more videos soon.
I was 1rtr and left in 2012 because i found out we were going to start sharing tanks with other regiments... The best thing about having your own tank was you took massive pride in yhat vehicle and knew its pros and cons but we lost that when we started sharing.. 👍
In agreement 148 vehicle I think Is one battalion, you need at least minimum five hundred tanks too one thousand to make an effective force . I just hope they don't scrap the other three hundred fifty challenger 2 that they have in storage and they up grading them as well as part of the package, That's work for years.
The Defnce Minister was talking absolute crap. Tanks are not a "nation building force" . I have never heard so much crap been spoken so confidently - typical of the current British politicians. Policy decisions are just like computers - shit in = shit out.
One thing that always gets forgotten about is Infantry. We’re grubby and not quite as photogenic as all of the shiny toys, but we’re the only ones who will get down and dirty with a bayonet when the need arises. And before anyone says that that sort of soldiering is resigned to the dusty pages of history, tell that to the infanteers who had to do exactly that in Afghan, Iraq, Falklands and almost every other conflict we’ve ever been involved in. Reducing infantry battalions is a massive mistake. Swift & Bold
I hope that they improvements are not just for these 148 challenger 3 tanks their is another 452 challenger 2s I think still sitting instorage . And I hope that they are not going to quietly scrape them ! That's a awful lot of waist fullness .
I think the idea is they will stay in storage as some sort of 'surge' capability if needed but also be the source for further C3s again if needed. I cannot see 148 being the final build number. This is a number within current budgets.
@@1chish Unfortunately it seems to be British government policy to get rid of surplus military equipment as soon as possible after its withdrawal from service nowadays, instead of keeping the Challenger 1’s available as a ready reserve when the Challenger 2 entered service almost the whole lot were sold to Jordan, when the Tornado’s were withdrawn from service they were all either scrapped or given to museums even though many of them still had plenty of fatigue life left.
@@mrjockt So who was going to buy hard worked Tonkas? And why would we keep a small, old and unique fleet and inventory when the Typhoon had become a far better asset? In addition the Germans and Italians were already reducing their fleets and the Saudis were buying Typhoons and never buy second hand kit. When a piece of kit is no longer serviceable its dead money to retain it as it has to be maintained, guarded and local populations kept safe. This is the big issue with the nuclear sub disposal.
@@1chish I think you missed the point of my comment, the Challenger 2’s that aren’t converted to C3 standard most probably won’t be held for future updating, the government will either look for a buyer or scrap them at the first opportunity, those 148 Challenger 3’s are all the British army are ever going to get.
@@mrjockt No I fully understood your point and had made my views on Challengers clear in my reply to the OP. You now make a supposition (that the Government will scrap hundreds of Challengers) to support your argument that Governments scrap equipment too early. Not sure that stands scrutiny. 148 of the IIs will be upgraded within THIS Governments budgets. It cannot bind a future Government. 450 IIs will remain in store. That is the current situation.
Well there isn't a 'budget cut' so park that old canard. However a Government cannot bind any future Government and so the 148 are from current budgets.
@@1chish A reduction in capability is just that, a reduction in capability that means you enter a fight in a weaker position than would otherwise have been the case. That weakness risks defeat and also increases the loss of life as a final penalty. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.
@@robertdavie1221 You can also be defeated by having inferior weapons. And as I said there has been no reduction in capability in fact an increase as the Challenger IIs remain in store and 148 will become Challenger IIIs.
@@robertdavie1221 Tell me against whom we are going to go to war and I can answer that question. But you didn't want an answer you just wanted to keep repeating your opinions. 148 for upgrade to Challenger III is what is funded on THIS Government's budgets. We have hundreds more Challenger IIs in store for surge or later upgrade to 'III' spec. Those are the facts. Everything else is biased opinions.
Military comments are like a crowd at a football match, but more geeky as military commentators usually are gamers in their bedrooms thinking they know how to drive a tank...just love all these armchair generals who know sod all except a few acronyms 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I own and can drive a 55ton Chieftain MK10 main battle tank but never be anything other than someone who owns a 55ton Chieftain MK10 Main Battle Tank 😊 click on GLEED and take a look if you so wish.
In a war against a comparable force, how many tanks can be kept battleworthy out of every hundred. When you consider breakdowns, battle damage, total loss ect?
@@dp-sr1fd they have less than 100 t14's so its about even. the other tanks are getting on a bit. also we are an island nation so unless russia plans to invade. which I cant really see that happening we should be fine. also NATO. Also factor in challenger kill ratio in the wars its fought 0 - how many Iraqi tanks defeated?.
@Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake Sioux Rheinmetall/BAE Systems, since the basic design of the tank is still that of the Challenger 2 and the rebuild will be done in the U.K. with BAE Systems as the main contractor that still qualifies the Challenger 3 as a British tank, all the changes being incorporated by Rheimetall are mainly internal changes.
Well technically this video is outdated, what it meant was they hadn't chosen the APS they wanted yet, since then they have settled on Rafaels Trophy APS
Seems to me computer and data related skills are becoming more important for defence. The next war will have a lot more civilians behind the scenes working with technology than other wars. The type of set up in WW2 that broke the enigma will become more important and common.
But we’ll only have enough for two MBT armoured regiments. The King’s Royal Hussars are being converted to Ajax, leaving only 1RTR and QRH. 🤷🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️🙏🏿
You could make this statement for literally any ground unit. Might as well have cut the middle man out and said "War between 1st world countries and mutually assured destruction, bye bye world"
Well lets hope they have made a better job of this than they did the "Ajax" programme. However, I do love the constant "talking up" of British equipment, unfortunately alot of it doesn't live up to the hype. I would also point out these Generals and MP's seem to be forgetting the lessons of history. The Germans had the best tank in WW2, the Tiger tank, however it was defeated by tanks like the T34 and Sherman, which were far inferior tanks, because the Tiger was never made in great numbers and was complicated to make. The T34 and Sherman were easily built and could be replaced rapidly, thus keeping the pressure on. Yes, the army needs to be able to deal with wars that are restricted geographically and limited in scope, however the Russians and now the Chinese have been developing and building up sizeable armed forces now, which are not far behind technically. They are also developing asymetrical warfare, which seems to have caught the west with their trousers down.
The problem with the defence minister's comments was he concealed far mor than he revealed. 148 next generation tanks cannot be in two places at the same time. Furthermore MBT's are first world kit designed to fight first world enemies. That enemy is most likely going to outnumber our side even more than during Cold War 1.0. That enemy isn't up for fighting too far from home and will also employ force multipliers, battle management systems and drone tanks etc. 148 tanks are not enough.
Myth number one; the Tiger was NOT the best tank in WW2 It had an underpowered , petrol engine, it's suspension/ wheel arrangement was a pain in the arse in snow and mud and far too complicated to repair in the field if a wheel needed replacing, it had a limited range and manufacturing it put a huge strain on an already stretched German military industry. Yes, it had thick frontal armour and a lethal gun but , as was proven in combat, one Tiger versus fifteen Sherman's would only end one way.
@@redordead4491 Na without USA EU UKwill collapse to keep strong you must have strong military 24 7 the fact UK has around 80 000 troops instead of 200 000 with at least 800 battle tanks and up to date IFV with antitank capabilty at least 1000 .
@@redordead4491 Warrior is not been updated so all you have will be 500 boxers ajax is a failure UK is a walk over as weve seen with migrants known as the Dump UK for benefit fraud .
Should upgrade the wing mirrors, if there was a raised edge round mirror face they would not get scratched up by anti-slip paint when folded down saving money lol
Nooo! that will delay it's in service date by another ten years while they bugger around with tenders, trials, questions in the House..................
@@thewomble1509 Think the decision is being made in October. Be better to lease some Leopards till we can buy some of the new euro tanks with 130 mm gun due delivery time scale and short service life!
Smoothbore barrel's are not a move forward but a step backwards, rifling is a powerfully accurate system of pinpointing a target and with a near 100% hit rate. Producing an inferior barrel in 2021 is due to cost rather than a intelligent quest for perfection. Let's hope that tank crews don't need a degree in electronics to control & work the software. The ability with all army kit is reliability, sustain battle damage and be effective in its role. As the generations of tank technology has evolved so as the anti-tank weaponry, high quality tanks cost money and the low numbers ordered are more to do with a non-cost effective nature of every Government than a military need to provide a deterrent and a sustainable battle efficient platform. I do understand NATO requirements but the armament & armour need has not been overcome nor the quest for a power-plant that is stronger on reliability and power. Scraping is not a wise move but up-grading is more of a sustainable method of increased numbers of a battle ready tank deterrent. Just my thoughts
Well.... its still obsolete armour wise... and just because ye switched guns and powerplant wont fix its flaws. I still suggest making a completely new hull and a new engine
Chally 2 also had a 120mm gun, but a rifled barrel(Royal Ordnance L30A1)- and it required separate loading of projectile, charge bag, and primer... Challenger 3 will use the Rheinmetal 120mm L55 smoothbore, with that ammunition's casing being semi-combustible (welcome to the 20th Century, Royal Armoured Corps :) )...and definitely NOT a step back !
They dont want to underhype it too much because by the time this upgrade is fully done the french and germans will be onto their next generation tank and the us will already be producing a new tank and fielding the last of the sepv4 improved abrams and have our lite tanks available for sale for british strike units if we just dont outright supply the british with the hull and turret and they put their electronics and choice of motor in them. Like we do the isrealis for the mk4 and the namer apc/ifv. Dont get me wrong they have come up with good designs and ideas but not 50% is original mk4 is based on centurion chassis with different suspension and motor placement.
I understand the active protective system is only attached on the challenger when going to war or attached at shows like the tank feast Bovington. I guess that will be the same for Challenger 3 as part to the Challenger 3 survival capabilities. Maybe someone else will have an input and correct me as the probability of being wrong is high.
Ok so, at the time this video was released, they hadn't yet chosen the protection system the challenger 3 would use, since release they have settled on Rafaels Trophy APS
Yeah people grow on trees like North of England who happy to die for their tory overlords. Johnson just say for good NHS and leveling up and stupid mugs will come running.
This will be a very lethal vehicle. For those who think that the production numbers are too low. The days of the tank as the master of the battlefield are over. There are a lot of weapons capable of destroying a tank from a long distance, probably without being detected. The modern battlefield is a very deadly place so the more units that you put into a battlefield just gives the enemy more targets. Until recently if one was attacking a prepared defence you wanted at least 3:1 superiority. Now what you need is more intel. Defences can be taken out by drones, smart arty and very accurate airstrikes. Also for many years armoured doctrine was based upon WW2 and the expected results of the cold war going hot. So NATO built many tanks that were designed to kill multiple targets before getting destroyed. We are not going to fight that war. How many tanks do you need?
This general know then you got a landcruiser with 28 cm gun you only need one too conquer the whole world since it has the punch to even launch nukes and hit the moon -148 chall3 tanks are not match ,they cant even punch throught the 2m thick roadwheels .
The British Armed Forces facing ever constant budget reductions are becoming a pathetic joke. When the RN reduces its frigate force to 13, that is a joke. When the RAF is less than 40,000, that is a joke. When the British Army is down to 82K members, that is a very bad joke. Rue Brittania? Yeah right.
Interesting. Is 148 tanks going to be enough? Well, Canada only has 80 or so tanks and has what?...45% more land mass than the UK? Canada has done okay with that amount I would think...but they do have almost 1800 armoured vehicles. But why smoothbore 120mm? Why not keep the rifled 120mm? Unless they're thinking that the tank no longer needs to shoot at long ranges. Think of the rifled as a sniper rifle while the smoothbore as a shotgun?? All the tech though on it...sounds good though right?
one of the reasons for smoothbore was they closed the ammo factory for the Rifled 120mm with the "spending cuts" and NATO wanting us to use one-part ammo as them. Also the power pack change was partly when the switched the maintenance contract from BAE. So they stopped making spares for chally2.
The problem with rifled guns is they are very limited in ammunition types. By contrast, the smoothbore gun can fire either tungsten or depleted uranium sabot at Mach five plus. It's these rounds that have proven to be devastating against other tanks.
Canada, is far from Europe, where we would expect the Russians to attack, with their capability of 22, 710 tanks. It is also the case, that in large battles, 200 to 500 tanks being lost in one day is not uncommon. The Con party are fighting the last war, and have no idea or care about Russian or Chinese aggression. As it was in WW2, Europe will be lacking in tanks and soldiers to defend its self. Without the numbers required, all the smart tech is meaningless, especially when your enemy is ahead of the game.. Learn from history, not tiny budgets from cheap moronic governments..
@@davidwhittington7638 No s**t that Europe and Canada are far apart. My comment was more about how others were stating, and in the video, about only getting 148 tanks when other nations have less. And yes, I do agree with you that Russia still has a lot of tanks when compared to Europe, but many of those are battle ready with trained crews? History can teach lots, just too bad many don't learn from it.
Nothing going to happen as the new systems thats being fitted is to prevent the challenger 3 from being destroyed. Re-watch the video 👍 Some well known facts about the challenger 2 tank - to date not one challenger 2 tank as been lost in battle from enemy fire, a challenger 2 tank was hit over twelve times in one day by RPG’s the tank went in for repair that evening and back out doing its job the following day also the challenger 1 tank to date has the longest tank kill shot. Some might say the challenger 2 tank is the No 1 tank in the world for survival rate.
@@simongleed Wow a system that "prevents the tank from being destroyed" amazing. Why didn't anybody else think of this before? Now we only need a system that prevents aircraft and helicopters from being shot down. And a system that prevents soldiers from dying on the battlefield from bullets and shrapnel lol Snap back to reality: tanks are not invincible, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. The APS only works against rockets and missiles, not against Kinetic Energy rounds. So it's still vulenrable from tank guns. Also, even RPG's can overcome the APS with the right solution, such as the RPG-30 which fires a second decoy to confuse the APS. Yes, the APS increases the protection level, but it still doesn't make the tank invincible I'm sorry. Challenger has never faced any modern tanks or modern anti-tank missiles yet, only old and outdated weapons, so it didn't prove anything. The only time a Challenger was actually hit by a powerful weapon in 2007 by a RPG-29 which penetrated the lower hull armor that resulted in the driver being injured. He was very lucky at that moment the projectile hit very low so he only lost his food. Had the projectile hit a little bit higher he would have lost his head instead. Not trying to talk bad about the Challenger though, it's a good tank, but stop pretending it's invincible or perfect just becuse it faced some old weapons. Any modern tank can survive old RPG-7's, even the Leopard, Abrams, Leclerc or T-90. It's nothing special. But it is still vulnerable to modern weapons and tanks.
@@militaryanalysis5028 Wow I truly hope you are less sarcastic and arrogant in person. Bet you got loads of people wanting to be your friend!! So where I do I start! well it is very easy I agree with you 100% there are tank killing system that would destroy a Challenger 2 and every other tank but to date the Challenger 2 tank has never been destroyed whether it has never met it’s equal on the battlefield or perhaps it’s been a lucky tank. Challenger 3 tank - We can only talk about what we have been informed either by reading and or FORCES NEWS putting out videos on RUclips. Again I will reiterate with you I agree 100% in what you have taken time to write thank you 👍👍
Europe, where we would expect the Russians to attack, with their capability of 22, 710 tanks, outnumbers NATO numbers in the field. It is also the case, that in large battles, 200 to 500 tanks being lost in one day is not uncommon. The Con party are fighting the last war, and have no idea nor care about Russian or Chinese aggression. As it was in WW2, Europe will be lacking in tanks and soldiers to defend its self. Without the numbers required, all the smart tech is meaningless, especially when your enemy is ahead of the game.. Learn from history, not from tiny budgets of cheap moronic governments..
@@EmperorLionflame You think less than 200 British tanks can take on over 22 thousand Russian tanks? The Tiger tank in WW2 was superior to the T34, the kill ratio was around 30 kills for 1 Tiger.. Spoilers, Germany lost that war. Hence the Russians learned 2 things, one they had no concern for their own losses of life, and numbers will always win over quality...
@@EmperorLionflame Modern tanks against old T54's and T72's is not the same as going up against modern battle tanks. Your over zealous patriotism blinds you to reality. 22 thousand tanks against NATOs 15 thousand, even if the yanks turn up on time, for once, you may have 18000 in the field, covering a wide area, where the attacking Russians can bunch together vast amounts of vehicles. As a veteran, what statistics backroom boys tell you and what reality is, are two different things.. And you need to read more history, the Tigers "Mythical" status, was written by the Yanks in Sherman's, not T34 tankers on the Eastern front. Even in the 80's when the UK had 9 hundred tanks, it was not deemed enough. Now this idiotic moronic government, are not even making enough tanks for a brigade.. Back in the 80's we had enough for two army groups. Guns kill, doesn't matter what brand a gun is, or caliber or vehicle it's mounted to, guns kill. And the one with the most guns, in expert hands wins. Britain does not have enough tanks and armoured vehicles, or a sane, competent government.
@@EmperorLionflame For a person who won't put his real name on this account, and creates a ridiculous persona for himself, and has never served the nation you represent. Your gibberish is not unexpected. The last great tank battles were in Israel against Egypt, Syria and Jorden.. Some things in history don't change. You spout on about the Russians not being able to collect in large groups. In Chechen and on the boarder of Ukraine, the Russians were able to amount 4 to 6 thousand tanks. I used WW2 as the example, because Russia harks back to that era and created their 6 to 1 advantage battle plan on it. And for your Tory mentality, following a fop, a buffoon, and moron who thinks he is Churchill is no way to run a military or country. I was a soldier, being under equipped became a way of life in the military. Although the Boxer and the so far failed Ajax program have taken place, the numbers are weak. Looks like Warrior will have to be around a lot longer. You just don't get it do you... You can have the best trained troops and best equipment in the world. But with the smallest army in Europe, with some of the smallest numbers of vehicles, going up against 200 times its numbers, you can't win... The same mistakes made by a Tory government before 1939, are being played out again in 2021. I don't care if you can't see it, or are so red white and blue, that you are blind to it.. In the end it will be military personnel fighting and dying that will prove my point, while I will be doing my duty with Civil Defense organizations, and you will be stuck at home, watching it unfold on TV.
Same old tories do war on the cheap. Only 140 tanks no match to China and Russia that have 1000s of them. You can have all tech but shar number of other will just over power them. Tories never heard of economy's of scale and history of Korean war that's looney right for you.
Now correct me if im wrong but isnt that the same company “rheinmetall “ yuthat the nazi’s used and now a gun from the same company. This British secretary of defence is a fucking disgrace to the country using a nazi company and a smoothbore. Yes you get people who like to yank one off how they’re better than rifled and how they aren’t but the whole point for British power was to have a vehicle made and built in the UK with UK engineering and weapons systems and not foreign interference. Get your hands out your pockets defence minister and develop our own guns and not use a nazi used company.
I am glad this new tank is fitted with a Smoothbore gun instead of Rifled one. The only tank in the world with Rifled gun is latest Arjun Mk1a aka the "Meme Tank". Our Indian Army is just stupid.
I think there’s a lot of benefits having a rifled barrel but what swayed the UK MOD is variety of ammunition now available for the smooth bore over the rifles barrel.
@@simongleed And the other influence that I heard from a media outlet, they had a breach explosion on a firing range and I think one person was killed and maybe others got injured not sure it was brief . I think what also swayed the dession ,from what I have come to it's the cost of having to redesign the 120 rifled gun breaching mechanism ,probably it's cheaper to go with the smooth boar instead than too spend millions on redesigning the rifled 120 instead . But all that I have said might be all wrong and the rifled 120 just reached the end of the road and what was available filled a need because it's probably cheaper in the long run than too start from scratch and spend millions or billions designing your own.
@@barriewright2857 That’s interesting Barrie. I did some research and found a report dated 2017 about the incident. This complete report carried out by the MOD detailing the events of that day. 3 men died that day because of not following procedures when loading the breach. Something to do with the BVA not in place (Breach Vent Axial) hand loading the TVE (Tube vent electric) onto the FNA (firing needle assembly) which somehow by passed the missing BVA that aloud the 120mm gun to fire causing gasses to escaped through the BVA into the turret and exploding unstowed bag charges that should have been stowed in the correct stowage bins. By having the bag charges out of the bins allowed a faster rate of fire but this was not allowed and not part of the loading procedures. I think I read this correctly but every chance I may of missed read the report because there is a lot of detail in this report. This maybe one of the reason why the MOD are moving over to one peace ammunition to remove risk to personnel. The report is in a Link below if you so wish to read it. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727954/20180823-Challenger_SI_Castlemartin_Redacted_RT.pdf Or type in something like - Service inquiry report into Challenger 2 incident at Castle Martin
@@simongleed With a smaller force. And with the supporting logistics being smaller also I assume. The risk of being caught short in an extended operation with other allied nations forces was deemed plausible. And Britain didn't want to be the odd man out if there was any interruption in the supply of ammunition.
@@DeltaEchoGolf interesting trail of thought perhaps the uk decision was also based of Cyber war too due to the amount of digital technology required to operate these high tech specialist machines - cyber attack will also cripple these war machines.
I don't know if this relates to your question. But British tanks ,since the Chieftain, tend to look rather "chubby". Even their suspensions have a sagging appearance.
Infantry - every tank needs skilled infantry. I think the next war will be fought using technology and advanced battle system. Large amount of foot soldiers will be a thing of the past to fight wars l
British? Rheinmetal / BAE is majority German owned and Rheinmetal gun. Hey ho. Why not do it properly and upgrade them all. New water boiler too hopefully. The Defence Minister, talking rubbish as usual.
Leopards gunner sight is outdated by the standards of most old soviet tanks it fights in third world countries, the leopard 2 is not very high on the list of best modern tanks I'm afraid
What is wrong with this diseased British economic defeatism. A substandard smooth bore gun has been chosen to replace the L30A1 because British politicians have decided that the country is no longer capable of making rifled ammunition any more. Guess which gun has the best kill to loss ratio in the world and also holds the world record for the longest range tank kill of all time.
shut up lol rifled guns are limited by penertration compared to smoothbore it is also a common misconception that a rifled tank gun makes a round more accurate this is however not the case . And this "substandard" gun is the best in nato and will be used on the Leopard 2a7 . The leopard 2a7 and challenger 3 will be the most lethal tanks in nato. by also having a smoothbore gun nato tanks working together will be able to use the same amunition which will make logistcs easier
@@jamieleach2903 Rifled guns hold the rocord for the longest tank kill (Challenger) and second longest tank Kill (Ferdinand). Your beloved smooth bore guns dont even come close. To suggest they are more accurate than a rifle is just daft.
Will Challenge well I am going to approach this situation in a less abrasive manner than Jamie, rifled guns are effective with round because hey make them spin, making them travel along a straighter flight path, but with APFSDS (the FS stands for fin stabilised) these fins are used to keep the round straight in flight, this eliminates the need for the round to spin. Another reason to switch to a smooth bore gun is the less maintenance required, the rifling on the older guns has to be cleaned out and replaced every so often, this was expensive. Hope this has helped
@@Will_CH1 Longest kill, sure- like an artillery shoot ! Yes, I know- it was in the Gulf War - a multi-round HESH engagement on a stationary unmanned tank by a bored tank crew... now, please extol the virtues of a 3-component ammunition load (through a barrel with a life of 400 EFC) versus loading 1 component(through a barrel with a life of 1500 EFC), the L30A1 Sabot capability, all while maintaining NATO interoperability
You would be right, but the TES (theatre entry standard) which is equivalent to the American urban survival kit, is designed to prevent such eventualities, and with the Trophy active protection system these Crude IEDs will find a very hard time to damage chalky 3
the viedeo is lying. gb is buying standard ammunition and a cannon from germany. the tank is not the most leathel. instaed after years of fruitless discussions they adapt to Nato standart, wich is a great improvement. Ir is british is also a lie - the whole concept is by rheinmetall,
You need to study the video everything you state in your comment is stated in the video promotion. The lethal part of the challenger 3 tank will be the software the additional equipment fitted to protect the tank crew and for the first time the tank crew will be in contact with air and sea so yes most lethal tank in the world not by the gun fitted. The tank capability beyond the tank gunnery is its lethal side a true hunter killer tank
No not a waste of money. Challenger 3 will stay in the top 3 or even at number 1 for the most deadly tank in the world. Uk considered the leopard but comparing the survival rate the challenger wins never lost a challenger in battle unlike the leopard but seriously I guess there’s a bigger reason why the MOD didn’t go with the leopard tank.
@@simongleed Total number of Challenger tanks built - 420. Total number of Leopards built - 3,600. 1. They didn't buy the Leopard because the flag wavers would have had a collective stroke if the British army bought a German tank. 2. We are too poor to develop a whole new tank. Spending £800 million getting the Germans to upgrade 148 Challengers was the next best thing. Plus we can still kid ourselves it's a British tank.
I wonder if the Battle tank will have drone tech on board fitted with eyes in the sky? Design a tank that is designed from top to bottom by Tank operators. Not boffins in a lab. Those with the experience of a tank wars need to be guiding the production of this tank.
What's really depressing is that we sent almost as many troops (3/4) troops to Gulf War 1 as we actually have in the Army today! And that was on top of maintaining commitments in NI, the Falklands, the UK and elsewhere around the world at the time. Challenger 1 (221 deployed in total) at the time was a very capable platform and actually scored the longest tank on tank kill at 4700m.
Ain't got time for depression, it goes by so fast 🇬🇧🙏
One armoured brigade isn't a credible force for the 5th biggest defence spender in the world.
I'll take two. Perfect for driving "through" heavy traffic.
The problem is a complete lack of protection improvement. No hardkill, no soft kill, no era, no additional armor package. Lacking survivability on the modern battlefield is a recipie for disaster. The mobility and firepower increases are significant however if you don’t get the first shot off, you lose. Why not integrate a small recon quadcopter? Or perhaps A telescoping sight
Can’t wait for it in war thunder
Served 18 yrs, did my gunnery on Chieftain, converted to CR1 full crewman, then CVRT full crewman/cmdr, then CR2 arrived and had to train on that. The difference between the generations is huge and im hoping that will carry on with this new gen. My reservations are that are that the battlefield is getting to hostile for MBT's with drones etc, too complicated to survive the rough handling of the crew and the logistics are going to put it out of reach of most potential customers. Plus...going to smoothbore....EEEWWWWW!
I own a Chiefain MBT MK10 04EB32. Love the sound of the engine it howls and roars with authority. We have restored this old vickers creation only left to do is come miner restoration within the turret and respray the outside. Take a look at my channel if you so wish - I will be posting more videos soon.
@@simongleed Bloody well done you Sir!
@@1chish Thank you 😃
I was 1rtr and left in 2012 because i found out we were going to start sharing tanks with other regiments... The best thing about having your own tank was you took massive pride in yhat vehicle and knew its pros and cons but we lost that when we started sharing.. 👍
@@billbobaggins1155 Fear Naught Brother!!
148 is definitely NOT enough
Would be interesting to find out how on earth the MOD came to that number!!
In agreement 148 vehicle I think Is one battalion, you need at least minimum five hundred tanks too one thousand to make an effective force . I just hope they don't scrap the other three hundred fifty challenger 2 that they have in storage and they up grading them as well as part of the package, That's work for years.
The Defnce Minister was talking absolute crap. Tanks are not a "nation building force" . I have never heard so much crap been spoken so confidently - typical of the current British politicians. Policy decisions are just like computers - shit in = shit out.
@@graemesydney38 yes u may b right??
One thing that always gets forgotten about is Infantry. We’re grubby and not quite as photogenic as all of the shiny toys, but we’re the only ones who will get down and dirty with a bayonet when the need arises. And before anyone says that that sort of soldiering is resigned to the dusty pages of history, tell that to the infanteers who had to do exactly that in Afghan, Iraq, Falklands and almost every other conflict we’ve ever been involved in. Reducing infantry battalions is a massive mistake.
Swift & Bold
I hope that they improvements are not just for these 148 challenger 3 tanks their is another 452 challenger 2s I think still sitting instorage . And I hope that they are not going to quietly scrape them ! That's a awful lot of waist fullness .
I think the idea is they will stay in storage as some sort of 'surge' capability if needed but also be the source for further C3s again if needed.
I cannot see 148 being the final build number. This is a number within current budgets.
@@1chish Unfortunately it seems to be British government policy to get rid of surplus military equipment as soon as possible after its withdrawal from service nowadays, instead of keeping the Challenger 1’s available as a ready reserve when the Challenger 2 entered service almost the whole lot were sold to Jordan, when the Tornado’s were withdrawn from service they were all either scrapped or given to museums even though many of them still had plenty of fatigue life left.
@@mrjockt So who was going to buy hard worked Tonkas? And why would we keep a small, old and unique fleet and inventory when the Typhoon had become a far better asset? In addition the Germans and Italians were already reducing their fleets and the Saudis were buying Typhoons and never buy second hand kit.
When a piece of kit is no longer serviceable its dead money to retain it as it has to be maintained, guarded and local populations kept safe. This is the big issue with the nuclear sub disposal.
@@1chish I think you missed the point of my comment, the Challenger 2’s that aren’t converted to C3 standard most probably won’t be held for future updating, the government will either look for a buyer or scrap them at the first opportunity, those 148 Challenger 3’s are all the British army are ever going to get.
@@mrjockt No I fully understood your point and had made my views on Challengers clear in my reply to the OP. You now make a supposition (that the Government will scrap hundreds of Challengers) to support your argument that Governments scrap equipment too early. Not sure that stands scrutiny.
148 of the IIs will be upgraded within THIS Governments budgets. It cannot bind a future Government. 450 IIs will remain in store. That is the current situation.
British must strenghten his military to protect the world of two expansionist
No to foreign wars
You wanna go be my guest
@@seanmoran6510 yes to foreign wars, we need to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
Reducing numbers due to budget cuts does not result in a more powerful capability unless one believes in fairy tales.
Well there isn't a 'budget cut' so park that old canard. However a Government cannot bind any future Government and so the 148 are from current budgets.
@@1chish A reduction in capability is just that, a reduction in capability that means you enter a fight in a weaker position than would otherwise have been the case. That weakness risks defeat and also increases the loss of life as a final penalty. No amount of wishful thinking can change this reality.
@@robertdavie1221 You can also be defeated by having inferior weapons. And as I said there has been no reduction in capability in fact an increase as the Challenger IIs remain in store and 148 will become Challenger IIIs.
@@1chish So 148 is not enough?
@@robertdavie1221 Tell me against whom we are going to go to war and I can answer that question. But you didn't want an answer you just wanted to keep repeating your opinions.
148 for upgrade to Challenger III is what is funded on THIS Government's budgets. We have hundreds more Challenger IIs in store for surge or later upgrade to 'III' spec.
Those are the facts. Everything else is biased opinions.
Military comments are like a crowd at a football match, but more geeky as military commentators usually are gamers in their bedrooms thinking they know how to drive a tank...just love all these armchair generals who know sod all except a few acronyms 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I own and can drive a 55ton Chieftain MK10 main battle tank but never be anything other than someone who owns a 55ton Chieftain MK10 Main Battle Tank 😊 click on GLEED and take a look if you so wish.
Build the peace and build the nation, maybe build the reflection.
sounds like the saying of an enslaved people.
In a war against a comparable force, how many tanks can be kept battleworthy out of every hundred. When you consider breakdowns, battle damage, total loss ect?
@@iamspartacus3114 I would have thought that as well. The Russians must be shitting themselves, or pissing themselves laughing. I think I know which.
@@dp-sr1fd they have less than 100 t14's so its about even. the other tanks are getting on a bit. also we are an island nation so unless russia plans to invade. which I cant really see that happening we should be fine. also NATO. Also factor in challenger kill ratio in the wars its fought 0 - how many Iraqi tanks defeated?.
Unless there is a major shift in policy we’re looking at Challenger 3 being the last British built MBT unfortunately.
@Tȟatȟáŋka Íyotake Sioux Rheinmetall/BAE Systems, since the basic design of the tank is still that of the Challenger 2 and the rebuild will be done in the U.K. with BAE Systems as the main contractor that still qualifies the Challenger 3 as a British tank, all the changes being incorporated by Rheimetall are mainly internal changes.
Yeah because seco will be contacted to be the army and baroness harding as head of armed forces. What a bright future for this country not.
@@mrjockt i am russian i cannot sleep at night k owing youve 100 tanks its like walking down moscow picking a fight oh he wont be worth picking up .
@@thecurlew7403 Thank you for posting the most pointless response so far.
@@thecurlew7403 Vori V Zakone
Project might be axed due to budget constraints
Only if it will be built in the North as this government loves to mug off people of North as they think they are stupid and vote them back in.
Best tank in NATO?? but not the world as C2 was.
No protection system?
Only 148? we need loads more
Well technically this video is outdated, what it meant was they hadn't chosen the APS they wanted yet, since then they have settled on Rafaels Trophy APS
Protection gets added on later
One day opinions might change when we get caught 'with our pants down.'
Seems to me computer and data related skills are becoming more important for defence. The next war will have a lot more civilians behind the scenes working with technology than other wars. The type of set up in WW2 that broke the enigma will become more important and common.
But we’ll only have enough for two MBT armoured regiments. The King’s Royal Hussars are being converted to Ajax, leaving only 1RTR and QRH. 🤷🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️🙏🏿
A drone armed with a hypersonic missile and bye bye tank.
Very true indeed in fact the whole battlefield if fitted with the right war head - scary thought!
You could make this statement for literally any ground unit. Might as well have cut the middle man out and said "War between 1st world countries and mutually assured destruction, bye bye world"
Shame we cant design are own fighter jets.
But the UK, US etc, did roll up the Iraq opposition, but needed more than 148 tanks to do it UK barely had enough for the job then?
360p in 2021? Why?
Well lets hope they have made a better job of this than they did the "Ajax" programme. However, I do love the constant "talking up" of British equipment, unfortunately alot of it doesn't live up to the hype. I would also point out these Generals and MP's seem to be forgetting the lessons of history. The Germans had the best tank in WW2, the Tiger tank, however it was defeated by tanks like the T34 and Sherman, which were far inferior tanks, because the Tiger was never made in great numbers and was complicated to make. The T34 and Sherman were easily built and could be replaced rapidly, thus keeping the pressure on. Yes, the army needs to be able to deal with wars that are restricted geographically and limited in scope, however the Russians and now the Chinese have been developing and building up sizeable armed forces now, which are not far behind technically. They are also developing asymetrical warfare, which seems to have caught the west with their trousers down.
Good points.
The problem with the defence minister's comments was he concealed far mor than he revealed. 148 next generation tanks cannot be in two places at the same time. Furthermore MBT's are first world kit designed to fight first world enemies. That enemy is most likely going to outnumber our side even more than during Cold War 1.0. That enemy isn't up for fighting too far from home and will also employ force multipliers, battle management systems and drone tanks etc. 148 tanks are not enough.
No military equipment of today is made quickly
Myth number one; the Tiger was NOT the best tank in WW2 It had an underpowered , petrol engine, it's suspension/ wheel arrangement was a pain in the arse in snow and mud and far too complicated to repair in the field if a wheel needed replacing, it had a limited range and manufacturing it put a huge strain on an already stretched German military industry. Yes, it had thick frontal armour and a lethal gun but , as was proven in combat, one Tiger versus fifteen Sherman's would only end one way.
60 mph! Really? I'm curious what the new power plant would be.
The government is not looking at the true picture, what about breakdowns, tanks knocked out of action, where are the spares? Why 148 why not 250
BUILD BRITISH 🇬🇧👍
Yea russia is worried about 100 tanks stiff upper lip rule britania as we sink to te bottom.
@@thecurlew7403 if them 100 tanks are part of a Nato task force then Russia will worry!! U Muppet!
@@redordead4491 Na without USA EU UKwill collapse to keep strong you must have strong military 24 7 the fact UK has around 80 000 troops instead of 200 000 with at least 800 battle tanks and up to date IFV with antitank capabilty at least 1000 .
@@redordead4491 Warrior is not been updated so all you have will be 500 boxers ajax is a failure UK is a walk over as weve seen with migrants known as the Dump UK for benefit fraud .
@@thecurlew7403 What the f..k has that gotta do with Tanks?
Should upgrade the wing mirrors, if there was a raised edge round mirror face they would not get scratched up by anti-slip paint when folded down saving money lol
Nooo! that will delay it's in service date by another ten years while they bugger around with tenders, trials, questions in the House..................
@@thewomble1509 Babcock hull delivery will delay in service date by five years at current rates due to poor planning!
@@peterwait641 LOL! What's the betting these tanks never actually see service?
@@thewomble1509 Think the decision is being made in October. Be better to lease some Leopards till we can buy some of the new euro tanks with 130 mm gun due delivery time scale and short service life!
using existing hull but replacing turret so i understand
No hard kill? Interesting choice.
Seems strange, UK building tanks with Germany.
All these ££billions, wasted on armaments, and the government cancelled my £100 winter heating allowance!
.
Smoothbore barrel's are not a move forward but a step backwards, rifling is a powerfully accurate system of pinpointing a target and with a near 100% hit rate.
Producing an inferior barrel in 2021 is due to cost rather than a intelligent quest for perfection.
Let's hope that tank crews don't need a degree in electronics to control & work the software. The ability with all army kit is reliability, sustain battle damage and be effective in its role.
As the generations of tank technology has evolved so as the anti-tank weaponry, high quality tanks cost money and the low numbers ordered are more to do with a non-cost effective nature of every Government than a military need to provide a deterrent and a sustainable battle efficient platform.
I do understand NATO requirements but the armament & armour need has not been overcome nor the quest for a power-plant that is stronger on reliability and power.
Scraping is not a wise move but up-grading is more of a sustainable method of increased numbers of a battle ready tank deterrent.
Just my thoughts
Rifled barrels are pointless and even a hindrence when firing APFSDS rounds.
If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle em with bullshit..
its funny how its going to be operational by 2030
Can I borrow one when I go shopping in Exeter?
Germans and USA have a good track record with tanks not sure why needed to have British built tank.
Because tory donners paid a few million to try and us look strong but we are out in the cold
No sort of trophy system? Hmmm
Beautiful ,,machine"..White are real speed?..
Well.... its still obsolete armour wise... and just because ye switched guns and powerplant wont fix its flaws.
I still suggest making a completely new hull and a new engine
@@gladwalker supposed to be next gen. But designs are just getting the label. Tho still effective its limited coverage falters it.
All hundred fortyeight of them
Challenger 2 wasn't smooth bore, was it? Is this a step back?
Chally 2 also had a 120mm gun, but a rifled barrel(Royal Ordnance L30A1)- and it required separate loading of projectile, charge bag, and primer... Challenger 3 will use the Rheinmetal 120mm L55 smoothbore, with that ammunition's casing being semi-combustible (welcome to the 20th Century, Royal Armoured Corps :) )...and definitely NOT a step back !
🇬🇧 Buy British 🇬🇧
They dont want to underhype it too much because by the time this upgrade is fully done the french and germans will be onto their next generation tank and the us will already be producing a new tank and fielding the last of the sepv4 improved abrams and have our lite tanks available for sale for british strike units if we just dont outright supply the british with the hull and turret and they put their electronics and choice of motor in them. Like we do the isrealis for the mk4 and the namer apc/ifv. Dont get me wrong they have come up with good designs and ideas but not 50% is original mk4 is based on centurion chassis with different suspension and motor placement.
Challenger used the Chieftain chassis
is there no active protection system???
I understand the active protective system is only attached on the challenger when going to war or attached at shows like the tank feast Bovington. I guess that will be the same for Challenger 3 as part to the Challenger 3 survival capabilities.
Maybe someone else will have an input and correct me as the probability of being wrong is high.
Ok so, at the time this video was released, they hadn't yet chosen the protection system the challenger 3 would use, since release they have settled on Rafaels Trophy APS
Yeah people grow on trees like North of England who happy to die for their tory overlords. Johnson just say for good NHS and leveling up and stupid mugs will come running.
This will be a very lethal vehicle.
For those who think that the production numbers are too low. The days of the tank as the master of the battlefield are over.
There are a lot of weapons capable of destroying a tank from a long distance, probably without being detected.
The modern battlefield is a very deadly place so the more units that you put into a battlefield just gives the enemy more targets.
Until recently if one was attacking a prepared defence you wanted at least 3:1 superiority.
Now what you need is more intel. Defences can be taken out by drones, smart arty and very accurate airstrikes.
Also for many years armoured doctrine was based upon WW2 and the expected results of the cold war going hot.
So NATO built many tanks that were designed to kill multiple targets before getting destroyed. We are not going to fight that war.
How many tanks do you need?
Doesn't matter as we only smash dirt farmers 😅
Rheinmetall is of course a german company wich this video just sweeps under the rug.
👍
148? Russia is shaking and trembling.
How do we transport them?
This general know then you got a landcruiser with 28 cm gun you only need one too conquer the whole world since it has the punch to even launch nukes and hit the moon -148 chall3 tanks are not match ,they cant even punch throught the 2m thick roadwheels .
What have you been smoking mate
The British Armed Forces facing ever constant budget reductions are becoming a pathetic joke. When the RN reduces its frigate force to 13, that is a joke. When the RAF is less than 40,000, that is a joke. When the British Army is down to 82K members, that is a very bad joke. Rue Brittania? Yeah right.
These days we don’t get as much for what we payed. If you want more, it’ll really cost us.
Challenger 2 SE
Interesting. Is 148 tanks going to be enough? Well, Canada only has 80 or so tanks and has what?...45% more land mass than the UK? Canada has done okay with that amount I would think...but they do have almost 1800 armoured vehicles. But why smoothbore 120mm? Why not keep the rifled 120mm? Unless they're thinking that the tank no longer needs to shoot at long ranges. Think of the rifled as a sniper rifle while the smoothbore as a shotgun?? All the tech though on it...sounds good though right?
one of the reasons for smoothbore was they closed the ammo factory for the Rifled 120mm with the "spending cuts" and NATO wanting us to use one-part ammo as them. Also the power pack change was partly when the switched the maintenance contract from BAE. So they stopped making spares for chally2.
The problem with rifled guns is they are very limited in ammunition types. By contrast, the smoothbore gun can fire either tungsten or depleted uranium sabot at Mach five plus. It's these rounds that have proven to be devastating against other tanks.
Smart fin stabilised rounds are much more accurate and have greater velocity than rifled rounds. Rifled rounds are old tech now
Canada, is far from Europe, where we would expect the Russians to attack, with their capability of 22, 710 tanks. It is also the case, that in large battles, 200 to 500 tanks being lost in one day is not uncommon. The Con party are fighting the last war, and have no idea or care about Russian or Chinese aggression. As it was in WW2, Europe will be lacking in tanks and soldiers to defend its self. Without the numbers required, all the smart tech is meaningless, especially when your enemy is ahead of the game.. Learn from history, not tiny budgets from cheap moronic governments..
@@davidwhittington7638 No s**t that Europe and Canada are far apart. My comment was more about how others were stating, and in the video, about only getting 148 tanks when other nations have less. And yes, I do agree with you that Russia still has a lot of tanks when compared to Europe, but many of those are battle ready with trained crews? History can teach lots, just too bad many don't learn from it.
2030???
2030?? I shouldn’t of thought so but I guess we will have to just wait amd see.
Where is the active protection.
Fitted to Challenger when in war only so I’m led to believe.
Active protection was chosen after the release of this video as being the Trophy active protection system
Aim the frontal lower glacis and fire on it, lets see what gonna happen lol
Nothing going to happen as the new systems thats being fitted is to prevent the challenger 3 from being destroyed. Re-watch the video 👍
Some well known facts about the challenger 2 tank - to date not one challenger 2 tank as been lost in battle from enemy fire, a challenger 2 tank was hit over twelve times in one day by RPG’s the tank went in for repair that evening and back out doing its job the following day also the challenger 1 tank to date has the longest tank kill shot. Some might say the challenger 2 tank is the No 1 tank in the world for survival rate.
@@simongleed I thought it was the challenger 1 that had the longest tank shot ?
@@kizzyp2735 Sorry typo error i stand to be corrected it was the Challenger 1 in the golf war. Thank you for the heads up 😊
@@simongleed Wow a system that "prevents the tank from being destroyed" amazing. Why didn't anybody else think of this before?
Now we only need a system that prevents aircraft and helicopters from being shot down.
And a system that prevents soldiers from dying on the battlefield from bullets and shrapnel lol
Snap back to reality: tanks are not invincible, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. The APS only works against rockets and missiles, not against Kinetic Energy rounds.
So it's still vulenrable from tank guns. Also, even RPG's can overcome the APS with the right solution, such as the RPG-30 which fires a second decoy to confuse the APS.
Yes, the APS increases the protection level, but it still doesn't make the tank invincible I'm sorry.
Challenger has never faced any modern tanks or modern anti-tank missiles yet, only old and outdated weapons, so it didn't prove anything.
The only time a Challenger was actually hit by a powerful weapon in 2007 by a RPG-29 which penetrated the lower hull armor that resulted in the driver being injured.
He was very lucky at that moment the projectile hit very low so he only lost his food. Had the projectile hit a little bit higher he would have lost his head instead.
Not trying to talk bad about the Challenger though, it's a good tank, but stop pretending it's invincible or perfect just becuse it faced some old weapons.
Any modern tank can survive old RPG-7's, even the Leopard, Abrams, Leclerc or T-90. It's nothing special. But it is still vulnerable to modern weapons and tanks.
@@militaryanalysis5028
Wow I truly hope you are less sarcastic and arrogant in person. Bet you got loads of people wanting to be your friend!!
So where I do I start! well it is very easy I agree with you 100% there are tank killing system that would destroy a Challenger 2 and every other tank but to date the Challenger 2 tank has never been destroyed whether it has never met it’s equal on the battlefield or perhaps it’s been a lucky tank.
Challenger 3 tank - We can only talk about what we have been informed either by reading and or FORCES NEWS putting out videos on RUclips.
Again I will reiterate with you I agree 100% in what you have taken time to write thank you 👍👍
😃🇺🇸👽👍
Hey they’re finally using a good gun
60MPH my ass
No doubt the Chinese have already copied it
They just a paper when it comes to anti tank rocket
Trophy active protection system is designed to prevent such eventuality
What kind of anti tank rocket? Because this tank has survived some hit from those in battle.
Europe, where we would expect the Russians to attack, with their capability of 22, 710 tanks, outnumbers NATO numbers in the field. It is also the case, that in large battles, 200 to 500 tanks being lost in one day is not uncommon. The Con party are fighting the last war, and have no idea nor care about Russian or Chinese aggression. As it was in WW2, Europe will be lacking in tanks and soldiers to defend its self. Without the numbers required, all the smart tech is meaningless, especially when your enemy is ahead of the game.. Learn from history, not from tiny budgets of cheap moronic governments..
@@EmperorLionflame You think less than 200 British tanks can take on over 22 thousand Russian tanks? The Tiger tank in WW2 was superior to the T34, the kill ratio was around 30 kills for 1 Tiger.. Spoilers, Germany lost that war. Hence the Russians learned 2 things, one they had no concern for their own losses of life, and numbers will always win over quality...
@@EmperorLionflame Modern tanks against old T54's and T72's is not the same as going up against modern battle tanks. Your over zealous patriotism blinds you to reality. 22 thousand tanks against NATOs 15 thousand, even if the yanks turn up on time, for once, you may have 18000 in the field, covering a wide area, where the attacking Russians can bunch together vast amounts of vehicles. As a veteran, what statistics backroom boys tell you and what reality is, are two different things.. And you need to read more history, the Tigers "Mythical" status, was written by the Yanks in Sherman's, not T34 tankers on the Eastern front. Even in the 80's when the UK had 9 hundred tanks, it was not deemed enough. Now this idiotic moronic government, are not even making enough tanks for a brigade.. Back in the 80's we had enough for two army groups. Guns kill, doesn't matter what brand a gun is, or caliber or vehicle it's mounted to, guns kill. And the one with the most guns, in expert hands wins. Britain does not have enough tanks and armoured vehicles, or a sane, competent government.
@@EmperorLionflame For a person who won't put his real name on this account, and creates a ridiculous persona for himself, and has never served the nation you represent. Your gibberish is not unexpected. The last great tank battles were in Israel against Egypt, Syria and Jorden.. Some things in history don't change. You spout on about the Russians not being able to collect in large groups. In Chechen and on the boarder of Ukraine, the Russians were able to amount 4 to 6 thousand tanks. I used WW2 as the example, because Russia harks back to that era and created their 6 to 1 advantage battle plan on it. And for your Tory mentality, following a fop, a buffoon, and moron who thinks he is Churchill is no way to run a military or country. I was a soldier, being under equipped became a way of life in the military. Although the Boxer and the so far failed Ajax program have taken place, the numbers are weak. Looks like Warrior will have to be around a lot longer. You just don't get it do you... You can have the best trained troops and best equipment in the world. But with the smallest army in Europe, with some of the smallest numbers of vehicles, going up against 200 times its numbers, you can't win...
The same mistakes made by a Tory government before 1939, are being played out again in 2021. I don't care if you can't see it, or are so red white and blue, that you are blind to it.. In the end it will be military personnel fighting and dying that will prove my point, while I will be doing my duty with Civil Defense organizations, and you will be stuck at home, watching it unfold on TV.
Same old tories do war on the cheap. Only 140 tanks no match to China and Russia that have 1000s of them. You can have all tech but shar number of other will just over power them. Tories never heard of economy's of scale and history of Korean war that's looney right for you.
Now correct me if im wrong but isnt that the same company “rheinmetall “ yuthat the nazi’s used and now a gun from the same company. This British secretary of defence is a fucking disgrace to the country using a nazi company and a smoothbore. Yes you get people who like to yank one off how they’re better than rifled and how they aren’t but the whole point for British power was to have a vehicle made and built in the UK with UK engineering and weapons systems and not foreign interference. Get your hands out your pockets defence minister and develop our own guns and not use a nazi used company.
uk Army kosovo Army thenks Uk
I am glad this new tank is fitted with a Smoothbore gun instead of Rifled one.
The only tank in the world with Rifled gun is latest Arjun Mk1a aka the "Meme Tank". Our Indian Army is just stupid.
I think there’s a lot of benefits having a rifled barrel but what swayed the UK MOD is variety of ammunition now available for the smooth bore over the rifles barrel.
@@simongleed And the other influence that I heard from a media outlet, they had a breach explosion on a firing range and I think one person was killed and maybe others got injured not sure it was brief . I think what also swayed the dession ,from what I have come to it's the cost of having to redesign the 120 rifled gun breaching mechanism ,probably it's cheaper to go with the smooth boar instead than too spend millions on redesigning the rifled 120 instead . But all that I have said might be all wrong and the rifled 120 just reached the end of the road and what was available filled a need because it's probably cheaper in the long run than too start from scratch and spend millions or billions designing your own.
@@barriewright2857 That’s interesting Barrie. I did some research and found a report dated 2017 about the incident. This complete report carried out by the MOD detailing the events of that day. 3 men died that day because of not following procedures when loading the breach. Something to do with the BVA not in place (Breach Vent Axial) hand loading the TVE (Tube vent electric) onto the FNA (firing needle assembly) which somehow by passed the missing BVA that aloud the 120mm gun to fire causing gasses to escaped through the BVA into the turret and exploding unstowed bag charges that should have been stowed in the correct stowage bins. By having the bag charges out of the bins allowed a faster rate of fire but this was not allowed and not part of the loading procedures.
I think I read this correctly but every chance I may of missed read the report because there is a lot of detail in this report.
This maybe one of the reason why the MOD are moving over to one peace ammunition to remove risk to personnel.
The report is in a Link below if you so wish to read it.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/727954/20180823-Challenger_SI_Castlemartin_Redacted_RT.pdf
Or type in something like - Service inquiry report into Challenger 2 incident at Castle Martin
@@simongleed With a smaller force. And with the supporting logistics being smaller also I assume. The risk of being caught short in an extended operation with other allied nations forces was deemed plausible. And Britain didn't want to be the odd man out if there was any interruption in the supply of ammunition.
@@DeltaEchoGolf interesting trail of thought perhaps the uk decision was also based of Cyber war too due to the amount of digital technology required to operate these high tech specialist machines - cyber attack will also cripple these war machines.
The tank sounds crap
And for some reason no other country wants it...
I don't know if this relates to your question. But British tanks ,since the Chieftain, tend to look rather "chubby". Even their suspensions have a sagging appearance.
The suspension is hydro-gas. That’s why they float over unneven ground rather than bounce. This provides a better gun platform.
Infantier!
Infantry - every tank needs skilled infantry. I think the next war will be fought using technology and advanced battle system. Large amount of foot soldiers will be a thing of the past to fight wars l
@@simongleed I know, but I heard him say Infantier which made me laugh :)
@@Justineexy I missed that… I wonder if he knows!! 🤣🤣
@@simongleed 🤣🤣
@@Justineexy Or is it because of budget cuts that they combined the infantry and grenadier units? Sort of joking!
Too much looks on Leopard main battle German tank. Armata is totally different philosophy
British? Rheinmetal / BAE is majority German owned and Rheinmetal gun. Hey ho.
Why not do it properly and upgrade them all. New water boiler too hopefully.
The Defence Minister, talking rubbish as usual.
BAE isn't German owned
3 regiments / battalions are enough for British Army..........
Underpowered pill-box, eventually catching up with M1 and Leopard on armament at least…
Only one has been taken out how many m1s have been destroyed not to mention it's much better than the yanks crap
Hardly catching up; The current rifled barrel is more accurate than other NATO partners.
Leopards gunner sight is outdated by the standards of most old soviet tanks it fights in third world countries, the leopard 2 is not very high on the list of best modern tanks I'm afraid
What is wrong with this diseased British economic defeatism. A substandard smooth bore gun has been chosen to replace the L30A1 because British politicians have decided that the country is no longer capable of making rifled ammunition any more. Guess which gun has the best kill to loss ratio in the world and also holds the world record for the longest range tank kill of all time.
shut up lol rifled guns are limited by penertration compared to smoothbore it is also a common misconception that a rifled tank gun makes a round more accurate this is however not the case . And this "substandard" gun is the best in nato and will be used on the Leopard 2a7 . The leopard 2a7 and challenger 3 will be the most lethal tanks in nato. by also having a smoothbore gun nato tanks working together will be able to use the same amunition which will make logistcs easier
@@jamieleach2903 Rifled guns hold the rocord for the longest tank kill (Challenger) and second longest tank Kill (Ferdinand). Your beloved smooth bore guns dont even come close. To suggest they are more accurate than a rifle is just daft.
Will Challenge well I am going to approach this situation in a less abrasive manner than Jamie, rifled guns are effective with round because hey make them spin, making them travel along a straighter flight path, but with APFSDS (the FS stands for fin stabilised) these fins are used to keep the round straight in flight, this eliminates the need for the round to spin. Another reason to switch to a smooth bore gun is the less maintenance required, the rifling on the older guns has to be cleaned out and replaced every so often, this was expensive. Hope this has helped
@@Will_CH1 Longest kill, sure- like an artillery shoot ! Yes, I know- it was in the Gulf War - a multi-round HESH engagement on a stationary unmanned tank by a bored tank crew... now, please extol the virtues of a 3-component ammunition load (through a barrel with a life of 400 EFC) versus loading 1 component(through a barrel with a life of 1500 EFC), the L30A1 Sabot capability, all while maintaining NATO interoperability
@@jamieleach2903 You know nothing John Snow.
One crude IED. Dead tech tank.
You would be right, but the TES (theatre entry standard) which is equivalent to the American urban survival kit, is designed to prevent such eventualities, and with the Trophy active protection system these Crude IEDs will find a very hard time to damage chalky 3
No trophy system ? Ok cheapskates
the viedeo is lying. gb is buying standard ammunition and a cannon from germany. the tank is not the most leathel. instaed after years of fruitless discussions they adapt to Nato standart, wich is a great improvement. Ir is british is also a lie - the whole concept is by rheinmetall,
You need to study the video everything you state in your comment is stated in the video promotion. The lethal part of the challenger 3 tank will be the software the additional equipment fitted to protect the tank crew and for the first time the tank crew will be in contact with air and sea so yes most lethal tank in the world not by the gun fitted. The tank capability beyond the tank gunnery is its lethal side a true hunter killer tank
@@simongleed K2 Black Panther would be the most advanced and lethal!
Nope won’t have the combined capability of land, air and sea as what the challenger 3 will have.
@@simongleed So the Challenger 3 is able to fly and swim? 😳
.
Wow 150 tanks ,,,,,,waste money get leopard tanks
No not a waste of money. Challenger 3 will stay in the top 3 or even at number 1 for the most deadly tank in the world. Uk considered the leopard but comparing the survival rate the challenger wins never lost a challenger in battle unlike the leopard but seriously I guess there’s a bigger reason why the MOD didn’t go with the leopard tank.
@@simongleed what was it pitch against,,,,crap like most Uk if you ask lie send some of our gear from China,,,
Ummm….. have a good day.
@@simongleed Total number of Challenger tanks built - 420. Total number of Leopards built - 3,600.
1. They didn't buy the Leopard because the flag wavers would have had a collective stroke if the British army bought a German tank.
2. We are too poor to develop a whole new tank. Spending £800 million getting the Germans to upgrade 148 Challengers was the next best thing. Plus we can still kid ourselves it's a British tank.
@@Makeyourselfbig it’s your opinion Joe each to their own I guess 👍