Abrams also has a brewing vessel, this is standard equipment on american and german tanks since the 60´s. its just the brits that make a big fuss about something this basic.
It's British. The Brits don't have that much to talk about, so they make minor things big deals. Love the chally to death, but it's just as capable as Abrams and Leopard II.
The M1 A2 Abrams is a formidable tank for its role in combat and the Challenger2 is formidable tank in its role in the battlefield. Working together you know your having a bad day if you’re the enemy 😜🤪🏴
Could say a bit like walking into the bathroom with dire need for a shit and there's one massive spider that's fallen in the bath and another one sat on top of the windowsill. "Shit! What do I do?!"
If you read Niall Eworthys book Main Battle tank which is the stroy of a Challenger 2 crew from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards you will read all what the Challenger 2 did during the 2003 Iraq war. It describes the 14 RPGs that hit the tank and the Milan ATGM which was abushed in a built up area. It had backed up into a ditch lost its track. Then got hit my machine gun fire and the rounds mentioned. All their sights where destroyed but the crew survived. Warriors came up with infantry support and destroyed the Iraqi force. They saved the crew it was salvaged and fixed within 6 hours. They where hit by a barage of Grads they blew away a multitude of Bunkers with the HESH round. And they talk about 1 Challener 2 towards the drive to Basra was hit 70 times by RPG 7s. There is so much more info in this book the 14 T55's vs 14 Challenger 2 tanks well VW vs bicycle as they say in the book lasted a couple of minutes. One Challenger 2 was hit point blank by a T55 that ambushed it. It ingnited its frontal ERA protecting the lower glasis plate but didn't pen. It was turned into a sardine can. Only one Challenger 2 tank was destroyed by another Challenger 2 in a blue on blue which happens in all wars. During the occuption of Iraq time and time agian it got hit by the same RPG 7 weapons when it was protecting convoys and the same results. Only twice was it penatrated which was when a Challenger 2 was going over a Berm and a insurgent with a upgraded RPG the infomous Dual warhead RPG29. It ingnighted the ERA and penned the armor on the lower glasis which was just standard RHA not class 2 Chobham armour. This was rectified in the upgraded TES 3 upgrade of the Challenger 2. The driver lost his foot but survived and still with a prostetic drives tanks today. Also a Challenger 2 was hit by a daisy chain of IED's with a small penetration to the underside of the hull only a couple of crew where injured. Both tanks survived where fixed and back into servie within hours or next day. I recomend the book.
The Abrams uses the same armor as the challenger 2 only difference is the Abrams also has depleted uranium No Abrams was destroyed by RPGs in Iraq or Afghanistanaafter the first RPG would have hit the Abrams the wouldn't have stayed around to be hit by 13/more
first time the UK won any form of competition since 1971. and Iron Spear was not a tank competition but a small gunnery competiton in a larger excercise, where only 5 of 11 participants even brought MBT´s.
Challenger tank is better, no question about it because it has beat the Abrams in competition, proven itself in battle, and shown to be easier to maintain than the complex Abrams
@@ThemoonsFullofgoons-qn9xl it didnt. the blue on blue in question burned out completely and popped its turret due to ammunition detonatioins. there are pictures of the burned out wreck.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 oh yeah it did it hit the open hatch and detonated the ammo I literally remember that aha what the fuck am I talking about ahah thinking of a wrong tank wrong situation then 😂
The Abrams does have the depleted uranium APFSDS rounds that can outperform and cause more damage than tungsten based APFSDS at any range. The Abrams in the US Army is also deployed in a combined arms doctrine with mounted/dismounted Infantry, artillery/mortars, scouts, close air support, combat engineers, air defense, drones, intel, logistics/maint/fuel, communications, and command/control. Either tank will be less effective and vulnerable to attack if any of those puzzle pieces are reduced or missing.
Challenger 2 APFSDS rounds are also DU penetrators. The problem for Challenger 2 is the rifled gun and the breech takes a 2 piece round which limits the length of the penetrator. This is the reason for Chally 3 going to the German smoothbore gun and the upgrade to one piece ammo. It's a longer calibre than the Abrams, resulting in more muzzle velocity, Chally 3 is L/55 v L/44 on Abrams. Chally 2 is just getting a bit too old and should've been upgraded years ago. Chally 3 will be the top tier tank in the world when it comes into service.
@@mrgold3591 I am MERELY pointing out that your extolling of the Abrams , while a fine weapon it is not the best in tested conditions. A simple acknowledgement would be good but as you are American I 'spose you find that hard .
@@HenriHattar The Abrams does not fight alone one-on-one with our combined arms doctrine. The Abrams fights in a team with its strengths and weakness overlapping with other team assets. My Armor Brigade had Abrams, Bradleys, infantry, combat engineers, scouts, air defense, mortars, artillery, A-10 warthog close air support, intel, command, , control, maintenance/supplies/fuel, and communications. If you also factor in our training and the ability to turn any person off the streets into highly trained soldier in short time. The Abrams is about 3rd or 4th down the line in normal combat operations for engaging enemy tanks. That is why the Abrams has been around for so long. It fits its roll perfectly and it only needed minor upgrades for +40 years. Americans want all of our Allies to have the best equipment, excellent training, and the will to fight for what is right with or without our help.
yeah it wasnt. the friendly fired challenger 2 burned out completely due to ammunition fires in the bascly unprotected ammuniton storage and the crew was killed.
Ah the ol Abrams v Challenger v Leopard debate. They can all beat a T-72, 80, 90, but only one of the main western tanks can beat several thousand of T-72 through T-14.
@@richardj9016 me, these are weapons of war they aren’t meant to be pretty and for what it’s worth I’m British so would like the challenger to be the better machine.
@@STASH201161 Well Mark, sometimes some people make jokes that have a very subtle hidden meaning. Not always easy to decipher. If we look at it in a straightforward way, I can fully agree with you that this is not a beauty contest, even though people used to say that if it looks right, it probably is right. For instance the Spitfire, or the Challenger 😜
Ukraine are lucky to have the West and NATO as allies, given they'd of struggled to obtain and implement such an amendment of their armed forces in a 20 year window.... They'll have a greater arsenal than most NATO countries within 2 years if Ukraine keep getting the aid they're getting
I would say yes, the challenger has only been destroyed by friendly fire, but how much more combat as the Abrams seen? He’s also leaving out a lot of information that he could’ve said like what he did it with challenger two for the Abrams instead for some reason, focusing on how they are able to be transported???
there have been quite a few challenger 2´s entering the turret toss competition in Ukraine over the last 12 months. and yes, every destroyed challenger 2 was a turret toss, even though the turret was not tossed very far.
0:12 holy smokes. I was actually afraid that the turrent was gonna smash his head to bits. Im guessing theres multiple safety features to keep that from happening tho 😅
Yes, both are incredible Tanks. The Chally 2 is better of course ( wink) and it`s loved by the crews, The M1s are more numerous. May come down to splitting frog hairs.
look at its service in iraq the challenger crews were always getting in wild siuations taking heavy damage, while the abrams which they brough over 1000 to iraq only 80 needed to be shipped home for full repair.
@@soulsreaper7145 They took heavy damage and kept going unhindered, not to mention how little of them there were in Iraq. You've just proved the Challengers superiority.
what?? the united states didnt lose any tanks in iraq, some where damaged and needed to be sent home, but they never actually lost one, the only abrams ur seeing get blown up are the ones that are sold to iraq army.
how much combat have the CR2´s seen so far? not very much. unlike the Leopard 2´s, and M1´s that have been constantly fighting at the front. The CR2´s for 90% of that time cruised around on training grounds and got stuck in the mud.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041in the first gulf war the challenger 1 tank was able to kill over 300 Iraqi tanks whilst having 0 losses. The challenger 2 is just an improvement of the challenger 1 and absolutely outclasses the Abrahams.
@goochfitness26, Challenger 2 just won NATO's Iron spear, and Abrams came 4th!. Everyone (except yanks), know that Challenger 2 is better than Abrams, and there's a Challenger 3 being brought into service in 2027.
Sir, unfortunately facts don't lie, Abrams came 4th in iron spear, challenger came 1st, But you could say the challenger crews were better, mind you your marines beat the brit marines in, oh wait a minute, sorry, what was that, the Americans lost EVERY war game against the brits again (only having a laugh but it is true, that's what you get for posting silly comments) enjoy
Sabot is pronounced sab-o due its french origin. There were more mispronunciations but this one seemed more of an accident than the wilful butchery of a language displayed with the others. 😉
Just observe the facts - both are FORMIDABLE bits of kit and I wouldn't want to 'live on the difference' (that's from a movie that i can't remember right now) but the Challenger remains 'unbeaten' in combat , save for a'Blue on Blue' situation...no other MBT can boast that (Leopard 2 hasn't got involved in anything yet..).
@3:50 forgive me for my uneducated guess mostly coming from war thunder. But how on earth does a chunky HESH round have more range than a skinny and dense APFSDS round???
“Effective range” is the key phrase. Because a HESH does not rely on kinetic energy, the power of the gun, to destroy its target. HESH uses chemical explosive to destroy, so it doesn’t matter how fast the projectile is travelling on impact just so long as it’s enough to compact on the target. That is why its effective range is further than APFSDS.
Idgaf what nobody gotta say when I see a Abrams I’m excited always. Yes I am American but it has always been reliable. There’s a reason we are one of the best countries in the world militarily. Nothing beats a Abrams for me it’s a beautiful tank
@goochfitness26, well it recently got beaten in Iron Spear by the British army Challenger 2 which came in first place!. Abrams of the United States army came 4th.
@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 - shame that has never happened, there has only been one occasion of an rpg going through the front under armour of a challenger but that has been rectified and now has the chobham armour there now so it doesn’t happen again!
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 you do realise 1000mm is 1meter of armour… no tank has 1 meter of armour 😂😂🤡🤡🤡. I don’t think the RPG you just mentioned even exists 😂😂😂🤡🤡. But let me get this straight tho, so ur saying this imaginary RPG that can supposedly penetrate through 1meter of armour can penetrate through something that has less than 1meter of armour??? Who’d a thunk 😂😂😂.
@@Pieces93 so you might realise that modern MBT´s do in fact have quite a substantial thickness of armor. As example Leopard 2A4 has a depth of the frontal turret armor cavity of around 860mm, meaning 86cm of composite armor thickness. Ontop of that from A5 onwards another meter deep non explosive reactive armor is added, the arrowhead, bringing the effective thickness of the armor to about 1500mm RHAe vs kinetic penetrators (APFSDS) and over 2200mm RHAe vs chemical warheads (HEAT). Panzerfaust 3 has an estmated 700mm penetration without Tandem HEAT Charge, with Tandem HEAT its around 900mm. Spike LR II, Kornet, TOW-II etc all range around 1000mm penetration. The RPG´s Challenger 2 was hit with were RPG-7W, with around 550mm penetration and Milan 1 ATGM with around 350mm penetration in most cases in Irak. In Ukraine Challenger 2 got hit with more modern ATGM´s like Kornet etc and they seem to be able to punch through its armor.
The Russians have very few t14s and haven't fielded any on the front line , specs look good on paper but hasn't been tested in battle yet , I'd rather trust a bit of kit that has been proven
A serious.....serious piece of kit. The M1 Abrahams is the only other tank that comes close. Sorry Leopard but your results in the last global tests put you a distant 3rd. The main issue with the Abrahams is the ridiculous fuel and maintenance costs which make the tank 4 times more costly to run. If you have 2 cars that run at 200mph and 1 runs on regular diesel and the other runs on rocket fuel.....literal rocket fuel, the diesel car will be more appealing as its easier to run globally. M1 Abrahams is still amazing though.
if the abrams is fitted with tusk armor package, its defenitly better then the challenger, just look at its use in iraq and deaths/injuries to how many tanks were deployed abrams is much better
@@soulsreaper7145 , the Challenger 2 is better than Abrams, and theres a challenger 3 that is soon going to be brought into service!. Challenger 2 is much better, In Iraq one Challenger 2 even survived being hit by 70 RPG's.
@Jeremy Jones The rifling isnt for dart rounds... APFSDS actually suffer from rifling... Also - since like the 50's every military uses FSDS (darts) in their tanks, is nothing new or special... The rifling is actually used for the HESH rounds which is fairly unique to brit tanks, relatively speaking...
The British developed the Armoured Piercing Discarding Sabot round in WWII it was a development from a French Idea of a round with similar concept a dense penetrator surrounded by a lightweight exterior the penetrator and sabot travel to the target together and some smaller bore ammunition still does this. The larger diameter is needed to get the the round up to speed and down range the smaller diameter penetrator is needed to get inside the target. The French design even coined the term Sabot (a clog a simple shoe). The British developed the Idea further with a discarding sabot. Fire the shot and the Sabot leaves the penetrator as it clears the barrel giving a longer range as less drag. As armour got thicker and stronger the round got longer which caused instability and tumbling, fins where added, just like an arrow. Rifling and high spin speeds are not beneficial as it reduces velocity in the barrel due to friction imparting the spin and aerodynamic efficiency all those fins spinning round, but a slower rate spin helps with accuracy. A Challenger II APFSDS armoured Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round, will spin rapidly down the rifled barrel the penetrator inside the sabot slips a lot inside the discarding sabot and in flight has enough spin to make it more accurate but not to much to make to cause drag. Even a smooth bore APFSDS round has catered fins to cause some spin. Challenger II also uses High Explosive Squash Head rounds, (HESH), this lobs squashy explosives onto your tank and detonates it ,the shock breaks scabs off inside killing crew and detonating ammunition. The round needs rifling for accuracy. Not a good day for the crew of an enemy tank either way.
Which is why it was able to use HESH in Iraq to devastating effect. The gun might not be the best modern tank killer but was the best option for what it was actually used for. Blowing shit up.
Well, it use to be... nowadays a lot of new mbt's (main battle tank) are beeing developped... the challenger is still a formidable tank... on par with the abrams, leopard2, le clerc, merkava or t14 armata... all pf these mbt's could win in a 1v1... it all depends on the terrain, crew experience and intel... if either of these factors favor a specific tank then that tank will come out victorious... it doesnt mean that tank is better... it all comes down to those factors... all of the tanks I mentioned could destroy any other tank on the list...
@@darrenstanton6332 true... this is why its hard to pick "the best tank"... hopefully the tanks wont be fighting in any wars against each other... but I could be proven wrong... the situation in ukraine is most likely gonna draw in nato tanks vs russian ones...
You forgot the challenger tea making equipment. Worth the win for that alone. 😂
Abrams also has a brewing vessel, this is standard equipment on american and german tanks since the 60´s.
its just the brits that make a big fuss about something this basic.
It's British. The Brits don't have that much to talk about, so they make minor things big deals. Love the chally to death, but it's just as capable as Abrams and Leopard II.
Both tanks are formidable given the right crew. Just wondering why they keep showing the leopard whilst talking about Challenger 2
The M1 A2 Abrams is a formidable tank for its role in combat and the Challenger2 is formidable tank in its role in the battlefield. Working together you know your having a bad day if you’re the enemy 😜🤪🏴
Could say a bit like walking into the bathroom with dire need for a shit and there's one massive spider that's fallen in the bath and another one sat on top of the windowsill. "Shit! What do I do?!"
If you read Niall Eworthys book Main Battle tank which is the stroy of a Challenger 2 crew from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards you will read all what the Challenger 2 did during the 2003 Iraq war. It describes the 14 RPGs that hit the tank and the Milan ATGM which was abushed in a built up area. It had backed up into a ditch lost its track. Then got hit my machine gun fire and the rounds mentioned. All their sights where destroyed but the crew survived. Warriors came up with infantry support and destroyed the Iraqi force. They saved the crew it was salvaged and fixed within 6 hours. They where hit by a barage of Grads they blew away a multitude of Bunkers with the HESH round. And they talk about 1 Challener 2 towards the drive to Basra was hit 70 times by RPG 7s. There is so much more info in this book the 14 T55's vs 14 Challenger 2 tanks well VW vs bicycle as they say in the book lasted a couple of minutes. One Challenger 2 was hit point blank by a T55 that ambushed it. It ingnited its frontal ERA protecting the lower glasis plate but didn't pen. It was turned into a sardine can. Only one Challenger 2 tank was destroyed by another Challenger 2 in a blue on blue which happens in all wars.
During the occuption of Iraq time and time agian it got hit by the same RPG 7 weapons when it was protecting convoys and the same results. Only twice was it penatrated which was when a Challenger 2 was going over a Berm and a insurgent with a upgraded RPG the infomous Dual warhead RPG29. It ingnighted the ERA and penned the armor on the lower glasis which was just standard RHA not class 2 Chobham armour. This was rectified in the upgraded TES 3 upgrade of the Challenger 2. The driver lost his foot but survived and still with a prostetic drives tanks today. Also a Challenger 2 was hit by a daisy chain of IED's with a small penetration to the underside of the hull only a couple of crew where injured. Both tanks survived where fixed and back into servie within hours or next day. I recomend the book.
ur leaving out though that in one of those big attacks where the tank survived one crew member died another had horrible leg damage.
The Abrams is on record for surviving all that shit too
@@T_81535 apparently 9 didnt
@@T_81535no just no
The Abrams uses the same armor as the challenger 2 only difference is the Abrams also has depleted uranium
No Abrams was destroyed by RPGs in Iraq or Afghanistanaafter the first RPG would have hit the Abrams the wouldn't have stayed around to be hit by 13/more
Both are excellent tanks however the Challenger has more fear factor
Iron Spear Tank competition 2023 Challenger 2 is the winner Leopard 2 came 2nd and 3rd
first time the UK won any form of competition since 1971.
and Iron Spear was not a tank competition but a small gunnery competiton in a larger excercise, where only 5 of 11 participants even brought MBT´s.
The UK invented the Tank.
Of course the Challenger2Tank is the best!!
?
@@iyit3684 research it
Finally the versus tanks video I was waiting for.
Challenger tank is better, no question about it because it has beat the Abrams in competition, proven itself in battle, and shown to be easier to maintain than the complex Abrams
and got whacked in ukraine
@@briant5685Abrams will as well WHEN you dare to deploy it
@@briant5685by blue on blue got fixed in 9 hours tops and was put back in not the same as a Abrams it’s too complex
@@ThemoonsFullofgoons-qn9xl it didnt.
the blue on blue in question burned out completely and popped its turret due to ammunition detonatioins. there are pictures of the burned out wreck.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 oh yeah it did it hit the open hatch and detonated the ammo I literally remember that aha what the fuck am I talking about ahah thinking of a wrong tank wrong situation then 😂
The newest challenger 2’s are also equipped with active protection systems
Yeah it was actually developed by Israel called the Iron Fist APS great system, apparently a lighter version is being tested for the challenger 3
The Abrams does have the depleted uranium APFSDS rounds that can outperform and cause more damage than tungsten based APFSDS at any range. The Abrams in the US Army is also deployed in a combined arms doctrine with mounted/dismounted Infantry, artillery/mortars, scouts, close air support, combat engineers, air defense, drones, intel, logistics/maint/fuel, communications, and command/control. Either tank will be less effective and vulnerable to attack if any of those puzzle pieces are reduced or missing.
Challenger 2 APFSDS rounds are also DU penetrators. The problem for Challenger 2 is the rifled gun and the breech takes a 2 piece round which limits the length of the penetrator. This is the reason for Chally 3 going to the German smoothbore gun and the upgrade to one piece ammo. It's a longer calibre than the Abrams, resulting in more muzzle velocity, Chally 3 is L/55 v L/44 on Abrams. Chally 2 is just getting a bit too old and should've been upgraded years ago.
Chally 3 will be the top tier tank in the world when it comes into service.
Recent NATO main battle tank competition Challenger came in at No 1 Leopard in 2nd place and Abrams in 3rd....very interesting.
@@HenriHattar I'm glad all three are on the same side!
@@mrgold3591 I am MERELY pointing out that your extolling of the Abrams , while a fine weapon it is not the best in tested conditions. A simple acknowledgement would be good but as you are American I 'spose you find that hard .
@@HenriHattar The Abrams does not fight alone one-on-one with our combined arms doctrine. The Abrams fights in a team with its strengths and weakness overlapping with other team assets. My Armor Brigade had Abrams, Bradleys, infantry, combat engineers, scouts, air defense, mortars, artillery, A-10 warthog close air support, intel, command, , control, maintenance/supplies/fuel, and communications. If you also factor in our training and the ability to turn any person off the streets into highly trained soldier in short time. The Abrams is about 3rd or 4th down the line in normal combat operations for engaging enemy tanks. That is why the Abrams has been around for so long. It fits its roll perfectly and it only needed minor upgrades for +40 years.
Americans want all of our Allies to have the best equipment, excellent training, and the will to fight for what is right with or without our help.
I like challenger 2 because excellent protection firepower but a little bit slower than abrams but fuel efficient.
Challenger also has the longest tank on tank in history.
yeah chally 2 was 8.3 meter (without cannon) and 13.5 meter (with cannon forward)
You forgot to that after the friendly fire of the challenger 2s it was then fixed in 6-9 hours on the side of the road
yeah it wasnt. the friendly fired challenger 2 burned out completely due to ammunition fires in the bascly unprotected ammuniton storage and the crew was killed.
Ah the ol Abrams v Challenger v Leopard debate. They can all beat a T-72, 80, 90, but only one of the main western tanks can beat several thousand of T-72 through T-14.
you must be meaning that there are more Abrams than Challenger 2 or Leopards!?. That doesn't mean that the tank is better!!!
Why when talking about challenger are you showing lepords and abrams?
I think the Challenger 2 is far prettier. The Abrams is like an old slag.
😂😂😂
It’s not a beauty contest .
@@STASH201161 Says who ?
@@richardj9016 me, these are weapons of war they aren’t meant to be pretty and for what it’s worth I’m British so would like the challenger to be the better machine.
@@STASH201161 Well Mark, sometimes some people make jokes that have a very subtle hidden meaning. Not always easy to decipher. If we look at it in a straightforward way, I can fully agree with you that this is not a beauty contest, even though people used to say that if it looks right, it probably is right. For instance the Spitfire, or the Challenger 😜
Ukraine are lucky to have the West and NATO as allies, given they'd of struggled to obtain and implement such an amendment of their armed forces in a 20 year window.... They'll have a greater arsenal than most NATO countries within 2 years if Ukraine keep getting the aid they're getting
Abrams, Leos, and Challengers, Merkavas. 👍👍👍👍👍
I would say yes, the challenger has only been destroyed by friendly fire, but how much more combat as the Abrams seen? He’s also leaving out a lot of information that he could’ve said like what he did it with challenger two for the Abrams instead for some reason, focusing on how they are able to be transported???
there have been quite a few challenger 2´s entering the turret toss competition in Ukraine over the last 12 months.
and yes, every destroyed challenger 2 was a turret toss, even though the turret was not tossed very far.
It would have been better to have shown fewer Leopards during the Challenger commentary.
Thanks for the feedback, it is hard to find good content!
But if youre talking about the challenger why do you show leopard and other tanks
0:12 holy smokes. I was actually afraid that the turrent was gonna smash his head to bits. Im guessing theres multiple safety features to keep that from happening tho 😅
Kinda wondering why sometimes he is talking about the Challenger but shows other tanks instead of it 🙄
Spends the first few minutes comparing the challenger 1 to challenger 2. Bro I clicked to see challenger 2 Vs M1 Abrams.
Yes, both are incredible Tanks. The Chally 2 is better of course ( wink) and it`s loved by the crews, The M1s are more numerous. May come down to splitting frog hairs.
look at its service in iraq the challenger crews were always getting in wild siuations taking heavy damage, while the abrams which they brough over 1000 to iraq only 80 needed to be shipped home for full repair.
@@soulsreaper7145 And no challenger needed to be scrapped or shipped home, because a challenger has never been destroyed due to its Superior armour
@@soulsreaper7145 They took heavy damage and kept going unhindered, not to mention how little of them there were in Iraq. You've just proved the Challengers superiority.
all i have to say is, at least 14 M1's have been destroyed by the enemy and not 1 challenger 2 has been bestoryed... challie is superior
what?? the united states didnt lose any tanks in iraq, some where damaged and needed to be sent home, but they never actually lost one, the only abrams ur seeing get blown up are the ones that are sold to iraq army.
@@soulsreaper7145 😂you've just proved my point
The M1’s were fielded in much large numbers, therefore they were more likely to suffer higher casualties
how much combat have the CR2´s seen so far?
not very much.
unlike the Leopard 2´s, and M1´s that have been constantly fighting at the front.
The CR2´s for 90% of that time cruised around on training grounds and got stuck in the mud.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041in the first gulf war the challenger 1 tank was able to kill over 300 Iraqi tanks whilst having 0 losses. The challenger 2 is just an improvement of the challenger 1 and absolutely outclasses the Abrahams.
This a game changer in the war for real.
Abrams is the king. Everybody knows it. Those who denie it are liars, fools, or brits.
@goochfitness26, Challenger 2 just won NATO's Iron spear, and Abrams came 4th!. Everyone (except yanks), know that Challenger 2 is better than Abrams, and there's a Challenger 3 being brought into service in 2027.
@Andrew Stead 100% it's better....also holds the longest tank to tank kill of any tank.
Sir, unfortunately facts don't lie, Abrams came 4th in iron spear, challenger came 1st, But you could say the challenger crews were better, mind you your marines beat the brit marines in, oh wait a minute, sorry, what was that, the Americans lost EVERY war game against the brits again (only having a laugh but it is true, that's what you get for posting silly comments) enjoy
@@jaymorris3468You Englishmen would be wiped out in 24 hours if you went to war with the yanks. Calm your egos.
Sabot is pronounced sab-o due its french origin. There were more mispronunciations but this one seemed more of an accident than the wilful butchery of a language displayed with the others. 😉
Just observe the facts - both are FORMIDABLE bits of kit and I wouldn't want to 'live on the difference' (that's from a movie that i can't remember right now) but the Challenger remains 'unbeaten' in combat , save for a'Blue on Blue' situation...no other MBT can boast that (Leopard 2 hasn't got involved in anything yet..).
@3:50 forgive me for my uneducated guess mostly coming from war thunder. But how on earth does a chunky HESH round have more range than a skinny and dense APFSDS round???
“Effective range” is the key phrase. Because a HESH does not rely on kinetic energy, the power of the gun, to destroy its target. HESH uses chemical explosive to destroy, so it doesn’t matter how fast the projectile is travelling on impact just so long as it’s enough to compact on the target. That is why its effective range is further than APFSDS.
@4.30-5.00 why are you showing a Leopard tank?? FFS
Idgaf what nobody gotta say when I see a Abrams I’m excited always. Yes I am American but it has always been reliable. There’s a reason we are one of the best countries in the world militarily. Nothing beats a Abrams for me it’s a beautiful tank
@goochfitness26, well it recently got beaten in Iron Spear by the British army Challenger 2 which came in first place!. Abrams of the United States army came 4th.
Challenger is better at deflecting RPGs which is a big deal
The RPG-29 can blast through Challenger 2s frontal armour.
@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 - shame that has never happened, there has only been one occasion of an rpg going through the front under armour of a challenger but that has been rectified and now has the chobham armour there now so it doesn’t happen again!
@@Pieces93 the chobbham ablative armor on CR2´s lower front does not protect vs 1000mm penetration RPG´s
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 you do realise 1000mm is 1meter of armour… no tank has 1 meter of armour 😂😂🤡🤡🤡. I don’t think the RPG you just mentioned even exists 😂😂😂🤡🤡.
But let me get this straight tho, so ur saying this imaginary RPG that can supposedly penetrate through 1meter of armour can penetrate through something that has less than 1meter of armour??? Who’d a thunk 😂😂😂.
@@Pieces93 so you might realise that modern MBT´s do in fact have quite a substantial thickness of armor.
As example Leopard 2A4 has a depth of the frontal turret armor cavity of around 860mm, meaning 86cm of composite armor thickness.
Ontop of that from A5 onwards another meter deep non explosive reactive armor is added, the arrowhead, bringing the effective thickness of the armor to about 1500mm RHAe vs kinetic penetrators (APFSDS) and over 2200mm RHAe vs chemical warheads (HEAT).
Panzerfaust 3 has an estmated 700mm penetration without Tandem HEAT Charge, with Tandem HEAT its around 900mm.
Spike LR II, Kornet, TOW-II etc all range around 1000mm penetration.
The RPG´s Challenger 2 was hit with were RPG-7W, with around 550mm penetration and Milan 1 ATGM with around 350mm penetration in most cases in Irak.
In Ukraine Challenger 2 got hit with more modern ATGM´s like Kornet etc and they seem to be able to punch through its armor.
Numbers win
more vids on leopard 2 tanks then the others....odd
5:20 how tf did the US make a tank in 19 AD?!
your ear maybe has problem
he said 1980 not 19 AD
@mekarpanjaitan-u7n nah I know full well what was said, I was only making a joke
How can the Challenger 2 possibly beat the Russian T-14 Armata? The Unkranians havent killed one yet!
Or seen one....😂
The Russians have very few t14s and haven't fielded any on the front line , specs look good on paper but hasn't been tested in battle yet , I'd rather trust a bit of kit that has been proven
A serious.....serious piece of kit. The M1 Abrahams is the only other tank that comes close. Sorry Leopard but your results in the last global tests put you a distant 3rd. The main issue with the Abrahams is the ridiculous fuel and maintenance costs which make the tank 4 times more costly to run. If you have 2 cars that run at 200mph and 1 runs on regular diesel and the other runs on rocket fuel.....literal rocket fuel, the diesel car will be more appealing as its easier to run globally. M1 Abrahams is still amazing though.
To be clear, the M-1 turbine engine is multifuel capable.
Abrams is a good tank but get smashed by the CR2 because of armour. Lots of Abrams not so many fantastic CR2s/Cr3s.............
if the abrams is fitted with tusk armor package, its defenitly better then the challenger, just look at its use in iraq and deaths/injuries to how many tanks were deployed abrams is much better
@@soulsreaper7145 , the Challenger 2 is better than Abrams, and theres a challenger 3 that is soon going to be brought into service!. Challenger 2 is much better, In Iraq one Challenger 2 even survived being hit by 70 RPG's.
Showing a lot of leopard 2 footage - honestly these channels know nothing, just hunting for views
Challenger much better tank,,
rifled main gun. Like in the 1950s ...
@Jeremy Jones The rifling isnt for dart rounds... APFSDS actually suffer from rifling... Also - since like the 50's every military uses FSDS (darts) in their tanks, is nothing new or special... The rifling is actually used for the HESH rounds which is fairly unique to brit tanks, relatively speaking...
Which allowed it to kill an Iraqi tank from over 3 miles away - a world record - longest tank kill ever
Still good though and super accurate 🏴🏴☠️
The British developed the Armoured Piercing Discarding Sabot round in WWII it was a development from a French Idea of a round with similar concept a dense penetrator surrounded by a lightweight exterior the penetrator and sabot travel to the target together and some smaller bore ammunition still does this. The larger diameter is needed to get the the round up to speed and down range the smaller diameter penetrator is needed to get inside the target. The French design even coined the term Sabot (a clog a simple shoe). The British developed the Idea further with a discarding sabot. Fire the shot and the Sabot leaves the penetrator as it clears the barrel giving a longer range as less drag. As armour got thicker and stronger the round got longer which caused instability and tumbling, fins where added, just like an arrow. Rifling and high spin speeds are not beneficial as it reduces velocity in the barrel due to friction imparting the spin and aerodynamic efficiency all those fins spinning round, but a slower rate spin helps with accuracy. A Challenger II APFSDS armoured Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round, will spin rapidly down the rifled barrel the penetrator inside the sabot slips a lot inside the discarding sabot and in flight has enough spin to make it more accurate but not to much to make to cause drag. Even a smooth bore APFSDS round has catered fins to cause some spin. Challenger II also uses High Explosive Squash Head rounds, (HESH), this lobs squashy explosives onto your tank and detonates it ,the shock breaks scabs off inside killing crew and detonating ammunition. The round needs rifling for accuracy. Not a good day for the crew of an enemy tank either way.
Which is why it was able to use HESH in Iraq to devastating effect. The gun might not be the best modern tank killer but was the best option for what it was actually used for. Blowing shit up.
Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world and has never been defeated in battle
Well, it use to be... nowadays a lot of new mbt's (main battle tank) are beeing developped... the challenger is still a formidable tank... on par with the abrams, leopard2, le clerc, merkava or t14 armata... all pf these mbt's could win in a 1v1... it all depends on the terrain, crew experience and intel... if either of these factors favor a specific tank then that tank will come out victorious... it doesnt mean that tank is better... it all comes down to those factors... all of the tanks I mentioned could destroy any other tank on the list...
@@bogdanferu1160 yes but havnt been proving in battle yet
@@darrenstanton6332 true... this is why its hard to pick "the best tank"... hopefully the tanks wont be fighting in any wars against each other... but I could be proven wrong... the situation in ukraine is most likely gonna draw in nato tanks vs russian ones...
@@bogdanferu1160 that's very true most likely be nato tanks v russian ones and we know which ones will win
Duh! It’s less likely to be destroyed in battle, when so few are actually in battle!!