@@krackerman3628 Nazis, every Country that has went there own way from the Empire is turned out a Second class Country apart from a few, keep the Faith 🇬🇧
I deeply appreciate this video. I'm British & my Dad fought in WW2 in the great battle of El Alamein where he was badly wounded. I've always acknowledged & appreciated the help that the USA gave us Brits to help win that war. Blessings on you friends. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
Thanks to USA and to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and the Rest of the Commonwealth. Canada STARTED the Lease Lend with GB AND stopped GB STARVING! First Sherman used in battle at El Alamein.
@@damiensteiner9919 We had capable tanks, just we could not make enough of them. The Churchill for example had double the frontal armour of a Sherman. It also had a gun capable of taking out a panther from the front in the later models.
Great Britain needs at least two more dedicated tank manufacturing plants built, as a matter of some urgency. Capable of firstly producing new Challenger 3 MBTs. But also working on a completely new optionally manned design.
The tank factory in leeds was shut by I believe the labour government that had been there since the 1st World War. Every government has destroyed the British manufacturing base .
Agree..the C3 will be one of the best battle tanks in the world but we need more. Heavy investment is needed to get us back to where we belong. Among the super powers.
@@paultanton4307 None of them capable of building a single new hull. I rest my case. Given wartime attrition rates seen in near peer conventional high intensity land warfare. Our intended Challie 3 fleet wouldn't last a month. Much the same as the rest of our other pathetically sized armed forces. The age of the MBT is far from over and the 1991 Gulf War was no indication of how our forces will perform 30 years later. If things take a minor turn for the worst. GB could find ourselves in a very real war against the combined forces of the CCP, Russia and some notable others. Even with our allies, many in a far worse state then we are. It would take something of a miracle for us to prevail. It hurts me to say such a thing. But as a veteran of the Cold War, 1991 Gulf War and other conflicts. The size and equipment shortages of our current standing force is truly shocking. Treasonous would be the best way to describe it. Every HM Gov. since 1980 should be taken to task and locked in the Tower awaiting the axe. It will take decades to build things back to where we should be. That's simply time to train more officers and senior NCO's. Never mind building a functioning self sufficient military industrial complex. Did you know that it will take a decade to replace the the artillery rounds we have given away to Ukraine! That's just one year of our contribution to their usage. Don't get me started. Grrrr. Aircraft carriers without full airwings, dependant on STOVL types only! RAF squadrons with pitifully low numbers of available airframes and unable to train pilots. It goes on and on. All due to the delusions of politicians and their fictional peace dividend. Double Grrr Grrr.
The challengers were built at vickers in Newcastle upon Tyne until recently there was a full size challenger on display at the entrance to the factory this thing was massive
Yep people do not realise how big until they stand next to one. The Challenger III I believe is slightly bigger than the II. Then again it has an extra 300+HP so should if anything be more mobile.
the question is, why arent they built there now or by bae systems and why is all the heavy equipment not supporting british jobs and why take a step back with a competitors smooth bore gun, instead of the long range riffle. doesn`t make sense.
I take it that the factory is no longer there either? A great shame as I was at nerwcastle last year, Although my father was from Darlington, I live in wales and visited relatives in Newcastle, to have seen the Vickers factory where so much iconic British war machinery was made woould have been awsome! From one Crosby to another Barry, Thanks for that image! Just wish it had still been there. Take care.
@@TheHoTsHoTs98 rolls royce, german, army trucks, german, tanks german, kings german, anybody else spot a connection? apart from the german state visit and steyr puch (german) upgrading the sa80 la3? lol :)
Optimistic! Ajax should have been in service 2018 but despite £4 billion spent not one is in operational service. Continuous Conservative defence cuts have left the Army with about 200 tanks and less soldiers than at the time of Waterloo!
@@lewiskx20 I know but still none in service! Like the Challenger 3 upgrade which will take 7 years to complete. If we are serious about defence we need to spend 3% of GDP minimum for the next 10years to rebuild our forces.
@@johnallen7807 I agree we need to spend more and I believe we will, but no one believed Russia was planning to wage war and the spending reflected that. Now it's clear.... We need to act fast.
@@lewiskx20 Correct although I knew it was a mistake with the SDSR in 2010 which was driven purely by cost cutting. I had the usual "blah, blah" rubbish from Cameron's office when I complained. The problem is two fold though, not just men and equipment (or rather the lack of!) but also the slashing reduction in defence manufacturing, for example I believe we have ONE factory making shells, output 10000 a week, about what Russia fires in a day!
Talk about "Fantasy Island" ...... Who ever put this pile of pipe dreams together isn't living on the same planet that the rest of us are! Thanks to General Dynamics, the new family of armoured vehicles (Ajax and it's derivatives) are 7 years behind schedule for delivery, and they still haven't made it to work without causing injury to the user. As for that wierd looking Ranger - never heard of it! Is this some kind of wish list dreamed up by someone living on the extremes of reality? If not then where was the "Boxer" and it's variants, which has been ordered? As for the title of this video - "In your dreams!" This video clearly was poorly researched and little credibility can be given to the information it offers as fact.
British: We have one of the best tanks with one of the best guns in the world, entirely made in the UK. Also British: Let's change it for a worse German one, made everywhere but the UK. You can't make this shit up 🤣
We need to rearm and put our forces back to what they were during the cold war, but it seems the MODs procurement is exceptionally poor, I always believed that the MOD should be staffed by serving and ex service personnel who what is required as they would have extensive experience in the armed forces. Not some chinless civil servant who for one doesn't know sfa and secondly and more importantly doesn't give a flying f,
@@TheGrowler55 I doubt the US actually has 1,000 fully ready Abrams, even with a $1T defense budget (just add about 25% to the publicly announced $850B and you're on the mark), from a $23T economy..... So I doubt very much the UK, economically speaking ---- NOT that the Brits don't have the technologies to build them.... with an economy smaller than the lazy, uneducated Lib controlled state of California --- is going to have enough resources to buy and to maintain 1,000 main battle tanks, even it is just ONE of the DOZENS of top priority equipment the UK needs to have... Every major weapon system from WW2 to the 1980s or so were visual-oriented equipment. Most of the "technologies" put in them were mostly fancy gadgets; they don't do shit's worth. Not so today, with 7nm, 5nm, and the up coming 3nm smart chips, increasingly sophisticated drones (that could fly for HOURS covering many tens of thousands of square miles all over earth), rapidly maturing AI technologies integrated into every major high-end electronics, equipments, weapons, etc. In short, 150 of today and tomorrow's high-end tanks (Abram, Challenger 2/3, Leopard 2/modern version, K-2 Black Panther, etc) could --- with the help of drones, satellites, on the ground intel, and smart missiles --- EASILY defeat 1,000 of tanks from the 1940s to the 80s.
You don’t really need a thousand tanks you can kill a thousand tanks through drones or anti tank rockets 😂😂😂 but I think having at least 500 to 800 would be enough
I was armoured infantry for 6 years, left in 2005, driver gunner and commander of the warrior. Always loved driving them but was very hard work keeping up with the challis cross country. Not sure what happened for the warrior 2000 that was on the cards 20 years ago. Stabilised 40mm cannon back them. Assuming ridiculous defence cuts put paid to that
They abandoned the Warrior upgrade in favour of the Ajax replacement. The Ajax of course is a disaster that is more dangerous to the crew than the enemy (several of the test drivers actually required medial aid due to the noise and vibration). As such, despite being well past its expected retirement, the Warrior is still in service until they either can the Ajax program or somehow make it work.
So Russia has lost over 2000 tanks in 1 year of battle, so how long will 148 Challenger 3 tanks last in 1 year of battle? The UK would need 1000 Challenger 3. The UK MOD are a joke!
@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24 Helicopters are far more multi roll than a tank. Plus they fly. Future battles air going to be airborne with smart tech.( Every weapon doing the most damage in Ukraine at the moment travels through the air) I've worked on both a GKN tank and helicopters.
I'm into British armored vehicle's like challenger 3's & all other light, medium armored vehicle's! I would like very much like to take a look around in all of them some time. I'm British
All this is not massive and unviable in a big war. Britain is a small country with small forces, it can only participate in some kind of coalition, and even that is not very impressive. Participation in Afghanistan confirmed this: NATO, with all its efforts, was defeated. The Challenger tanks have been sent to Ukraine and we haven't seen them on the battlefield yet. I'm afraid they suffer the same fate as the German Leopards: they will quickly burn out without any strategic benefit
This guys opening dialgoe, " This channel relies on facts" is blown out of the water with the very next thing he says that the British Army relies heavilly on tanks.....they don't actually have a lot!
The challenger 3 may very well be a great piece of kit but while most other branches of his majesty king plug from the beano tanks used to divisions they’d be hard pressed to field four or five troops worth and as in GF1 the brits had a well deserved moniker and was and still is the borrowers
The Germans oversold Leopard’s capabilities, (like filming one with a glass of pilsner glued to the end of a barrel) to many countries who went on to buy them, including Turkey, where nine were destroyed in one day. They are now regretting their purchase. Challenger is battle hardened and proven to be a success. Manufacturing is now BAe Systems, but they sold the controlling share to Germany’s Rheinmetall. In an effort to negotiate a ‘cheap deal’ the conservative government has sold us down the river. Britain has now lost the brains behind future tank and armoured warfare.
This Tank will need solid ground due to its weight , the Ukraine soft peaty land is not helpful for movement! Hopefully by the Winter it will on higher ground to use its fire power as designed !
Love to see them in action defending British boarders. But that would be madness. They'll just export them free of charge to Ukraine I suppose. In order to defend the freedom and democracy we enjoy on a daily basis in Blighty.
and the UK is only getting 148 .. and these are only upgrades .. it's about time we bought a completely new design tank for modern warfare ... the challenger 2 is 25 years old and needs retiring not updating ... you can only do so much on an upgrade ... new would give a totally modern tank using all the new tech instead of just what you can fit on an old tank ... plus it would rebuild an industry we need so we can build tanks again .....again 148 vs 10000 of any tank would be totally stupid in this age with Russia wanting to wage war on countries so they can expand ... if ukraine is defeated (i hope not they are doing so well ) we are stuffed, we might as well surrender now ... the only saving grace is that we have nukes so no surrender
Not T-14 Armata, that tank propably doesn't work at all how russians been claimed it to do. Why wouldn't they send those to frontline if its so good? even their T-90 all versions have totally sucked in Ukraine and been just food for drones and anti-tank missiles. KF51 is most likely better than Chally 3, but also probably a lot more expensive, like AbramsX too. Those have all this fancy new technology stuff, but do they really work like a dream on battle field. It's really big deal to build this utterly expensive tanks and what if they fail the expectations what they can do and get destroyed like any tank on the field? Atleast Challenger have prove to be one of the best crew protected tank and it's been working so far as good as expected. Well protected main battle tank that can do it's job, which is breakthrough and saving crew if it's getting disabled/destroyed.
i hope that our main battle tanks are kept, there is still a need for 1000 mbt"s the chieftain should have been put in reserve for homeland use, what ever the cost it is a sad fact that our mp"s have very little knowledge of defence, i hope that our present minister for defence continues he outshines all previous mp"s of that post.....usa/uk
@@peterwait641 never in a million years, it was little more than a vanity project, it was in direct competition with Mastiff, it has less interior space than Mastiff, and the polar opposite to the 'meccano' engineering/design of Mastiff as you can get, it was 4/5 years too late to be seriously considered
@@chrisjones2224 That's funny ASCOD (RE-AJAX) is a 1980's Austrian design with 1970's torsion bar and rotary dampers and in the words of Horstman world leaders in AFV suspension "offers a budget option" !
@@peterwait641 Old enough to have worked on cars with torsion bar suspension,, few people laughed at modern vehicles with Torsion bars, me included, only problem was/is all thise old cars never came in for torsion bar repairs/breaks etc
@@chrisjones2224 Bet you are old enough to remember bicycles with rod brakes and leather pads ! Strangely the 432 only needs a seat base of 1/4" ply, 2 " medium density foam mounted on to hull walls, the up-armoured version done by BAE did not vibrate you arse off either . No substitute for expertise ?
As much as I love tanks they are no match for missiles, or antitank weapons, there’s some weapon out there that will destroy any tank we don’t know about. I wouldn’t want to be in one.
If anyone is wondering the reason the UK doesn’t have a lot of tanks is because our tanks are super strong and advanced so there is no need to have thousands
I never knew we had most of these good to know. looks like the British army's land forces are gonna be alright. Especially with the 14 Archers on the way.
@@stevefairbanks835 14 archers are just to replace the AS90's we gave to Ukraine but ok. Do you know anything about the Archer system? obviously not. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of 2 archers nor 1 let alone the plenty of the other artillery we have. But yes our army needs more still. But 3rd world? Are you a russian putin simp by any chance.
The trend towards APCs carrying fewer troops is not good. A six or seven man section is not a good baseline to start with, since you are go to to have casualties, leave etc. Just for the mundane stuff, like sentry duty, less numbers of people will have to do more. Special forces like SAS can get away with a team of four to six, but their role is strategic recon, not mechanised infantry. And for people who say: 'Well, just have more vehicles to carry the unit" Yeah, that works in theory, but then there is a "economy drive" and the unit is allocated a number below establishment. But I suppose it doesn't matter, because units are often understrength in personnel anyway, before a battle even starts. Even in a non-war situation, about 10% of any unit are going to be on leave anyway, probably others away on courses or whatever. So suddenly you have to deploy, and a good chunk of people are missing, so you go into action understrength. So there shape and functioning of your unit is below par before a shot is even fired. Yeah, I know, people are called back form leave and courses, but it often does not happen, because the whole army is short-handed, so they are doing something vital somewhere else. Be that as it may, the establishment strength should be MORE than the deployable strength, and the deployable strength should comply with tactical doctrine. Sorry, but 18-20 people are not a platoon, even if they can make it work for a time. In an emergency, yes, you suck it up and do it, but it should not be a routine thing. Combat experience has shown that a unit that trains together keeps its effectiveness and morale high for much longer under stress than a bunch of stranger replacements thrown together. Statistically, being an individual replacement is much more dangerous than being in a unit for a long time with friends. How the generals are going to maintain these 4 or 6 man "sections" as effective sub-units is not clear to me. An infantry section should have at least 10 to 12 personnel. The Brit scheme, as I understand it, is two "bricks" of four troops. The Australian scheme is for ten per section: section commander, section 2-IC, rifle group and gun group, and TWO scouts. The US scheme is 12 per squad, led by a junior sergeant [instead of a corporal] . Twelve is a really good number, because you can have three bricks of four, four fire-teams of three, and so on. Armour [of any type from MBT to recon track] need their own organic infantry for protection. The same is true for artillery [SP or towed] , but military geniuses still deploy artillery battalions/regiments without ORGANIC infantry attached. If the unit is lucky an infantry company will be detached for protection [thus weakening the donor infantry battalion] or often it will just have to provide for its own defence. [Sort of hard when you have to provide round the clock fire missions]. As you might have guessed, I am not a fan of the political and military morons who decide the fate of ordinary soldiers.
Celencer 5 tankı. Gövdesi üzerine. İnsansız yeni versiyonu olan 140mm topu olan insansız kulesini enterge ettim etki mevzil 30km. Azmi mevzil 45km 8 namlulu 35mm stamp
Bit click-bait, sorry - the Challenger 3 is due, but to my knowledge not one has been made yet - watch this space over exactly what comes forth with what's happening over the Russo-Ukraine war, too - a lot of NATO militaries are going to be re-assessing, big time.
Challenger 3 with the update from Rheinmetall is really good one. Little different and not so high mobility like our leopard but very good protection level. All updates very usefull. The change to the german L55A1 is best decision because this is the most powerfull 120mm in the world and much better than the old one on the Challenger 2. The L55A1 is also much more powerfull than the german L44 (Abrams use the L44 with german licence on the abrams) and L55. But I dont understand why the challenger still use the perkins engine with only 1.200 HP?! The Challenger is still the heaviest MBT in NATO but use the smallest engine?! Anyway.. the Challenger 3 is great upgrate and I like this tank too!!
The British Gun on the Challenger II IS the best Tank Gun in the World. BUT UK moving to standardise on a Smooth Bore for Logistics. The ONLY Challenger II Tanks stopped by anti-tank fire was a Red on Red, i.e. another Challenger II. Germans often confuse "popularity" as "CHEAPEST SOLD by Germany". Leopards were slaughtered in Syria.
@@trevorhart545 Well stick to the facts boy. No... that's how you want to see it, but the Challenger Gun (120 mm L30A1) has a very long range, but due to the rifled barrel, the muzzle velocity is far too low to penetrate current and future enemy armor. What good is it if you can theoretically shoot 8 km with the cannon but it cannot even destroy the enemy at 2,000 meters. That's why the Challenger now switches from the English 120mm L30A1 to the best gun... the German L55A1 in the Challenger 3 update. stick to the facts. In 2006, the British military tested the 120mm L30A1 against the older L55, and the L55 performed significantly better. The L55A1 that the Challenger 3 gets is again significantly better than the L55. In other words... the old British 120mm L30A1 falls even further behind. The British also want to reliably destroy enemy tanks and not just shoot at them, right?! I have to laugh when you mention the leopard of the Turks in Syria. That's when you realize that you're more of a child or a layperson. The Leopard 2 A4 (models from the 1980s), destroyed in Syria but still very good tanks, penetrated urban terrain without infantry and escort. Any idiot with a bazooka could have shot the tanks from behind, which is what eventually happened. The Turks simply let the Leopard tanks drive unassisted into terrain that was dangerous for any MBT. Every tank... be it a Challenger, Abrams, M60 or Leopard will be destroyed in this way. So don't talk nonsense. The British are clever and have not only opted for the German BOXER, but also have Rheinmetall do the update for the Challenger. That's good... especially since the tanks (BOXER and CHALLENGER) are also being converted or built in GB. So it remains a British tank, only the Germans helped. What bothers you about it? The Challenger 3 will be vastly superior to the Challenger 2 (which is also the purpose... otherwise it would be strange)
@@bobthecanon3457 The British Challenger has a greater survivability record than any Leopard ever built. Chobham armour has proved itself extremely effective on the battlefield. The rifled barrel enables specific rounds to be fired with much more accuracy. That "inferior" gun took out hundreds of enemy tanks in the gulf war. A proven, very capable MBT.
@@briantitchener4829 That's not the point!! You gotta listen!! The Challenger has a very, very high level of protection. That is undisputed. ...But he lacks the mobility to fight from the fast movement. The Challenger is just too sluggish and the cannon too weak. A good gun but it lacks the power. Protection is not everything. The Challenger is too heavy for the power that the engine brings. Even the Oman does not use the original British engine, but the German one from MTU. This means that the Challenger of Oman has 300hp more. The next shortcoming is the very good and accurate Royal Ordnance L30 with a great range, but that is not crucial. The Royal Ordnance just doesn't have the muzzle velocity and power to reliably take out enemy tanks and that's a KO today. Criterion for a cannon. The British Ministry of Defense has therefore decided in favor of the German smoothbore gun... even the latest version L55A1, which is again significantly more powerful than the L55 tested against the Royal Ordnance at the time. With the new armament of the Leopard 2 A7V (Rheinmetall L55A1), the Challenger 3 will be able to reliably destroy any enemy tank. Again... the Challenger 2 was a good tank in asymmetric warfare or against underpowered forces. BUT... he had disadvantages compared to strong and well-armored foes. Our orientation in NATO is again the defense of NATO territory and not the fight against Taliban, IS or developing countries. The L55/L55A1 is the best 120mm gun in the world and is used by dozens of countries. The RO 30 had its time but is no longer the state of the art today.
@@briantitchener4829 P.S. it's about maximum assertiveness against numerically superior heavy enemy forces. The Challenger 2 could no longer afford that. The new armament (Rheinmetall L55A1) goes perfectly with the very high level of protection of the Challenger 3. I would have installed the MTU with 1,500 HP, which Oman is already using in its Challenger 2E, but the rest fits perfectly. Again... the Challenger 2 and then 3 have a very high level of protection. The Leopard 2 has completely different strengths... it is significantly more mobile and better armed. In a covered position, the Leopard 2 A5-A7 can no longer be penetrated head-on through the turret. The strength of the Leopard lies in its overall composition, mobility and firepower. The Challenger is catching up now that it's getting the armament of the Leopard 2 A7V. The best of the best.
Thought universal engineering closed down, despite their vehicle being better it was not ordered , maybe no one in the old boy network to make richer ?
So this tanks will be sent to Ukraine ? Leopards was also said to be best tanks ? Send to Ukraine, it became a hips of scape metals ! I see British tanks makes no deference, still scape metals too fighting without air defence or anti air missiles, its becomes a sitting duvks !
Nah its not like!2027/ 2030 is when it'll be inservce! The challenger 2 will carry on its duty till then! The chally 3 is only under construction from this time last year and it takes atleast 10 years for armour testing!
Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧
You've got it pal respect from barnsley
Errr none of that Nazi colonial crap please.
@@krackerman3628 jog on, Buddy 🇬🇧
@@krackerman3628 Bring back the Empire 😂🇬🇧
@@krackerman3628 Nazis, every Country that has went there own way from the Empire is turned out a Second class Country apart from a few, keep the Faith 🇬🇧
I deeply appreciate this video. I'm British & my Dad fought in WW2 in the great battle of El Alamein where he was badly wounded. I've always acknowledged & appreciated the help that the USA gave us Brits to help win that war. Blessings on you friends. 🇺🇸🇬🇧
Thanks to USA and to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and the Rest of the Commonwealth. Canada STARTED the Lease Lend with GB AND stopped GB STARVING! First Sherman used in battle at El Alamein.
@@trevorhart545 A game changer my friend
My late uncle was in Africa and Germany during WWII......service the USA and often he spoke of how well trained the British solder's were....
@@damiensteiner9919 We had capable tanks, just we could not make enough of them. The Churchill for example had double the frontal armour of a Sherman. It also had a gun capable of taking out a panther from the front in the later models.
@@gordonlawrence1448 The Matilda was no slouch either Gordon. All the best
Challys are truly great, but I just wish we had more of them. Like about 1000 more.
Great looking kit shame about the small Numbers. Politicians should be ashamed. Need to buy more of these machines
@danthecarguy3870they're probably looking for BOGOFs
Great Britain needs at least two more dedicated tank manufacturing plants built, as a matter of some urgency. Capable of firstly producing new Challenger 3 MBTs. But also working on a completely new optionally manned design.
The tank factory in leeds was shut by I believe the labour government that had been there since the 1st World War.
Every government has destroyed the British manufacturing base .
RBSL in Telford will be converting CR2 into CR3 with other companies involved too.
Agree..the C3 will be one of the best battle tanks in the world but we need more. Heavy investment is needed to get us back to where we belong. Among the super powers.
@@paultanton4307 None of them capable of building a single new hull. I rest my case.
Given wartime attrition rates seen in near peer conventional high intensity land warfare. Our intended Challie 3 fleet wouldn't last a month. Much the same as the rest of our other pathetically sized armed forces.
The age of the MBT is far from over and the 1991 Gulf War was no indication of how our forces will perform 30 years later. If things take a minor turn for the worst. GB could find ourselves in a very real war against the combined forces of the CCP, Russia and some notable others. Even with our allies, many in a far worse state then we are. It would take something of a miracle for us to prevail.
It hurts me to say such a thing. But as a veteran of the Cold War, 1991 Gulf War and other conflicts. The size and equipment shortages of our current standing force is truly shocking. Treasonous would be the best way to describe it. Every HM Gov. since 1980 should be taken to task and locked in the Tower awaiting the axe. It will take decades to build things back to where we should be. That's simply time to train more officers and senior NCO's. Never mind building a functioning self sufficient military industrial complex. Did you know that it will take a decade to replace the the artillery rounds we have given away to Ukraine! That's just one year of our contribution to their usage. Don't get me started. Grrrr.
Aircraft carriers without full airwings, dependant on STOVL types only! RAF squadrons with pitifully low numbers of available airframes and unable to train pilots. It goes on and on. All due to the delusions of politicians and their fictional peace dividend. Double Grrr Grrr.
Two more? We don't have any, biggest mistake ever.
The challengers were built at vickers in Newcastle upon Tyne until recently there was a full size challenger on display at the entrance to the factory this thing was massive
Yep people do not realise how big until they stand next to one. The Challenger III I believe is slightly bigger than the II. Then again it has an extra 300+HP so should if anything be more mobile.
the question is, why arent they built there now or by bae systems and why is all the heavy equipment not supporting british jobs and why take a step back with a competitors smooth bore gun, instead of the long range riffle. doesn`t make sense.
They were actually built at the Vickers Barnbow factory in Leeds. Sadly now a housing estate. My late father in law worked on them.
I take it that the factory is no longer there either? A great shame as I was at nerwcastle last year, Although my father was from Darlington, I live in wales and visited relatives in Newcastle, to have seen the Vickers factory where so much iconic British war machinery was made woould have been awsome!
From one Crosby to another Barry, Thanks for that image! Just wish it had still been there.
Take care.
@@TheHoTsHoTs98 rolls royce, german, army trucks, german, tanks german, kings german, anybody else spot a connection? apart from the german state visit and steyr puch (german) upgrading the sa80 la3? lol :)
Optimistic! Ajax should have been in service 2018 but despite £4 billion spent not one is in operational service. Continuous Conservative defence cuts have left the Army with about 200 tanks and less soldiers than at the time of Waterloo!
It has now been approved
@@lewiskx20 I know but still none in service! Like the Challenger 3 upgrade which will take 7 years to complete. If we are serious about defence we need to spend 3% of GDP minimum for the next 10years to rebuild our forces.
@@johnallen7807 I agree we need to spend more and I believe we will, but no one believed Russia was planning to wage war and the spending reflected that. Now it's clear.... We need to act fast.
@@lewiskx20 Correct although I knew it was a mistake with the SDSR in 2010 which was driven purely by cost cutting. I had the usual "blah, blah" rubbish from Cameron's office when I complained. The problem is two fold though, not just men and equipment (or rather the lack of!) but also the slashing reduction in defence manufacturing, for example I believe we have ONE factory making shells, output 10000 a week, about what Russia fires in a day!
The antitank variant of the of Spartan was called Striker. It did not carry Milan it carried and fired Swingfire a heavier missile.
Talk about "Fantasy Island" ...... Who ever put this pile of pipe dreams together isn't living on the same planet that the rest of us are! Thanks to General Dynamics, the new family of armoured vehicles (Ajax and it's derivatives) are 7 years behind schedule for delivery, and they still haven't made it to work without causing injury to the user. As for that wierd looking Ranger - never heard of it! Is this some kind of wish list dreamed up by someone living on the extremes of reality? If not then where was the "Boxer" and it's variants, which has been ordered? As for the title of this video - "In your dreams!" This video clearly was poorly researched and little credibility can be given to the information it offers as fact.
yeah they have they changed the seat padding and issued new ear defenders
British: We have one of the best tanks with one of the best guns in the world, entirely made in the UK.
Also British: Let's change it for a worse German one, made everywhere but the UK.
You can't make this shit up 🤣
@@thegreatestdane8978... remind me who won the NATO tank competition "Iron spear" in 2023 ....Challenger 2...enough said...
That Ranger vehicle is amazing lol I've never seen that before 😮
This looks like the Hippo from the South African army of the 1970's
We also don't have them so that's nonsense.
Great video. Hopefully the US army will give the UK a bit more credit with these great vehicles.(Nicholas)
We need to rearm and put our forces back to what they were during the cold war, but it seems the MODs procurement is exceptionally poor, I always believed that the MOD should be staffed by serving and ex service personnel who what is required as they would have extensive experience in the armed forces. Not some chinless civil servant who for one doesn't know sfa and secondly and more importantly doesn't give a flying f,
148 still isnt enough
Before the Wall came down in in Germany, we had 1000 Tanks, now that the Cold War is back it's time to get them back to that Number, from Glasgow 🇬🇧
@@TheGrowler55 I doubt the US actually has 1,000 fully ready Abrams, even with a $1T defense budget (just add about 25% to the publicly announced $850B and you're on the mark), from a $23T economy..... So I doubt very much the UK, economically speaking ---- NOT that the Brits don't have the technologies to build them.... with an economy smaller than the lazy, uneducated Lib controlled state of California --- is going to have enough resources to buy and to maintain 1,000 main battle tanks, even it is just ONE of the DOZENS of top priority equipment the UK needs to have...
Every major weapon system from WW2 to the 1980s or so were visual-oriented equipment. Most of the "technologies" put in them were mostly fancy gadgets; they don't do shit's worth. Not so today, with 7nm, 5nm, and the up coming 3nm smart chips, increasingly sophisticated drones (that could fly for HOURS covering many tens of thousands of square miles all over earth), rapidly maturing AI technologies integrated into every major high-end electronics, equipments, weapons, etc.
In short, 150 of today and tomorrow's high-end tanks (Abram, Challenger 2/3, Leopard 2/modern version, K-2 Black Panther, etc) could --- with the help of drones, satellites, on the ground intel, and smart missiles --- EASILY defeat 1,000 of tanks from the 1940s to the 80s.
@@TheGrowler55 I couldn't agree more.
Needs to be more like 600
You don’t really need a thousand tanks you can kill a thousand tanks through drones or anti tank rockets 😂😂😂 but I think having at least 500 to 800 would be enough
I was armoured infantry for 6 years, left in 2005, driver gunner and commander of the warrior. Always loved driving them but was very hard work keeping up with the challis cross country. Not sure what happened for the warrior 2000 that was on the cards 20 years ago. Stabilised 40mm cannon back them. Assuming ridiculous defence cuts put paid to that
Warrior is still in, nothing to replace it with anymore 😅
They abandoned the Warrior upgrade in favour of the Ajax replacement.
The Ajax of course is a disaster that is more dangerous to the crew than the enemy (several of the test drivers actually required medial aid due to the noise and vibration).
As such, despite being well past its expected retirement, the Warrior is still in service until they either can the Ajax program or somehow make it work.
We don't use the AJAX yet because it is still in development, it currently has issues that need fixing before it is a useable vehicle.
All of them they are British made, and they are the best 👌
Good, still life in the UK defence industry yet!!!! 👍👍👍👍
Very good, now we need at least 1000
So Russia has lost over 2000 tanks in 1 year of battle, so how long will 148 Challenger 3 tanks last in 1 year of battle? The UK would need 1000 Challenger 3. The UK MOD are a joke!
Don't compare our Challengers to Russia's shower of shite
Challenger 3 has a protected arrival time of 2027-2030 they won't be in the field until at least 2032
And by then obsolete on any battle field
@@chriswalford9228 Er, wrong. No country can develope and produce MBTs overnight.
@@briantitchener4829 I'm talking tanks in general being obsolete
@@chriswalford9228 doubt it. You know far more helicopters have been lost in every war than tanks and no one is crying about them being obsolete.
@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24 Helicopters are far more multi roll than a tank. Plus they fly. Future battles air going to be airborne with smart tech.( Every weapon doing the most damage in Ukraine at the moment travels through the air) I've worked on both a GKN tank and helicopters.
I'm into British armored vehicle's like challenger 3's & all other light, medium armored vehicle's! I would like very much like to take a look around in all of them some time. I'm British
We have some very good kit!
Just need more of everything
How can the C3 be “ready for action” when they haven’t been built yet, never mind released to service
All this is not massive and unviable in a big war. Britain is a small country with small forces, it can only participate in some kind of coalition, and even that is not very impressive. Participation in Afghanistan confirmed this: NATO, with all its efforts, was defeated. The Challenger tanks have been sent to Ukraine and we haven't seen them on the battlefield yet. I'm afraid they suffer the same fate as the German Leopards: they will quickly burn out without any strategic benefit
148 tanks that are already past it is wee bit like putting an regular army company against a squad of boat troop, it wouldn’t end well
This guys opening dialgoe, " This channel relies on facts" is blown out of the water with the very next thing he says that the British Army relies heavilly on tanks.....they don't actually have a lot!
The challenger 3 may very well be a great piece of kit but while most other branches of his majesty king plug from the beano tanks used to divisions they’d be hard pressed to field four or five troops worth and as in GF1 the brits had a well deserved moniker and was and still is the borrowers
Ah yes the good old tank, originally called Land Ships and as such they came under the Admiralty and not the army.
What about the Sappers Terrier & Trojan?
148 tanks it's not enough but it's okay the British people have America and together we will win against anyone🇺🇸🇬🇧💪
1:50 looks like an oversized Wiesel
Challenger 3 looks a beast but of course it is. It has a new turret too doesn't it. Basically a new tank
The Germans oversold Leopard’s capabilities, (like filming one with a glass of pilsner glued to the end of a barrel) to many countries who went on to buy them, including Turkey, where nine were destroyed in one day. They are now regretting their purchase. Challenger is battle hardened and proven to be a success. Manufacturing is now BAe Systems, but they sold the controlling share to Germany’s Rheinmetall. In an effort to negotiate a ‘cheap deal’ the conservative government has sold us down the river. Britain has now lost the brains behind future tank and armoured warfare.
Ajax is a heap of electronics just ready for a ecm attack
This Tank will need solid ground due to its weight , the Ukraine soft peaty land is not helpful for movement!
Hopefully by the Winter it will on higher ground to use its fire power as designed !
making a chassis designed in 1974 fight in 2024 onwards, madness
Love to see them in action defending British boarders. But that would be madness. They'll just export them free of charge to Ukraine I suppose. In order to defend the freedom and democracy we enjoy on a daily basis in Blighty.
The Ajax is crap. The British army to get rid of it. It's way too noisy and vibrates hardcore on the inside, and your troops are complaining about it.
and the UK is only getting 148 .. and these are only upgrades .. it's about time we bought a completely new design tank for modern warfare ... the challenger 2 is 25 years old and needs retiring not updating ... you can only do so much on an upgrade ... new would give a totally modern tank using all the new tech instead of just what you can fit on an old tank ... plus it would rebuild an industry we need so we can build tanks again .....again 148 vs 10000 of any tank would be totally stupid in this age with Russia wanting to wage war on countries so they can expand ... if ukraine is defeated (i hope not they are doing so well ) we are stuffed, we might as well surrender now ... the only saving grace is that we have nukes so no surrender
2:28 anyone else think this looks like a Breen helmet? 🖖🏻
CV90 forever
F A C T S ! Not F A X X. DAMN !
They will go the same way as the leopards one drone no more challenger
kornet ATGM will pickup it as soon as possible
The Challenger III is outclassed by the KF51 Panther, the Abrams X and the T-14 Armata.
Not T-14 Armata, that tank propably doesn't work at all how russians been claimed it to do. Why wouldn't they send those to frontline if its so good? even their T-90 all versions have totally sucked in Ukraine and been just food for drones and anti-tank missiles.
KF51 is most likely better than Chally 3, but also probably a lot more expensive, like AbramsX too. Those have all this fancy new technology stuff, but do they really work like a dream on battle field. It's really big deal to build this utterly expensive tanks and what if they fail the expectations what they can do and get destroyed like any tank on the field?
Atleast Challenger have prove to be one of the best crew protected tank and it's been working so far as good as expected. Well protected main battle tank that can do it's job, which is breakthrough and saving crew if it's getting disabled/destroyed.
i hope that our main battle tanks are kept, there is still a need for 1000 mbt"s the chieftain should have been put in reserve for homeland use, what ever the cost it is a sad fact that our mp"s have very little knowledge of defence, i hope that our present minister for defence continues he outshines all previous mp"s of that post.....usa/uk
If it is ready for action, then where is it on the battlefield?
The Ranger was never adopted into the Army, two prototypes were built, never seriously considered or even tested by the Army
If they had employed an ex general the Ranger might have had a chance re -AJAX
@@peterwait641 never in a million years, it was little more than a vanity project, it was in direct competition with Mastiff, it has less interior space than Mastiff, and the polar opposite to the 'meccano' engineering/design of Mastiff as you can get, it was 4/5 years too late to be seriously considered
@@chrisjones2224 That's funny ASCOD (RE-AJAX) is a 1980's Austrian design with 1970's torsion bar and rotary dampers and in the words of Horstman world leaders in AFV suspension "offers a budget option" !
@@peterwait641 Old enough to have worked on cars with torsion bar suspension,, few people laughed at modern vehicles with Torsion bars, me included, only problem was/is all thise old cars never came in for torsion bar repairs/breaks etc
@@chrisjones2224 Bet you are old enough to remember bicycles with rod brakes and leather pads ! Strangely the 432 only needs a seat base of 1/4" ply, 2 " medium density foam mounted on to hull walls, the up-armoured version done by BAE did not vibrate you arse off either . No substitute for expertise ?
As much as I love tanks they are no match for missiles, or antitank weapons, there’s some weapon out there that will destroy any tank we don’t know about. I wouldn’t want to be in one.
Can’t beat oddballs Sherman it paints pretty pictures aswell
I only ride 'em. I dunno what makes 'em work....
@@robert100xx Quit with the negative waves...lol
At last Challenger is getting a smooth bore.
Smooth bores are not as good as rifled bores you know.
Ajax isn't in service yet, it is a 5 billion poud disaster though.
good
If anyone is wondering the reason the UK doesn’t have a lot of tanks is because our tanks are super strong and advanced so there is no need to have thousands
And because We don't have thousands of veichle crews 😅
You can have a thousand. If you can't use them effectively in combined arms manoeuvre warfare, you might as well not have any.
said the same thing about the HMS prince of wales and resolute 😊
We are so buggered
They don't use the Ajax. That will be obsolete by the time it enters service. Boxer is in service.
I never knew we had most of these good to know. looks like the British army's land forces are gonna be alright. Especially with the 14 Archers on the way.
14 archers! We really are a third world military
@@stevefairbanks835 14 archers are just to replace the AS90's we gave to Ukraine but ok. Do you know anything about the Archer system? obviously not. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of 2 archers nor 1 let alone the plenty of the other artillery we have. But yes our army needs more still. But 3rd world? Are you a russian putin simp by any chance.
@@Steelninja77 I work for the MOD so obviously I do, and I stand by my comments. Toy soldier
The trend towards APCs carrying fewer troops is not good. A six or seven man section is not a good baseline to start with, since you are go to to have casualties, leave etc. Just for the mundane stuff, like sentry duty, less numbers of people will have to do more. Special forces like SAS can get away with a team of four to six, but their role is strategic recon, not mechanised infantry.
And for people who say: 'Well, just have more vehicles to carry the unit" Yeah, that works in theory, but then there is a "economy drive" and the unit is allocated a number below establishment.
But I suppose it doesn't matter, because units are often understrength in personnel anyway, before a battle even starts.
Even in a non-war situation, about 10% of any unit are going to be on leave anyway, probably others away on courses or whatever. So suddenly you have to deploy, and a good chunk of people are missing, so you go into action understrength. So there shape and functioning of your unit is below par before a shot is even fired. Yeah, I know, people are called back form leave and courses, but it often does not happen, because the whole army is short-handed, so they are doing something vital somewhere else.
Be that as it may, the establishment strength should be MORE than the deployable strength, and the deployable strength should comply with tactical doctrine. Sorry, but 18-20 people are not a platoon, even if they can make it work for a time. In an emergency, yes, you suck it up and do it, but it should not be a routine thing.
Combat experience has shown that a unit that trains together keeps its effectiveness and morale high for much longer under stress than a bunch of stranger replacements thrown together. Statistically, being an individual replacement is much more dangerous than being in a unit for a long time with friends.
How the generals are going to maintain these 4 or 6 man "sections" as effective sub-units is not clear to me. An infantry section should have at least 10 to 12 personnel. The Brit scheme, as I understand it, is two "bricks" of four troops. The Australian scheme is for ten per section: section commander, section 2-IC, rifle group and gun group, and TWO scouts. The US scheme is 12 per squad, led by a junior sergeant [instead of a corporal] . Twelve is a really good number, because you can have three bricks of four, four fire-teams of three, and so on.
Armour [of any type from MBT to recon track] need their own organic infantry for protection. The same is true for artillery [SP or towed] , but military geniuses still deploy artillery battalions/regiments without ORGANIC infantry attached. If the unit is lucky an infantry company will be detached for protection [thus weakening the donor infantry battalion] or often it will just have to provide for its own defence. [Sort of hard when you have to provide round the clock fire missions].
As you might have guessed, I am not a fan of the political and military morons who decide the fate of ordinary soldiers.
The future is Drones and Drone mother ships
Challenger 3 looks awesome.
i dont think the ajax will be very good at recon when it sounds like a transit with a bag of spanners in the back
with its weight and size it will need a bridge-layer for recon lol
Hanging in there with those tracked vehicles. It is almost like they dont understand the importiance of speed in warfare like the French
@johnhodgson8684 When last did Britain fight a war on home soil. You are dismissed corporal, now make me that cup of coffee
👍👍👍
Al is used to make excellent cars
Wait, what, we have 10. Guess we will soon have 5
Ranger ? never heard of it . has anyone ?
I think the armaments industry knows we are mugs
I think at this point we scrap Ajax. And just buy some Swedish CV90s
Sparten had swingfire mounted not milan.
Celencer 5 tankı. Gövdesi üzerine. İnsansız yeni versiyonu olan 140mm topu olan insansız kulesini enterge ettim etki mevzil 30km. Azmi mevzil 45km 8 namlulu 35mm stamp
😂😂😂
Still rifled is it????
148 plus 4000 us tanks is enough 😂😂
C'mon, show us the tank(s) that can't be seen
The gimpy as i and countless others in the job at the sandbox was worse than useless when in contact with anything larger than it
Bit click-bait, sorry - the Challenger 3 is due, but to my knowledge not one has been made yet - watch this space over exactly what comes forth with what's happening over the Russo-Ukraine war, too - a lot of NATO militaries are going to be re-assessing, big time.
Challenger 3. needs to be lighter and with self loading gun.
AJAX still in proving years behind with issues, may not yet enter service for another decade. if at all.
Challenger 3 with the update from Rheinmetall is really good one. Little different and not so high mobility like our leopard but very good protection level. All updates very usefull. The change to the german L55A1 is best decision because this is the most powerfull 120mm in the world and much better than the old one on the Challenger 2. The L55A1 is also much more powerfull than the german L44 (Abrams use the L44 with german licence on the abrams) and L55. But I dont understand why the challenger still use the perkins engine with only 1.200 HP?! The Challenger is still the heaviest MBT in NATO but use the smallest engine?! Anyway.. the Challenger 3 is great upgrate and I like this tank too!!
The British Gun on the Challenger II IS the best Tank Gun in the World. BUT UK moving to standardise on a Smooth Bore for Logistics. The ONLY Challenger II Tanks stopped by anti-tank fire was a Red on Red, i.e. another Challenger II. Germans often confuse "popularity" as "CHEAPEST SOLD by Germany". Leopards were slaughtered in Syria.
@@trevorhart545 Well stick to the facts boy. No... that's how you want to see it, but the Challenger Gun (120 mm L30A1) has a very long range, but due to the rifled barrel, the muzzle velocity is far too low to penetrate current and future enemy armor. What good is it if you can theoretically shoot 8 km with the cannon but it cannot even destroy the enemy at 2,000 meters.
That's why the Challenger now switches from the English 120mm L30A1 to the best gun... the German L55A1 in the Challenger 3 update.
stick to the facts. In 2006, the British military tested the 120mm L30A1 against the older L55, and the L55 performed significantly better. The L55A1 that the Challenger 3 gets is again significantly better than the L55. In other words... the old British 120mm L30A1 falls even further behind.
The British also want to reliably destroy enemy tanks and not just shoot at them, right?!
I have to laugh when you mention the leopard of the Turks in Syria. That's when you realize that you're more of a child or a layperson. The Leopard 2 A4 (models from the 1980s), destroyed in Syria but still very good tanks, penetrated urban terrain without infantry and escort. Any idiot with a bazooka could have shot the tanks from behind, which is what eventually happened. The Turks simply let the Leopard tanks drive unassisted into terrain that was dangerous for any MBT. Every tank... be it a Challenger, Abrams, M60 or Leopard will be destroyed in this way. So don't talk nonsense.
The British are clever and have not only opted for the German BOXER, but also have Rheinmetall do the update for the Challenger. That's good... especially since the tanks (BOXER and CHALLENGER) are also being converted or built in GB. So it remains a British tank, only the Germans helped. What bothers you about it?
The Challenger 3 will be vastly superior to the Challenger 2 (which is also the purpose... otherwise it would be strange)
@@bobthecanon3457 The British Challenger has a greater survivability record than any Leopard ever built. Chobham armour has proved itself extremely effective on the battlefield. The rifled barrel enables specific rounds to be fired with much more accuracy. That "inferior" gun took out hundreds of enemy tanks in the gulf war. A proven, very capable MBT.
@@briantitchener4829 That's not the point!! You gotta listen!! The Challenger has a very, very high level of protection. That is undisputed. ...But he lacks the mobility to fight from the fast movement. The Challenger is just too sluggish and the cannon too weak. A good gun but it lacks the power.
Protection is not everything. The Challenger is too heavy for the power that the engine brings. Even the Oman does not use the original British engine, but the German one from MTU. This means that the Challenger of Oman has 300hp more. The next shortcoming is the very good and accurate Royal Ordnance L30 with a great range, but that is not crucial. The Royal Ordnance just doesn't have the muzzle velocity and power to reliably take out enemy tanks and that's a KO today. Criterion for a cannon. The British Ministry of Defense has therefore decided in favor of the German smoothbore gun... even the latest version L55A1, which is again significantly more powerful than the L55 tested against the Royal Ordnance at the time. With the new armament of the Leopard 2 A7V (Rheinmetall L55A1), the Challenger 3 will be able to reliably destroy any enemy tank.
Again... the Challenger 2 was a good tank in asymmetric warfare or against underpowered forces. BUT... he had disadvantages compared to strong and well-armored foes. Our orientation in NATO is again the defense of NATO territory and not the fight against Taliban, IS or developing countries. The L55/L55A1 is the best 120mm gun in the world and is used by dozens of countries.
The RO 30 had its time but is no longer the state of the art today.
@@briantitchener4829 P.S. it's about maximum assertiveness against numerically superior heavy enemy forces.
The Challenger 2 could no longer afford that.
The new armament (Rheinmetall L55A1) goes perfectly with the very high level of protection of the Challenger 3. I would have installed the MTU with 1,500 HP, which Oman is already using in its Challenger 2E, but the rest fits perfectly.
Again... the Challenger 2 and then 3 have a very high level of protection. The Leopard 2 has completely different strengths... it is significantly more mobile and better armed. In a covered position, the Leopard 2 A5-A7 can no longer be penetrated head-on through the turret. The strength of the Leopard lies in its overall composition, mobility and firepower. The Challenger is catching up now that it's getting the armament of the Leopard 2 A7V. The best of the best.
Fake news, the Challenger 3 is at least a couple of years away....
Thought universal engineering closed down, despite their vehicle being better it was not ordered , maybe no one in the old boy network to make richer ?
Curious how will they perform in Ukraine.
2 miles is 3.2 KM not 2.5KM
So this tanks will be sent to Ukraine ? Leopards was also said to be best tanks ? Send to Ukraine, it became a hips of scape metals ! I see British tanks makes no deference, still scape metals too fighting without air defence or anti air missiles, its becomes a sitting duvks !
Another bloke reading from Wickipedia
Sent the Challener 3 to Ukraine
good send to UKraine A.SAP
Where is the BOXER in this Video?
2023.
Nah its not like!2027/ 2030 is when it'll be inservce! The challenger 2 will carry on its duty till then! The chally 3 is only under construction from this time last year and it takes atleast 10 years for armour testing!
the brits use Aluminium
Not much use against air-to-ground missiles, one bird and a useless tank scraped.
Go3x UK Challenger 3
Cv9050 forever!
British built Challenger 3 where ??? Factories in Leeds and Newcastle were closed 2 years ago. Is it made in China ???
It's not new, they are remanufactured challenger 2s
But only small numbers
the warrior is well known for how shit it is just because it can withstand nuclear and chemical attacks.
Click bait, Challenger 3 isn’t ready yet!
AJAX