The Challenger 2 | Out of time?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- Recently in Ukraine, a Challenger 2 was lost to enemy fire, the such loss since it's inception took place, creating a tidal wave of doubt around this cornerstone of modern armour.
Does it truly deserve this?
The truth is.. more complicated than a simple yes or no. When the Challenger 2 was released, it was one of the best MBT's fielded, however as projectiles have improved in many other tanks, the Challenger has been somewhat left behind.
In this video, we discuss how capable it still is, what it's flaws are, and where the British MOD is moving forward.
Special thanks to my Patrons:
Denis S, Vixctor, John S, Gilbert W F, Jacob E, Joonatan, Provenance EMU, Bitels, Joe Jury, Doc, Roman Y.
Want to learn more about this topic?
Additional viewing:
Tour of the Challenger 2 - • Tanks, Tracks, Trooper...
Challenger 2 destroyed in Ukraine - • This is how Challenger...
All footage is owned by respective owners, used under section 107.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Attributions:
Shell performance simulations: youtube.com/@SYsimulations?si...
British Ministry of Defense, Rheinmetall, Northrop Grumman, various third party users.
Music Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio, check out their work!
• Suspenseful Retrowave ...
#Challenger2 #Tanks #military
Sources
web.archive.org/web/200706212...
0:00 Prologue
1:42 The Challenger 2
2:13 Development & Production
4:33 Specifications
4:44 Weight & Mobility
5:51 Armour
6:59 Situational Awareness
7:30 Armament
8:46 Why the change to smoothbore?
11:36 The Chally’s secret weapon
12:28 Why was one destroyed?
13:41 Conclusion
14:00 The British Tank conundrum
15:27 Challenger 3
15:38 Outro 
Наука
Having been a challenger driver I'm of course bias but this tank for me will always be a work of art. Only wish I was around to enjoy Challenger 3 but well, we all get old.
Even more beautiful when it's up in flames
@@easy94883To be honest it’s still not as beautiful as T-72s up in flames.
@@imperialinquisition6006 I don’t care about the T 72, why are you so triggered over some pieces of metal lmao? 🤣
@@easy94883Because only aholes make comments like yours so read into that what you will. Fact is, ruSSia still can’t build a good tank and has lost around 5000 of them because they’re garbage crewed by amateurs who can’t fight.
@@easy94883 This man is the gaslighter of all time.
It is SHOCKING how underrated this channel is! Love the edits and footage, its all so nicely done!
Thank you so much! :)
@@KabodaOfficialagreed. No clue how this channel isn’t at 1mil yet but I know you’ll get there soon. Love from across the pond!🫡
@@TheCommissarIsDead You're too kind!
Came here to say exactly this!
Personally I am of the opinion you are overrating it, probably because you are as ignorant of Challenger II as the channel owner is.
I have found in my 70 something years of life, that it is generally better to actually learn a little not only of a combat vehicles paper 'stats', but also how it is supposed to be used.....
Like the little fact the 3 piece ammunition of CH2 and the ammo stowage means only INERT ammunition is stowed in the turret. Little facts like yes, most of CH2's volatile ammo is stowed in the hull, but so is most of Leopard 2. Abrams, Leclerc's. K2's and so on. CH2 does not need turret blowout panels because only inert ammunition is stowed in the turret, good luck forcing Tungsten rods to explode!!!!
Most importantly the channel owner appears to be utterly ignorant of one fact ACTUAL tank crews are not. Tanks do NOT operate alone. They are part of a combined arms force.
I also do not give a toss about your pushback, because according to the channel owner 'most' Challenger II's that have been lost popped their turrets, problem is only two have been lost, one did, one did not.... Last time I looked that is a data set of two examples, and ANYONE who makes definitive statements with such a small data set, is a fucking moron.....
And there is NO way you can change my mind about that
If you made a longer form video comparing all of the latest, in-service, nato tanks and crowning a winner, I’d be so happy. And you’d be bound to have a great comment ratio 😅
It's not which tank is better but which crews are better trained
@@Xeatrathat’s part of it. But to say there isn’t an objectively better tank is kinda dumb. Not sure what it is, but there is a best.
@@cade8986 no, there isn't an objectively better tank. You can't quantify things like the ease of use of their onboard systems, the image quality of their night vision sights etc. The Leo has better mobility and fire control systems than the Abrams. The Abrams has slightly better crew protection then the Leo. So which is better? It's all situational.
If you do get hit by an enemy tank then, depending on WHERE exactly you're hit, the Abrams may be the better tank. But the Leo's better targeting system may mean you'll detect, engage and destroy the enemy tank before it even fires at you. So, again: what is better?
This isn't a computer game, it's all about situational awareness and, most of all crew training. And this isn't comparable either because crew performance is affected by how well rested they are, how much they've worked recently, and even if they've had a good night's sleep or not. Not to mention the fact that training is different in different countries, with emphasis on different aspects.
And don't even get me started on reliability and ease of maintenance. On paper the British Chieftain was the best tank of its era. Sadly, it almost never worked. Its availability was about 25%, which means that of each 100 tanks in service, only about 25 tanks actually worked at any point in time, the others were broken down or being repaired. So was it or wasn't it the best tank of its time?
To sum up, comparing Leo2 and Abrams in their most up to date versions of like comparing a top-of-the-line Lamborghini with a top-of-the-line Ferrari. There are too many variables, and performance depends on hundreds of factors. For instance, the Leo is good at fording but if you're fighting in a desert, this will probably never be used.
@@johnnyenglish583to be fair, the Leo and the Abrams are better then the Challenger 2 and the C1 Ariete
But you are also right about how between the 2, it doesn’t matter
What I will say is, there are more Abrams then Leo 2’s
And I’d rather have 200 C1’s then 20 abrams
@@johnnyenglish583 Some of those things can be quantified. Like quality of sights. Ergonomics is harder to quantify without involving biases tho
I love the fact, that you talk about British stubbornness with regard to smooth bore / riffled bore, and then go on to talk about the BV. The secret weapon. Spot on British humor.
Amazing video! Love how you try to get all factors possible into your verdict, I’ve never thought about how Britain wouldn’t be using tanks for self defense given that it’s an island nation
I think another significant aspect of the tank that you might want to include is the tank's Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sight (TOGS) being not stabilized. This makes an engagement using just the thermal sight more difficult than other tanks.
Once something prided is now the excuse
Since the thermals are mounted on the gun assembly you also can't easily use them with long distance (2.5Km+) HESH shots since due to the ballistic profile of the HESH and the necessary gun elevation your thermals are literally staring at the sky.
Isn’t the sight in the bustle at the base of the gun? So stabilised with the gun? The GAS sight isn’t on the gyro platform of the gun. Are you not thinking of CR1?
@@gsmith1418 The stability point is at the tip of the gun, not at the base.
@@dwightk.schrute8696Source?
Very well done video. Keep it up man, I really loved this one :)
Great video thanks for making it. This is a amazing evaluation off the challenger 2
Great video with excellent, clear explanations and relevant clips that actually sync with the top notch narration. Thank you.
Excellent video that doesn’t fall into the pitfalls of oversimplification or exaggeration (especially your comment on the fact that destroyed tanks don’t necessarily mean they are bad since there is no such thing as an invincible tank). Also the tea joke was 🔥
There was no tea "joke" unless you think facts are funny
@@grindelston5968 You are so right, please forgive for my pseudo-scientific mistake
But this tank was claimed to be invincible (as was the Leo - look back over all the articles and claims by military experts) - it was only when the Russians decided to destroy them suddenly everyone started rolling back the claims. Its all much more grounded now, but the hit was inevitable because of all the BS leading up to there deployment.
@@r200ti It never was lmao
It bears remembering that to some extent, militaries hold on to old ideas because they stem from lessons learned in blood.
Thanks for this video, detailed and brief, but the key element was at the end, the observations made in the conclusion on the British defence doctrine assets was an eye opener. Really good.
Served its purprose and kept the crew alive. Can always replace a vehicle, can't replace the experience of soldiers quickly.
especially when someone else gifts you your vehicles
Excellent video! Its great to hear your thoughts on the matter of the Challenger 2! Also, I loved the bit about tea....
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
You are welcome!@@KabodaOfficial
Amazing, though I have one small critique.
The Challenger 2 uses a hydrogas suspension system. The difference is that hydropneumatic has inputs, it can for example raise and lower the suspension. Hydrogas is a sealed system, with each road wheel getting its own hydraulic piston that absorbs the weight and shock of the track. It’s much more simple, reliable, and easy to work on compared to hydropneumatic, and even traditional torsion bar suspension.
look at wheel size less wheels bigger wheels it rocks!
The units can be pumped up with nitrogen gas. When battle armour is added the pressure is increased to maintain ride height.
@@agt155yes, but not automatically while the tank is driving. Thats what hydropneumatic can do.
@@jacobbaumgardner3406 Hydrogas is just a brand name for hydropneumatic suspension ie hydraulic damper with gas spring. Hydrogas is not adjustable on the move - that would require a new level of complexity.
@@agt155 several tanks use it, whatever you want to call it. Japanese tanks have been using it for half a century. It allows them to raise and lower their suspension on command, and even angle their tanks forward/backwards or side to side. The downside is that it’s complex and maintenance heavy, while hydrogas is very simple and lightweight, and requires little maintenance comparatively.
❤Love the content. Would love to see a video on the leopard 2
Right, to all you idiots going on about Challenger II's lack of blowout panels. I am going to inform you of why Challenger II not only does not have them, but does not need them.
As some people here are actually aware (and a disturbing number are not), the British rifled 120mm uses three piece ammunition consisting of the projectile, the charge bag, and the detonator. Turret ammunition stowage in Challenger II is designed ONLY for inert projectiles such as the APDFS rounds.
All volatile ammunition, such as the charge bags and HESH and HE projectiles are stowed in wet ammunition bins in the hull of the vehicle. Not in the turret.
Turret blowout panels are designed to redirect exploding ammunition in turret or bustle stowed ammunition from the crew compartment. As Challenger II stows only inert ammunition in the turret this is not required, because there is no volatile ammunition in the turret to consider. The ONLY volatile ammunition in the turret is either in the gun ready to be fired, or in the loaders hands as he loads the gun.
Vehicles like Leopard II and Abrams require turret blowout panels because unlike the Challenger II they stow volatile one piece ammunition inside the turret, either around the turret in bins, or in a bustle bin. This means that without blowout panels an ammunition bin penetration could cause an internal explosion that if not redirected would certainly be fatal to the turret crew. But let me reiterate, CHALLENGER II STOWS ONLY INERT AMMUNITION THAT CANNOT EXPLODE IN THE TURRET....
Thus adding a blowout panel system to Challenger II will not only be doing precisely fuck all to ensure crew survival in the event of a hit, but would actually WEAKEN the armour protection in certain areas making an initial penetration more likely.
So, now all you idiots know WHY Challenger Ii does not have, nor requires Turret Blowout panels. Challenger III on the other hand will be using single piece 120mm ammunition, unlike Challenger II Challenger III DOES have turret blowout panels, because unlike Challenger II it actually NEEDS them.....
It's worth discussing, that the ammunition indeed could not be stored with blowout panels, but also that doesn't mean there's no issue. The T-72's carousel is not located in the turret but lower down in the hull, if the charges in the Challenger II are ignited, which is highly possible and seems to have been the case with nearly all Challenger II's lost so far - popping their turrets off.
It's fair criticism, but it's also fair to say that it is a result of the rifled gun.
Glad to hear your valuable input to this discussion by the way, and thank you for watching!
@@KabodaOfficial How is it anything to do with the rifled gun? In Abrams and Leopard II most of the ammunition is stored in the Hull. The turret ammunition stowage comprises of the Ready racks. Just like Challenger II then most of Abrams and Leopard II's ammunition is stored in armoured wet ammunition bins in the hull of the vehicle, without blowout panels as no one puts blowout panels in hull ammunition bins.
Fact is in every tanks design most of the ammunition is stowed around or beneath the turret ring, the weakness of the Soviet era vehicles is not where the ready rounds are, but how they are protected. Simply put the carousel is not well protected enough to prevent ready rack ammunition detonation in the case of a penetrating hit at or near the turret ring.
Let me make one thing clear to you, if you have an extensive hull fire in a Leopard II or Abrams its turret WILL be knocked off the turret ring. It is not unique to Challenger II, fact is, ammunition detonations in the hull during a hull fire WILL cause the turret to pop its ring in ANY MBT in the world. What the ammunition stowage in any of those MBT's is designed to do though is hold off long enough for the crew to safely evacuate the vehicle.
You cannot do much except use armoured wet ammunition bins to protect hull stowed ammunition. That is the same no matter which tank you are looking at, be it Challenger II, Leclerc, K2, Leopard 2 or Abrams. Turret blowout panels are required ONLY if volatile (i.e explosive) ammunition is being held in turret ammunition stowage, as is the case with the ready racks in most Western style MBT's.
Criticising Challenger II for its armoured wet stowage bins is banal and asinine as its how EVERY Western style MBT protects hull stowed ammunition. Its like criticising a Fighter jet for having wings, or an engine....
EDIT: As for the turrets of nearly every Challenger II lost popping off, precisely 2 have been lost, on one the turret popped, on the other it did not. How is that MOST? I am not claiming Challenger II does not have issues, but sorry, ammunition stowage and risk of ammunition detonation is NOT one of its problems. Not in comparison to any other Western style MBT.
One Challenger 2 hit a mine, and its crew escaped unharmed.
yup, don't forget its not got all the correct dorchester, hit a mine, crew saved and then it was hit by atgm and artillery.
You say this as if it’s something specific to the challenger 2, basically every nato tank that is built for survivability can survive mines with an unharmed crew
@@AlexanderAF31 No, the key distinction is "NATO tank" vs "Russian turret launching mechanism" and it's not just tanks but APC's too - all 4 Bradley's that Ukraine has lost were damaged by mines but their crew survived.
@@muffy469 you mean the obvious photoshopped picture? My 9 year old grandson does better work. Even if they have lost 8 more Bradley's since I made that post a month ago it's still no comparison to the thousands of BMPs that Russia has lost.
@@muffy469 link?
Probably gonna be an average conclusion, not good not bad.
The fact, it’s outdated really annoys me, but that’s the government constantly betraying its army! 😭
Edit: finally, someone acknowledges, the rifle gun is not better than smooth bore!!!
@@StefanHundhammer I thought I spelt it wrong 😑 thanks for helping me.
Though your right a smooth boar would be very interesting! 😂
@@chrisbacon3071 if someone started chucking smooth boars down range at me I'd be running for the hills screaming
@@StefanHundhammer [distant crump] Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee "INCOMING!!!!"
@@duncanhamilton5841 You would hear the anguished screams of your enemies with every shot....
In fairness, it’s not that simple. Rifled is better for HESH and conventional rounds- there’s a reason you don’t see smoothbore artillery guns. Smoothbore is better for APFSDS and maintenance/barrel life. With the rest of NATO having adopted smoothbore and the increased effectiveness of modern armour against HESH, the Army is definitely right to replace the gun.
Amazing Work first vid of your iv ever seen you got a new fan & sub keepp em coming buddy
Sick edit man!
What an excellent and balanced analysis. Super.
We should have sent lots of de mining equipment too yet Ukraine got like 50?
Great video ,subbed
Great video. That. A very fair assessments based.on reality. Would love to see the latest views on CR3 and if blow out panels will be added.
they will be added 👍
The challeys secret weapon part was awesome I love your videos keep up the good work!!!
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoy them!
Very good video (kinda want to see a CR3 one now)
Such a great video!
Glad you liked it!
Would you consider looking at some naval tech, maybe something about the type 3 carrier or the Gerald Ford class?
The advantage the rifled gun that I have always heard (from ordnance experts) is with HESH. The extremly high rotational energy caused by the spinning at something like 197,000 RPMs assists spreading the charge out for maximum efficiency. And gicen that Britain was more comvonced of the advantage of HESH over HEAT or APFSDS when they were making the gun design decisions in the late *1950s* with the development of the original L11 120mm rifled gun. The UK has stayed with it because, well, it worked and the ammo was already in inventory. Even developing new ammunition tyoes was simplified, because you still had the last generation stuff aitting in bunkers tongold youbover until the new stuff was ready for issue.
So, it really wasnt until now that things got to the point where the UK really needed a new gun, and it just makes more sense to adopt what *everyone else in the West* is using, and let Germany. France, rhe US, etc., do the heavy budget lifting on R&D. Especiallybsimce, if the UK continued to do their own thing, the UK would be having to swallow the entire cost of R&D to support a tiny number of guns (looking at the UK tank park compared to every Western nation fielding varations of the 120mm Rheinmetall)... and since overall R&D costs don't scale to the size of future production, it would be anazingly stupid for Britain to accept that cost when they know they will have to divide that cost amongst a fleet of a few hundred tanks at best (presuming they sold some to Arab oil nations).
Britain is on some copium, the rifled gun makes it unable to fire the more powerful APFSDS rounds and heat is vastly superior to hesh, Atleast the American MPAT rounds
@@Optimusprime56241 I don't think it is the rifling that prevents it from firing better APFSDS, in the video he said it was the two piece ammo that prevents the penetrater from being made longer, and while APFSDS rounds do not react well to spinning, the sabot could be made such that it isolates the projectile from the rotation imparted by the rifling, as was demonstrated in the animation that played in the video while he was talking about it.
HESH vs HEAT it really just depends what you're trying to do with it, HEAT is likely better at taking out armoured targets but HESH is likely better at bunker/buildings and such. Also, pretty sure MPAT didn't exist when they decided on what gun the Challenger 2 was going to have.
Ultimately I think @geodkyt is right, and they just didn't want to take the time and money to make a brand new gun and all the new ammo to fire from it when they could just move to NATO standard.
@@commandoepsilon4664 the apfsds of similar size and weight have on average 25% lower penetration capability on the L/55 rifled vs the L/55 smoothbore
this is due to the higher friction and imperfect gas seal in the rifled gun, plus the lower possible chamber/barrel pressure due to the rifling.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Interesting, I thought it was mostly the spin that was the problem. Thank you for the information!
@@commandoepsilon4664 The spin is a good thing and is why CR1 holds the longest tank kill record.
I think a focus on more side protection and blowout panels will improve the tank for sure interesting how few mention the popping of the turret but it was a lot less violent then the soviet tanks
@karmakazi101 according to western sources they honestly wouldn't tell us if they died in the tank it'd go against the narrative
Blowout panels don´t work. Just 2 days ago a Leopard 2 was hit is the turret bustle, starting a cookoff of the ammo. A few seconds later, a crew member jumped out, engulfed in flames. The truth is, the compartment door is too thin, and during a cookoff the flames will find their way into the crew compartment. Many Leopard 2 in Ukraine have been burned completely after a hit to the turret bustle. The system does not work. It does not save the crew, except maybe the driver.
@Biden_is_demented hmm I saw the recent videos but didn't see the crewmember on fire but I have see plenty of burned Leopards but I still think it's better to have blow out panels than to not
@@Nero-Caesar Why? Let me make one thing clear, Challenger II does not NEED blowout panels in the turret. Why? Because no explosive ammunition is HELD in the turret.
People when talking about blowout panels on Challenger II like to forget that CH2 is a rifled gun system using THREE PIECE AMMUNITION. The charges are stowed in wet ammunition racks in the hull, HE and HESH rounds are stowed, similarly, in the hull. The ONLY ammunition stowed directly in the turret are the Sabot projectiles, which are not explosive. Therefore it does not MATTER that there are no blowout panels, because hull blowout panels do not exist on ANY tank in the world as they weaken hull armour integrity, and there is no explosive ammunition in the turret to worry about.
THAT is the real reason Challenger II does not use blowout panels, but people are too damned stupid or lazy to wonder WHY. It is NOT because the designers were stupid, or did not care about the crews safety, its because blowout panels on Challenger II are actually detrimental to the vehicles protection and add nothing to crew survivability.
Challenger III on the flipside will be using single piece ammunition, and its turret design includes both wet ammunition stowage AND blowout panels. But until the move to the smoothbore 120mm the Challenger has not required them.
Just so you are aware, any ammunition fire that goes on long enough will pop the turret of a tank as rounds cook off. The wet ammunition storage is not designed to stop that. Its designed to slow it long enough that the crew can safely evacuate their vehicle. In the case of the vehicle destroyed in Ukraine the ammunition safety features did exactly what they were designed to do. While the tank was destroyed the crew ALL made it out.
@@Biden_is_dementedI saw the footage and the crew were not on fire. Blowout panels have been proven to work in multiple conflicts time and time again. Meanwhile both Challenger 2 losses (one to friendly fire) blew the turret off the tank after the ammo cooked off under the turret. In the former case two crew died.
So far in Ukraine, zero crew of a Leopard 2A6 have died, and only single digits of Leopard 2A4 crew have died. This is in tanks which have been attacked by modern ATGMs from helicopters, been barraged by artillery, and trapped in minefields in no-mans land.
Hmmm, yeaaa. Gun definitely needs a smoothing xd. Nah but seriously, give it a M256 or L/55 gun. Other thinga like armor, really, just update it, especially lower plate💀. Vision wise, it should be like an Abrams SEP V4 or so.
From my understanding, the rifled gun is for better performance of my favourite round the hesh. I remember reading a no rifled gund firing hesh has a 40% reduction in splash area on target hit ore something like that which reduces spalling and inturn damage to internal components on the target.
Very good breakdown thank you.
The original design for the M1 series tank came with a coffeepot. (Apparently when tank crews were polled - this was a 'must have' feature.) Sadly, somebody said: 'no.'
Leo1 and Leo2 got the power plug and mounting point for a boiling vessel. boiling vessels are in posession of the army, but not issued, because they tend to drain the turret batteries in overwatch
This waiting animation (idk what it actually is) is reall cool
Though requiring an up grade C2 won the Iron spear 2023 competition it is the best tank in the world and the earlier version has the longest tank on tank kill in history.
Competitions like that are about the crew, not the tank. Austria won once with Leopard 2A4 whilst Leopard 2A6s were at the same contest from three other nations, as well as Challenger 2.
Chally is currently feeling very old and tired, lacking many features almost every modern tank should have, and with some growing issues in the design. I assure you, whilst I don't think you can specify a single "best tank in the world," if you could, Chally 2 ain't it.
@@AllThingsCubey It I old. I left the 1RTR IN SEPTEMBER 2000 after joining the 4RTR in January 1988. The change over rom Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 had begun with the retraining of the crews in early 99. 1RTR was the last Regiment with Chieftain when we retrained on Challenger 1 in Tidworth in 95/96. We can blame the British Government in dung back the British Army and not spending the monies where they should have. Challenger 2 should have been upgrade or replaced over a decade ago. We can’t fit the long penetration kinetic energy rounds. So they have gone smooth gun. But the Germans are increasing the size of their main armament MBT guns because 120mm isn’t good enough anymore. Sadly the Challenger 3 will be obsolete due to its 120mm gun. The tracks on all modern MBTs have a lack of traction in soft ground because they do not have webs to grip the soil or ground as it moves over the ground. Better to buy German and put on our own armour.
@@user-by3cg8jj6q Agreed. Germany offered us 200x of the Leopard 2A7V in 2017 and we rejected a good price offer because it looked bad to be buying German tanks. Those were equally as capable as Challenger 3 in most ways and we'd have got them much sooner
the rifled gun is so the HESH round can spin which greatly improves the 'spreading' of the explosive when it hits a target, creating a bigger shockwave and thus more damage
yeah but HESH is useless against anything that has spaced, laminated or composite armor and against ERA its also not really that useful
Unrelated, but I would like to know, in the SU57 video, what RCS values were used for the Super Hornet and F35 to judge at what distance they'd be seen by the S400?
Maybe old but with a good crew as proved at the last tank competition and winning it against leopards and abhams but yeah the power of a good old cuppa , can't be stopped
Good review. With regards to tanks being less useful to island nation(s), like the United Kingdom? Tanks are not meant to be used as defensive weapons. For that, one would use the artillery and multiple missile systems. Tanks were traditionally used to support the advancing infantry. They were classed as offensive weapons in my army days.
The Ukraine conflict and the limited media coverage seem to concentrate too much on destroyed tanks instead of covering (in equal measure) the destruction caused by the tanks.
The way the technology is progressing. Within the next 10 years, tanks will be just remote-controlled drones.
Excellent vid 👍
It was disabled by a tank mine. Blew off a track and then took any number of anti tank rounds. Same could happen to any tank. Yet the Challenger better guarantees the crew's survival and so can learn from their mistakes rather than be blown to bits. So while it maybe outdated crew error and poor mine detection certainly played it's part in this instance.
Yeah 10 leopards knocked out in Ukraine so far, I think the Challenger 2 is a far better tank for survivability.
@@ggarlick46because for every 1 challenger 2 deployed, 20 leopards are on the frontlines. Leopard 2 is a far better tank in EVERY measurable way, the trashllenger is a heap of junk who’s only niche is protection and even the protection is completely terrible (70mm of lower plate armor, huge driver’s cutout that can be penetrated by autocannon fire, massive gun mantlet that is completely unprotected)
I live on Sutton Rd where they made these heating units
Given the expected improvements tea making capabilities is there any truth to the rumour that Challenger three will also be making extensive use of the new militarised version of the hobnob manufactured by MCS (McVities combat systems) here in the UK?
"The Challenger 2 | Out of time?"
🎶You're out of touch 🎶
30 year old tank with basically no major overhauls/upgrades is outdated.
One moment, let me check. Yes the sky is indeed blue
hit the nail on the head
it also has no blowout racks or anything
Exactly. Says something about the British military.
no it says something about our stupid government and budget allocation. look up HS2 if u need an example...@@danreed7889
@@karmakazi101 you know that it will never see the light of day
some good points. I'm curious to know what the current thinking is for the future of UK based tanks. Do we need lighter and more flexible armour to support quick reaction forces for example and/or will we still consider an evolution in heavy tank development as a nucleus or could we be looking at some kind of joint development?
Hopefully? the UK continues on the idea that a tank should be able to survive getting shot. Rather than being a mobile gun platform like the leopard is epitomized as.
Looks like uk will drag ch3 for as long as possible , untill the new European mbt is developed or the new American mbt is developed.
I cannot see the uk developing a new mbt on its own now , may join Europe mbt program . The uk could buy leopard or M1 today but I do not see uk doing that while ch3 ongoing.
If anything a lighter tank for airmobile operations 😊.
The usa future tank will be lighter and less crew a General Dynamics tank. The ch3 upgrade is being done by Rheinmettal , essentially a leopard 2 turret placed on a ch2 body it seems .
As uk ajax is GDLS and boxer vehicles rheinmettal bae , the uk has really aligned with usa and german vehicles for first time in its history. So I am certain uk will purchase the next gd abrams or the new german European future tank project
@@Destroyer_V0 you realise that Leopard 2´s from A5 onwards have drasticly better armor protection than Challenger 2?
currently there is no enemy MBT in service that is capable of penetrating Leo2A7V´s front.
Almost every ATGM on the marked is also not capable of doing that.
With Challenger 2, you got ALOT of more recend russian ATGM and APFSDS rounds that poke holes into the armor
@@TheRst2001 UK´s MBT future will be that of a customer to either MGCS or the US next Gen system.
There is no developement and design capability left in that regard in the UK after Alvis Vickers closed its doors 15 years ago
10:38 i think the main problem with this statement is the only tanks the Chally 2 could be be going up against. Think of the T-90 or a T-80BVM and its performance in Ukraine right now. The threats are against modernisation tanks so i dont think the L27A1 is going to have any trouble against Soviet style tanks
I can see that some of them participated in the Test Operation Obj 248 battle pass.
I figured part of the reason the Chally is so heavy is because its realistic engagements are fixed emplacements. That it just wouldnt be rolling around like the Leopard 2 across half of Europe. Itd be contained to a large known, preprepared set of defences, and whose principle job would be to sit there long enough for the US military to come and relive it. Which is why so many of them are forward deployed to the European boarder.
You need to have more attention, you have made pretty good videos with dense information that are easy to understand
With the Challenger being able to provide hot tea on the battlefield, Im even more convinced that the Abrams has deep fryer for chicken.
A very good video.
One ‘challenge-r’ that I would make is regarding your comment that MBTs are only likely to be used as a last resort to defend the U.K. and therefore they are not high on the list of priorities of the MOD.
In that case perhaps we should stop sending our armour (and troops) to Europe where they are every bit as likely to need to be top of the range as their European and enemy counterparts?
Hopefully the muppets in our heirarchy who believed that the MBT has had its day have learned the lesson of Ukraine.
The rifleling was mainly for the hesh round and the only reason we've kept it so long.
At this point they might as well double down and add more armour layers / reactive armour. Its already a heavy tank, so just go in for that niche, then use Ajax for manuever warfare. That is where everyone else is heading in strategy, so yes it is left behind but maybe it should just chart its own course as a different utility.
It doesnt mean that the tank is dead. It works well with our amphibious warfare doctrine but they are not supposed to be used in tank vs tank warfare, they were infantry support vehicles to push through entrenched positions.
People make fun of the water heater but its seriously an amazing addition. When else will you cook water for your dry MREs? The only time we could do that in Sweden was during nighttime in the tent over the fire. Luckily Sweden also has this same model of water heater, its seriously an amazing addition that makes the crew able to cook food without leaving the vehicle.
Im from Germany and Love Tea. I would love this Feature in the Leopard or Abrams Tanks !
@@DevouringKing Sweden has it installed in both our Leopard 2A5's and our CV9040s. It makes life a lot easier. MREs with cold water can make your stomach really bad and makes you a less effective soldier. Its an amazing addition that doesnt take a lot of space.
It also heats up water for the crew to shave and wash often overlooked. It gets nasty in a tank that's been buttoned up for hours on end, and the ability to wash and shave without leaving the vehicle is a luxury that few really consider.
Will you do a video what do you think about the KF51 ??
Btw great channel glad i found it! you got a sub
Coming from Germany with the Challenger being the probably first, it at least second MBT I ever saw (in Form of pictures and an Airfix Quickbuilf Model), it'll always hold a special place in my heart for this and for the fact it's sexy as fuck
Well done, as usual. Long live The Challey
that music bit is class 1:42
Well said. Really enjoyed this video. I have to agree with your views about the British needs. Tanks are now more of a niche piece of inventory. Completely useless against air power. Tanks are something you bring later into battle to hold the line and support infantry. The tank role has been on the degrade since WW2 and I think that IFVs are really going to be merged with the light tank, I could be completely wrong. I'm not much of tank person.
What the UK really needs is around 4 more Naval F-35 Squadrons. No joke the Fleet Air Arm is the spearhead of the UK armed forces.
No we do not need more useless F-35B's they are too short range and have far to small a payload to be useful. We should never have built the vastly over priced 'cruise' ships that we call carriers. If the UK had built proper carriers that could have carried an E-2 Hawkeye equivalents and F-35C's then okay.
More nuclear attack subs, get some diesel electric subs and do what the US did with the Ohio class and build more Dreadnought class SSBN's with some turned into SSGN's to use USN vernacular.
Then build more cheap single use escorts make the Type 26, 31 and 32 each a dedicated anti air, anti sub and anti surface but make them as cheap as possible.
If Argentina can sink so many surface ships back in 1982 who knows how many would be lost against a capable opponent.
For airpower I would love the UK to get in on the B-21 program and get some long range stealth strike capability.
@@Ushio01 I take it you're not an aircraft sort of person. F-35B does not have a short range for what is needed. Naval aircraft and normal aircraft follow a different philosophy most naval aircraft are more limited because you don't have a 2 mile runway to build up speed. They need reinforced undercarriages.
Look at the Harrier and Eurofighter completely different design and functions you would never call either one of them useless.
It's the same as me saying the F-15 and F-16 is useless because it takes a minimum of 1.5 mile runway to takeoff.
@@Ushio01 I agree about the carrier argument to a certain degree. UK has not operated Supercarriers for over 50 years. Skills ain't exactly sharp. We have a better knowledge and history of operating STOVL on carriers (we invented it) not only that, the F-35B got a huge boost with the Royal Navy and United States Marine Corps opting for this.
If you look at the carriers they can be augmented at a later date to operate with F-35C and catapults. However the F-35C is the one with the most problems right now (this is why the USN has only 30 F-35C) the engine being the biggest problem. The F-35 all types can carry a large payload in murder config. Look at the actual updates already being rolled out for the F-35. It's insane. Link here.
ruclips.net/video/7SNALUoybt0/видео.html&ab_channel=Sandboxx
@@NightshadeX85 The internal weapons bay on the A and C can carry 2500lbs each the B can only carry 1500lbs each.
Yes it can carry external stores but it's never going to because that means no stealth and we saw the losses in Vietnam to AAA and SAM's without stealth.
SAM's and aircraft detection are a lot better than they where in the late 60's through early 70's.
The F-35B has no range and very limited weapons capability.
The link you have is about block 4 which is currently so far behind schedule the GAO said in August no F-35 will start to be fitted with it till 2029 and then it's only for US aircraft anyway.
Don't link to RUclips these guys just read off of military sites or manufacturer press releases.
@@Ushio01 FFS stealth has it's application once air dominance and air superiority is achieved, stealth is no longer needed. AAA and SAMs are not as effective as made out. No idea where you got 1500lbs from, I have it at 15,000lbs to 18,000lbs.
Besides most aircraft never go full load, name me a single battle with fighter jets where they exceeded mach 1.2. If SAM and AAA were that good then the era of aircraft would come to an end it has not.
Stealth aircraft in vietnam ? The F-4 was not a stealth aircraft. Right, you have no idea at all about aircraft do you ? You sound like you know only squaddie stuff ie: rifles, tanks, apcs and such and nothing about air power or air usage.
The F-35 in full stealth can carry almost as much as an F-16 in full loadout. The F-35 cannot carry what precisely ? The standoff weaponry makes SAMs practically useless. The F-35 would need to be in less than 20 miles of the S400 in order to be of any use. Dude you don't know anything about the F-35. Next you will be telling me the F-22 is useless because it cannot carry AMRAAM-120 A/Bs.
You know it has the best combat record currently when the only fatality is a driver's toe
Even if the fog of war in ukraine might be harder to pierce.
There was a friendly fire incident of Chally on Chally.
If you don't fight the enemy much it's easy to claim a good combat record.
Challenger 2 has barely seen any actual combat other than untrained militia in Iraq hitting them with a lot of crappy old RPG-7s and a single RPG-29 (which penetrated the tank) and there's been minimal combat seen from the 12 vehicles sent to Ukraine, one now lost.
By all accounts the Western tanks taking the majority of the fighting in Ukraine are the Leopards, and whilst they have taken losses, you can also find footage of them shrugging off Kornet missile hits, and trading blows with Russian tanks and defensive positions. There is no such footage of Challenger 2s in the war so far.
@@AllThingsCubey What a silly comment lmao.
Criticises the combat ability of the Challenger 2, even though it has more of record than the Leopard, to then go on and put across a contrasting argument which in fact is exactly the same as the one you just made about the Challenger.
Contradicting or what lol? Who even mentioned the Leopard here anyway, it's like your comment was just to try gloat that the Leopard is in someway better when clearly it's not. Even from a ratio standpoint Ukraine has lost far more Leopards making it a the overall worse combat performer. The challenger was left immobile in a way every single tank is vulnerable to. The crew survived and it was finished off afterwards. It done its job.
We even seen the use of the Leopards supported with Bradleys in a Russian style armoured column, all wiped out in one incident. Yet you want to make out the Leopard is somehow better when one alone Challenger is destroyed?
Besides, you are aware that just because there isn't any public combat footage doesn't mean that said combat hasn't taken place?
@@lewis211 Challenger 2 doesn't have a better combat record. It barely has one at all. Doing nothing tends to result in fewer losses, funnily.
Good take tbh.
As history has shown, the UK must have its own tank capability, even though technically they are a low priority.
We need tanks to support allies abroad, and we have also been caught short in the past, when we needed them but didnt have them. At the same time everyone is competing for the same defence budget and right now, being able to project power with naval capabilities is a better use of money.
All this being said, I think Ukraine has shown how a lot of a tanks role can be diminished with the combination of landmines, working in concert with rockets and artillery. The Finns are pivoting heavily into a combined arms approach, paring drones and battlefield surveillance with autonomous or semi-autonomous auto-loading artillery vehicles. These things can basically drive around, shooting on the move, and be centrally controlled to fire long range salvos in concert, from different ranges, all times to hit the target at the same time.
The really seem to be working towards a scenario where they can apply the lessons of aerial drones to land forces, where the soldiers are behind the front line.
The Challenger 3 has been described as an "Interim tank" so I think we maybe getting a completely new tank being revealed in the next decade.
That would be very exciting to see!
Probably in inadequate numbers as always if so. The rise of drones to the battlefield is kinda making tanks obsolete anyway unless they find ways to start putting up a real fight against this new form of combat, the tank is dead.
@@lewis211 They've been saying the tank is dead since WW1.
@@lewis211 LOl. Its funny. Testing is being done of the composit armour on hatches of turrets to negate the drone strikes. Seems to be making headways.
@@okbutthenagain.9402 'unless they find ways to start putting up a real fight against this new form of combat' Learn to read?
APFSDS round has to be specially designed for the British Rifled 120mm Cannon, so that is doesn't spin. The only reason the British are using the rifled barrel is for the HESH round.
Fun Fact, both Leo1 and Leo2 have plugs and mountings for a brewing vessel in the fighting compartment, they are also in storage with the german army, but not regularly issued due to them draining the turret battery.
Honestly I'd expect Leo to have an Integrated Beer Dispenser Unit installed in their fighting compartments :)
@@sulfo4229 well, in the NBC Filter compartment is enough room to put in about a dozen beer cans, so that they are chilled after a day on the range.
but they might be a bit shaken after that.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 LoL, I knew Germans would not put a tank into production without such feature. Are you driving those beasts?
@@sulfo4229 no im not, i did a bit in mandatory service, i know a few people who do currently.
and the alternative use is not really intended and is punished if it gets found out
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Sure, I was just joking about the beer ;) Stay safe!
the armour NATO sent to ukraine was simply too little too late.
they wont do shit with a couple of tanks, you need hundreds of tanks and hundreds of other vehiacles especially air power to support them
It will be coming
Next year
Great job guys
Yes, one wasted year, that the Russians used to dig themself in deeply :(
Tea boos won’t like this one
Tanks are a weapon system, not some mystical being capable of conquering the universe. I mean, a well placed big ditch is enough to render them useless, and the Ukrainians showed what you can do with a cheap drone and a mortar bomb. Like every weapon system, they're subject to user, context, situation, and support, plus large dollops of pure luck.
British armour doctrine has erred on the defensive side since Chieftain (some say this is entirely down to *that* engine enforcing a more static type of fighting), and Chally does seem to follow - mobility is relatively low, it's a bit heavy, and for its time was armoured like a battleship. Underside protection for mines/IEDs wasn't really something to think about in the 1980s - after all, if your primary threat is hordes of T-55/62/etc across the West German Plain, things are primarily going to be going bang on your upper surfaces.
The other thing to consider is that with our very limited stock of the things, increasingly tiny defence budget, and the time it takes the MoD to procure the next gigantic waste of money, if we actually needed to keep them or thought they were any good, we wouldn't be giving them to Ukraine.
Nice Music. Sounded like Industrial
All I will suggest is that there is a big difference between a Challenger hitting a mine, losing a track (while keeping it's crew safe) and it being scuttled and the Leopards that have been lost due to direct fire with some crews lost as well.
Never mind the way Russian built tanks on both side have just been destroyed complete with crews.
Hopefully the Ukrainians have learnt from British and NATO tactics on how to use MBTs with infantry support as the Challengers with rifled guns are especially lethal with HESH rounds.
Challenger II is out of date in UK terms, and why we are building Challenger III, but its still a very impressive combat asset.
I find the discussion of two piece vs single piece because the thinking was completely opposite in the 1990s (see, for example, the 1991 RAND study, An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions)
See, the length of the APFSDS piece can be lengthened in a future tank design, if desired, but what's more difficult to do is make a 140mm single piece round that a human loader can handle. Even with an autoloader, this is still a problem because you really want a human to be able to load the ammo magazine. Also, depending on the design of the autoloader and reloading procedure, you want the ammo pieces to be vertical. Two pieces, with a concentric carousel, can be a lot more efficient, especially with an unmanned turret.
So the solution would have been two piece 140mm ammo with an autoloader. It would have been the only way to achieve the desired doubling in armor penetration capability over 120mm, while also keeping the rate of fire up to speed. The desired doubling in horizontal armor protection and vastly increased top armor protection also pointed toward an unmanned turret.
All that said, warfare has gone in a different direction than what was anticipated in the early 1990s. And the war in Ukraine may require us to dramatically rethink how tanks will and should be used in the future. Most notably, tank vs tank engagements seem to be relatively uncommon, so it may make more sense to use a smaller gun (with a lot more ammo), along with drones to engage enemy tanks.
120mm rounds are already at the limit of what a human loader can manage.
A DM63 APFSDS weights i about 23kgs.
A 130mm one piece cartridge weights in close to 40kg.
so no, beyond 120mm you have autoloaders not manual loaders.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The point is that with two piece ammo, each piece can be less than the full weight.
So, for a concrete example, suppose you have an unmanned turret with an autoloader and ammo carousel underneath it. You still need to somehow load the ammo carousel. With one piece 140mm, the round would be too long to fit vertically, so it's going to be a horizontal carousel. But how the heck do you get the ammo loaded? The carousel is surrounded by the tank treads, engine, and a minimally sized crew compartment. And seeing as the ammo is too heavy for one person to reasonably handle, simply man handling the round to get to wherever the heck it's loaded through is ... problematic.
With two piece 140mm ammo, each piece could be more easily handled. The pieces could fit vertically, so the turret just needs a small vertical port suitable for lowering the pieces into the ammo carousel.
@@IsaacKuo well thats the dead end the russian tank developement has maneuvered itself into.
125mm rounds weight in around 30kg.
And with that configuration you cant have blowout panels to prevent catastrophic ammunition detonations.
if you look at western autoloader designs, they are generally compartmentalised casette autolaoders in the turret bustle with blowout panels.
and the turret cage is filled with other neccesary equipment that is now better protected vs enemy fire. Like FCS computers, battery stowage etc.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 If you look at Stryker MGS and M1 TTB, the ammo was stored in the hull. USA designers were obsessed with minimizing frontal profile of an unmanned turret. It does make sense, considering a lightly armored unmanned turret would leave a bustle magazine particularly vulnerable and exposed.
Furthermore, the crew would be placed in the hull in front of the unmanned turret, which can mean that they'd be in danger if the turret were pointed to the rear arc.
Overall, I think it does make sense to place the ammo in the hull, with blowout panels underneath and above to whatever extent is practical, and to place a thick blast partition behind the crew. The T-14 may be the "dead end" that Russian tank development has driven into, but it's actually the same basic layout as M1 TTB. The USA designers of the TTB didn't have any legacy restrictions forcing them in that direction. They just figured it was the way to go, given thinking of the time.
That said, I think Abrams X and possibly M1E3 will have bustle magazine, regardless of having a lightly armored turret. I don't think we have any publicly available info on what is below the turret, but we can generally note that MBTs have gotten a lot of new "stuff" added on compared to what they had in the 1990s.
My discussion was about design thoughts in the 1990s.
@@IsaacKuo the Stryker MGS and M1 TTB were armed with 105mm gun and 120mm guns.
those cartridges are signiificantlys shorter than a 130mm or 140mm round.
Look at the Rheinmetall 130mm gun for KF-51 and how big the ammo is in comparison to 120mm rounds. A two part system would drasticly reduce the capability of the round.
Protection matters a crew becomes the most important part of the tank
As regards the tea: "Right, I'll be mother then."
Will the chally 3 finally get blow out panels? The fact the 2 doesn't have them really seems to lower the crew survivability
Sensible analysis. However there is a critical mistake in your assumptions particularly regarding the gun. You're working on the assumption that the primary role of the tank is to attack and destroy other tanks, but historically that was a small part of what the tank was expected to do, and from what I've seen so far in Ukraine tank on tank combat is rare and tactically inadvisable.
Rifles can't fire HEAT and their darts aren't as good, this is true, but they are actually more accurate when shooting HE and HE-Frag, not to mention HESH which requires a rifle. Additionally HEAT is always better when fitted to an ATGM or unguided rocket, because the power of a shaped charge warhead is proportional to it's caliber, not it's mass or velocity. The Rh-120 HEAT round is already inferior to current generation MANPATs, and much larger vehicle mounted ATGMs are on the horizon. Further the most powerful anti-tank weapon on any tank in Ukraine is the radio, calling in artillery or loitering munitions is far more effective than anything that can be achieved with the main gun of a tank, rifled or not.
So I actually think the Royal Armoured Corps is wrong to give away their rifles at this time. What they should really be focused on is indirect fire, smart munitions, electronic warfare and integrated drone capability. What tanks are required to do is attack buildings, clear trenches and field fortifications, to close with and assault enemy lines and provide fire support to infantry on the move and in defensive postures. That's more than enough to keep them busy and warrant their cost without asking them to play War Thunder IRL.
Also you seem to think you're pretty safe, but please remember Beijing is closer to London than it is to Canberra or Los Angeles. Despite what some on Twitter might have you believe, the world is round and the maps are misleading.
It needs to be said that linking Challenger 2's weight to its armour is broadly a myth/ false. It is basically no more, and by many metrics less protected, than NATO peer tanks like M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 onwards, whilst armour rarely makes up more than about 20% of the weight of any MBT.
Volumetrically, it's simply not possible that the tank can fit more armour than its peers into what are irrefutably smaller available spaces for armour modules, and those dimensions are now well known thanks to the propagation of photos and information online.
From an engineering perspective, the main driving force for weight of a tank is not its armour, but actually its automotive components, heavy steel, structural chassis, etc. The Leopard 1 is a fairly small tank with barely any armour at all and still weighs 40+ tons for example.
As vehicles get modernised and things are added or removed from the turret in particular, counter weight is added to balance the turret ring. This tends to mean a 1 ton upgrade incurs about 1.5 tons of weight gain if it's on the turret.
If you redesigned Challenger 2 from the ground up with modern methods, you could probably strip 5-6 tons off the weight without ever touching the armour. If you modernised the armour packages you could remove another 2-3 tons with better materials for no loss in protection.
The main reason the Challenger 2 is so overweight is outdated philosophy. It was built to fight in a nuclear conflict where the British wanted to minimise time spent for the crew exposed to fallout, by staying within the vehicle. This meant requirements for fuel capacity, road range, and reliability/ time to failure of the automotive components was extremely high. If Abrams and Leopard 2 were "easy to fix" Challenger 2 was "don't break down in the first place."
Issue is that sort of reliability often comes from over-building all the automotive components. Everything has far more steel than is actually needed, right down to the small fittings, to make it last longer without breaking. That adds a tremendous amount of weight and is, frankly, completely out of sync with modern warfare.
Challenger 3 has arguably shot itself in the foot from the get-go by using original Challenger 2 hulls, engine and transmission. There is so much wasted potential for weight reduction and protection improvement by ditching that hull, but it's not to be.
To summarize: Challenger 2 has weight issues, not because of its fabled armour (which is not evidentially any better than other NATO tanks) but because of late cold war British thinking that saw everything built tougher and heavier than it needed to be.
Does it really count as "enemy fire" when it was abandoned after being disabled by a mine? I mean, technically, right? Arty fire seems plausible but not as likely if it was on the move in my opinion. I think if anything, this peer-to-peer war (or near peer? who knows with how poorly Russia has showed their hand actually was) shows how rare tank vs tank actually is. Could also be rare due to circumstance in that neither are super power armies (apparently)
Here we go again
Who cares it was lost, as long as the crew were ok after the mine and were able to evacuate.
If it gets spotted by the enemy and blown up by a Kornet, it's enemy fire, regardless of whether it was already abandoned due to the mine or not.
How many do we have now?
That tank has every possibility of spoiling your entire day.
The one thing i really like about the rifled barrel is that is can fire the HESH round which has 1 niche thing demonstrated in Iraq and that is that range does not effect the lethality of the round I can’t remember the exact distance but it was something ridiculous, there you tube videos about it “longest range tank on tank kill” APFSDS would be too slow to do any damage after a couple of Km the HESH doesn’t care its like a sticky bomb if you stick it to a target at any range that target has a bad day
The longest range kill was made with APFSDS, not HESH
@@AllThingsCubey also after a quick google APFSDS is claimed to have an effective range of 3-3.5Km depending on source and i guess each tank has little differences in their design. after 3.5 km the projectile is to slow to penetrate most tanks. the HESH round used in Iraq destroyed a tank at 5 Km
@@MeNanWazaHowitzer It wasn't a HESH round used in Iraq though... It was APFSDS...
@@AllThingsCubey lol i just re-watched the video and yes the fired HESH first but missed and then used fin rounds there after. but still HESH doesn't care about range i'll be sad to see them removed from the battle field
@@MeNanWazaHowitzer HEAT and MPAT also don't care about range, and are vastly superior rounds for a modern tank to be carrying. HESH has been obsolete since the 1970s.
People make jokes about the BV. I've heard many a foreign military tank crew bemoan a lack of similar kit. It is an amazing element to all british armoured vehicles. Buttoned up in one them, or just generally on patrol, the ability to heat water and food is an wonderful thing to have.
Losing tanks is just the nature of warfare since tanks were invented and people who keep saying “this tanks rubbish it got destroyed” need to realise that regardless of the fact it got destroyed the crew still survived, therefore the tank fulfilled one of its most important functions being crew protection. You can have the toughest tank in the world and the moment you go up against a nation with more capability than some pickup trucks and roadside bombs you will inevitably lose a few. They’re not meant to be invincible they’re meant to fulfil the requirements of their role. This particular challenger 2 also doesn’t have the additional armour that British forces always deploy them with.
Nice thanks.
You should def make some videos on the Navy
One thing to bear in mind is that a lot of Challengers (and other vehicles) got sent to the Gulf/Afghanistan and were used far more than the original maintenance plan called for. Those vehicles were basically clapped out and sent to storage, though nobody was ever going to admit it. Want to bet that some of those barely serviceable units were sent off to Ukraine, where thy could be blown up and written off at last.
🎉🎉🎉
Good video, love a chally 2 ;)
The best piece of kit the british army has ever had the, BV. we robbed them out of the 432's in germany when we left for the uk. they ended up in Landrovers of every type, no matter where we were based i always had a BV in my means. Happy days with a black mug of the finest. great vid by the way
The Challenger 2 was a good tank for the time frame when it was first produced, but now (with modern foes like hand held anti-tank weapons that hit from above where the armour is weak and drones) it is clear that the basic design needs to be upgraded in order to be relevant on the modern battlefield. The Challenger 3 program is designed to do this but it is clear to me that there are at least two factors which will make said program a huge waste of money. Firstly, there is the switch to a smooth-bore gun. This is fine in itself but it doesn't give any up-gunning advantage against most modern tanks since the caliber stays the same. The second point is that the modernization lacks an active protection system as standard. This still leaves the tank vulnerable to the issues of drones and other top-attack type anti-tank weapons which has so far been the biggest reason why so many Russian tanks have been destroyed in Ukraine.
It hit a mine. And the turret stayed on!
weight completely cancels ability to use a lot of bridges and pantoons, making traversal of some obstacles completely imposible.
as example in Ukraine most bridges only rated for 50t vehicles to traverse, making them dangerous for C2 to use without preparations.
as long as the crew survive to fight another day 😀😀👍👍
the thing with the chally it was made to fight the russian outdated tanks at the time which was being given to other nations like in the middle east. this would be a problem in a more modern war but as we see from the current war in ukraine that the russains are still useing a lot of their old equitment so the chally still has its place in the conflict
Friend from the United States. Yes yes you should make another tank please I'm ready for the challenger 3.
We can't, we can only rebuild the one we have because our moronic politicians closed down the last tank factory in the UK over ten years ago. We literally cannot build new tanks until we build a new factory, and train a new workforce, which will take several years at least....
Challenger has the best Armour the squash head round needs rifling and makes it very accurate. The fin stabilised Sabot round does not go as fast down a rifled barrel and spins to fast so the round allows the fin inside the Sabot to slip. Smooth bore Fin Stabilised rounds have fins that impart spin so no spin is no good and to much spinning is no good., with a smooth bore there is more seal and less friction so SABOT round is faster out of barrel. UK needs ammo and plenty of it as shown in Ukraine Challenger III addresses this. Ukraine shows the need to be properly armed. Army Navy and Airforce. With the ammo we need and troops trained. Challenger in Ukraine had track blasted by mine then multiple hits, the crew survived to fight another day. Russian auto loaders sit crew with ammo. Relatively easy penetration and turret toss followed. Mercifully it would be a quick exit for the crew with all the overpressure and heat.
I just wonder, why Britain doesn't join the Leo 2 program, gets a license for it and produces that tank on the island. Way cheaper due to the higher numbers and more flexible in the long run with better spare parts supply, upgrades and so on. Especially as you point out, if tanks aren't your priority, just go with what works on the market. With the boxer, the international collaboration worked as well.
The Leo 2 isnt that up to date either. While I still think it is a more modern vehicle then the Chally 2. I think it would have been a better idea to start a new program in its entirety. Something more like the K2 or Leclerc. The 120mm is fine but modern elctronics, armor, and a 3 man crew, and something to cut its weight.
They’d be better to buy into the K2 or a stretched K2, the K2 has better suspension than the L2 similar engine and transmission to the L2. A stretched K2 + Uk derived armour would be a better route.
I dont think adapting leo 2 is the way to go, they should have done that 10 years ago, but now leo 2 is also nearing the end of its Upgradeability. They should join in on developing the next generation
@@robertpatrick3350 probably. I think the k2 would make a great start
@@robertpatrick3350 well, As poland is now realising... K2 is absolutely perfect for south korea, as north korea still uses T-54 and T-62 derivates today as primary armor fleet.
In europe on the other hand, the armor thickness in the front and the frontal arc protection of K2 is a bit lacking and more akin to Leo2A4, meaning any realistc 125mm armed threat has a legitimate chance to punch through that armor or avoid it completely.
The side armor is non existand. 60mm Steel.
Well....
We aren't building enough Challenger 3 though. we are limited by the amount of challenger 2's we can upgrade. But it's practically a whole new tank apart from the hull so I don't get why they are constraining themselves by using old challenger 2 hulls. Just build a new hull and more tanks. I may be wrong in this thinking as I am no expert but seems like common sense to me. And we have seen the amount of attrition in ukraine that I don't think 150 tanks is gonna cut it. Although weve not seen it with western tanks just crappy Russian ones.
Because our Governments, being idiots, closed down the factory building the Challenger II hulls over decade ago. We cannot design a new hull because at the moment we cant BUILD a new hull.
Its certainly feasible that in the future the UK could build entire tanks again, but thats something that is realistically only possible in the future, and only if our moronic politicians get their fingers out of their ears and start realising that one does not buy credible defence on the cheap.....
A bit late to the party, but after the incident where the driver lost his leg, they patched that weak point, can only assume that carries over to challenger 3
From what I have read the Challenger in Ukraine hit a mine, and then had a suicide dron drop ontop of it.
They patched it partially with a block of composite that's not really thick enough, only covers the top 60% of the weakpoint, and of which the British army only has 40 upgrade kits procured for the fleet of 227 vehicles.
Translation: It's still a major issue.
@@AllThingsCubey Not true. The latest upgrades have 120 C3's with new composit armour for the frontal area's and over all protection packaage as was mentioned by both the MOD and based on a DSTL design and manufactured by RBSL.
@@okbutthenagain.9402 We're talking about Challenger 2.
Challenger 3 isn't even in production yet and won't be in service until 2027.
Anyone got any relevant responses to me, or you just gonna keep posting tripe?