Tea and hot rations = comfortable soldier. comfortable soldier = morale. Morale = a willing to fight professional soldier. No conscripts in British army bombing x country on torsion bars and metal seats 🤦🏻♂️
Yes, so we've established that I'm an old bastard! Because not only do I remember the Challenger 1 being replaced by the Challenger 2, I remember when the Chieftain was the big boy on the block and also when we weren't using the Fisher Price SA-80 with it's teeny little rounds, degree level sling antics and mag release catch up nice and tight against your rig.
Best Chieftain we built at Chobham was the hybrid RR/Perkins conversion. Basically a stop gap to CH1. The Iranians money was king then so we concentrated on Shir1/2, that became CH1. I won't go over the things we found about the SA80.
One factor people seem to forget is crew survivability and general well being in the tank! I'm being serious! The M60 was much loved by crews and so was the centurion: the chieftain was comfortable despite having a poor engine, remedied somewhat by the Sundance upgrade, but the challenger is very liked by crews
Challenger 2 is probably the best tank in the world for ergonomics and crew comfort. I’d say Abrams is better for outright survivability, but it’s certainly a little more difficult to escape from! It’s very much an underrated factor, and we’ll have to see if CR3’s turret is as good as CR2’s from an ergonomics standpoint… since it’s built by Germany… … I kinda doubt it.
Imo the thing that made the centurion the first mbt is the crew being able to work with the tank, as apposed to forcing it to complete its function, which is also the reason why I think the T34 is genuinely garbage.
I served on chally 2. I can honestly say it was an absolute amazing bit of kit to work on. I hope the chally 3 works better. Along as it has a b.v then thats all that matters hahah
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here ofc itd be the russian coping about things he knows jack about. What classified doc did you read about the armour of the chally and its exact specs? Id like to know your source
My boss was a tank platoon commander in Desert Storm. We talked about it quite frequently over beers. Fascinating stories. The M1s he ran came with a speed governor that restricted the top speed to 40 mph. It was the first thing removed when they arrived in Saudi Arabia. He has personally had one up to 53 mph. That’s across flat, hard packed desert mud and sand with a friggin turbine engine. And you’re seeing data that puts the Challenger III at 60 mph? That’s nuts. And scares me
well, even though the tanks today are heavy as shit, the engines we are talking about are in the 1200-1800 horsepower range (depending on the tank), so when shit hits the fan and you need to get out of the area RIGHT NOW!!!, they will get you out of there, albeit suffering damage in the process, as they arent meant to run at such ferocity very often
@@paulevans7742 Grandad crashed his vovlo into a Chieftain in Warminster years back... car was *wrecked* - tank was barely scratched 😂 Years of litigation, that one!
Fun fact: The place seen at 8:37 is in Estonia at the Central Training Ground (or something like that) during exercise Sibul 2017 where the forces of EFP were against the local Defence League. In the clearing seen ahead the very same tank was taken out by a cleverly placed Swedish 90 mm anti tank gun (Pvpj 1110). "Virtually" of course. But it did slow the armored column down quite a bit ;) I had the chance to rain down mortar shells on them. "Virtually" of course.
The most fragile part in high speed driving a tank are the tracks ... notcthe engine or the transmission... just imagine the force working on a 2,8to track at 100km/h... long befor the engine or transmission would break the tank would throw its tracks... the Diehl tracks on the Leo2 are tested up to 120km/h The Trophy Leopard2 A7A1 are only bought in small number and the only reason is they are for the fast NATO reaction force were they fight together with M1A2 with Trophy to make the logistic more easy by only using one hard kill system. Germany will use ADS for their armored vehicles in numbers
@@redf7209 That would be unlikely, considering all the weight on top of those tracks. But I guess that depends on the type of track used, as steel performs worse on concrete then rubber.
@@redf7209The tank destroys road side kerbs . you are supposed to leave about one foot between kerb and track so when the tank is guided away and turns it doesn't destroy it. At Babcock Bovington the workers frequently park right next to the kerb , many are wrecked. Don't care or poor training !
As you may well know, early (lighter) Abrams tanks were more than capable of breaking their 45 mph limit; that speed governor was put in place so those tanks wouldn't throw their tanks or blow up their transmissions.
It's a common misconception the abrams has a speed limiter. It doesn't. It can go over the speed limit like almost every tank can in the right conditions. It's just hard to do so and even when the chance occurs they don't let it.
@@nothingspecial6925 Abrams tanks do or did actually have a hyromechanic speed governor system, though it isn't something one can easily "switch off" and takes a fair amount of tinkering inside the transmission hydraulics to modify or bypass. I've seen reports of early M1s being clocked in excess of 80mph, though those reports are admittedly dubious. It may not be present on the A2s to save complexity and space because the added weight makes those speeds far less likely to achieve under ideal circumstances. However, they definitely were present on the original 105mm M1s, and some crews definitely modified and disabled them to go at absurd speeds. The larger point is that 60mph road speed for a tank is entirely plausible and is less limited by modern engines and more by track and transmission capabilities.
@@KiithnarasAshaa pretty much most modern tanks can and do exceed their listed top speeds. Challenger 2 was reportedly capable of achieving 80kph in Iraq. I don't belive its capable of 100kph though/60mph as listed.
M1 and Leo2 both also have significantly more powerful engines and better HP/t ratios around 25hp/t, while cr2/3 sits at barely 16hp/t (thats just a bit more than ww2 heavy tank standarts)
Update news, Trophy is being used on chally 3 prototypes and commander scopes of various types are also being selected via testing. Maybe this will be the weapon system we want on the battle field?
I think they just got confused with kph and mph. When going at over 60kph the Challengers engine would rev over its limit, which could damage the engine. It is the same as driving 50kph in 1st gear at 6.000 rpm in you VW Golf. You could go 60kph if you increase your rpm to 8.000 and risk damaging your engine or you could shift wich loweres your rpm at the same speed. The Challenger would by now be in its highest gear, the only way of going faster is to increase the rpm of the engine. In order to increase the "safe speed" they would either have to adjust the gear ratio , wich would make the tank loose power because the engine would rev at a lower rpm at 60kph. They also did not mention thath they modified the transmission, so that is not the case. The other way of increasing the "safe speed" is by strengthening components in the engine, but there are no mentions that the Challenger 3 received such upgrades. Everything i could find was that they impproved the cooling system which increased the power output a bit so it compensates for the increased weight.
Maybe there adding an extra gear, or extended range to the torque converter. I have no idea how a tank transmission and engine work these days but that’s what would do it for a D9 bulldozer.
I had a two hour discussion with a family member who wanted to talk to me about this, and it range true with almost every point you made. UK procurement cycle goes like this: Step 1, design a vehicle which is excellent for the year in which you have designed it, and ultra-optimised to meet and defeat the threats of that period, usually with design work nearing completion right at the time when that threat is going out of fashion, and a sweeping change is coming to all vehicles of this type, rendering your new design (at best) highly conservative, and at worst, obsolete before it's even reached troops. Don't forget to recycle as much as possible from older designs and hamper your new one in as many ways as possible by insisting on nothing clean sheet, all upgrades of upgrades of equipment that has heritage in 1945. Wherever possible, take the cheapest approach short term, whether or not it costs more later. Step 2, spend upwards of 10 years testing the hell out of the prototypes. Really make sure all the minor details are polished to perfection, and that the vehicle is massively over-built, so that it's really mechanically reliable, well laid-out for the crew, and has lots of quality of life features that will ensure the users love it. Don't bother talking about the big details, like how the over-built chassis weighs far too much, or how the armour and gun are now 20 years out of date and it's not even reached troops yet. Rest assured that a fifth re-arrangement of the buttons on the gunner's controls will make it superior to your rivals. Step 3, after spending a decade testing your originally budget vehicle, likely selected over rivals purely because it cost less, you have now spent far more than your rivals did for their development. Cash strapped MOD cuts leave you with a small production run that causes cost per vehicle to spiral. Necessary upgrades are totally forsaken because it cost so much to get the vehicles to troops at all that there is no cash left to make them remotely modern. While vehicles that were already more modern continue to be upgraded, yours grows more and more useless. At this stage it is important to let the troops and public know that they have the absolute best vehicle in the world, which nobody else wanted on export, and you should keep stressing everything is the best right up until the exact moment you order a replacement, at which stage you will change tune and reveal everything was garbage to justify the new expense, acting like you have been saying that all along. Step 4, repeat the cycle. This happens in 30 year intervals. Never accept as a nation that this is a problem, always feel smug and self assured that being British makes all equipment the best in the world. Repeatedly use codename jargon to imply that every part is better than everyone else's and whenever challenged with evidence, claim it's classified and they couldn't possibly know. You will find, the more you dig, that this isn't just exclusive to armoured vehicles. This cycle happens with British submarines, surface warships, aircraft... it's pretty much every MOD project. Spend more money, get a worse outcome, usually obsolete on arrival, or "designed for, but not fitted with" necessary equipment it will never receive, and fiercely defend it as being somehow world-beating so nothing ever changes.
The sad part is, sometimes, they do the exact opposite (look at the L129A1) so we know they can do it well when they really want to. almost like the more expensive the project the more scared they are of wasting money and end up wasting more money
they are sending challenger 2s to Ukraine and claiming its superior to all Russian tanks when its subpar even to the t72b3 in every way except reverse speed.
Think you need to remember that we're competing with tech inferior to our own, so having a well optimised vehicle represents a quality investment for battlefield resources and logistics. If we ever go to war with USA / Germany etc. Then you'll have bigger things to worry about than mod profligacy with funding.
I agree with you 100% with regard to the weight, it would have been better to just focus on reducing it to around 50 tons, and there are different effective ways to accomplish that, like for example the way Japan did it with their Type 10, by utilizing modular armor. Thereby you can use different armor packs, depending on the situation, transport it separately, can be easily replaced on the field and upgraded later on if new materials and such are developed. I think they missed a huge chance to make a better tank, which is easier to maintain, and support logistically as well as have a good punch.
You couldn't do that with challenger 2 unless you built a completely new chassis which is what they're trying to avoid. The base weight of the tank is 64t and that goes up to 75t with its modular armour equipped.
The weight makes zero diference it already gets transported only by the c17 even reducing that weight it would still only be transported by a c17. 60-70kmph is perfectly fine for a MBT.
@@kalicom2937 It is effectively a new tank. They've replaced the engine, transmission, suspension, all the armour, computers, digital systems, comms systems, fire control and optics, completely replaced the turret with a brand new massively uparmoured turret and heavily modified the hull with more armour. There is very little to nothing left of a Challenger 2 in the Challenger 3. This 'upgrade' is the same as the Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 'upgrade', ie a brand new tank wearing a skinsuit of the previous tank.
@@jonathanrobison9667 it would be nice to have it sloped but transporting the vehicle by road or rail would then be impossible. We counter the flat sides by ensuring the weapon always points towards the enemy threat mate
Let’s just hope with the new electronics and all you guys can stop friendly firing on your own British troops… especially in training missions. Obviously take some of the responsibility of of you guys because obviously you can’t handle it
@@henrymorrey4150 you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and couldn’t be further from the truth, but if it makes you feel big to talk shit on the Internet while you’re in a safe space you go right ahead.
@@chalky042 I like what u say and agre, however friendly fire dose happen (tho mainly between us and UK or 2 other aly countries at places like new f.o.b's that are not marked on their map)examples would be in Bosnia a friend of mine Kenny drove tanks in this conflict and said the were hit by British artillery on a small number of occasions (bout4or5) but I've never heard of two of the same country's tanks destroying each other in recent history in or out of training tho no doubt it has happened, anyway would like to know if u agree with me and no how the fuck it ur fault u risked ur life 4 it country and 4 that u have my respect 110%
I think you're right when you say "too little too late". Seeing as only about half the tanks we have are being upgraded, is it possible that the others will get something like the Black Knight upgrade or the 130mm verrsion that Rheinmetall showcased in their promo video? Also QinetiQ have their hybrid drive unit that the yanks are testing so that will be happening at some point. It's all well and good being the first to adopt something but you end up spending fcuk loads of cash and take all the risk and seeing as our media crucify the military/government/defence companies every time there's teething problems, I can understand why the cautious approach has been taken.
@Morfidus Mor fair enough, just thought it would be typical that we upgrade to the smoothbore and the rest of NATO swaps to the 130 or 140mm. Still if we're going to keep deploying tanks it would be good to have a more constant rolling upgrade schedule.
First of all, talk coming from the MOD suggested that we may drop the MBT from our Forces. This new tank is to be celebrated. Whatever it is called, Challenger Mark 3 or Challenger 3, it is an improvement on it's predecessor. From what I have seen Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 did pretty well in both Gulf Wars. I haven't heard any Tanker complain about the quality of their ride. Secondly, has it got the kit to shoot down A10s. Any plane that does not respond to FOF should have a missile up it's arse immediately. It doesn't have to be the best tank in the world it just needs to be effective.
Grew up with CH1, served on CH2, retiring as CH3 comes online. each version is an evolution from the previous incarnation, within the budget set by people who'll never crew them. But as long as they retain the BV they'll always be a favourite
So it’s not just the upgraded fire/ sighting systems, armor packages or the upgraded gun. It’s the entire crew that operates the tank that will provide the best case scenario for how the tank performs.
Yep the HESH round was the round for the only Challenger lost in combat from a blue on blue incident. It was a fluke hit, the HESH kill round hit the commander’s open hatch sending HE fragments into the turret, unfortunately killing some of the crew, and starting an internal fire…
@@ermirohri The HESH round hit the open turret hatch and the explosion was sent down into the turret. 2 crewmen were on stag in the turret, the other two were asleep under the hull. The incident's covered in a book called 'Main Battle Tank' by Niall Edworthy. It's well worth a read!
Not too thrilled about a visit from the rozzers if they read this... but you are miss informed. The tank was inoperable as it's up armoured turret had been forcibly relocated to the back of the engine deck. Spall from a HESH round is the least of your problems….!!
@@erikstolzenberger1517 The question is not about it being better or worse. It is about the stupid German government potentially blocking the UK from reexporting the Challenger 3 tank in the future because it has a German gun in it and "reasons" that just make the rest of Europe mad at the Germans.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 As an old german saying goes: Nichts wird so heiss gegessen, wie es gekocht wird. I do agree that Scholz did a piss-poor job in communicating his delay, all in all he's not a very charming person.But he has to do his job, and I think at least 50% of the outrage was stifled by media outlets and some salty poles.
The speed of tanks is typically limited by the transmission and final drive. The Abrams for example is completely capable of straight line speeds of 62mph, but the transmission will prevent it to protect itself as well as the final drives. Also, the forces exerted when making a sweeping turn at those speeds on the track guides could have you hearing a loud bang and then watching your track sail down the road. They probably improved the transmission and final drives along with better guide pins. The Abrams can actually be adjusted by a mechanic, I've had one at the theoretically top speed and there are still plenty of RPMs to go faster. Plus the speedo goes up to 62 in those.
@@kf8575 that's a limited top speed on the transmission. And top speed is actually 45mph on all models and in all TMs. But it can theoretically go 65mph if it wasnt governed.
@@Deathbomb9 What would be the point of that if it destroys the transmission in the process? Its like the Soviet MiG-25's jet engine. Or the eighth gate (Gate of Death) in Taijtusu in Naruto.
@@death_parade typically the transmission isn't what gets destroyed first. The final drives would become overheatedand start to cause excessive force that the transmission doesn't like to deal with. You would damage the transmission for sure if you ran it at those speeds for an extended period of time, but before the transmission failed your final drives would fail and either break completely of you would end up with a lot of noises that they aren't supposed to make (metal on metal grinding of seized bearings or completely destroyed bearings and the shaft rubbing in ways its not supposed to). The transmission can handle theoretical speeds close to 72mph, but that was tested with resistance of about -5tons of what the original XM1 weighed at the end of testing and trials before it entered service. Limiting the transmission to 45mph is good because over the road your supply line can keep up and cross-country your supply line can cope with meeting you when you need it. It also allows the infantry support you would need to keep up in their Bradley's. The military is all about redundancy and never exceeding about 80% of capability on just about everything it has. So when you looker the US military and think how advanced they are, understand that the equipment is only being worked at 80% rather than 100% so it lasts a lot longer and is much more reliable. And there are points where you can get 100%, but that's when you risk breaking things or causing some sort of damage. And those times are typically reserved for emergency combat use, you are unlikely to ever see footage or video accounts or recreations because the military does everything in its power to foresee and prevent those cases.
Very interesting video on a very interesting vehicle. I do agree with your conclusion that the Challenger 3, as it's currently proposed, is only a more modernized and upscaled version of 2 with some extra capabilities. For me it bears the hallmarks of an interim vehicle rather than a true replacement with futuristic capabilities, something to tide you over until you can design a truly revolutionary vehicle. Going without active protection in a modern battlefield though does seem both anachronistic and dangerous at this point though. With UK politics being what they are currently, it wouldn't surprise me if this was more to establish jobs and political capital now and make a more futuristic design later on.
Eh, i don't think its as insignificant as you make it out to be. I don't see any tank produced in the near to mid future having the armour to rival some of the ridiculous rounds developed and still being developed for the 120mm. In addition, it's clear Britain isn't really currently in the business of making tank guns and ammunition atm. Adopting a new calibre gun with no idea if any of NATO will join suit is a recipe for disaster, weather that be logistical or even in ammunition available. It's got great optics. It's got a proper computer systems. It's gonna have some kinda APS, and the gun and engine have had small upgrades. Seems like a pretty great tank to me, and it should hold up for a while
It definitely has the feel of a stopgap about it, like how the Tornado F3/ADV was kind of a stopgap while the Typhoon was in development. Definitely hoping that we've got something bigger and better planned out for the future beyond the 2040s.
Pretty much this. The life extension program is only supposed to carry the Challenger 2 (Now going to be called the Challenger 3) up until 2035, I imagine they'll stretch that to 2040 whilst they design a new tank design.
The replacement has been constantly delayed due to issue's implementing the various technologies that will be present amongst other things. The armour that will be the backbone of chally 3 is a part of the project for it's replacement and offers many advantages over Dorchester and that will be reflected in a number of ways but it isn't the same as the armour the replacement will have think of it as an incremental improvement.
I was around for the Chally 1 to Chally 2 changeover, heck I remember the stink when the T62 hit the news as well, which makes me just a bit younger than dirt and I'd like to clarify your information regarding the use of APFSDS rounds fired from the rifled gun. U.S. Pat. No. 4,242,961 to Moredock, et al. issued Jan. 6, 1981 covers the use of an obturator that surrounds the sabot petals and spins when the round is fired, allowing the penetrator and sabot petals to maintain a steady state while the obturator engages the rifling and spins around them. This is discarded along with the petals when the round leaves the barrel. The sabot petals themselves don't spin around the penetrator, they are fixed until discarded when fired. I'm a fan of the Challenger 2 and its attention to the infantry support role, I trust its sibling will maintain the relationship with the promised, programmable rounds. Great vid, some excellent information and lovely footage.
With the army looking to save money and a decreased priority placed on mbts the procurement choice was probably between this mild upgrade, or no upgrade at all. A completely new design or more radical upgrade was probably never on the cards for cost reasons.
While a hypothetical "which tank beats which…" scenerio is a academic circle jerk, there is still a valid argument for a comparison of _practicality and usability_ - which tanks are more desirable for a *clean sheet military* to aquire. That would involve a lot of metrics, of which who would win in a straight slugging match is not the top category … And even if it came down to a actual tank on tank battle, there are a lot of other factors in play than just firepower vs armour. It would be a interesting idea for a video.
Modern tank rounds in the West can pierce any tank's side and rear armor. The vast majority of them use thermal computer targeting. The main difference is their logistical foot print. Some tanks use more fuel than other tanks and some tanks break down more. Those things are rarely discussed because they don't seem cool to talk about.
It was planned to. Since the early 2000's. They just kinda maybe sort of decided over time that they could save the money (for themselves) for better upgrades at a later date. Like the MK.2 CLIP, Britian literally swapping the gun and ammo bins out for the L/55 (Not A1 like the 3 has) and wet ammo for its ammo in the hull.
The two biggest things I come away with in researching this vehicle is: 1. It's not a Challenger 3, it's a Challenger 2 upgrade. 2. The pinnacle of tank achievement for the British was Centurion.
I mean the only thing challenger 2 about it is the hull...everything else is completly new, even the hull insides have little commonalities with the CR2
@@warhead_beast7661 not really true - the hull inside and out is pretty well unchanged, the only significant changes being to the ammo storage. The turret is all new though, but very similar in design overall
We really need to ask ourselves "Is the MBT going to retain its title of King of the Battlefield?" With integrated battle management systems and stand-off weaponry that can be launched from several miles away and steered to target by a drone or number of drones all talking to each other, does the MBT become just the well protected up front eyes on target? If this is the future then Challenger 2.5/3 might just be the gateway to a whole new philosophy of warfare.
ik u wont see this koala but thank u for making these vids i watch them over and over again to deal with my depression when im alone for days and im thankful for u being here!!!!
@@BatteredWalrus To reflect the difference between it and original T-72. Seeing they share the hull and autoloader but different turret, different gun, different fire control system, different engine. More than half of T-72BU is new parts. Both from t-80 and new. That is why i called it a mix of T-72 ans T-80
I do agree with your take that this is basically just 'Chally 2 LEP' rather than 'Challenger 3' - imo that's just marketing/PR. Personally, I tend to see this as being very, very similar to the Italian upgrade program to the C1 Ariete - where 125 of 200 hulls (originally they intended all 200, but this was then cut down) will be upgraded as part of a circa €300 million program in order to extend their useful life for another ten years. This program works towards the goal of replacing the tank force with a new type (of which they intend to procure 257 hulls) in the early 2030s in two ways. The first is from a military perspective, to allow the army to maintain a credible armored force for operations over the next decade+. The second is from an industrial perspective - engaging the land-based defense industry in such a program keeps the industry working and breast the latest developments in technology. This allows the industry to remain competitive and able to deliver a credible future tank when that program arrives - or, rather, in the modern context, it is more correct to say that it means the Italian industrial base can remain competitive in order to secure Italy industrial workshare in a tank procured jointly with other nations, and to have sufficient say in the military characteristics of the tank. As far as tank replacement goes, Italy is actually faced with a major dilemma, as the MGCS program, on paper the ideal future, is supposed to produce a tank about five years later than when Italy wants to start phasing in the new platform, and until recently France and Germany had no interest in letting Italy join (despite numerous requests) early enough to have any influence on the military characteristics of the vehicle or have any major role in industrial workshare. Efforts to find international partners elsewhere have not borne fruit. As it stands now, though, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel as Germany has been increasingly moving towards making the program more open, allowing the UK with observer status and creating a potential avenue for Italy to join the program on an more equal basis via Rheinmetall Italia if the Italians procure the Lynx (which appears likely) to replace Dardo. For Britain, I see this Challenger program as largely the same - upgrading 148 of 227 hulls to allow the British army to maintain a credible armored force for the future (until it can be replaced fully by a future platform), and giving the British land defense industrial base something to work on to keep their capabilities up to par, allowing them to credibly contribute to a future tank procurement effort, which will almost certainly be international (with MGCS looking like the most likely candidate, but only time will tell). This will be important to prevent them from being sidelined by potential partners with established programs (ex, France and Germany, or potentially America), as otherwise they won't be able to have enough influence in the program to ensure their military requirements for the future platform are met, or to secure a sufficient amount of industrial participation. It's not a very exciting portrayal of the 'Challenger 3' upgrade program, but it's a necessary one and a step in the right direction if Britain wants to maintain its domestic capability to design and built tanks (though, by all means, if that is something that is worth the trouble is certainly something that can be debated) - though probably one with a bit too much in the way of enthusiastic PR on the part of the British. Calling it 'Challenger 3' just seems to open the door to mockery. For more background on the Italian situation: www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai2007.pdf
I completely agree with you. CR3 was clearly never intended to be a next generation platform, but to help prepare Britain's defense industry for the next generation platform. I'm not sure if Britain will go for MGCS though, as there may not be an enough time for Britain to influence its requirements to suit their needs.
@@JumpSeeker considering, that Germany and France favor lighter, more mobile MBT with higher firepower and a high technological baselevel, just like Italy, the UK´s needs are very much in the opposite direction and would result in conflict, stalling and likely failure of the program. so i would say, it is better this way, with the UK being an observer with the option to buy, but not to interfere with the program
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I didn't say that the UK should get involved in the design and development. It's far to late for that now. What I meant was that it's very unlikely for the UK to buy a new MBT that it hasn't had influence over and doesn't suit their requirements.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The UK used to favour protection over mobility. France and Germany always prioritised mobility over protection. EVERYONE now favours protection over mobility.
@@agt155 so then, tell me, why does every developement project favor good firepower, mobility and active protection with a weight reduction over massive armor bricks?
When people say rifle barrels are more accurate than they mean specifically HESH and kinetic energy non-fin stabilized rounds. Before the creation of fin stabilized sabot and other types of fin stabilized ammunition, it was absolutely true that rifling increased accuracy. Since the Challenger 2 uses such a non fin stabilized round, it needed a rifled barrel to be accurate. That being said, the higher velocities of modern fin stabilized rounds makes them incredibly accurate in their own right and the fact that the new record for longest tank kill was from a Ukrainian tank squad using a T-64BV(that uses a smoothbore cannon) where they used drone footage to essentially lob tank rounds like artillery over a distance of 10 500 metres shows that advancements in targeting systems are what primarily determines a tank accuracy.
The thing is one has to see where the UK MoD was a couple of months ago : scrap the concept of tanks in the Army all together or rework a solid and sturdy platform as is the Challenger. The Challenger 3 may be the foundations of many projects to come as it's been proved in the 130mm Rheinmetall demonstrator, the Black Knight, among others. It´s funny though that after WW2 Germans adopted the British L7 gun as standard while nowadays even the British Industry has fallen to mount a German cannon.
Everyone in the world adopted the L7 - best gun of its time, today the Rheinmetall 120mm is the best. There were many wise men in the army who confidently told us the tme of the tank was over and we needed to go fast and light, they went silent after the Ukraine fighting started.
back in the days, the german defense industry was more or less dismantled by the British, French, Americans and Sovjets. there were some remnant experts etc sitting around, but the expertise etc was gone. that is why the germans adopted a british main gun, because they had no real weapons research programmes and relied on weapon imports at that time. but after that/during that, RHM and others had regained a lot of expertise etc and rebooted their arms research programmes with federal funding. meanwhile the UK´s arms industry took a wrong turn and drove down a dead end with their MBT concepts and gun developement
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The L7 I would say was an exceptionally good gun, so was the Centurion tank. I say that because everyone in the west adopted it - US, Israel etc. We then did go down the wrong road with 120mm rifled and the unreliable chieftain was not a balanced tank but heavy and slow too to carry enough armour to defend the threats of the day, the defense was a British need but not appealing for others. Today the Rhien smoothbore is the best, tomorrw who knows...
@@MrEddieLomax the UK has no domestic MBT developement left after the Vickers sellout. The rebuilding of a modern competitive weapons developement needs expertise, time and money. Right now, it looks like the next gen MBT gun will be the RHM130mm with autoloader
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yep, at one point we were about to outsource vehicle production to Spain. Whats changed is brexit, there has now been more home production and I'd expect armour to follow. The big problem with armour is it is a dead end, the 120mm is still used today because you need a 65 ton tank to survive and only at range. Something new needs to appear (electric - seriously there was a demo of this years ago). Until then you could get a ch2,m1 or leo2 and you would not be obsolete in 2050.
Short-sighted politicians and bureaucrats, it was ever thus: Why spend a lot of money today on a tank that would be better, last much longer, and probably work out cheaper over it's lifetime? Because that would be a good thing? But spending money now costs votes now, tomorrow's issues are tomorrow's problems, and contracts are awarded on kickbacks not sense.
Challenger 3 might be like the London Olympics, everyone thought it would be a bit crap! To everyone's surprise it wasn't!! in fact pretty good!!!! In fact they had a Freddy Mercury hologram, so FANTASTIC!!!!!! Sooo I'm expecting an extravagant, hard rocking tank..... with a moustache :) that died 30 years ago :(
i agree with u, this is like a "placeholder" upgrade to not get massively outclassed, but their isnt anything comming after it. so far i know. what the Challenger 3 had needed to be future proven was probably the 130mm gun, new power-pack, APS, RC-weaponstation, front hull redesign or armorpackage etc. but that said, maybe the 130mm + autoloader is not ready yet, not reliable enough or simply just to expensive(what i belive) for the british army.
There's also the fact 130mm rounds are bigger and heavier and it's not multi-part ammo anymore, and yet the tank hull and turret aren't getting any bigger. That demonstrator model with the 130mm on it could only carry about 20 rounds
NOTE: Spin messes up HEAT rounds too. The needle-jet of the ultra-high-velocity penetrator is made up of the cone-shaped front end of the projectile and thus the outer edges of the cone at its wide-open "mouth" must be very quickly squeezed down to the center to form the jet and you want that narrow jet of quasi-liquid metal (usually) to stay at that size and shape as it extends into the target like a tongue of a frog shooting out to catch a bug, though here to punch a narrow, but very deep hole through thick armor. If the jet material formed from the edge of the wide end of the cone is spinning, it will try to spread out again sideways and defeat the entire purpose of the jet: Forward penetration at a concentrated point. So, HEAT rounds from a rifled gun also have to have some sort of internal de-spinning system for the inner explosive and cone, as was used in the French tank guns or using de-spinning outer rings and fins for actual stability. Otherwise, non-pinning or very-slow-spinning projectiles must be used in missiles and bazooka-type launchers.
I did some rough math and i have to say 142000lbs being pushed by 1200hp isnt all that bad. Most class 8 trucks here in the us have a max gvw of 80000lbs and the standard motor in most modern trucks, a cummins x15 “efficiency series” is “only” a 450hp engine and most trucks with a overweight permit are pulling 120,000lbs with that same motor or at best a performace series rated at 565hp. So 142000 with 1200hp is pretty dang good when you put it in perspective.
Pffft. All that maths for naught. Just compare power to weight ratios of all tanks globally and be done with it. Challenger 3: 18 hp/ton. . Don't know about other tanks of the world, but in India its:- T-72 Ajeya: 19 hp/ton T-90S: 21 hp/ton Arjun Mk1: 24 hp/ton Arjun Mk1A: 22.5 hp/ton FMBT (projected): 30 hp/ton
@@mental9mikey T-64 and similar in the Gulf wars. Up to date enough or would you rather see them completely destroy T-80's in Ukraine? Because they would. Russian tanks are trash.
@@davepritchard283 Russian tanks aren't bad, but their logistics, tactics and top brass are all rubbish, so they throw a load of poorly supported armour in and it gets smoked.
@@danielschmidt7153 CR1 & CR2 both engaged against Iraqi tanks in the 2 Gulf wars and were 100% successful. Not ONE british tank was lost to enemy fire. The US M1's didn't fair quite so well and lost a few to tank vs tank actions. The USA and the Germans have a tendency with the 'Tank Triangle' of Firepower, Armour and Manoeuvrability to sacrifice slightly on armour to improve manoeuvrability hence until they started using versions of British armour, they suffered slightly.
I would like to think that watching “performance” of Soviet/Russian tanks in criminal invasion of Ukraine the myth of “lighter is better” got finally busted. Several tanks stuck in fields, in mud, in “ordinary” farm field drainage canals, which aren’t really that deep… Transport, logistics, is the only true downside when it comes to “obese” NATO tanks. And, maybe, just maybe, shorter range. Transport can be easily addressed, let’s be honest, western trucks and trailers are much more reliable, efficient, even “safer” for public roads, than Russian junk. And, today, we know that Russian hardware was receiving unjustified hype over the years. It’s like comparing sledgehammer with sculpture artist hammers/tools.
Not quite, if roles were reversed we'd be seeing western tanks and trucks destroyed in exactly the same manner. Tanks aren't meant for this type of warfare, they're there to support an infantry advance, not pushing ahead without proper support. Even if it were Abrams and Leopards they would still meet the same destruction if the enemy troops are in possession of sophisticated anti tank weapons! The Russians were just hoping for a lightening quick dash to capture certain objectives, unfortunately for them the Ukrainians had been preparing for such a conflict as long ago as 2014. They've had ample time to stockpile anti tank weaponry and make plans on how to best stop such an invasion.
while I would agree that the Russian equipment was/is overhyped, a huge part of the miserable performance in ukraine is how they were used and the lack of supply compared to ukrainian preparation. If NATO tanks were deployed in the same fashion they'd suffer as much bad luck, as while nato stuff is certainly better maintained and more modern, it'd still get stuck on the mediocre and muddy roads, and it'd still be ambushed by masses of prepared and appropriately equipped militia and reserve forces. If the invasion had been run by NATO and not just using NATO equipment, the equipment wouldn't be lost in such an embarrassing manner not because it's immune to mud or ambushes, but because it would probably be much better planned and more conservative, advancing gradually instead of stockpiling the minimum of supplies and then just sending armored and motorized columns straight down barely secured roads to major urban centers, followed by barely screened logistics convoys.
We haven't seen the half of it, Russia is with holding its best troops and equipment, and you'll always get the odd failing. Russian kit ranges from adequate to excellent, and the fact is they are achieving what they want, at their pace.
@@barrag3463 Morale is a large factor in the ukraine war. many Russian soldiers do not believe in the war, so they are deserting. whats more important is crew training. western crews are FAR better trained than the russians. for example, abrams tank crew are trained to destroy their abrams tank if they are forced to leave it. russians just leave their vehicles to be captured. in iraq the crew of Cojone eh fought for 30 minutes to save their tank from a fire.
My main issue with the Challenger 3 programme is that we currently only plan to field 148 of them - the best tank in the world is no good if you don't have enough of them. I think that changes as drastic as an entirely new turret and main armament surely do justify the "Challenger 3' designation - these alterations are at least as significant as those made between the Challenger 1 and 2 generations are they not? As for the Challenger's armour being weaker than some of its contemporary western MBT designs this is the first that I have heard of this criticism - without access to (presumably classified) data in this regard it is difficult for a member of the public to meaningfully comment further on that matter. I suppose that all this 'Theatre Entrance Standard' additional armour added to the vehicle is a tacit admission that protection has become inadequate against modern threats. I agree that if the MBT has a longer term future then reducing weight - by the adoption of active protection technology instead of heavy armour - is highly advantageous. However, it seems to me that there are limits to the amount of armour reduction measures that could be prudently applied to any crewed tank and in the second half of this century replacing that human element with automation may result in a new generation AFV that is cheaper, smaller, lighter and crucially far more expendable that any crewed MBT can possibly be. Future armoured formations may resemble the latest air warfare concepts with a type of human crewed command vehicle controling a number of subordinate 'Hunter-Killer' drones that do the actual fighting. Time will tell.
In this day and age things are getting leap frogged so often its not worth building a lot of something as the next gen will be just around the corner and render all those things you just built obsolete like when We the brits first built the dreadnought battleship it rendered our massive wooden fleet that cost a lot of money obsolete
@@danny1229c waiting for that next leap forward in technology often means you don’t have enough of what works today. It’s a huge risk to take when it’s your national defense that’s on the line.
@@danny1229c I agree. But one idea could be to go for a large fleet with just 2 or 3 types in service at a time. That ensures that at least half your fleet is cutting edge while the other half is not obsolete, just dated. For example, India can make 100-150 tanks per year. Which means that to replace the entire Indian tank fleet, it would take 28-42 years. So its good to have two tank types in service with each 20 years apart in entry and just as one goes out of production, the production for the next one begins. Now you have a perpetually modern tank force.
Armour Cast you are wrong. Whilst I concede that APFSDS rounds do not become more accurate due to rifling (they use a full bag charge for increased velocity to gain accuracy), other rounds such as HESH are made significantly more accurate due to rifling. The spin imparted on such a round eradicates tumbling and adds a ‘predictable’ spin to the round. It is the predicability of the spin that provides the gunnery computer with enough information to properly extrapolate from other factors such as distance and wind etc. Rifling makes the gun way more accurate because of this.
Why would you fire a FS round from a rifled barrel? The fins just ruin the effect of the rifling.. Changing to smooth bore standardised the ammunition, which is probably for the good. and probably cheaper due to large quantities being made.
@@robertmonk2346 to impart mathematically predictable spin to the projectile. Rifling means that every round is delivered is precisely the same way, whereas smooth bore guns are much less predictable due to the effects of tumbling. Rifling also means that defects in the round itself will not cause tumbling. Also rifling rotates the rounds quickly so as project the sabot outward to get it out of the way the moment it leave the barrel. You may be wondering how I know this. It’s because I was a Armoured Corps officer in the British Army when Challenger I was introduced. It was my job to know the precise characteristics of the entire gunnery system for Chally I and Chally II. I was also part of the trial team in Bovington when Chally II was being brought into service in the mid 90’s. There is not a single gun in the British Army that is smooth bore these days, other that mortars, which are not classed as guns anyway.
Seems like an extremely simple error for some very high-technological production guys to make, not just once but multiple times... It’s possible, but honestly it seems more likely to me that 96kph (60mph) is the maximum SAFE speed the power pack could withstand without damage, whereas Challenger 2’s max safe speed is about 62kph, though the tank has been known to reach up to 70, with a general max speed (under its own power alone) of 59kph. Challenger 3 would likely be about the same, but the engine would no longer suffer damage if it gets up above 62kph, say on a downhill straight where it could reach ~70
@@ArmorCast It's not the highly technical people that said that, it's the PR department. And no, even with a 1500hp powerpack it's still at the lower end of NATO tanks in terms of hp/t, so it's not reaching 60mph in any safe or regular fashion that doesn't involve a downward slope and superjumbo's runway's worth of acceleration as well as a willingness to replace the gearbox after.
@@lsq7833 well this is what I mean - Challenger 2 can reach 59kph under its own power alone. It’s power pack is able to sustain it up to 62kph without damage, but CR2’s have been known to reach up to 70 on a long downhill highway... and then they need their power packs replaced. Challenger 3 will also be able to reach anywhere up to 70 or perhaps even slightly higher, as it’s the same weight, better suspension, same power output, etc., but in this circumstance the power pack won’t sustain any damage, as it’s safely rated for up to 96kph. Of course that’s assuming it’s NOT just a typo, but once again I wouldn’t think that sort of very simple mistake would make it past so many people at RBSL and into promotional content for the new tank... seems far more likely to me that the safe speed for the engine was raised, and that’s where the value of 60mph comes from... but in general CR3 will share all the speed characteristics of CR2
@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach hard and soft aps are part of a seperate program that will be in the TES kit not just onto the tank and rbsl does say it has laser warning
but it is a typo. daddy red effect said it himself. same 1200hp engine and weighing one ton heavier with improved engine cooling dont make it go over 100 kph. its literally impossible
@@Ethan.YT. My grandfather has fighting in WWII and he was prisoner of war in german camp in Dortmund. He was liberated by allies and told later to my father that american soldiers are bullies and brawlers meanwhile british soldiers prim, seasoned and having honor. I remember this and now I see with my own eyes how Great Britain supports my country in this war. God. Bless. The Queen.
Could this just be a stopgap so they have time to work on the “future tank”? With a relatively low number being produced and the short lifespan it could just be upgrades to hopefully tie things up and give more time for a better tank. Just a thought.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure we don't have the factories here to make more tanks so we'd have to then pay someone else to make them for us or just buy tanks from another country.
The problem is, how many "future tanks" will Britain need? If the potential production numbers get to small, it's better to buy it from elsewhere or join a project like MGCS.
The Challenger 3 is not being "produced" from sctatch, it's being upgraded on the already existing base of the Challenger 2 which in turn is based on the older Challenger 1 from the 1980's.
the time they have upgraded to the challenger 3 will be around 2032 this upgrade only was seen to take it into the mid 2040's i agree with you the time this comes out if it does not have a defensive system it will not be really worth the upgrade as it again will be outdated. and i also would have gone for the auto loader, lets just hope the time challenger 3 comes to a end in 2040s uk government will have the money to give the army a new new tank
It has been just 1 year post this content. I did raise the issues against UAV. With the unfolding Ukraine- Russia War, this has become more pressing issue. Challenger 3 or Leo2 all lack ASEA or other APS against top attach ATGMs. Another key thing to notice is, 6 wheel issue. I raised this issue by asking why not 7 wheels. Some explain it as hydropnuematic suspension. K2PL is one of the latest MBT and it is using 7 wheels and hydropnuemetic suspension. The key reason for 7 wheel is for future upgrades. Just like the beautiful Concord having no space fir extra fuel or upgrade, it is becoming a tradition that we do not plan or prepare for future upgrade given this vehicle will be in operation for next 30-40 years. Unfortunately my view re Challenger 3 has not has changed. It lacks vision and lacks the focus on what it is meant to be. Reflecting on Ukraine and Russian War makes it a lot more clear that this is a bad choice. UK should have gone with K2Ex (extended) and targeted EU export market rather than holding onto the legacy. Once again, UK has saved 350 jobs but is risking 35,000 soldiers when they get deployed to theatres.
I hope it is ok for our people to use. Late as usual, what a surprise! I hope that down the line we actually design our own tank and not go the easy way and get the German or American tank. We have a great history of producing military vehicles so we don't need to pay others to produce things we are perfectly capable of producing ourselves!!!!!!
When it comes to kit being replaced in our generation I can think of two British aircraft straight away - The Tornado being replaced by the Typhoon and the Harrier being replaced by the F35.
The Harriers were sold to American Marines.50 of them .We still have Tornadoes in Falkland Islands and other places.Typoon is Euro fighter.So agreed to buy so many.Between the nation's that developed it.And we bought F35 and also the joint strike fighter.
15:38 Just on APS it has now been finalised it’ll have a Trophy system - on the British army website under Challenger 3 it states “Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s Trophy Active Protection System (APS) for armoured vehicles has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for detailed assessment on Challenger 3.”
My son trained at Knox, U.S.Army. About everyone has a unit there so everyone is talking and look at each other's gear, KIT. The British all seemed to like the Abrams, ergonomics. Improvements in Ergonomics is a main reason. Single piece ammo is easier, the combat effectiveness will come with training.
@@dicky3340 I met a few Brits when Chieftain was still in service. They said the long engagement ranges were great. Loading it was a joke. They actually preferred the Vickers 105.
Great video mate. Good point about APS , which is already a big deal and with the proliferation of loitering muntions and armed drones is going to be extremely important. This program feels like a decent value for money option. Rather than spend an absolute fortune on a brand new amazing capability they put some very good upgrades on an already good platform and get some decent without breaking the bank. In British Mil procurement that's a win.
Thing is, for less than half the cost per unit, Britain could be fielding 150+ Leopard 2A6’s, which feature most of the same upgrades with none of the drawbacks of Challenger - better armor, much better mobility, same firepower, lower weight, much better power pack, etc., Challenger 3 would have been a very impressive tank if announced ten years ago and entering combat readiness now. By the time we reach 2030 it’ll once again be seen as a knuckle-dragger I’m afraid
@@ArmorCast Well, buying Leopards would be a blow to British pride, but most importantly, to Britains industry. I can see that they wouldn't want to outsource their MBTs when even the Warrior is set to be replaced by Boxers, this is probably a compromise to keep their MBTs british and strengthen their own Industry. Look at how much Rheinmetall had to outsource to Britain for them to take the contract.
I'd say the list of improvements are excellent for the British army today, it reduces the cost of running the tank, makes it more powerful, adds national jobs and beats its opponents. That last point is key, while we are at peace with Germany, US etc the only likely opponents are vastly overmatched, so why upgrade your tank massively today when there is little benefit? Better to build a paper future tank for today cheaply and upgrade the real one.
Challenger 2 was designed to be a platform to be evolved over many decades. Whether that was a good idea or not is a separate discussion. But, having committed to that roadmap Britain is continuing with that evolution, so Challenger 3 could never be the revolution you talk about and hoped to see. Of course, whether Britain will have the financial resources to support any desire to be a tier 1 power is another thing. I do not see any signs to encourage that aspiration. There will have to be a move from financial services to something else (well, many somethings) that the rest of the world will want to buy - and in great quantities. That will have to be supported by a world-class education system, and a strong government will to invest in that drive. I hate to be pessimistic, but I just don't see that happening - rather the opposite.
Although I agree with your point about this just being a small upgrade, how can you get any information on the armour capability. Isn't that extremely confidential? If its touted as having an equivalent thickness of Xcm of steel (etc.) then surely that is something we would keep secret?
It's basically the same Chassis as the C2, and the turret I'd assume is similar to the Leopard 2 considering its made by a subsidiary of the company who makes leopard 2.
@@xdazamx I also addressed the turret and therefore the ERA being similar or even just a straight copy of the Leopard 2. Considering they are manufactured by an off shoot of the Leopard 2 manufacturer.
@@seanbailey8545 Right, but what of the effective thickness/performance of the Dorchester armour found on the C3 over the C2. As in, before ERA/spacers are applied. I'm questioning how one could make a comparison on the armour given that information should be confidential. Is it not? I'm not asking about the ERA nor the actual design. I hope that clarifies what I'm asking... otherwise I may be misunderstanding what you are conveying.
Is it not naive to think the armour capability hasn't been tested and that the secret is well blown these days when we give free media access to so much of our stuff and don't really guard stuff like we did in the cold war. We are even allowing a TV crew to make a documentary inside one of our submarines. Public relations seems to trump security
I love it when somebody has never served on a MBT tells you about upgrades to something and then start a slag it off Having served on chieftain, challenger 1 and instructed on challenger 2 I can tell you that most of what you said is inaccurate All the tanks that you’ve mentioned, i.e. leopard, Abraham, I have seen parked up on a road under trees, hidden broken down because of their engine failure is et cetera Yes, chieftain has it’s problems, but once those problems were resolved after the first few days on exercise tend to run perfectly for a very long period of time. It would then be stored in a hanger for months upon end before used again weight would be battered and then break down again. And repeat The armour on challenger 1 (Chobham) and Challenger 2 (Dorchester) is most definitely the best in the world so much, so that I believe the Americans have asked if they can have it for their own MBTs. The same problem with the CV 12 engine is because of its lack of use, and it being stored for long periods in hangers, and then used in thrashed when it goes out on training et cetera. There are very few problems with the engine once it is out in theatre and has been used for a prolonged period of time ironing out the small or large problems. I agree that the CV 12 should’ve been replaced, probably with the Mercedes engine that was suggested years ago. But that was not done and we have to move on with what we have. Challenger 2 is a world-class MBT and I’m sure challenger 3 will be even better still.
British army tanks are not in battalions, they are in regiments. All this conversation as well you have to remember that challenger or any other European tank is not facing another European tank. It’s facing the likes of the T72 T80. The MBT is that the British army have just have to be better than those that are currently in service with Russia. The MBT is throughout the west are so much superior than those currently in service with Russia, or even China, although those in service with China are a lot superior than those held by Russia currently. I’m afraid I had to stop watching this halfway through as a sort of gave me a Pukie feeling with another person who has no clue telling us a right load of bollocks.
I love the "I served on Challenger so I KNOW it has the best armor in the world!" For one, I know you're lying. You don't know any more about Challenger's armor effectiveness than I do, and that's purely through research that anybody can do. I know plenty of Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 crewmen. I know who has access to classified armor values and who doesn't. Your average crewman or training officer does not. Why would someone need those armor values to drive the thing or load the gun? Two: Even if you're one of the rare higher-ups who DOES have access to that information... you do NOT have any access to that information for the Leopard 2 or Abrams, Leclerc, Type 10, K2 etcetera. You gotta do research just like the rest of us, and all the evidence available points to both Leopard 2A7 and M1A2 SEP having better protection, along with Strv 122 which entered service the same year CR2 did. If you can prove to me that the existing available evidence is completely incorrect, please do so. Until then, the most credible and reliable sources are what I shall be basing information I give off of, and "I served on Challenger so I know!" is not credible information or proof of anything. You are also wrong about America asking for the Challenger's armor for their Abrams. America DID use Chobham armor, same stuff Challenger 1 used...... on the original M1 Abrams from 1979. They replaced it by 1983 with superior domestically developed BRL versions, which they since upgraded in 1987, upgraded again in 1992, again in 1999, again in 2002, and then AGAIN in 2017. Since it was developed in 1986, the Dorchester armor array on Challenger 2 has seen zero upgrades... but somehow, magically, even the top power in the world with over 12 times the defence budget... was unable to match it? Come on, think about it for a second. The only other time they've asked for Dorchester armor was to test it ballistically, in which case they found it to be penetrable by M829A2, a kinetic penetrator, at ranges closer than 400m. That puts it well below Abrams' AND Leopard 2's arrays in effectiveness per volume against kinetic energy threats. As for protection against chemical energy threats like RPGs and ATGMs, Challenger 2 is all but impenetrable frontally, it is true... ... as is M1A2 SEP, Leopard 2A7, Leclerc and Strv 122
Are you sure about the armor protection, I swear they said they were going to use new composite inserts? As for the name, it kind of is a new tank, they had to change so much internally to get it to use the gun and set it up for safe stowage of new single-piece ammunition it's little more than a Chally 2 cosmetic skin. While generally speaking more HP equals more speed when it comes to diesel with the right transmission they could get more out of the current engine. Though they should have thought about a powerpack swap, maybe that put it over budget or messed with all the changes they had to do to get the new gun in the tank.
Looks like the jet engine power-packed Abrams had it right all along. So easy to change that monster out. Germany had it wrong with complex diesel and transmission like they did with their king tiger of ww2. Of course America has its own king tiger in the Abrams. Still the best even though it is the oldest of all these modern tanks.
@@frankcrawford416 An experienced crew can change the powerpack of the Leopard 2 in about 30 minutes in the field if there's a Bergepanzer Büffel around, which normaly is. The Büffel can even give it's own powerpack to the leopard 2 if necessary because it's exactly the same. How many other vehicles do use the same Powerpack as the M1 again?
I agree I believe his sources on the Armour is a bit questionable. Challenger 2 has always been regarded as the best protected tank and has the combat experience to go along with it. This is the first time I've heard otherwise.
It's been reported that there is only going to be 148 challenger 3 tanks in the UK. The question isn't just are challenger 3 any good it's also are there enough of them.
Uk unlikely in a large tank battle without join support. Navy and air force is key for UK millitary and other moble light infiltry and spiecal forces. 148 MBT all well maintained and working is a lot.
It has the Rh 120 mm cannon! It finally has a smoothbore cannon rather than a rifled gun. Finally, the Brits no longer have to rely on HESH rounds as their primary rounds, which are basically useless against modern tank armor.
A very thorough appraisal and quite depressing to hear. It strikes me all the red tape which is necessary to make these decisions and an undoubtedly limited budget will be the primary culprits for slow delivery of a less than optimal solution. I’m also wondering about the overall strategy for the British armed forces moving forward - how integrated this is and how many elements such as tanks might actually be nearing obsolescence in view of developments in air power, missile technology and other innovations. I guess for the tank, its utility depends on the role and although you touched on that I don’t really understand what is envisaged for Challenger 3 in an era where the US seems to be rolling back on their overseas interventions, terrorism is on the rise around the world and we have renewed Cold War style tension with Russia and China. One also can’t help pondering the implications of the climate crisis; at some point and probably by 2027 even the military will be having to comply with some of the measures needed to address it. This 60 tonne diesel powered Challenger 3 doesn’t exactly look eco-friendly! Great presentation however - thank you :-)
Agreed, except for the point on being eco-friendly. There are 32,000,000 cars in Britain alone. And there are -- what, 230 tanks? It has absolutely no significance if tank engines meet environmental standards or not because their impact is minuscule. You could take the worst Soviet engine that produced more smoke than power, put it in all tanks in the world, and still that wouldn't have any impact on the environment. By the way Russia, which is considered a tank superpower, has about 22,000 tanks if you include the mothballed junk. That's still 1,500 times fewer internal combustion engines than there are cars in the UK!
@@jameseden9380 TBH what they're doing is not very representative of the value of tanks. They're literally doing all they can to show the world how NOT to use tanks. Also, this war is showing how much behind they are in terms of technology. They're a third rate power. If not for their nukes (the vast majority of which isn't working), the US would be able to destroy their forces within a week.
@@jameseden9380 Eh? Its more so showing the value of logistics, intelligence and maintenance. Any machine is next to useless if you don't invest in maintaining it.
Challenger 2 CLIP was meant to be a challenger with wet ammo, 120mm L/55 smoothbore and no other mods other then the new ranges for the gun and the ammo box. That was about a decade ago...
@@ricksadler797 the Abrams got a citv over 20 years ago and upgraded to a smoothbore gun almost 30 years ago and we're already Fielding variants with active protection systems about the only unique thing about the Challenger 3 is it's 130 and even then we have our own 140 in development (and it's an electrothermochemical gun)
It’s all about holding the space until we ‘can’ design/part design a new vehicle and ultimately reestablish an armoured vehicle industry that can support a ‘new’ tank. The infra and recent manufacturing experience isn’t there at the mo. I think this is the best way to secure a sovereign capability to build in this country rather than rushing a new design out now that has little chance of competing in the market place with the ‘revolutionary’ designs from America, Germany et all. Let’s see what’s out there first then put our ingenious spin on it. We will probably end up building a ‘joint’ vehicle with out own production line. It’s hard to just take off from where you left off, if the ‘left off’ is non existent. 👍
It's not that hard to build 2000+hp tank engines, it's all about decades-long lobbied defence contracts and is justified by "reliability, cost and ease of use".
Its all great having a 2000+ horsepower engine. but what range can you get out of it and how easy is it to repair in the field. How reliable is the engine in adverse conditions. All these factors need to be accounted for before looking at performance. Especially the ease of repair.
@@knucker2730 range is not as important as tactical mobility in most situations. Unless you have a long-reaching tank breakthrough in a global war scenario, supply is always right behind you in strategic terms. In desert storm, almost no armored regiment had uninterrupted pushes of more than 40% of Abrams range. 2000hp might be too much, but Challenger 3 is a heavy tank. With the engine as it is, it literally has THE lowest power/weight ratio of any modern mbt. This underperformance can be justified or explained all day, but it's still an underperformance at the end of it. Not crippling, but preventable.
@@LoisoPondohva In a perfect world with established supply chains yes. However in areas like Iraq this was certainly not the case. Many untis became misplaced and isolated and regular supply chains were slow in coming to allied positions. If the war was not so Asymmetrical the results could have been exacerbated to a far greater extent. Britain especially with its relatively limited equipment in comparison to the US needs to have equipment capable of operating in conditions were regular resupply is scarece.
I hear that the reason we upgraded our armored mobile tea brewing facilities(the challengers) was because we required more room for Oreo's, Chocolate digestives and bourbon biscuits. That was the only reason. Money well spent in my opinion. Lets be honest the tanks are secondary to a lad in a pair of boots, but just if you think this is not quite true. We do have a phrase of gun barrel tea. This originated some 110 years ago where in warmer climates the machine guns had water jackets, which boiled when fired enough. So after the battle or threat, we had near boiling water to make tea. This is a fact.
The power plant will get the upgraded CV12 which has improved cooling, filtration and fuel injection. It is NOT the same as CH2. This will put out al least 1500bhp and probably 1600bhp. The transmission will be upgraded to Handel the increased power. The hydrogas suspension will be upgraded too. As the CH3 is only 1 t heavier then CH2 it is obvious it will Be faster. How much faster we woll see.
You really gotta use references, this video to me is a big opinion and I can't take anything as fact, with my own research I quickly found that there is indeed going to be a Hardkill APS they are just weighing their options. with 6.7k subs you have a platform and that means take care when making videos like this
I feel it's as much about securing the support and funding to create the infrastructure and experience in Britain for a future new tank as it is to create jobs. We don't really have the capability to produce a tank from scratch as it currently stands. This should be a nice step to rebuilding some of the infrastructure needed to create a new domestic design further down the line, whilst testing many new technologies like the new digital systems, and pushing for a revival of our export market with the new turret. Also, they have talked about APS on the @t site. Not sure if stuff on that site is classed as reliable info? @t
yeh as far as I was aware, APS is coming for challenger 3, they just haven't decided what APS it's going to be (although i believe it should be some kind of hard kill system)
Well you know I bet they said the same thing to keep the shity gun with rifling instead of buying or licensing something foreign, because ofc only hesh can do the things heat and fragmentation rounds can do the same or way way better. They still have not fixed the lower hull but at least there is no ammo rack behind it or is there?
We have the capability but you are right we need to develop and build on what we have, we need to regain our position as the premier place for producing arms especially as putin is becoming more and more aggressive and it appears china and parts of the middle east are siding more with him than anyone else
Future battletanks will have drones included maybe with a pilot. That's what the MGCS might get, a 4 man crew, military has to consider if they should have 4 man for its more hands to take care of the heavy duty typical for tanks or have only 3 man crew to lessen human casualties.
I believe it’s an amazing tank it rivals the Abrams but luckily they’ll never go against each other in a war I will say after being in at ABRAMS as a fire control officer that some of the ammunition at the ABRAMS uses such as the dark the depleted uranium may hold a slight edge on velocity but these tanks are absolutely gangster both of them and the German tank is also Up there
Depleted uranium or tungsten rounds are useless at long range because they need that kinetic energy. Challenger 2 rounds work the opposite way to armour piercing rounds by splatting against the armour like a giant piece of shit and then detonating… relying on the shockwave to screw the tank crew.
...That's completely wrong. HESH works by squashing the explosive over the plate and detonating, causing shattering of the armor on the other side without penetration, the spalling then causes the damage on the inside.
Still remember the challenger 1 replacing the centurion and chieftain, also had the chance to work with both the MOD and Bovington Tank museum on their own projects. Personally the Abraham's is not on the same level with it armour
I do agree that this tank is pretty much an upgraded Challenger 2, and not a completely new tank as you say. I would say, that it doesn't pretend to be otherwise, simply going by the fact it has retained the Challenger name, rather than calling it something completely different. It's called Challenger, because it is a Challenger.
It's interesting to see that modern tanks are basically becoming mini, land battleship. They have CIWS systems, and a main armament, much like a heavy gun cruiser would have. How long before the land-drone craft carrier becomes the dominent force on the battlefield.
Not quite the same, but there was a thing in the news that the Americans are looking to equip their Abrams with drones that can be used for reconnaissance or to deliver supplies to troops.
As we know nothing about the armour package it is wrong to make assumptions. We are told it will have unrivalled protection. So I would suggest it will be better then M1
We're also told the Challenger 2 has "unrivalled protection", which we know is false... not to mention Russia who claim both the T-80BVM and T-90M have "unrivalled protection"... Yet we've seen both be pierced straight through the front hull by outdated Ukrainian and NATO munitions. "Unrivalled protection" is the most standard marketing term for a main battle tank, and literally every country uses it every time they release a new tank and/or armor package.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it upgraded well - even for the time. It's too soon to welcome them to the early 2000s. Sadly, we can't really do that until 2030 (assuming everything is delivered on time).
@@Battyj americans already up to par. They've already tested a new variant of the M1A2 that has an improved fire control system, better tracks, more armor and a round that can defeat kontak5 era. They also claim it can defeat relikt era.
@@cherrypoptart2001 You have to remember the E.U played a part in Britains slow development. Britaom bh 2035 will be up to standard, now that king bojo is putting British made back on the cards, Ill be interested to see how the 6th generation fighter Tempest comes on.
This hasn’t aged well , compared to t90 and other Russian tanks this would do well .Crew effectiveness and deployment are of paramount importance and a reliable platform .
The main comparisons raised in the video are against the Abrams and the Leopard regarding Engine power, active protection systems, weight and armor. All of these points still stand; also, it was specifically pointed out at the end of the video that there are a million other factors than just the raw performance figures that go into combat performance.
I take your point that it's not a revolutionary new design but, if it's going up against the likes of the fairly hopeless T90 and it's limited run (hand made ?!?) T14 surely it's more than good enough? Our crew training is, I believe, second to none and we have amongst the best trained military anywhere so I reckon we're going to be pretty well equipped for the foreseeable. My only criticism would be that our armed forces are so damn small and we never seem to procure anything like enough of anything to make a real difference in the world.
The trouble with the British army having relatively so few tanks is, the R&D investment is very inefficient; you can never put as much money into it as the USA or Germany. I was a Brit army officer in a procurement-related staff job in the 90s, & used to go to see the boffins quite a lot. There were always a few *very bright* blokes in old tweed jackets soldering together all sorts of weird gizmos & fiddling with computers - impressive but very Heath-Robinson. Many of us serving soldiers questioned the rifled guns (and single-pin tracks), & realised it was the innate conservatism of the British Army that kept these things. I do think we ought to have bought Leopard 2 instead of CR2; it would have been more cost-effective and a better overall tank. And the proof of the pudding is in international sales: who has bought Challengers, and who has bought Leopard 2 or the M1 Abrams? This comparison looks even worse when you take into account German bans on sales to some Middle Eastern countries.
1:22 I've heard the Russians have moved away from the t14 and are now working on a tank design with twin Auto loaders I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called all I know is that it's turret looked cursed with a massive Gap in the middle
@Donnie Jenkins Not really. They're tanks (and their variants) are the only ones that have really seen any conventional warfare, so they've been battlevtested and had their upgrades tailored to meet real demands. We can't let our bias make us naive. I still prefer Western Tanks like the Abrahms and Leopard 2 but the new Russian Tanks are truly top shelf stuff, and the latest T-90 variants are really good anyway. Frankly, we're relying on having air-superiority and, hopefully, better networking these days.
@Donnie Jenkins That's the same kind of naive attitude the Brits so often spouted off about Germany before WW2 where you guys tried to laughably field the Matilda, light cruisers and eventually the Churchill - not to mention the many deaths and defeats experienced as a result. Frankly, there are variants of the T-72 and T-80 out there that could give Challenger 2 a run for it's money Don't. Challenger 3 actually catching up to the 2020s intonations set in stone yet either onto. Don't let patriotism blind you to reality. Check out my comment from another convo (which I'll post below) if you wish
Battle tanks are hitting their peak vs current adversary systems which makes iterative development relevant until a revolution in design or necessity occurs. Main battle tanks still have plenty to do in modern warfare their role is just shifting and adapting. Plus the Challenger is already a beast!
I think that I am right in saying that Challenger 2 is the only MBT in the world that has been deployed in combat but has never been knocked out by an enemy. I think that speaks for itself.
There are facts like the ones you mentioned. And then there are facts like the paper thin armour that Challenger 2's front hull has. Just 60mm. An RPG went through it once. Suffice it to say, it wasn't the tank itself that was the cause of it "never having been knocked out by an enemy".
@@death_parade It was an RPG29 double warhead round. It also skipped off the road and hit the lower glacis at virtual right angles thereby negating the sloping. The tank wasn't knocked out, it wasn't even a mobility kill as the tank was able to get out of the situation and back to the COB. I was in Basra when this happened. Were you?
@@MCDrB-wq8ed No I was not. I only came to know about it when another Chally2 got hit by an IED and one of the crew lost both his legs. It was only then that it was revealed that British MoD had tried to hide the entire story about the RPG-29 hitting a Chally 2 (few months before the IED one) and penetrating past its Dorchester and taking off half the driver's foot. To quote the mother of the crewman how lost half his foot: _"Sean often told me he felt totally safe because he was in the best tank in the world. But we now know that is not the case. The Government has covered it up. If I was the mother of the poor soldier who lost his legs last month I would be horrified to think that an earlier attack like this had happened before but none of the soldiers were told about it."_ ^Victims of own propaganda. All this hype about Chally2 being "invincible" is a bit too much. Chally2 is a good tank, but certainly not the best. Abrams is the better tank. Even if it has losses whereas the Chally2 "technically" has none. Yet British exceptionalism will lead most Brits to believe Chally 2 is the best in the world because it has "no combat loses", and Type 45 is the best Destroyer, even better than the Arleigh Burke class, that EF Typhoon is the best 4.5th gen fighter even though it still doesn't have an AESA radar, etc, etc. I have come across Brits claiming the above time and time again. If you are/were in the military, I'd expect you know a bit more to be past mount stupid and understand that every weapon system has its fair share of weaknesses.
Might need to check your sources on the armour. Appreciate the hard work youve put into the video but the challenger 2 is one of the best protected tanks in the world and has the combat experience to back it up.
Not exactly. It was the best protected in the world against CHEMICAL energy (high-explosive) threats... when it was first entering service... In fact even here it only managed to MATCH the Stridsvagn 122. It was outshadowed when the M1A2 SEP received new hull armor in 2002, and even more so by the SEP V3 and Leopard 2A7. Against KINETIC energy munitions however (armor-piercing sabot rounds), Challenger 2 was never the best protected, in fact it's noticeably inferior to the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams, both of which entered service first. Saying that Challenger 2 "has the combat experience to back it up" is a little disingenuous, when the worst thing it's gone up against is some RPGs (mostly RPG-7s from the 1950s) and a few landmines. It's never fought head to head against enemy tanks, nor against true modern anti-tank weapons. Even still, its armor was penetrated twice in Iraq, once by an RPG-29 and once by a landmine. It was also taken out by a landmine in Ukraine, and then finished off with an ATGM (can't confirm which kind, I've heard conflicting reports) You've gotta remember two things: A: Britain's defence industry never really fully recovered from the second world war, especially when compared with the US, France and Germany. It's always been underfunded and underequipped, and that extends to its R&D as well. B: The Challenger 2's armor was developed in 1986, and hasn't been upgraded since. Don't be tricked by propaganda into thinking that the best minds in the better funded US, German and French defence industries are somehow unable to match it even going on four decades later! To put it into perspective... four decades before Challenger 2 was developed, the British army were still using Cromwell tanks!
@@ArmorCast Hi Armorcast, thank you for replying. I believe you misunderstood me claiming it to be one of the best protected tanks with THE best protected tank. I'd like to apologise if this is the case I don't believe there is a single best protected tank. Respectfully, what sources are you using to suggest challenger 2 is only as well protected as the stridsvagn in the chemical department and inferior to the m1a2 sep and leopard 2 a7 in the kenetic? To my understanding all three armours; Dorchester, DU and core spaced that the tanks use are classified. I'm not too familiar with the specs of the m1a2 sep v3 or leopard 2 a7 so this is based on the a2 sep and a6. Nothing I've seen suggests any of the armours are better than the other. I completely disagree with your thoughts on its combat experience. I can't confirm on the type or number of RPGs used but regardless, the punishment that challenger 2 took that day is very impressive and I've not seen any other source suggesting another modern tank has taken that level of punishment and kept it's crew alive. The CR2 has also seen tank on tank engagements during the second Gulf War. Fair enough very outdated tanks but tanks none the less. I agree with your source on the RPG 29 penetration however to my knowledge it was from the underbelly of the tank and in my opinion this shot would have penetrated any tank if hit in the same spot. The cr2 was also able to reverse back to safety after the unfortunate event. I also agree with your source on the anti tank mine which cost the driver their leg that day but I believe the tank was later repaired and not written off so to speak. I don't believe it was able to drive back after that one though I've seen conflicting sources. M1a2s also fell victim to anti tank mines during this conflict. Forgive me for not including sources from Ukraine as sources are too conflicting with how tanks are lost and how poorly they fair against drones as seen by the m1 and Leo 2 losses. I'm sure cr2 would suffer the same and can't be used to compare each tanks Armour. The tanks design started in 1986 this doesn't mean Dorchester was designed this very year. The m1a1 was still using 1st gen chobham at this point. So safe to say the m1a2 DU composite Armour was being designed at the same time. As previously stated I've seen no factual sources to suggest DU is better than Dorchester (or vise versa for that matter). Off topic but I'd like to mention about your point with the Cromwell that the Sherman was also still in service with the US army 4 decades before. Thank you for your time to read my response. Apologies if I've dragged on in certain places.
3 is a lucky number and the SEPv3 Abrams also contains the numeral 3. I think this is a sign that 3 is the right number to associate with your MBT in the 20s
"Challenger 2 has been a controversial tank, with several features seeming outdated or regressive. " No it hasn't. Best armour, one of the fastest and up to date tech.
It's literally the slowest modern MBT out there, and didn't even have "the best armor" when it was put into service in the late 90's, let alone 20 years later! Both M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 had better turret armor before CR2 was put into service, at least as far as kinetic energy munitions go. Leopard 2 even matches it in chemical warhead protection too, as does the M1A2 SEP version which entered service just a couple years AFTER Challenger 2
@@ArmorCast You make me laugh...You run through the features like a school kid comparing Top Trump cards lol...The little thing you miss is the Chally (and it's tank crews) has the best real world combat record of any modern tank. Far better than the Abrams, and that's no slouch...With regards HESH, one of the main reasons it was loved by the MoD was that it was comparatively cheap especially compared to the various CHARM rounds, and HESH is of course fairly multi purpose...
No, it was not fast, but it has a great armor. Don`t see a reason, why Challenger 3 would be worse. There is lot of opinions in internet - like assholes, everyone got one! But Abrams, Leopard and Challenger etc are pretty equal.
@@ArmorCast As I understand it, while lacking the "top" speed of other tanks, the Challenger was in fact as fast or faster than others over rough terrain, where it really counts. And given its survivability record, your contention that it has poor armour really is nor borne out by real world events.
I do t agree fully with your assessment, due to the fact that British tank crews are indeed the best trained in the world, of which has been proven time and again. Similarly Nelson's fleet did not have the biggest, and even the most numerous when in battle. They did have the best gun crews around though, making them lethal against the Spanish and French fleets who were in no way inferior as ships go. A good crew in a moderate war fighting machine can take on superior enemy formations, again proven throughout history. I do agree though that this Chally IS an upgrade to Challenger 2, and UK designers should have built the tank for tomorrow, as this 3 version will not see long service due to being out if date.
I've just found his channel, and seems like an anti British twat.. he's got a Scottish accent, so he must be one of those Snp extremists,im Scottish btw and proud of our main battle tank.
M1A2C already has Trophy APS. Most likely case is this is what ends up getting applied to Challenger 3, but as of yet, it's just a case of "we're still evaluating, and whatever we feel is the best option is the one we'll go with"
@@SJ-kv9gu evidently no it's not the m1a2c has been finalized the Challenger 3 ain't going to be out for a good long while and it still doesn't have an APS chosen the statement was made for one particular reason any claims of the Challenger 3 being the best tank in Europe are bunk it might have one of the best cannons but that's about it I'd still opt for the leopard 2a7 or m1a2c over it
Plus, with the 130mm's autoloader that means only 3 men per tank instead of 4. With Parliament mandating that the British Army downsize to the tune of 72,500 soldiers, 148 fewer men needed to crew Challengers means 148 more men available as crew for an Ajax or Boxer unit. The British Army even after downsizing will still be large enough that 148 men isn't all that much, but every little bit helps when Parliament has decided you're the least important branch of the military.
@@RedXlV you do need to remember though we are adding more and more onto tanks and lots of tank crews said it would have been almost impossible to perform maintenance in field without a 4th member
@@jacobkingsford5209 I'd be interested to know how that's worked out for France, seeing as they've been operating the 3-man crew Leclerc for almost 30 years now.
@@jacobkingsford5209 Well, they argument tank battalions with additional company on wheeled vehicles. Also remember ultrasophisitaced electronics and Lecler's super compart, super high pressure Hyperbar engine. This is amazing vehicle, but all this amazing stuff must have a price.
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Makes good sense. I really like hearing the horsepower per ton number. In the world of physics horsepower describes how much time it takes to do work. Tons describe the weight of the work to be done. So more power is more better.
The new " Challenge-Ja" 3 is a stop gap at best. Warfare at the moment has gone "drone crazy", like the T-14 none of it really seen as been the definitive future of armoured land warfare. Hence no one like Germany or US jumping to make an all new next generation tank.
60 MPH is legit, it's the speed the Tank is capable of reaching in dire emergency situations...
Such as when the Crew run out of Tea.
You underestimate our TEA POWER!
Guys it is obvious, the new armour package is a carboard box with a buzz saw in it to shave off the armour!
Tea and hot rations = comfortable soldier. comfortable soldier = morale.
Morale = a willing to fight professional soldier.
No conscripts in British army bombing x country on torsion bars and metal seats 🤦🏻♂️
@@Leon-ix6xy you do know it’s a joke
Lads, ammo and spares maybe, but we never run out of tea. 60 is kph, you wouldn't want to be inside at 60mph, believe me, I've been there.
Yes, so we've established that I'm an old bastard! Because not only do I remember the Challenger 1 being replaced by the Challenger 2, I remember when the Chieftain was the big boy on the block and also when we weren't using the Fisher Price SA-80 with it's teeny little rounds, degree level sling antics and mag release catch up nice and tight against your rig.
My dad had a chieftain as a company car.
The challengers replaced the chieftains wich you forgot to mention
Best Chieftain we built at Chobham was the hybrid RR/Perkins conversion. Basically a stop gap to CH1. The Iranians money was king then so we concentrated on Shir1/2, that became CH1. I won't go over the things we found about the SA80.
I can still remember going to the armoury and signing out proper rifles that made sure what you were shouting at stayed down
@@bobbybates2614 Didn't replace all of them
One factor people seem to forget is crew survivability and general well being in the tank! I'm being serious! The M60 was much loved by crews and so was the centurion: the chieftain was comfortable despite having a poor engine, remedied somewhat by the Sundance upgrade, but the challenger is very liked by crews
Challenger 2 is probably the best tank in the world for ergonomics and crew comfort. I’d say Abrams is better for outright survivability, but it’s certainly a little more difficult to escape from!
It’s very much an underrated factor, and we’ll have to see if CR3’s turret is as good as CR2’s from an ergonomics standpoint… since it’s built by Germany… … I kinda doubt it.
Imo the thing that made the centurion the first mbt is the crew being able to work with the tank, as apposed to forcing it to complete its function, which is also the reason why I think the T34 is genuinely garbage.
Won't last long enough to feel at home in a real war
@@jonathon5411
Is that little nugget from vaults of your vast armoured warfare knowledge.
I served on chally 2. I can honestly say it was an absolute amazing bit of kit to work on. I hope the chally 3 works better. Along as it has a b.v then thats all that matters hahah
i drove chieftains in Germany .. the engine ALWAYS broke down .. the main armament 120 was awesome though
@@seangraver5511 chieftains were prone to that. Challys are not
@@riso9059 chally still sucks though. 80mm of base lower plate armor is horrendous
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here and you know the exact specs how?
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here ofc itd be the russian coping about things he knows jack about. What classified doc did you read about the armour of the chally and its exact specs? Id like to know your source
My boss was a tank platoon commander in Desert Storm. We talked about it quite frequently over beers. Fascinating stories. The M1s he ran came with a speed governor that restricted the top speed to 40 mph. It was the first thing removed when they arrived in Saudi Arabia. He has personally had one up to 53 mph. That’s across flat, hard packed desert mud and sand with a friggin turbine engine. And you’re seeing data that puts the Challenger III at 60 mph? That’s nuts. And scares me
well, even though the tanks today are heavy as shit, the engines we are talking about are in the 1200-1800 horsepower range (depending on the tank), so when shit hits the fan and you need to get out of the area RIGHT NOW!!!, they will get you out of there, albeit suffering damage in the process, as they arent meant to run at such ferocity very often
imagine being on a UK motorway in a lorry and getting passed by a tank coz that is was could happen. Trucks here are capped at 56mph
@@M3PH11 there are vidéos of that on ukr highways at start of the war lol amazingly scary
@@M3PH11 Happened on roads in Germany all the time - collisions between cars and Chieftains / Challengers never went well for the car.
@@paulevans7742 Grandad crashed his vovlo into a Chieftain in Warminster years back... car was *wrecked* - tank was barely scratched 😂
Years of litigation, that one!
Fun fact: The place seen at 8:37 is in Estonia at the Central Training Ground (or something like that) during exercise Sibul 2017 where the forces of EFP were against the local Defence League. In the clearing seen ahead the very same tank was taken out by a cleverly placed Swedish 90 mm anti tank gun (Pvpj 1110). "Virtually" of course. But it did slow the armored column down quite a bit ;) I had the chance to rain down mortar shells on them. "Virtually" of course.
Yeah, just like virtual play station football, never reflects the reality
@@Korvintage64 l'm sure the Swedes don't know anything about anti tank guns. It's all a load of bofors if you ask me.
The most fragile part in high speed driving a tank are the tracks ... notcthe engine or the transmission... just imagine the force working on a 2,8to track at 100km/h... long befor the engine or transmission would break the tank would throw its tracks... the Diehl tracks on the Leo2 are tested up to 120km/h
The Trophy Leopard2 A7A1 are only bought in small number and the only reason is they are for the fast NATO reaction force were they fight together with M1A2 with Trophy to make the logistic more easy by only using one hard kill system.
Germany will use ADS for their armored vehicles in numbers
Yeah but they usually don't do max speed
Wasnt there some story going round that the tracks couldnt get traction on an ordinary roadside kerb?
@@redf7209 That would be unlikely, considering all the weight on top of those tracks. But I guess that depends on the type of track used, as steel performs worse on concrete then rubber.
@@Adierit I'm thinking a long rail vehicle will always have a lot of its weight distributed on track either side.
@@redf7209The tank destroys road side kerbs . you are supposed to leave about one foot between kerb and track so when the tank is guided away and turns it doesn't destroy it. At Babcock Bovington the workers frequently park right next to the kerb , many are wrecked. Don't care or poor training !
As you may well know, early (lighter) Abrams tanks were more than capable of breaking their 45 mph limit; that speed governor was put in place so those tanks wouldn't throw their tanks or blow up their transmissions.
It's a common misconception the abrams has a speed limiter. It doesn't. It can go over the speed limit like almost every tank can in the right conditions. It's just hard to do so and even when the chance occurs they don't let it.
@@nothingspecial6925 Abrams tanks do or did actually have a hyromechanic speed governor system, though it isn't something one can easily "switch off" and takes a fair amount of tinkering inside the transmission hydraulics to modify or bypass. I've seen reports of early M1s being clocked in excess of 80mph, though those reports are admittedly dubious. It may not be present on the A2s to save complexity and space because the added weight makes those speeds far less likely to achieve under ideal circumstances. However, they definitely were present on the original 105mm M1s, and some crews definitely modified and disabled them to go at absurd speeds.
The larger point is that 60mph road speed for a tank is entirely plausible and is less limited by modern engines and more by track and transmission capabilities.
@@KiithnarasAshaa pretty much most modern tanks can and do exceed their listed top speeds. Challenger 2 was reportedly capable of achieving 80kph in Iraq. I don't belive its capable of 100kph though/60mph as listed.
@@nothingspecial6925 Pads and top rollers will not like that speed as the vehicle rolls over the track making track top speed 2 x road speed lol
M1 and Leo2 both also have significantly more powerful engines and better HP/t ratios around 25hp/t, while cr2/3 sits at barely 16hp/t (thats just a bit more than ww2 heavy tank standarts)
Update news, Trophy is being used on chally 3 prototypes and commander scopes of various types are also being selected via testing. Maybe this will be the weapon system we want on the battle field?
I think they just got confused with kph and mph.
When going at over 60kph the Challengers engine would rev over its limit, which could damage the engine. It is the same as driving 50kph in 1st gear at 6.000 rpm in you VW Golf. You could go 60kph if you increase your rpm to 8.000 and risk damaging your engine or you could shift wich loweres your rpm at the same speed. The Challenger would by now be in its highest gear, the only way of going faster is to increase the rpm of the engine.
In order to increase the "safe speed" they would either have to adjust the gear ratio , wich would make the tank loose power because the engine would rev at a lower rpm at 60kph. They also did not mention thath they modified the transmission, so that is not the case.
The other way of increasing the "safe speed" is by strengthening components in the engine, but there are no mentions that the Challenger 3 received such upgrades. Everything i could find was that they impproved the cooling system which increased the power output a bit so it compensates for the increased weight.
They stated that its the Power Pack that is being upgraded. that is both the engine and transmission.
Maybe there adding an extra gear, or extended range to the torque converter. I have no idea how a tank transmission and engine work these days but that’s what would do it for a D9 bulldozer.
@@knucker2730 They only impproved the cooling of the entire powerpack
@@notinmyairspace uprated turbos give the power increase!
Or... or. Just hear me out. They could just put a bigger engine in the tank or give it another gear
I had a two hour discussion with a family member who wanted to talk to me about this, and it range true with almost every point you made.
UK procurement cycle goes like this:
Step 1, design a vehicle which is excellent for the year in which you have designed it, and ultra-optimised to meet and defeat the threats of that period, usually with design work nearing completion right at the time when that threat is going out of fashion, and a sweeping change is coming to all vehicles of this type, rendering your new design (at best) highly conservative, and at worst, obsolete before it's even reached troops. Don't forget to recycle as much as possible from older designs and hamper your new one in as many ways as possible by insisting on nothing clean sheet, all upgrades of upgrades of equipment that has heritage in 1945. Wherever possible, take the cheapest approach short term, whether or not it costs more later.
Step 2, spend upwards of 10 years testing the hell out of the prototypes. Really make sure all the minor details are polished to perfection, and that the vehicle is massively over-built, so that it's really mechanically reliable, well laid-out for the crew, and has lots of quality of life features that will ensure the users love it. Don't bother talking about the big details, like how the over-built chassis weighs far too much, or how the armour and gun are now 20 years out of date and it's not even reached troops yet. Rest assured that a fifth re-arrangement of the buttons on the gunner's controls will make it superior to your rivals.
Step 3, after spending a decade testing your originally budget vehicle, likely selected over rivals purely because it cost less, you have now spent far more than your rivals did for their development. Cash strapped MOD cuts leave you with a small production run that causes cost per vehicle to spiral. Necessary upgrades are totally forsaken because it cost so much to get the vehicles to troops at all that there is no cash left to make them remotely modern. While vehicles that were already more modern continue to be upgraded, yours grows more and more useless. At this stage it is important to let the troops and public know that they have the absolute best vehicle in the world, which nobody else wanted on export, and you should keep stressing everything is the best right up until the exact moment you order a replacement, at which stage you will change tune and reveal everything was garbage to justify the new expense, acting like you have been saying that all along.
Step 4, repeat the cycle. This happens in 30 year intervals. Never accept as a nation that this is a problem, always feel smug and self assured that being British makes all equipment the best in the world. Repeatedly use codename jargon to imply that every part is better than everyone else's and whenever challenged with evidence, claim it's classified and they couldn't possibly know.
You will find, the more you dig, that this isn't just exclusive to armoured vehicles. This cycle happens with British submarines, surface warships, aircraft... it's pretty much every MOD project. Spend more money, get a worse outcome, usually obsolete on arrival, or "designed for, but not fitted with" necessary equipment it will never receive, and fiercely defend it as being somehow world-beating so nothing ever changes.
The sad part is, sometimes, they do the exact opposite (look at the L129A1) so we know they can do it well when they really want to. almost like the more expensive the project the more scared they are of wasting money and end up wasting more money
they are sending challenger 2s to Ukraine and claiming its superior to all Russian tanks when its subpar even to the t72b3 in every way except reverse speed.
Think you need to remember that we're competing with tech inferior to our own, so having a well optimised vehicle represents a quality investment for battlefield resources and logistics. If we ever go to war with USA / Germany etc. Then you'll have bigger things to worry about than mod profligacy with funding.
I agree with you 100% with regard to the weight, it would have been better to just focus on reducing it to around 50 tons, and there are different effective ways to accomplish that, like for example the way Japan did it with their Type 10, by utilizing modular armor. Thereby you can use different armor packs, depending on the situation, transport it separately, can be easily replaced on the field and upgraded later on if new materials and such are developed. I think they missed a huge chance to make a better tank, which is easier to maintain, and support logistically as well as have a good punch.
You couldn't do that with challenger 2 unless you built a completely new chassis which is what they're trying to avoid. The base weight of the tank is 64t and that goes up to 75t with its modular armour equipped.
The weight makes zero diference it already gets transported only by the c17 even reducing that weight it would still only be transported by a c17.
60-70kmph is perfectly fine for a MBT.
U are better with the Armour it has because u don't have time to switch in battles as situations can change very quickly
I’ve never thought about this as a new tank and this video really nailed that point home
It's not new... its an upgrade to C2. Let's be honest here.
Agreed, but ‘marketing’ 😜
@@kalicom2937 oh yeah that’s what I’m saying
It’s got a new number! 3️⃣
@@kalicom2937 It is effectively a new tank.
They've replaced the engine, transmission, suspension, all the armour, computers, digital systems, comms systems, fire control and optics, completely replaced the turret with a brand new massively uparmoured turret and heavily modified the hull with more armour.
There is very little to nothing left of a Challenger 2 in the Challenger 3.
This 'upgrade' is the same as the Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 'upgrade', ie a brand new tank wearing a skinsuit of the previous tank.
The crews will tell you if it’s any good when we get our hands on it 😉
How do you feel about the flat sides of the turret?
@@jonathanrobison9667 it would be nice to have it sloped but transporting the vehicle by road or rail would then be impossible. We counter the flat sides by ensuring the weapon always points towards the enemy threat mate
Let’s just hope with the new electronics and all you guys can stop friendly firing on your own British troops… especially in training missions. Obviously take some of the responsibility of of you guys because obviously you can’t handle it
@@henrymorrey4150 you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and couldn’t be further from the truth, but if it makes you feel big to talk shit on the Internet while you’re in a safe space you go right ahead.
@@chalky042 I like what u say and agre, however friendly fire dose happen (tho mainly between us and UK or 2 other aly countries at places like new f.o.b's that are not marked on their map)examples would be in Bosnia a friend of mine Kenny drove tanks in this conflict and said the were hit by British artillery on a small number of occasions (bout4or5) but I've never heard of two of the same country's tanks destroying each other in recent history in or out of training tho no doubt it has happened, anyway would like to know if u agree with me and no how the fuck it ur fault u risked ur life 4 it country and 4 that u have my respect 110%
The longer this video went on the clearer it became that you have obviously been doing your CR2 research in the Sunday Sport!!!!
I think you're right when you say "too little too late". Seeing as only about half the tanks we have are being upgraded, is it possible that the others will get something like the Black Knight upgrade or the 130mm verrsion that Rheinmetall showcased in their promo video? Also QinetiQ have their hybrid drive unit that the yanks are testing so that will be happening at some point. It's all well and good being the first to adopt something but you end up spending fcuk loads of cash and take all the risk and seeing as our media crucify the military/government/defence companies every time there's teething problems, I can understand why the cautious approach has been taken.
@Morfidus Mor fair enough, just thought it would be typical that we upgrade to the smoothbore and the rest of NATO swaps to the 130 or 140mm. Still if we're going to keep deploying tanks it would be good to have a more constant rolling upgrade schedule.
First of all, talk coming from the MOD suggested that we may drop the MBT from our Forces. This new tank is to be celebrated. Whatever it is called, Challenger Mark 3 or Challenger 3, it is an improvement on it's predecessor. From what I have seen Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 did pretty well in both Gulf Wars. I haven't heard any Tanker complain about the quality of their ride. Secondly, has it got the kit to shoot down A10s. Any plane that does not respond to FOF should have a missile up it's arse immediately. It doesn't have to be the best tank in the world it just needs to be effective.
Grew up with CH1, served on CH2, retiring as CH3 comes online. each version is an evolution from the previous incarnation, within the budget set by people who'll never crew them. But as long as they retain the BV they'll always be a favourite
B.v for the win
Whats that bv ?
Oh shit ahahah found the wiki
Boiling vessel. Nice (and of course vital)
No BV = no crew 😂
So it’s not just the upgraded fire/ sighting systems, armor packages or the upgraded gun. It’s the entire crew that operates the tank that will provide the best case scenario for how the tank performs.
Battlefield awareness, intel, coordination, surprise. Lots of factors can grasp victory from . . . . .
Yep the HESH round was the round for the only Challenger lost in combat from a blue on blue incident.
It was a fluke hit, the HESH kill round hit the commander’s open hatch sending HE fragments into the turret, unfortunately killing some of the crew, and starting an internal fire…
I don’t think it was the HESH round to destroy the tank but was the commander hatch open that have destroyed the tank. That’s a big difference.
@@ermirohri The HESH round hit the open turret hatch and the explosion was sent down into the turret. 2 crewmen were on stag in the turret, the other two were asleep under the hull. The incident's covered in a book called 'Main Battle Tank' by Niall Edworthy. It's well worth a read!
Sorry to hear that brother. That was a fluke of a shot.
Not too thrilled about a visit from the rozzers if they read this... but you are miss informed. The tank was inoperable as it's up armoured turret had been forcibly relocated to the back of the engine deck. Spall from a HESH round is the least of your problems….!!
@@navnig Wait, they were asleep under the Hull? Do tank crews sleep under their tanks?
I as a German am proud to deliver the „new“ cannon to a British tank - welcome to the family 🇬🇧 🎉🇩🇪
And with current German shenanigans over heavy weapons it would not surprise me if use of German main guns is being reconsidered right now.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 lol - try harder
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 If you can produce a better one, go ahead...but I really doubt it^^
@@erikstolzenberger1517 The question is not about it being better or worse. It is about the stupid German government potentially blocking the UK from reexporting the Challenger 3 tank in the future because it has a German gun in it and "reasons" that just make the rest of Europe mad at the Germans.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 As an old german saying goes: Nichts wird so heiss gegessen, wie es gekocht wird.
I do agree that Scholz did a piss-poor job in communicating his delay, all in all he's not a very charming person.But he has to do his job, and I think at least 50% of the outrage was stifled by media outlets and some salty poles.
The speed of tanks is typically limited by the transmission and final drive. The Abrams for example is completely capable of straight line speeds of 62mph, but the transmission will prevent it to protect itself as well as the final drives. Also, the forces exerted when making a sweeping turn at those speeds on the track guides could have you hearing a loud bang and then watching your track sail down the road. They probably improved the transmission and final drives along with better guide pins. The Abrams can actually be adjusted by a mechanic, I've had one at the theoretically top speed and there are still plenty of RPMs to go faster. Plus the speedo goes up to 62 in those.
Abrams isnt capable of 60+mph, it is capable of 42-43mph.
Thank you for that. All that I read on that said nothing about that. Thanks again.
@@kf8575 that's a limited top speed on the transmission. And top speed is actually 45mph on all models and in all TMs. But it can theoretically go 65mph if it wasnt governed.
@@Deathbomb9 What would be the point of that if it destroys the transmission in the process? Its like the Soviet MiG-25's jet engine. Or the eighth gate (Gate of Death) in Taijtusu in Naruto.
@@death_parade typically the transmission isn't what gets destroyed first. The final drives would become overheatedand start to cause excessive force that the transmission doesn't like to deal with. You would damage the transmission for sure if you ran it at those speeds for an extended period of time, but before the transmission failed your final drives would fail and either break completely of you would end up with a lot of noises that they aren't supposed to make (metal on metal grinding of seized bearings or completely destroyed bearings and the shaft rubbing in ways its not supposed to). The transmission can handle theoretical speeds close to 72mph, but that was tested with resistance of about -5tons of what the original XM1 weighed at the end of testing and trials before it entered service. Limiting the transmission to 45mph is good because over the road your supply line can keep up and cross-country your supply line can cope with meeting you when you need it. It also allows the infantry support you would need to keep up in their Bradley's. The military is all about redundancy and never exceeding about 80% of capability on just about everything it has. So when you looker the US military and think how advanced they are, understand that the equipment is only being worked at 80% rather than 100% so it lasts a lot longer and is much more reliable. And there are points where you can get 100%, but that's when you risk breaking things or causing some sort of damage. And those times are typically reserved for emergency combat use, you are unlikely to ever see footage or video accounts or recreations because the military does everything in its power to foresee and prevent those cases.
Very interesting video on a very interesting vehicle. I do agree with your conclusion that the Challenger 3, as it's currently proposed, is only a more modernized and upscaled version of 2 with some extra capabilities. For me it bears the hallmarks of an interim vehicle rather than a true replacement with futuristic capabilities, something to tide you over until you can design a truly revolutionary vehicle.
Going without active protection in a modern battlefield though does seem both anachronistic and dangerous at this point though.
With UK politics being what they are currently, it wouldn't surprise me if this was more to establish jobs and political capital now and make a more futuristic design later on.
Eh, i don't think its as insignificant as you make it out to be.
I don't see any tank produced in the near to mid future having the armour to rival some of the ridiculous rounds developed and still being developed for the 120mm.
In addition, it's clear Britain isn't really currently in the business of making tank guns and ammunition atm. Adopting a new calibre gun with no idea if any of NATO will join suit is a recipe for disaster, weather that be logistical or even in ammunition available.
It's got great optics. It's got a proper computer systems. It's gonna have some kinda APS, and the gun and engine have had small upgrades.
Seems like a pretty great tank to me, and it should hold up for a while
It definitely has the feel of a stopgap about it, like how the Tornado F3/ADV was kind of a stopgap while the Typhoon was in development. Definitely hoping that we've got something bigger and better planned out for the future beyond the 2040s.
Pretty much this. The life extension program is only supposed to carry the Challenger 2 (Now going to be called the Challenger 3) up until 2035, I imagine they'll stretch that to 2040 whilst they design a new tank design.
The replacement has been constantly delayed due to issue's implementing the various technologies that will be present amongst other things. The armour that will be the backbone of chally 3 is a part of the project for it's replacement and offers many advantages over Dorchester and that will be reflected in a number of ways but it isn't the same as the armour the replacement will have think of it as an incremental improvement.
I was around for the Chally 1 to Chally 2 changeover, heck I remember the stink when the T62 hit the news as well, which makes me just a bit younger than dirt and I'd like to clarify your information regarding the use of APFSDS rounds fired from the rifled gun. U.S. Pat. No. 4,242,961 to Moredock, et al. issued Jan. 6, 1981 covers the use of an obturator that surrounds the sabot petals and spins when the round is fired, allowing the penetrator and sabot petals to maintain a steady state while the obturator engages the rifling and spins around them. This is discarded along with the petals when the round leaves the barrel. The sabot petals themselves don't spin around the penetrator, they are fixed until discarded when fired. I'm a fan of the Challenger 2 and its attention to the infantry support role, I trust its sibling will maintain the relationship with the promised, programmable rounds. Great vid, some excellent information and lovely footage.
With the army looking to save money and a decreased priority placed on mbts the procurement choice was probably between this mild upgrade, or no upgrade at all. A completely new design or more radical upgrade was probably never on the cards for cost reasons.
While a hypothetical "which tank beats which…" scenerio is a academic circle jerk, there is still a valid argument for a comparison of _practicality and usability_ - which tanks are more desirable for a *clean sheet military* to aquire.
That would involve a lot of metrics, of which who would win in a straight slugging match is not the top category …
And even if it came down to a actual tank on tank battle, there are a lot of other factors in play than just firepower vs armour.
It would be a interesting idea for a video.
Modern tank rounds in the West can pierce any tank's side and rear armor. The vast majority of them use thermal computer targeting. The main difference is their logistical foot print. Some tanks use more fuel than other tanks and some tanks break down more. Those things are rarely discussed because they don't seem cool to talk about.
This should have came much earlier, contemporary upgrades.
It was planned to. Since the early 2000's. They just kinda maybe sort of decided over time that they could save the money (for themselves) for better upgrades at a later date.
Like the MK.2 CLIP, Britian literally swapping the gun and ammo bins out for the L/55 (Not A1 like the 3 has) and wet ammo for its ammo in the hull.
Gotta hand it to you for coming back and still responding to comments on videos and answering questions. Cheers
The two biggest things I come away with in researching this vehicle is:
1. It's not a Challenger 3, it's a Challenger 2 upgrade.
2. The pinnacle of tank achievement for the British was Centurion.
I mean the only thing challenger 2 about it is the hull...everything else is completly new, even the hull insides have little commonalities with the CR2
@@warhead_beast7661 not really true - the hull inside and out is pretty well unchanged, the only significant changes being to the ammo storage. The turret is all new though, but very similar in design overall
@@ArmorCast and new engine
@@ArmorCast didnt they say it got a new engine, Transmission and Suspension?
Centurion was already just a slightly better Panther.
One massive advantage when developing this new tank is the amount of validation done post Iraq wars !
We really need to ask ourselves "Is the MBT going to retain its title of King of the Battlefield?"
With integrated battle management systems and stand-off weaponry that can be launched from several miles away and steered to target by a drone or number of drones all talking to each other, does the MBT become just the well protected up front eyes on target?
If this is the future then Challenger 2.5/3 might just be the gateway to a whole new philosophy of warfare.
@@petermeyerhoff8737 most insightful comment here 😂
ik u wont see this koala but thank u for making these vids i watch them over and over again to deal with my depression when im alone for days and im thankful for u being here!!!!
Wouldn't comedy be better for you?
@@oxcart4172 ???
It’s kinda like the T90 in that the CR3 is a super upgrade like the T90 was for the T72.
T90 is a new update design mix features of T72 and T80
@@huntermad5668 well considering there was basically no changes from the T-72BU to the base T-90 it was a T-72 upgrade in all but name
@@BatteredWalrus
To reflect the difference between it and original T-72.
Seeing they share the hull and autoloader but different turret, different gun, different fire control system, different engine.
More than half of T-72BU is new parts. Both from t-80 and new.
That is why i called it a mix of T-72 ans T-80
I do agree with your take that this is basically just 'Chally 2 LEP' rather than 'Challenger 3' - imo that's just marketing/PR.
Personally, I tend to see this as being very, very similar to the Italian upgrade program to the C1 Ariete - where 125 of 200 hulls (originally they intended all 200, but this was then cut down) will be upgraded as part of a circa €300 million program in order to extend their useful life for another ten years. This program works towards the goal of replacing the tank force with a new type (of which they intend to procure 257 hulls) in the early 2030s in two ways.
The first is from a military perspective, to allow the army to maintain a credible armored force for operations over the next decade+. The second is from an industrial perspective - engaging the land-based defense industry in such a program keeps the industry working and breast the latest developments in technology. This allows the industry to remain competitive and able to deliver a credible future tank when that program arrives - or, rather, in the modern context, it is more correct to say that it means the Italian industrial base can remain competitive in order to secure Italy industrial workshare in a tank procured jointly with other nations, and to have sufficient say in the military characteristics of the tank.
As far as tank replacement goes, Italy is actually faced with a major dilemma, as the MGCS program, on paper the ideal future, is supposed to produce a tank about five years later than when Italy wants to start phasing in the new platform, and until recently France and Germany had no interest in letting Italy join (despite numerous requests) early enough to have any influence on the military characteristics of the vehicle or have any major role in industrial workshare. Efforts to find international partners elsewhere have not borne fruit. As it stands now, though, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel as Germany has been increasingly moving towards making the program more open, allowing the UK with observer status and creating a potential avenue for Italy to join the program on an more equal basis via Rheinmetall Italia if the Italians procure the Lynx (which appears likely) to replace Dardo.
For Britain, I see this Challenger program as largely the same - upgrading 148 of 227 hulls to allow the British army to maintain a credible armored force for the future (until it can be replaced fully by a future platform), and giving the British land defense industrial base something to work on to keep their capabilities up to par, allowing them to credibly contribute to a future tank procurement effort, which will almost certainly be international (with MGCS looking like the most likely candidate, but only time will tell). This will be important to prevent them from being sidelined by potential partners with established programs (ex, France and Germany, or potentially America), as otherwise they won't be able to have enough influence in the program to ensure their military requirements for the future platform are met, or to secure a sufficient amount of industrial participation.
It's not a very exciting portrayal of the 'Challenger 3' upgrade program, but it's a necessary one and a step in the right direction if Britain wants to maintain its domestic capability to design and built tanks (though, by all means, if that is something that is worth the trouble is certainly something that can be debated) - though probably one with a bit too much in the way of enthusiastic PR on the part of the British. Calling it 'Challenger 3' just seems to open the door to mockery.
For more background on the Italian situation: www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai2007.pdf
I completely agree with you. CR3 was clearly never intended to be a next generation platform, but to help prepare Britain's defense industry for the next generation platform. I'm not sure if Britain will go for MGCS though, as there may not be an enough time for Britain to influence its requirements to suit their needs.
@@JumpSeeker considering, that Germany and France favor lighter, more mobile MBT with higher firepower and a high technological baselevel, just like Italy, the UK´s needs are very much in the opposite direction and would result in conflict, stalling and likely failure of the program.
so i would say, it is better this way, with the UK being an observer with the option to buy, but not to interfere with the program
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I didn't say that the UK should get involved in the design and development. It's far to late for that now. What I meant was that it's very unlikely for the UK to buy a new MBT that it hasn't had influence over and doesn't suit their requirements.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The UK used to favour protection over mobility. France and Germany always prioritised mobility over protection. EVERYONE now favours protection over mobility.
@@agt155 so then, tell me, why does every developement project favor good firepower, mobility and active protection with a weight reduction over massive armor bricks?
When people say rifle barrels are more accurate than they mean specifically HESH and kinetic energy non-fin stabilized rounds.
Before the creation of fin stabilized sabot and other types of fin stabilized ammunition, it was absolutely true that rifling increased accuracy. Since the Challenger 2 uses such a non fin stabilized round, it needed a rifled barrel to be accurate.
That being said, the higher velocities of modern fin stabilized rounds makes them incredibly accurate in their own right and the fact that the new record for longest tank kill was from a Ukrainian tank squad using a T-64BV(that uses a smoothbore cannon) where they used drone footage to essentially lob tank rounds like artillery over a distance of 10 500 metres shows that advancements in targeting systems are what primarily determines a tank accuracy.
The thing is one has to see where the UK MoD was a couple of months ago : scrap the concept of tanks in the Army all together or rework a solid and sturdy platform as is the Challenger. The Challenger 3 may be the foundations of many projects to come as it's been proved in the 130mm Rheinmetall demonstrator, the Black Knight, among others.
It´s funny though that after WW2 Germans adopted the British L7 gun as standard while nowadays even the British Industry has fallen to mount a German cannon.
Everyone in the world adopted the L7 - best gun of its time, today the Rheinmetall 120mm is the best. There were many wise men in the army who confidently told us the tme of the tank was over and we needed to go fast and light, they went silent after the Ukraine fighting started.
back in the days, the german defense industry was more or less dismantled by the British, French, Americans and Sovjets.
there were some remnant experts etc sitting around, but the expertise etc was gone.
that is why the germans adopted a british main gun, because they had no real weapons research programmes and relied on weapon imports at that time.
but after that/during that, RHM and others had regained a lot of expertise etc and rebooted their arms research programmes with federal funding.
meanwhile the UK´s arms industry took a wrong turn and drove down a dead end with their MBT concepts and gun developement
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The L7 I would say was an exceptionally good gun, so was the Centurion tank. I say that because everyone in the west adopted it - US, Israel etc. We then did go down the wrong road with 120mm rifled and the unreliable chieftain was not a balanced tank but heavy and slow too to carry enough armour to defend the threats of the day, the defense was a British need but not appealing for others. Today the Rhien smoothbore is the best, tomorrw who knows...
@@MrEddieLomax the UK has no domestic MBT developement left after the Vickers sellout.
The rebuilding of a modern competitive weapons developement needs expertise, time and money.
Right now, it looks like the next gen MBT gun will be the RHM130mm with autoloader
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yep, at one point we were about to outsource vehicle production to Spain. Whats changed is brexit, there has now been more home production and I'd expect armour to follow.
The big problem with armour is it is a dead end, the 120mm is still used today because you need a 65 ton tank to survive and only at range. Something new needs to appear (electric - seriously there was a demo of this years ago). Until then you could get a ch2,m1 or leo2 and you would not be obsolete in 2050.
Short-sighted politicians and bureaucrats, it was ever thus:
Why spend a lot of money today on a tank that would be better, last much longer, and probably work out cheaper over it's lifetime?
Because that would be a good thing?
But spending money now costs votes now, tomorrow's issues are tomorrow's problems, and contracts are awarded on kickbacks not sense.
Challenger 3 might be like the London Olympics, everyone thought it would be a bit crap! To everyone's surprise it wasn't!! in fact pretty good!!!! In fact they had a Freddy Mercury hologram, so FANTASTIC!!!!!! Sooo I'm expecting an extravagant, hard rocking tank..... with a moustache :) that died 30 years ago :(
It did die 30 years ago but its been on life support ever since.
@@Makeyourselfbig So basically, the Challenger 3 is a zombie tank?
@@RedXlV Pretty much. We can't afford a new one so we upgrade a few old ones and bin the rest.
i agree with u, this is like a "placeholder" upgrade to not get massively outclassed, but their isnt anything comming after it. so far i know.
what the Challenger 3 had needed to be future proven was probably the 130mm gun, new power-pack, APS, RC-weaponstation, front hull redesign or armorpackage etc.
but that said, maybe the 130mm + autoloader is not ready yet, not reliable enough or simply just to expensive(what i belive) for the british army.
There's also the fact 130mm rounds are bigger and heavier and it's not multi-part ammo anymore, and yet the tank hull and turret aren't getting any bigger. That demonstrator model with the 130mm on it could only carry about 20 rounds
They're looking at the likely opposition and making a cost-benefit analysis. CR2 will outclass any likely enemy equivalents for the foreseeable.
You are very class half full... this is a work in progress and it will evolve.
NOTE: Spin messes up HEAT rounds too. The needle-jet of the ultra-high-velocity penetrator is made up of the cone-shaped front end of the projectile and thus the outer edges of the cone at its wide-open "mouth" must be very quickly squeezed down to the center to form the jet and you want that narrow jet of quasi-liquid metal (usually) to stay at that size and shape as it extends into the target like a tongue of a frog shooting out to catch a bug, though here to punch a narrow, but very deep hole through thick armor. If the jet material formed from the edge of the wide end of the cone is spinning, it will try to spread out again sideways and defeat the entire purpose of the jet: Forward penetration at a concentrated point. So, HEAT rounds from a rifled gun also have to have some sort of internal de-spinning system for the inner explosive and cone, as was used in the French tank guns or using de-spinning outer rings and fins for actual stability. Otherwise, non-pinning or very-slow-spinning projectiles must be used in missiles and bazooka-type launchers.
Heat rounds are not spin stabilized. They are fin stabilized. Hep or hesh are spin stabilizer.
Once the heat round hits the target it will not be spinning ! So the cone won't spread out !
I did some rough math and i have to say 142000lbs being pushed by 1200hp isnt all that bad. Most class 8 trucks here in the us have a max gvw of 80000lbs and the standard motor in most modern trucks, a cummins x15 “efficiency series” is “only” a 450hp engine and most trucks with a overweight permit are pulling 120,000lbs with that same motor or at best a performace series rated at 565hp. So 142000 with 1200hp is pretty dang good when you put it in perspective.
Pffft. All that maths for naught. Just compare power to weight ratios of all tanks globally and be done with it.
Challenger 3: 18 hp/ton.
.
Don't know about other tanks of the world, but in India its:-
T-72 Ajeya: 19 hp/ton
T-90S: 21 hp/ton
Arjun Mk1: 24 hp/ton
Arjun Mk1A: 22.5 hp/ton
FMBT (projected): 30 hp/ton
Something to be considered...Only one CR1 was ever damaged by a road side bomb. Not a single CR1 or 2 has ever been knocked out by enemy fire......
How many peer 2 peer tank battles have they both been in?
@@mental9mikey T-64 and similar in the Gulf wars. Up to date enough or would you rather see them completely destroy T-80's in Ukraine? Because they would. Russian tanks are trash.
They also have not been in tank on tank combat ever as far as we are concerned
@@davepritchard283 Russian tanks aren't bad, but their logistics, tactics and top brass are all rubbish, so they throw a load of poorly supported armour in and it gets smoked.
@@danielschmidt7153 CR1 & CR2 both engaged against Iraqi tanks in the 2 Gulf wars and were 100% successful. Not ONE british tank was lost to enemy fire. The US M1's didn't fair quite so well and lost a few to tank vs tank actions. The USA and the Germans have a tendency with the 'Tank Triangle' of Firepower, Armour and Manoeuvrability to sacrifice slightly on armour to improve manoeuvrability hence until they started using versions of British armour, they suffered slightly.
I would like to think that watching “performance” of Soviet/Russian tanks in criminal invasion of Ukraine the myth of “lighter is better” got finally busted. Several tanks stuck in fields, in mud, in “ordinary” farm field drainage canals, which aren’t really that deep… Transport, logistics, is the only true downside when it comes to “obese” NATO tanks. And, maybe, just maybe, shorter range. Transport can be easily addressed, let’s be honest, western trucks and trailers are much more reliable, efficient, even “safer” for public roads, than Russian junk. And, today, we know that Russian hardware was receiving unjustified hype over the years. It’s like comparing sledgehammer with sculpture artist hammers/tools.
Not quite, if roles were reversed we'd be seeing western tanks and trucks destroyed in exactly the same manner. Tanks aren't meant for this type of warfare, they're there to support an infantry advance, not pushing ahead without proper support. Even if it were Abrams and Leopards they would still meet the same destruction if the enemy troops are in possession of sophisticated anti tank weapons! The Russians were just hoping for a lightening quick dash to capture certain objectives, unfortunately for them the Ukrainians had been preparing for such a conflict as long ago as 2014. They've had ample time to stockpile anti tank weaponry and make plans on how to best stop such an invasion.
while I would agree that the Russian equipment was/is overhyped, a huge part of the miserable performance in ukraine is how they were used and the lack of supply compared to ukrainian preparation. If NATO tanks were deployed in the same fashion they'd suffer as much bad luck, as while nato stuff is certainly better maintained and more modern, it'd still get stuck on the mediocre and muddy roads, and it'd still be ambushed by masses of prepared and appropriately equipped militia and reserve forces.
If the invasion had been run by NATO and not just using NATO equipment, the equipment wouldn't be lost in such an embarrassing manner not because it's immune to mud or ambushes, but because it would probably be much better planned and more conservative, advancing gradually instead of stockpiling the minimum of supplies and then just sending armored and motorized columns straight down barely secured roads to major urban centers, followed by barely screened logistics convoys.
We haven't seen the half of it, Russia is with holding its best troops and equipment, and you'll always get the odd failing. Russian kit ranges from adequate to excellent, and the fact is they are achieving what they want, at their pace.
@@barrag3463 Morale is a large factor in the ukraine war. many Russian soldiers do not believe in the war, so they are deserting. whats more important is crew training. western crews are FAR better trained than the russians. for example, abrams tank crew are trained to destroy their abrams tank if they are forced to leave it. russians just leave their vehicles to be captured. in iraq the crew of Cojone eh fought for 30 minutes to save their tank from a fire.
@@ppo2424 lol no, their "pace" was for it to take three days
My main issue with the Challenger 3 programme is that we currently only plan to field 148 of them - the best tank in the world is no good if you don't have enough of them. I think that changes as drastic as an entirely new turret and main armament surely do justify the "Challenger 3' designation - these alterations are at least as significant as those made between the Challenger 1 and 2 generations are they not? As for the Challenger's armour being weaker than some of its contemporary western MBT designs this is the first that I have heard of this criticism - without access to (presumably classified) data in this regard it is difficult for a member of the public to meaningfully comment further on that matter. I suppose that all this 'Theatre Entrance Standard' additional armour added to the vehicle is a tacit admission that protection has become inadequate against modern threats.
I agree that if the MBT has a longer term future then reducing weight - by the adoption of active protection technology instead of heavy armour - is highly advantageous. However, it seems to me that there are limits to the amount of armour reduction measures that could be prudently applied to any crewed tank and in the second half of this century replacing that human element with automation may result in a new generation AFV that is cheaper, smaller, lighter and crucially far more expendable that any crewed MBT can possibly be. Future armoured formations may resemble the latest air warfare concepts with a type of human crewed command vehicle controling a number of subordinate 'Hunter-Killer' drones that do the actual fighting.
Time will tell.
In this day and age things are getting leap frogged so often its not worth building a lot of something as the next gen will be just around the corner and render all those things you just built obsolete like when We the brits first built the dreadnought battleship it rendered our massive wooden fleet that cost a lot of money obsolete
@@danny1229c waiting for that next leap forward in technology often means you don’t have enough of what works today. It’s a huge risk to take when it’s your national defense that’s on the line.
@@danny1229c I agree. But one idea could be to go for a large fleet with just 2 or 3 types in service at a time. That ensures that at least half your fleet is cutting edge while the other half is not obsolete, just dated.
For example, India can make 100-150 tanks per year. Which means that to replace the entire Indian tank fleet, it would take 28-42 years. So its good to have two tank types in service with each 20 years apart in entry and just as one goes out of production, the production for the next one begins. Now you have a perpetually modern tank force.
Armour Cast you are wrong. Whilst I concede that APFSDS rounds do not become more accurate due to rifling (they use a full bag charge for increased velocity to gain accuracy), other rounds such as HESH are made significantly more accurate due to rifling.
The spin imparted on such a round eradicates tumbling and adds a ‘predictable’ spin to the round. It is the predicability of the spin that provides the gunnery computer with enough information to properly extrapolate from other factors such as distance and wind etc. Rifling makes the gun way more accurate because of this.
Why would you fire a FS round from a rifled barrel? The fins just ruin the effect of the rifling.. Changing to smooth bore standardised the ammunition, which is probably for the good. and probably cheaper due to large quantities being made.
@@robertmonk2346 to impart mathematically predictable spin to the projectile. Rifling means that every round is delivered is precisely the same way, whereas smooth bore guns are much less predictable due to the effects of tumbling. Rifling also means that defects in the round itself will not cause tumbling.
Also rifling rotates the rounds quickly so as project the sabot outward to get it out of the way the moment it leave the barrel.
You may be wondering how I know this. It’s because I was a Armoured Corps officer in the British Army when Challenger I was introduced. It was my job to know the precise characteristics of the entire gunnery system for Chally I and Chally II.
I was also part of the trial team in Bovington when Chally II was being brought into service in the mid 90’s.
There is not a single gun in the British Army that is smooth bore these days, other that mortars, which are not classed as guns anyway.
@@gmtime5439 Thanks for the info.
I still believe they made a conversion error with the speed and it’s meant to be 60kph.
Seems like an extremely simple error for some very high-technological production guys to make, not just once but multiple times...
It’s possible, but honestly it seems more likely to me that 96kph (60mph) is the maximum SAFE speed the power pack could withstand without damage, whereas Challenger 2’s max safe speed is about 62kph, though the tank has been known to reach up to 70, with a general max speed (under its own power alone) of 59kph.
Challenger 3 would likely be about the same, but the engine would no longer suffer damage if it gets up above 62kph, say on a downhill straight where it could reach ~70
@@ArmorCast It's not the highly technical people that said that, it's the PR department.
And no, even with a 1500hp powerpack it's still at the lower end of NATO tanks in terms of hp/t, so it's not reaching 60mph in any safe or regular fashion that doesn't involve a downward slope and superjumbo's runway's worth of acceleration as well as a willingness to replace the gearbox after.
@@lsq7833 well this is what I mean - Challenger 2 can reach 59kph under its own power alone. It’s power pack is able to sustain it up to 62kph without damage, but CR2’s have been known to reach up to 70 on a long downhill highway... and then they need their power packs replaced.
Challenger 3 will also be able to reach anywhere up to 70 or perhaps even slightly higher, as it’s the same weight, better suspension, same power output, etc., but in this circumstance the power pack won’t sustain any damage, as it’s safely rated for up to 96kph.
Of course that’s assuming it’s NOT just a typo, but once again I wouldn’t think that sort of very simple mistake would make it past so many people at RBSL and into promotional content for the new tank... seems far more likely to me that the safe speed for the engine was raised, and that’s where the value of 60mph comes from... but in general CR3 will share all the speed characteristics of CR2
@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach hard and soft aps are part of a seperate program that will be in the TES kit not just onto the tank and rbsl does say it has laser warning
but it is a typo. daddy red effect said it himself. same 1200hp engine and weighing one ton heavier with improved engine cooling dont make it go over 100 kph. its literally impossible
The U.K. has been developing hard and soft kill system icarus I think it’s callled
God bless the Queen! Greetings from Ukraine
Thank you, you added 500 years to her life
@@Ethan.YT. My grandfather has fighting in WWII and he was prisoner of war in german camp in Dortmund. He was liberated by allies and told later to my father that american soldiers are bullies and brawlers meanwhile british soldiers prim, seasoned and having honor. I remember this and now I see with my own eyes how Great Britain supports my country in this war.
God. Bless. The Queen.
@@alexshulha9236 🇬🇧🇺🇦🇬🇧🇺🇦🇬🇧🇺🇦🇬🇧🇺🇦
I hope all is well. God bless you
Little did he know
Could this just be a stopgap so they have time to work on the “future tank”? With a relatively low number being produced and the short lifespan it could just be upgrades to hopefully tie things up and give more time for a better tank. Just a thought.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure we don't have the factories here to make more tanks so we'd have to then pay someone else to make them for us or just buy tanks from another country.
The problem is, how many "future tanks" will Britain need? If the potential production numbers get to small, it's better to buy it from elsewhere or join a project like MGCS.
The Challenger 3 is not being "produced" from sctatch, it's being upgraded on the already existing base of the Challenger 2 which in turn is based on the older Challenger 1 from the 1980's.
Yes this is a stopgap it is not the future tank for the UK, that vehicle won't be retaining the challenger name.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated It will begin with a C though. That we can be sure of.
the time they have upgraded to the challenger 3 will be around 2032 this upgrade only was seen to take it into the mid 2040's i agree with you the time this comes out if it does not have a defensive system it will not be really worth the upgrade as it again will be outdated. and i also would have gone for the auto loader, lets just hope the time challenger 3 comes to a end in 2040s uk government will have the money to give the army a new new tank
The bigger question is how many new tanks. Just 148? We'll be producing that amount in a single year in India.
It has been just 1 year post this content.
I did raise the issues against UAV. With the unfolding Ukraine- Russia War, this has become more pressing issue. Challenger 3 or Leo2 all lack ASEA or other APS against top attach ATGMs.
Another key thing to notice is, 6 wheel issue. I raised this issue by asking why not 7 wheels. Some explain it as hydropnuematic suspension. K2PL is one of the latest MBT and it is using 7 wheels and hydropnuemetic suspension. The key reason for 7 wheel is for future upgrades.
Just like the beautiful Concord having no space fir extra fuel or upgrade, it is becoming a tradition that we do not plan or prepare for future upgrade given this vehicle will be in operation for next 30-40 years.
Unfortunately my view re Challenger 3 has not has changed.
It lacks vision and lacks the focus on what it is meant to be. Reflecting on Ukraine and Russian War makes it a lot more clear that this is a bad choice.
UK should have gone with K2Ex (extended) and targeted EU export market rather than holding onto the legacy.
Once again, UK has saved 350 jobs but is risking 35,000 soldiers when they get deployed to theatres.
I hope it is ok for our people to use.
Late as usual, what a surprise!
I hope that down the line we actually design our own tank and not go the easy way and get the German or American tank.
We have a great history of producing military vehicles so we don't need to pay others to produce things we are perfectly capable of producing ourselves!!!!!!
When it comes to kit being replaced in our generation I can think of two British aircraft straight away - The Tornado being replaced by the Typhoon and the Harrier being replaced by the F35.
The Harriers were sold to American Marines.There was no replacement.F35 was years later.Also not many have been bought.Due to high cost.
Vc10 and Tristar replaced by voyager? Herc replaced by a400,
The Harriers were sold to American Marines.50 of them .We still have Tornadoes in Falkland Islands and other places.Typoon is Euro fighter.So agreed to buy so many.Between the nation's that developed it.And we bought F35 and also the joint strike fighter.
15:38 Just on APS it has now been finalised it’ll have a Trophy system - on the British army website under Challenger 3 it states “Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s Trophy Active Protection System (APS) for armoured vehicles has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for detailed assessment on Challenger 3.”
My son trained at Knox, U.S.Army. About everyone has a unit there so everyone is talking and look at each other's gear, KIT.
The British all seemed to like the Abrams, ergonomics. Improvements in Ergonomics is a main reason. Single piece ammo is easier, the combat effectiveness will come with training.
I was a gunner and loader in Challenger 2, I'd have loved one piece ammo. Learning the loading system was a ball ache.
@@dicky3340 I met a few Brits when Chieftain was still in service. They said the long engagement ranges were great. Loading it was a joke. They actually preferred the Vickers 105.
Great video mate. Good point about APS , which is already a big deal and with the proliferation of loitering muntions and armed drones is going to be extremely important. This program feels like a decent value for money option. Rather than spend an absolute fortune on a brand new amazing capability they put some very good upgrades on an already good platform and get some decent without breaking the bank. In British Mil procurement that's a win.
Thing is, for less than half the cost per unit, Britain could be fielding 150+ Leopard 2A6’s, which feature most of the same upgrades with none of the drawbacks of Challenger - better armor, much better mobility, same firepower, lower weight, much better power pack, etc.,
Challenger 3 would have been a very impressive tank if announced ten years ago and entering combat readiness now. By the time we reach 2030 it’ll once again be seen as a knuckle-dragger I’m afraid
@@ArmorCast better armour is very iffy since all of Durga is classified.
@@ArmorCast Well, buying Leopards would be a blow to British pride, but most importantly, to Britains industry. I can see that they wouldn't want to outsource their MBTs when even the Warrior is set to be replaced by Boxers, this is probably a compromise to keep their MBTs british and strengthen their own Industry. Look at how much Rheinmetall had to outsource to Britain for them to take the contract.
I'd say the list of improvements are excellent for the British army today, it reduces the cost of running the tank, makes it more powerful, adds national jobs and beats its opponents.
That last point is key, while we are at peace with Germany, US etc the only likely opponents are vastly overmatched, so why upgrade your tank massively today when there is little benefit? Better to build a paper future tank for today cheaply and upgrade the real one.
Challenger 2 was designed to be a platform to be evolved over many decades. Whether that was a good idea or not is a separate discussion. But, having committed to that roadmap Britain is continuing with that evolution, so Challenger 3 could never be the revolution you talk about and hoped to see.
Of course, whether Britain will have the financial resources to support any desire to be a tier 1 power is another thing. I do not see any signs to encourage that aspiration. There will have to be a move from financial services to something else (well, many somethings) that the rest of the world will want to buy - and in great quantities. That will have to be supported by a world-class education system, and a strong government will to invest in that drive. I hate to be pessimistic, but I just don't see that happening - rather the opposite.
Yeah, the moronic incompentent 'elites' in Britain are distroying the country.
@@deathtdow And have been for about 60 years.
UK has the financiall resources.
Although I agree with your point about this just being a small upgrade, how can you get any information on the armour capability. Isn't that extremely confidential? If its touted as having an equivalent thickness of Xcm of steel (etc.) then surely that is something we would keep secret?
It's basically the same Chassis as the C2, and the turret I'd assume is similar to the Leopard 2 considering its made by a subsidiary of the company who makes leopard 2.
@@seanbailey8545 In my comment, I question the comments on the armour - the chassis is a different & independent entity
@@xdazamx I also addressed the turret and therefore the ERA being similar or even just a straight copy of the Leopard 2. Considering they are manufactured by an off shoot of the Leopard 2 manufacturer.
@@seanbailey8545 Right, but what of the effective thickness/performance of the Dorchester armour found on the C3 over the C2. As in, before ERA/spacers are applied.
I'm questioning how one could make a comparison on the armour given that information should be confidential. Is it not?
I'm not asking about the ERA nor the actual design. I hope that clarifies what I'm asking... otherwise I may be misunderstanding what you are conveying.
Is it not naive to think the armour capability hasn't been tested and that the secret is well blown these days when we give free media access to so much of our stuff and don't really guard stuff like we did in the cold war. We are even allowing a TV crew to make a documentary inside one of our submarines. Public relations seems to trump security
I love it when somebody has never served on a MBT tells you about upgrades to something and then start a slag it off
Having served on chieftain, challenger 1 and instructed on challenger 2 I can tell you that most of what you said is inaccurate
All the tanks that you’ve mentioned, i.e. leopard, Abraham, I have seen parked up on a road under trees, hidden broken down because of their engine failure is et cetera
Yes, chieftain has it’s problems, but once those problems were resolved after the first few days on exercise tend to run perfectly for a very long period of time. It would then be stored in a hanger for months upon end before used again weight would be battered and then break down again. And repeat
The armour on challenger 1 (Chobham) and Challenger 2 (Dorchester) is most definitely the best in the world so much, so that I believe the Americans have asked if they can have it for their own MBTs.
The same problem with the CV 12 engine is because of its lack of use, and it being stored for long periods in hangers, and then used in thrashed when it goes out on training et cetera. There are very few problems with the engine once it is out in theatre and has been used for a prolonged period of time ironing out the small or large problems.
I agree that the CV 12 should’ve been replaced, probably with the Mercedes engine that was suggested years ago. But that was not done and we have to move on with what we have. Challenger 2 is a world-class MBT and I’m sure challenger 3 will be even better still.
British army tanks are not in battalions, they are in regiments.
All this conversation as well you have to remember that challenger or any other European tank is not facing another European tank. It’s facing the likes of the T72 T80.
The MBT is that the British army have just have to be better than those that are currently in service with Russia. The MBT is throughout the west are so much superior than those currently in service with Russia, or even China, although those in service with China are a lot superior than those held by Russia currently.
I’m afraid I had to stop watching this halfway through as a sort of gave me a Pukie feeling with another person who has no clue telling us a right load of bollocks.
I love the "I served on Challenger so I KNOW it has the best armor in the world!"
For one, I know you're lying. You don't know any more about Challenger's armor effectiveness than I do, and that's purely through research that anybody can do. I know plenty of Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 crewmen. I know who has access to classified armor values and who doesn't. Your average crewman or training officer does not. Why would someone need those armor values to drive the thing or load the gun?
Two: Even if you're one of the rare higher-ups who DOES have access to that information... you do NOT have any access to that information for the Leopard 2 or Abrams, Leclerc, Type 10, K2 etcetera. You gotta do research just like the rest of us, and all the evidence available points to both Leopard 2A7 and M1A2 SEP having better protection, along with Strv 122 which entered service the same year CR2 did.
If you can prove to me that the existing available evidence is completely incorrect, please do so. Until then, the most credible and reliable sources are what I shall be basing information I give off of, and "I served on Challenger so I know!" is not credible information or proof of anything.
You are also wrong about America asking for the Challenger's armor for their Abrams. America DID use Chobham armor, same stuff Challenger 1 used...... on the original M1 Abrams from 1979. They replaced it by 1983 with superior domestically developed BRL versions, which they since upgraded in 1987, upgraded again in 1992, again in 1999, again in 2002, and then AGAIN in 2017. Since it was developed in 1986, the Dorchester armor array on Challenger 2 has seen zero upgrades... but somehow, magically, even the top power in the world with over 12 times the defence budget... was unable to match it? Come on, think about it for a second.
The only other time they've asked for Dorchester armor was to test it ballistically, in which case they found it to be penetrable by M829A2, a kinetic penetrator, at ranges closer than 400m. That puts it well below Abrams' AND Leopard 2's arrays in effectiveness per volume against kinetic energy threats. As for protection against chemical energy threats like RPGs and ATGMs, Challenger 2 is all but impenetrable frontally, it is true... ... as is M1A2 SEP, Leopard 2A7, Leclerc and Strv 122
Are you sure about the armor protection, I swear they said they were going to use new composite inserts? As for the name, it kind of is a new tank, they had to change so much internally to get it to use the gun and set it up for safe stowage of new single-piece ammunition it's little more than a Chally 2 cosmetic skin. While generally speaking more HP equals more speed when it comes to diesel with the right transmission they could get more out of the current engine. Though they should have thought about a powerpack swap, maybe that put it over budget or messed with all the changes they had to do to get the new gun in the tank.
Looks like the jet engine power-packed Abrams had it right all along. So easy to change that monster out. Germany had it wrong with complex diesel and transmission like they did with their king tiger of ww2. Of course America has its own king tiger in the Abrams. Still the best even though it is the oldest of all these modern tanks.
@@frankcrawford416 An experienced crew can change the powerpack of the Leopard 2 in about 30 minutes in the field if there's a Bergepanzer Büffel around, which normaly is. The Büffel can even give it's own powerpack to the leopard 2 if necessary because it's exactly the same. How many other vehicles do use the same Powerpack as the M1 again?
@@frankcrawford416 you say that but the next version of Abrams the m1a2d is supposed to get a Diesel engine
I agree I believe his sources on the Armour is a bit questionable. Challenger 2 has always been regarded as the best protected tank and has the combat experience to go along with it. This is the first time I've heard otherwise.
It's been reported that there is only going to be 148 challenger 3 tanks in the UK. The question isn't just are challenger 3 any good it's also are there enough of them.
What's the point of having a bunch of them if ww3 is a nuclear war
Uk unlikely in a large tank battle without join support. Navy and air force is key for UK millitary and other moble light infiltry and spiecal forces. 148 MBT all well maintained and working is a lot.
It has the Rh 120 mm cannon! It finally has a smoothbore cannon rather than a rifled gun. Finally, the Brits no longer have to rely on HESH rounds as their primary rounds, which are basically useless against modern tank armor.
HESH was already useless against “modern” tank armor fifty years ago, it’s an anti-structure round primarily
A very thorough appraisal and quite depressing to hear.
It strikes me all the red tape which is necessary to make these decisions and an undoubtedly limited budget will be the primary culprits for slow delivery of a less than optimal solution.
I’m also wondering about the overall strategy for the British armed forces moving forward - how integrated this is and how many elements such as tanks might actually be nearing obsolescence in view of developments in air power, missile technology and other innovations.
I guess for the tank, its utility depends on the role and although you touched on that I don’t really understand what is envisaged for Challenger 3 in an era where the US seems to be rolling back on their overseas interventions, terrorism is on the rise around the world and we have renewed Cold War style tension with Russia and China.
One also can’t help pondering the implications of the climate crisis; at some point and probably by 2027 even the military will be having to comply with some of the measures needed to address it. This 60 tonne diesel powered Challenger 3 doesn’t exactly look eco-friendly!
Great presentation however - thank you :-)
Agreed, except for the point on being eco-friendly. There are 32,000,000 cars in Britain alone. And there are -- what, 230 tanks? It has absolutely no significance if tank engines meet environmental standards or not because their impact is minuscule. You could take the worst Soviet engine that produced more smoke than power, put it in all tanks in the world, and still that wouldn't have any impact on the environment.
By the way Russia, which is considered a tank superpower, has about 22,000 tanks if you include the mothballed junk. That's still 1,500 times fewer internal combustion engines than there are cars in the UK!
Wow this comment aged well. Russia really showing the new value of the battle tank in Ukraine...
@@jameseden9380 TBH what they're doing is not very representative of the value of tanks. They're literally doing all they can to show the world how NOT to use tanks. Also, this war is showing how much behind they are in terms of technology. They're a third rate power. If not for their nukes (the vast majority of which isn't working), the US would be able to destroy their forces within a week.
@@johnnyenglish583 I do hope you are right about their nukes - they are on my mind at the moment.
@@jameseden9380 Eh? Its more so showing the value of logistics, intelligence and maintenance. Any machine is next to useless if you don't invest in maintaining it.
Just a modernize Challenger with a smooth bore
Same as Abrams updates over the years
Challenger 2 CLIP was meant to be a challenger with wet ammo, 120mm L/55 smoothbore and no other mods other then the new ranges for the gun and the ammo box.
That was about a decade ago...
@@ricksadler797 the Abrams got a citv over 20 years ago and upgraded to a smoothbore gun almost 30 years ago and we're already Fielding variants with active protection systems about the only unique thing about the Challenger 3 is it's 130 and even then we have our own 140 in development (and it's an electrothermochemical gun)
@@spartanx9293your just salty because challenger would absolutely slump the Abrams on the battlefield
@@SJ-kv9gu hahaha u tell me
I LOVE your videos ! You're an awesome narrator.
It’s all about holding the space until we ‘can’ design/part design a new vehicle and ultimately reestablish an armoured vehicle industry that can support a ‘new’ tank.
The infra and recent manufacturing experience isn’t there at the mo. I think this is the best way to secure a sovereign capability to build in this country rather than rushing a new design out now that has little chance of competing in the market place with the ‘revolutionary’ designs from America, Germany et all. Let’s see what’s out there first then put our ingenious spin on it. We will probably end up building a ‘joint’ vehicle with out own production line. It’s hard to just take off from where you left off, if the ‘left off’ is non existent. 👍
Challenger 3 needs an MTU engine, they have 2000+ hp versions
It's not that hard to build 2000+hp tank engines, it's all about decades-long lobbied defence contracts and is justified by "reliability, cost and ease of use".
Its all great having a 2000+ horsepower engine. but what range can you get out of it and how easy is it to repair in the field. How reliable is the engine in adverse conditions. All these factors need to be accounted for before looking at performance. Especially the ease of repair.
@@knucker2730 the mtu in the leopard 2 has had 1500 reliable horsepower 40 + years
@@knucker2730 range is not as important as tactical mobility in most situations.
Unless you have a long-reaching tank breakthrough in a global war scenario, supply is always right behind you in strategic terms.
In desert storm, almost no armored regiment had uninterrupted pushes of more than 40% of Abrams range.
2000hp might be too much, but Challenger 3 is a heavy tank. With the engine as it is, it literally has THE lowest power/weight ratio of any modern mbt. This underperformance can be justified or explained all day, but it's still an underperformance at the end of it. Not crippling, but preventable.
@@LoisoPondohva In a perfect world with established supply chains yes. However in areas like Iraq this was certainly not the case. Many untis became misplaced and isolated and regular supply chains were slow in coming to allied positions. If the war was not so Asymmetrical the results could have been exacerbated to a far greater extent. Britain especially with its relatively limited equipment in comparison to the US needs to have equipment capable of operating in conditions were regular resupply is scarece.
I hear that the reason we upgraded our armored mobile tea brewing facilities(the challengers) was because we required more room for Oreo's, Chocolate digestives and bourbon biscuits. That was the only reason. Money well spent in my opinion. Lets be honest the tanks are secondary to a lad in a pair of boots, but just if you think this is not quite true. We do have a phrase of gun barrel tea. This originated some 110 years ago where in warmer climates the machine guns had water jackets, which boiled when fired enough. So after the battle or threat, we had near boiling water to make tea. This is a fact.
The amount of times I've confused this tank family with the Ariete is embarrassing :/
Now how you think this looks Italian designed tank I do not know but embarrassment seems fair.
@@zefflin1451 CR1 and Ariete are very similar in visual appearance especially the mantletless turret.
They have a lot in common.
@@zefflin1451 he doesn't think of the Italians designed it he thinks they both look incredibly similar which to be fair they do
Challenger 3.1 should fix things.
The power plant will get the upgraded CV12 which has improved cooling, filtration and fuel injection. It is NOT the same as CH2. This will put out al least 1500bhp and probably 1600bhp. The transmission will be upgraded to Handel the increased power. The hydrogas suspension will be upgraded too. As the CH3 is only 1 t heavier then CH2 it is obvious it will
Be faster. How much faster we woll see.
You really gotta use references, this video to me is a big opinion and I can't take anything as fact, with my own research I quickly found that there is indeed going to be a Hardkill APS they are just weighing their options. with 6.7k subs you have a platform and that means take care when making videos like this
he correctly stated that nothing has been finalised
1:50 I cry every time
I feel it's as much about securing the support and funding to create the infrastructure and experience in Britain for a future new tank as it is to create jobs. We don't really have the capability to produce a tank from scratch as it currently stands. This should be a nice step to rebuilding some of the infrastructure needed to create a new domestic design further down the line, whilst testing many new technologies like the new digital systems, and pushing for a revival of our export market with the new turret.
Also, they have talked about APS on the @t site. Not sure if stuff on that site is classed as reliable info? @t
yeh as far as I was aware, APS is coming for challenger 3, they just haven't decided what APS it's going to be (although i believe it should be some kind of hard kill system)
Too bad no scary enemy to motivate production of more tanks
@@destroyerarmor2846 lmao
Well you know I bet they said the same thing to keep the shity gun with rifling instead of buying or licensing something foreign, because ofc only hesh can do the things heat and fragmentation rounds can do the same or way way better. They still have not fixed the lower hull but at least there is no ammo rack behind it or is there?
We have the capability but you are right we need to develop and build on what we have, we need to regain our position as the premier place for producing arms especially as putin is becoming more and more aggressive and it appears china and parts of the middle east are siding more with him than anyone else
Future battletanks will have drones included maybe with a pilot. That's what the MGCS might get, a 4 man crew, military has to consider if they should have 4 man for its more hands to take care of the heavy duty typical for tanks or have only 3 man crew to lessen human casualties.
I believe it’s an amazing tank it rivals the Abrams but luckily they’ll never go against each other in a war I will say after being in at ABRAMS as a fire control officer that some of the ammunition at the ABRAMS uses such as the dark the depleted uranium may hold a slight edge on velocity but these tanks are absolutely gangster both of them and the German tank is also Up there
Depleted uranium or tungsten rounds are useless at long range because they need that kinetic energy. Challenger 2 rounds work the opposite way to armour piercing rounds by splatting against the armour like a giant piece of shit and then detonating… relying on the shockwave to screw the tank crew.
...That's completely wrong. HESH works by squashing the explosive over the plate and detonating, causing shattering of the armor on the other side without penetration, the spalling then causes the damage on the inside.
@@alanwatts8239 I know. Point ?
@@ronemtae3468 Sorry, it was meant for the first reply stating the destrutive power of HESH relies on shockwaves.
Still remember the challenger 1 replacing the centurion and chieftain, also had the chance to work with both the MOD and Bovington Tank museum on their own projects. Personally the Abraham's is not on the same level with it armour
I thought the Chieftain had already replaced the Centurion well before the Challenger 1 came along.
I do agree that this tank is pretty much an upgraded Challenger 2, and not a completely new tank as you say.
I would say, that it doesn't pretend to be otherwise, simply going by the fact it has retained the Challenger name, rather than calling it something completely different. It's called Challenger, because it is a Challenger.
It's interesting to see that modern tanks are basically becoming mini, land battleship. They have CIWS systems, and a main armament, much like a heavy gun cruiser would have. How long before the land-drone craft carrier becomes the dominent force on the battlefield.
That’s what they always were, land battleships. You can probably find people saying this in WWI.
Not quite the same, but there was a thing in the news that the Americans are looking to equip their Abrams with drones that can be used for reconnaissance or to deliver supplies to troops.
At the point that their cost and value becomes too great to risk on the battlefield. It’s getting that way.
The MGCS will suposedly have a fleet of drones, so 2035.
TOG 2? Tank development war first overseen by navy folks hence why the first tanks had side guns and multiple turrets.
How difficult is it to take out a track, reducing it to a static gun platform?
How difficult is it to disable the optic system blinding the weapon?
Exactly the same for all tanks.
As we know nothing about the armour package it is wrong to make assumptions. We are told it will have unrivalled protection. So I would suggest it will be better then M1
We're also told the Challenger 2 has "unrivalled protection", which we know is false... not to mention Russia who claim both the T-80BVM and T-90M have "unrivalled protection"... Yet we've seen both be pierced straight through the front hull by outdated Ukrainian and NATO munitions.
"Unrivalled protection" is the most standard marketing term for a main battle tank, and literally every country uses it every time they release a new tank and/or armor package.
Welcome to the early 2000s Britain! 🎉
the challenger 2 was well upgraded within the 2000s and now
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it upgraded well - even for the time.
It's too soon to welcome them to the early 2000s. Sadly, we can't really do that until 2030 (assuming everything is delivered on time).
Now America, France and Italy need to catch up
@@Battyj americans already up to par. They've already tested a new variant of the M1A2 that has an improved fire control system, better tracks, more armor and a round that can defeat kontak5 era. They also claim it can defeat relikt era.
@@cherrypoptart2001 You have to remember the E.U played a part in Britains slow development.
Britaom bh 2035 will be up to standard, now that king bojo is putting British made back on the cards, Ill be interested to see how the 6th generation fighter Tempest comes on.
This hasn’t aged well , compared to t90 and other Russian tanks this would do well .Crew effectiveness and deployment are of paramount importance and a reliable platform .
The main comparisons raised in the video are against the Abrams and the Leopard regarding Engine power, active protection systems, weight and armor.
All of these points still stand; also, it was specifically pointed out at the end of the video that there are a million other factors than just the raw performance figures that go into combat performance.
I take your point that it's not a revolutionary new design but, if it's going up against the likes of the fairly hopeless T90 and it's limited run (hand made ?!?) T14 surely it's more than good enough? Our crew training is, I believe, second to none and we have amongst the best trained military anywhere so I reckon we're going to be pretty well equipped for the foreseeable. My only criticism would be that our armed forces are so damn small and we never seem to procure anything like enough of anything to make a real difference in the world.
The trouble with the British army having relatively so few tanks is, the R&D investment is very inefficient; you can never put as much money into it as the USA or Germany. I was a Brit army officer in a procurement-related staff job in the 90s, & used to go to see the boffins quite a lot. There were always a few *very bright* blokes in old tweed jackets soldering together all sorts of weird gizmos & fiddling with computers - impressive but very Heath-Robinson. Many of us serving soldiers questioned the rifled guns (and single-pin tracks), & realised it was the innate conservatism of the British Army that kept these things. I do think we ought to have bought Leopard 2 instead of CR2; it would have been more cost-effective and a better overall tank. And the proof of the pudding is in international sales: who has bought Challengers, and who has bought Leopard 2 or the M1 Abrams? This comparison looks even worse when you take into account German bans on sales to some Middle Eastern countries.
1:22 I've heard the Russians have moved away from the t14 and are now working on a tank design with twin Auto loaders I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called all I know is that it's turret looked cursed with a massive Gap in the middle
You mean the Burlak? Looks promising. Less radical than T-14, but certainly a competitive modern MBT
@@ArmorCast yep
@@ArmorCast I've heard that they might even retrofit the burlak turret on older tanks
@Donnie Jenkins Not really. They're tanks (and their variants) are the only ones that have really seen any conventional warfare, so they've been battlevtested and had their upgrades tailored to meet real demands.
We can't let our bias make us naive. I still prefer Western Tanks like the Abrahms and Leopard 2 but the new Russian Tanks are truly top shelf stuff, and the latest T-90 variants are really good anyway. Frankly, we're relying on having air-superiority and, hopefully, better networking these days.
@Donnie Jenkins That's the same kind of naive attitude the Brits so often spouted off about Germany before WW2 where you guys tried to laughably field the Matilda, light cruisers and eventually the Churchill - not to mention the many deaths and defeats experienced as a result.
Frankly, there are variants of the T-72 and T-80 out there that could give Challenger 2 a run for it's money Don't. Challenger 3 actually catching up to the 2020s intonations set in stone yet either onto. Don't let patriotism blind you to reality.
Check out my comment from another convo (which I'll post below) if you wish
Battle tanks are hitting their peak vs current adversary systems which makes iterative development relevant until a revolution in design or necessity occurs. Main battle tanks still have plenty to do in modern warfare their role is just shifting and adapting. Plus the Challenger is already a beast!
nah.....
Sees video
Ignores everything and watches it
I think that I am right in saying that Challenger 2 is the only MBT in the world that has been deployed in combat but has never been knocked out by an enemy. I think that speaks for itself.
Think what they could do in Ukraine at the minute. they would wipe the floor with the Russian armour.
There are facts like the ones you mentioned.
And then there are facts like the paper thin armour that Challenger 2's front hull has. Just 60mm. An RPG went through it once.
Suffice it to say, it wasn't the tank itself that was the cause of it "never having been knocked out by an enemy".
@@death_parade It was an RPG29 double warhead round. It also skipped off the road and hit the lower glacis at virtual right angles thereby negating the sloping. The tank wasn't knocked out, it wasn't even a mobility kill as the tank was able to get out of the situation and back to the COB. I was in Basra when this happened. Were you?
@@MCDrB-wq8ed No I was not. I only came to know about it when another Chally2 got hit by an IED and one of the crew lost both his legs. It was only then that it was revealed that British MoD had tried to hide the entire story about the RPG-29 hitting a Chally 2 (few months before the IED one) and penetrating past its Dorchester and taking off half the driver's foot.
To quote the mother of the crewman how lost half his foot: _"Sean often told me he felt totally safe because he was in the best tank in the world. But we now know that is not the case. The Government has covered it up. If I was the mother of the poor soldier who lost his legs last month I would be horrified to think that an earlier attack like this had happened before but none of the soldiers were told about it."_
^Victims of own propaganda.
All this hype about Chally2 being "invincible" is a bit too much. Chally2 is a good tank, but certainly not the best. Abrams is the better tank. Even if it has losses whereas the Chally2 "technically" has none. Yet British exceptionalism will lead most Brits to believe Chally 2 is the best in the world because it has "no combat loses", and Type 45 is the best Destroyer, even better than the Arleigh Burke class, that EF Typhoon is the best 4.5th gen fighter even though it still doesn't have an AESA radar, etc, etc.
I have come across Brits claiming the above time and time again. If you are/were in the military, I'd expect you know a bit more to be past mount stupid and understand that every weapon system has its fair share of weaknesses.
@@death_parade "every weapon system has its weakness" whilst claiming all British machines are garbage because they have some weakness.
Might need to check your sources on the armour. Appreciate the hard work youve put into the video but the challenger 2 is one of the best protected tanks in the world and has the combat experience to back it up.
Not exactly. It was the best protected in the world against CHEMICAL energy (high-explosive) threats... when it was first entering service... In fact even here it only managed to MATCH the Stridsvagn 122. It was outshadowed when the M1A2 SEP received new hull armor in 2002, and even more so by the SEP V3 and Leopard 2A7.
Against KINETIC energy munitions however (armor-piercing sabot rounds), Challenger 2 was never the best protected, in fact it's noticeably inferior to the Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams, both of which entered service first.
Saying that Challenger 2 "has the combat experience to back it up" is a little disingenuous, when the worst thing it's gone up against is some RPGs (mostly RPG-7s from the 1950s) and a few landmines. It's never fought head to head against enemy tanks, nor against true modern anti-tank weapons. Even still, its armor was penetrated twice in Iraq, once by an RPG-29 and once by a landmine. It was also taken out by a landmine in Ukraine, and then finished off with an ATGM (can't confirm which kind, I've heard conflicting reports)
You've gotta remember two things:
A: Britain's defence industry never really fully recovered from the second world war, especially when compared with the US, France and Germany. It's always been underfunded and underequipped, and that extends to its R&D as well.
B: The Challenger 2's armor was developed in 1986, and hasn't been upgraded since. Don't be tricked by propaganda into thinking that the best minds in the better funded US, German and French defence industries are somehow unable to match it even going on four decades later! To put it into perspective... four decades before Challenger 2 was developed, the British army were still using Cromwell tanks!
@@ArmorCast
Hi Armorcast, thank you for replying.
I believe you misunderstood me claiming it to be one of the best protected tanks with THE best protected tank. I'd like to apologise if this is the case I don't believe there is a single best protected tank.
Respectfully, what sources are you using to suggest challenger 2 is only as well protected as the stridsvagn in the chemical department and inferior to the m1a2 sep and leopard 2 a7 in the kenetic?
To my understanding all three armours; Dorchester, DU and core spaced that the tanks use are classified.
I'm not too familiar with the specs of the m1a2 sep v3 or leopard 2 a7 so this is based on the a2 sep and a6. Nothing I've seen suggests any of the armours are better than the other.
I completely disagree with your thoughts on its combat experience. I can't confirm on the type or number of RPGs used but regardless, the punishment that challenger 2 took that day is very impressive and I've not seen any other source suggesting another modern tank has taken that level of punishment and kept it's crew alive. The CR2 has also seen tank on tank engagements during the second Gulf War. Fair enough very outdated tanks but tanks none the less.
I agree with your source on the RPG 29 penetration however to my knowledge it was from the underbelly of the tank and in my opinion this shot would have penetrated any tank if hit in the same spot. The cr2 was also able to reverse back to safety after the unfortunate event.
I also agree with your source on the anti tank mine which cost the driver their leg that day but I believe the tank was later repaired and not written off so to speak. I don't believe it was able to drive back after that one though I've seen conflicting sources.
M1a2s also fell victim to anti tank mines during this conflict.
Forgive me for not including sources from Ukraine as sources are too conflicting with how tanks are lost and how poorly they fair against drones as seen by the m1 and Leo 2 losses. I'm sure cr2 would suffer the same and can't be used to compare each tanks Armour.
The tanks design started in 1986 this doesn't mean Dorchester was designed this very year. The m1a1 was still using 1st gen chobham at this point. So safe to say the m1a2 DU composite Armour was being designed at the same time. As previously stated I've seen no factual sources to suggest DU is better than Dorchester (or vise versa for that matter).
Off topic but I'd like to mention about your point with the Cromwell that the Sherman was also still in service with the US army 4 decades before.
Thank you for your time to read my response. Apologies if I've dragged on in certain places.
3 is a lucky number and the SEPv3 Abrams also contains the numeral 3. I think this is a sign that 3 is the right number to associate with your MBT in the 20s
Lmao wtf? Maybe because after challenger 2 comes challenger 3?? Or after SEP V2 comes SEP V3? Not they're even developing SEP V4 so you're wrong
"Challenger 2 has been a controversial tank, with several features seeming outdated or regressive. "
No it hasn't. Best armour, one of the fastest and up to date tech.
It's literally the slowest modern MBT out there, and didn't even have "the best armor" when it was put into service in the late 90's, let alone 20 years later!
Both M1A2 and Leopard 2A5 had better turret armor before CR2 was put into service, at least as far as kinetic energy munitions go. Leopard 2 even matches it in chemical warhead protection too, as does the M1A2 SEP version which entered service just a couple years AFTER Challenger 2
@@ArmorCast You make me laugh...You run through the features like a school kid comparing Top Trump cards lol...The little thing you miss is the Chally (and it's tank crews) has the best real world combat record of any modern tank. Far better than the Abrams, and that's no slouch...With regards HESH, one of the main reasons it was loved by the MoD was that it was comparatively cheap especially compared to the various CHARM rounds, and HESH is of course fairly multi purpose...
No, it was not fast, but it has a great armor. Don`t see a reason, why Challenger 3 would be worse. There is lot of opinions in internet - like assholes, everyone got one! But Abrams, Leopard and Challenger etc are pretty equal.
@@ArmorCast As I understand it, while lacking the "top" speed of other tanks, the Challenger was in fact as fast or faster than others over rough terrain, where it really counts. And given its survivability record, your contention that it has poor armour really is nor borne out by real world events.
I do t agree fully with your assessment, due to the fact that British tank crews are indeed the best trained in the world, of which has been proven time and again. Similarly Nelson's fleet did not have the biggest, and even the most numerous when in battle. They did have the best gun crews around though, making them lethal against the Spanish and French fleets who were in no way inferior as ships go. A good crew in a moderate war fighting machine can take on superior enemy formations, again proven throughout history. I do agree though that this Chally IS an upgrade to Challenger 2, and UK designers should have built the tank for tomorrow, as this 3 version will not see long service due to being out if date.
I've just found his channel, and seems like an anti British twat.. he's got a Scottish accent, so he must be one of those Snp extremists,im Scottish btw and proud of our main battle tank.
5:11 doesn't the M1A2c Abrams also have that 5:14 again doesn't the Abrams have that 5:27 well that's vague
M1A2C already has Trophy APS. Most likely case is this is what ends up getting applied to Challenger 3, but as of yet, it's just a case of "we're still evaluating, and whatever we feel is the best option is the one we'll go with"
Yank sit down our tanks better
@@SJ-kv9gu evidently no it's not the m1a2c has been finalized the Challenger 3 ain't going to be out for a good long while and it still doesn't have an APS chosen the statement was made for one particular reason any claims of the Challenger 3 being the best tank in Europe are bunk it might have one of the best cannons but that's about it I'd still opt for the leopard 2a7 or m1a2c over it
@@spartanx9293 kk
@@SJ-kv9gu you wish
Britain should have gone 130mm. There are few enough of them not to be bothered with logistical commonality.
Plus, with the 130mm's autoloader that means only 3 men per tank instead of 4. With Parliament mandating that the British Army downsize to the tune of 72,500 soldiers, 148 fewer men needed to crew Challengers means 148 more men available as crew for an Ajax or Boxer unit. The British Army even after downsizing will still be large enough that 148 men isn't all that much, but every little bit helps when Parliament has decided you're the least important branch of the military.
@@RedXlV you do need to remember though we are adding more and more onto tanks and lots of tank crews said it would have been almost impossible to perform maintenance in field without a 4th member
@@jacobkingsford5209 I'd be interested to know how that's worked out for France, seeing as they've been operating the 3-man crew Leclerc for almost 30 years now.
@@RedXlV from what I've heard the Leclerc is very maintenance heavy compared to other tanks
@@jacobkingsford5209 Well, they argument tank battalions with additional company on wheeled vehicles. Also remember ultrasophisitaced electronics and Lecler's super compart, super high pressure Hyperbar engine. This is amazing vehicle, but all this amazing stuff must have a price.
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Makes good sense. I really like hearing the horsepower per ton number.
In the world of physics horsepower describes how much time it takes to do work. Tons describe the weight of the work to be done. So more power is more better.
More power is not more better. More power is better.
The new " Challenge-Ja" 3 is a stop gap at best. Warfare at the moment has gone "drone crazy", like the T-14 none of it really seen as been the definitive future of armoured land warfare.
Hence no one like Germany or US jumping to make an all new next generation tank.
APS + proper combined arms work will take care of the drone hype.
Sure, it's a stop gap. You might want to look up MGCS. UK became an official observer a couple months ago.