The Only Reason Why The UK Challenger 3 is The Most Feared Tank on Earth
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 10. 2023
- The Challenger 3 main battle tank is the strongest tank for the British Army.
The updated Challenger 3 will have a better turret and gun, and active protection system, making this tank able to attack and defend equally well.
Thanks for watching, please like, share, and subscribe - Věda a technologie
The main reason it is feared is often overlooked - it is operated by the british army. Professional and enthusiasts, highly trained and highly skilled.
Best don’t mess. Volunteer in Ukraine. Train, support and help others
I would have agreed 15 years ago but today the British military as a hole is an under funded under trained and under equiped force. The building of two aircraft carriers and new submarines has taken a heavy toll and created many budget issues.that are not being addressed because the UK is in real financial trouble.
This upgrade 3:03 program is seeing a further 200 challenger 2’s go into storage leaving only 100 upgraded tanks in service.
@@kentriat2426 the British army couldn't fill villa park stadium.
@@kentriat2426 What has underfunding got to do with being professional and enthusiastic. Also you clearly lack knowledge of the reasoning behind the funding.
The UK throughout history has prided itself on its navy, we are what we are today becuase of our navy. An Island nation thrives of its navy as its the most important defense at our disposal. The reason our navy gets the most funding is for many reasons. 1. The uk is in a prime position in europe to block russian ships from getting out of the arctic and further south. We also have Gibraltar which is a staging area to police an potential enemies from getting in or out of the mediterranean. As i also said as an island we are surrounded by the oceans and this makes it our greatest defense and so it seems logical that we would put more money into our navy for defense and power projection.
The next most important branch is the RAF as airpower is one of the biggest deciding factors to an offense and defense for example the first gulf war as an offensive example and battle of britain as defensive example.
In the current climate and politics the british army is the least useful tool and i hate to admit that as my father is ex army. however this is the truth. But what we do do well is making sure what little army we have is brutally efficient and exemplary at what they do and that is why even if its a small force its a feared force. It is why american ex soldiers are always giving british soldiers the highest of praises.
@@JimCarner you need to fill them full of jammers it would defeat 90% of the fpv drone attack and I still think we quite a way off with the lasers also.
Never forget that in the Gulf War in 1991 offensive the Challenger made a single shot over a staggering range of 5,100m (3 miles) with a Depleted Uranium (DU) round - the longest confirmed tank kill in history
It broke the record twice didn't it? also fought was a HESH round
Owen Jones doesnt accept this account. He has seen tanks miss at closer range..
In fairness, that was against an unarmoured T-54 30 years it's junior with no reactive armour.
I thought there was a ukrainian tank fairly recently that beat this record. Not sure of the details though.
@@seaofenergy2765 let’s hope if they did it was with a Challenger 2 😂
You’ve missed the point completely. The real reason for the switch to a smoothbore is ammunition. Nobody makes ammo for the rifles any more.
Made in Belgium but expensive due to small quantities required . BAE stopped making it because not profitable !
Commonality is the sensible way to go.
And bore wear.
Rifled guns are obsolete, that is the reason
Challenger 1 with a rifled barrel still has the longest tank on tank kill in history.
I guess its all made up, so that we buy German guns and American ammunition, same with sea harrier and f35 jets, even the new rifle has to came from America wasn't the Sa 80 L3 not good enough
I thought rifled barrels were more accurate to smooth bore.
they fire HESH rounds which allows longer range. Smooth bores are better for APFSDS .Which result in much better accuracy and penetration at range especially with DU APFSDS.
many thanks for the information.@@paullakowski2509
@@tonysheerness2427they are but require 2 part loading ie charge is loaded separately to the projectile, the switch to smoothbore is more to bring in line nato standardisation of ammunition
Challenger is faster xcountry than Abrams, because of its suspension. Also the vehicle is lower and more repairable because the suspension units are external, unlike others where double torsion bars go in the bottom of the vehicle, which raises the profile.
CR is also vastly more fuel efficient than Abrams. Combat radius is nowhere near as good as Chieftain, but we don't run out of fuel as the US did in GW. Fuelling is a real problem with Abrams.
The point about the HESH round was that, in the past it was the projectile that satisfied the NATO accuracy requirement, despite the fact that the primary a/t round was APDS. We later changed our primary anti armour round to a DU fin, using a slipping driving band. One of the problems going to the Rheinmetall gun is the fact that it uses fixed ammunition. This means that we have lost our 10degrees of depression, because you need a longer space behind the gun to load it. This means that, in a hull down position much more of the vehicle has to be exposed, in order to cover the same area of ground in front of the tank. - compared with other vehicles 5 deg of depression. So you offer roughly twice the target area. This not only affects detection and visibility, but also the chance of the enemy hitting you with a less accurate gun. Hard lesson learned in WW2
... I was a gunner on the 1st Chieftains to be fitted with the extended graticule and laser rangefinder ... my colleagues and i used to be able to claim 1st tound hits on hard target at up to 3000m using the old APDS projectile down a rifled barrel ...
Almost two miles......
first i would like to sincerly thank you for your service i spent some time in the navy , i failed to realise my dream of serving in the "QDG"i have a lack of agression but was a gifted steelworker, these people dont know enough and dont have the balls you had to join up,again thank you & advance brittania.
Thank You For Your Service My Friend, regards Professor Mark Woods
Yea thanks for getting paid for that JOB
Yep I can confirm that, with Sabot I always got 1st round hits, more often than not with Hesh aswell.
Did we not recently win the tank competition with our Challenger 2, I just think this will make us better.
The rifled barrel was not itself a problem, in fact it was an advantage in firing given British preferences in rounds, the problem however, is that everyone else in NATO can’t use the same ammunition and vice versa.
The new gun we be awesome, but the old gun still has the longest tank on tank kill (5km+) from a Challenger 1 in the Gulf War, so hardly an “issue”.
It is a problem. Rifled guns have far far less durability and wear far far faster. Only reason brits want to use rifled was hesh which is far inferior to plenty of rounds developed nowadays. Its a outdated system
@@achunkyduck9740 hence the word “was” in my first line. I agree with you. For HESH (often a British preferred round) a rifled barrel made perfect sense. But the rounds today are good enough without rifling, but the fact remains that rifling “was” not itself the problem. The problem was that others in NATO went with smoothbore so, ultimately the lack of interoperability was the salient problem. It’s like if you bought a Betamax but all the video hire stores only released VHS.
@@StoccTube no as I said rifling is a inert issue with no benefits. Hesh is inferior to standard 120 programmable munitions and basic he. The big issue is the barrel life as I said. Rifled can only fire around 30% of the rounds a smoothbore can without gaining a single thing. Britain was just stupid wanting to keep hesh
@@achunkyduck9740 a rifled barrel only suffers reduced barrel life when firing discarding sabot rounds, which was not the preferred round of the British Army. You can pump HESH down a riffled barrel for which it was designed without compromising barrel life.
HESH still plays an important role (including with the US military), they’re just big enough to employ it on specialist engineering platforms. Specifically HESH is exceptional at demolition of fortifications… which proved very handy in the Middle East where 1. Tanks mostly shot buildings, 2. Any combat against enemy armour was easily dealt with using HESH as armies like Iraq etc didn’t employ modern composite armour or spall liners.
So far from “stupid” it was simply how the Brit’s did things, which generally includes a sharp eye on cost… I suspect, but cannot prove that a basic HESH round filled with plastic explosive, is far less per shot than discarding sabot / programmable shells per shot. I imagine adding the words “depleted uranium” in order to have a substance small yet dense enough to create an armour penetrating dart from… is the equivalent of saying “it’s for a wedding” at the florist.
This is all academic as the Brit’s are moving on, but I suspect it was perfectly smart to keep them to this point for many reasons, including price, existing stocks, relative standard of likely enemy vehicles etc.
Once you understand that the British Military doesn’t waste anything, you’ll see where their heads were at.
@@StoccTube hesh is not the main armament of a tank? Apfsds has always been the primary armament of a mbt. Probramable munitions are far far superior to hesh which is why hesh has been completely phased out for the last 20 years in the US mostly. Hesh has been out dated for years similar to rifled barrels. There is no questioning the fact the rifled barrel was a bad decision
Ukrainians are very happy with the accuracy of the rifled barrel.
Ukrainians didn't survive long enough iin the Challenger to apreciate anything
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yes, I do believe that UK minds can come up with the best in this context. Whether their ever smaller pie Govt ideology can fund the scale to make it all worthwhile, is another issue.
Chobham armour is incredible. Gives the crew a much better chance
correct@@OMT988
your out of date mate, Dorchester has Chobham beat hands down.
Chobham is older gen armour the UK gives to the US to use we now use Dorchester that's two generations newer.
@@axeami1354 Which recently has been upgraded again for the new Challenger 3s
Hope you're not talking about my mate Stroudy: I'm better 😅
Many people claim that the Challenger 2 is a poor vehicle usually pointing to the old Rifling technique still incorporated as its main gun, some call into question its armour too (something I laugh at because its armour is entirely classified) and some cite its 1300 HP engine as a disadvantage compared to Allied 1500 HP engines. I believe that the Challenger is on par with many of its Western Allies and is a threat to any future enemy tank it may seen on the modern battlefield.
CV 12 6 A is 1200 hp , new 9 A engine has bigger turbos and improved radiators so will produce more power although its not listed . Expect trials will determine what they decide on
it's mostly Americans who say those things but they are generally big headed clueless monkeys.
Show the world in Ukraine
I believe the engine in the Challenger 2 is capable of using any kind of fuel that is on the battlefield not just gas needed for the gas turbine engine in the likes of the Abrams
@@richardfewer9348 It certainly is - in active combat right now.
The only disadvantage with a rifled barrel is you're restricted to your own ammo. But if you've got plenty of ammo then no problem.
The UK government are thinking 10 years ahead. There may be times when stocks are low. And if you're going to upgrade other things then may as well make the switch to smoothbore at the same time.
Are you seriously accusing the British Government of thinking?
@@jeffslade1892 Politicians no, senior military officers hopefully yes!
Funny old thing, the longest tank on-tank kill was by a Challenger against an Iraqi Russian built tank, the Challenger had a rifled barrel.
And your point is?
@@legend9335 That the gun on the Challenger 2 wasn't bad and retained stopping power at range despite rifling. People cite the gun as a weakness of the Challenger 2, but really it was fine. The new gun though, together with the suite of gizmos that make it equally accurate to a rifled barrel, is even better.
@@GoodEggGuy it depends how you look at it. As an infrantry support platform the rifled barrel was very good becuase of HESH, however as a interoperable platform with allies it was great due to logistical constraints and then there is the factor the to counter the rifling the APFSDS round lost some pentration power aswell as the 2 piece ammo making the dart slightle shorter to our nato counter parts reducing its penetration a little more. Its the weakest armor penetrating cannon of all of NATO MBTs however still 100% functional by every means.
Who cares about the barrel?
You need a man to load ammunition & he will need the tank to be more or less static so it will only be great against iraqi army level
Auto loaded ammunition system even when moving at highspeed like in the Leclerc is a must for modern warfare where mobility are expected for more than a 5mn life expectancy
Good luck against Russia with artillery, copters & kamikaze drones on you
@@exee6820 Tell me you havent been in a tank before without telling me you havnt been in a tank before. What kind of retarded logic do you have.
That’s why the chalager2 rifled gun holds the recored for farthest distancez confirmed kill they have changed to smoothbore so it can fire nato ammunition not because it’s superior the rifled gun is superior but it comes at a cost
Having a rifled gun barrel was NEVER a problem for the challenger 2 it was Nato that had the problem with it as 80% of Nato tanks were using the same Smooth Bore gun.
Which is the biggest reason for us to change to smooth bore.
@@ashleygoggs5679 No the reason we changed to the Smoothbore now and not before is the challenger 2 would have had to have its entire turret redesigned the challenger 3 has the turret built around the new gun system. we just had to wait until now for the upgrade.
@@simon0674presumably no HESH then?
@@artnull13 unfortunately no
@@artnull13 nor HEAT
The only problem with the challenger 2 and new challenger 3 will have is we won’t have enough of them
I read C2 gun had longer range and accuracy than smooth bores
They all have ablative armor as well, designed to cancel some of the force from kinetic strikes. A happy accident; it makes them laser-proof. Hit the armor with a laser and you generate clouds of smoke as the ablative armor burns. your laser turns into an expensive flashlight.
Eeh what next...cloaking devices and force fields.
@@MrSmegfisheventually no doubt
Amazing package ❤Uk.
Challenger2 with its out dated systems still holds the longest tank on tank kill 🇬🇧👍
Challenge one was the longest tank to tank kill 🇬🇧
I've heard that the rifled barrel of the challenger 2 has a particular utility with regards to the HESH tank round in the sense that the spin of the round helps the plastic explosive 'pancake' against the surface of the target. It's a clever idea really of not actually trying to penetrate armour as such but rather to cause massive trauma to the interior of the tank ... and it's crew. I assume a smoothbore can also fire such rounds but perhaps with slightly less efficiency?
100% correct. In particular this aspect was useful in demolishing buildings, therefore was very useful in Iraq. Other NATO rounds simply couldn’t do what it could in many instances, making Chally 2 really useful in an infantry support role.
a smooth bore hesh would probably miss by 20ft
Great tank but the uk will not have enough !
the Ukrainian crews using the challenger have named it the " sniper" because it is so accurate and efficient.......
The advantage of being accurate is that every round in a tanks limited arsenal is dropped on target....
What utter juvenile PISH ! Where did you get your information from ? Certainly not the front line, because it's no longer at the front, after the lost two of the challengers 2,
Now they call it a pile of scrap.
Troll
@@kderulesno,they dont, even if one catched fire. Its still repairable and noone got killed.
No,spitting chRussian self-lies will not help,dumbazz
- The Challenger 3 has been unveiled as the UK’s newest and most “lethal” main battle tank (MBT);
- The Challenger 3 is produced by modernizing existing Challenger 2 MBTs with 127 planned for conversion from the UK’s existing 221 Challenger 2s;
- The refurbishment/modernization of 127 tanks will cost $990 million or approximately $7.8 million per tank, several times more than modernized Russian tanks, and even more expensive or as expensive as new Russian tanks;
- The Challenger 3 will weigh more than its predecessor, and both tanks are heavier than their Russian T-72B3, T-90M, T-80BVM, and even T-14 counterparts;
- 127 MBTs in total will mean that most likely fewer than 100 tanks will be operational at any given time making it impractical for the UK to project military power abroad in any significant manner;
- The Challenger 3 features a 120mm smoothbore gun that will use NATO standard tank rounds which is an improvement over the Challenger 2’s rifled gun which required unique ammunition incompatible with other NATO tanks;
- The Challenger 3 is another illustration of Western military industrial production, emphasizing expensive, complex weapons built in small numbers to maximize profits versus equally capable, but cheaper and more numerous Russian or Chinese weapons designed to maximize both battlefield and strategic effectiveness;
- While a Challenger 3 may or may not be capable one-on-one with a Russian MBT, the fact that Russia has many more tanks and is able to replace damaged or lost tanks faster than the Challenger 3 and other Western MBTs proves a disadvantage to the UK and the rest of NATO;
That rifled barrel still holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill at 5,000 meters it is incredibly accurate, but as the shells for it are unique to the UK they are relatively expensive and if operating with NATO forces are not interchangeable. So although it's far more accurate and a far better gun we have to dumb down to the standard NATO round.
Its the training of the British Army, highly skilled operatives who serve for a number of years in their machine,each man knows his job, and can also do each others job; they know every nut and bolt, engine servicing, engine stripping in the field and replacing, track removal and replacement in the field plus a host of other things.
Well between me you and the gatepost. The Challenger is the best tank in the world because it can shoot and kill at high speed (The only tank in the world with this capability). This means that when you run away at high speed you can still kill the beast in pursuit (wicked)!
Good accurate info (although repeated too much). Makes a change from so many others channels on YT.
... back in the 70s as a tank crewman on Chieftains, when wire guided missile became a serious threat, we had a perimeter protection radar called ZB298, and i suggested that something like that should be combined with a Carl Gustav firing canister mounted on the turret ... the squadron 2i/c said it was a ridiculous idea ... ha!
I worked with Challenger 1 and 2 for many years.
Its main armour is one of its best attributes, we knew how it worked but its composition is still classified as top secret. The Chally 2 already has a good fire control system, and is extremely capable in both day and night situations.
Also, the Challenger can already fire APFSDS rounds, the main reason we held on to the rifled barrel for so long is because of HESH rounds. Extremely lethal rounds that are effective against most armour.
Lastly I would say the crews themselves are at the very top in the world. Of course you could say I am biased, and to a degree I likely am. I served alongside American tank crews, and whilst being professional tankies, they just have a very different attitude when it comes to deploying and attacking an enemy, something that goes for the American military in general.
I have often wondered about that. I think the US is better at risk management. An old friend of mine was a British paratrooper. He told me they were training with the US Rangers - not a soft outfit by any means. Both did a jump at 2,000 feet from a Herky bird no problem. They went around again to jump at 1,200 but the rangers said it was too low. The paras jumped. THEN they went around again and jumped at 800. He said "OK, a couple of guys had broken bones, but nobody died" I laughed and said you lot are f****ing nutters. I guess they might have learned something useful should they ever need to jump again < 1000?
Yeah i saw how wonderfull they are in Ukraine
@@Daniel-Strauss You are talking about the one that threw its right track on an anti tank mine obviously.
The 1st Challenger to ever be stopped, not destroyed from what I saw to an enemy. Compare that to the numerous Abrahams that were lost in both Desert Storm operations. Also Challenger 2 recently won yet again the Iron Cross competition. Every NATO tank has to go through rigorous challenges, firing at various targets on the move, and Chally 2 came top in every category if memory serves me right.
Sadly we just won’t have enough of them, back in the days of BAOR we had 900 now we have a pathetic 143
I gotta say rifling in a barrel does not increase the friction it decreases the friction the rifling also make it much more accurate. They went to a smooth bore because that just opens up the amount of different kinds of rounds that can be fired
...what? Rifling increases friction, it literally spins the shell by creating resistance, without increasing friction it just wouldn't work. And yes, it makes it much more accurate compared to an old fashioned smoothbore, but ammunition can create the same effect without needing rifling now. A modern smoothbore is just as accurate, while achieving a higher muzzle velocity.
Listen, we’ve been battling for 2000 years, we know how it’s done.
"Bae systems" made me wince every time.
Me too.
Cringeworthy digital narration
The $1000 Drone says "Hold My Beer".
Well having spent year’s serving on chieftain challenger 1 and two I am not keen on smooth bore guns there seems to be a lot of talk of the excellent computer and tech. Being a old CVRT gunner mech who relied on old fashioned gunnery I like to know what happens when all this tech fails. Even on chieftains we had fin stabilised ammunition
@@JimCarner not entirely as most of them have have a manual override redundancy. If all the tech fails you become and old fashioned tank with a very modern cannon.
Remember your sight picture, the good old days
@@watsondove849 and "fire on the ow of now" I can still rattle out reasons for a first round miss etc...
"These are super advanced technologies that have been spent years and billions on!"
Meanwhile, a barefoot native attached a hand grenade to the drone...
Sounds a bit like the Tiger. Apex on the battlefield but never enough of them to truly count. Do we even have enough to really operate a tank as it is supposed to be used, a breakthrough asset?
the tiger could be destroyed, nobody has managed to destroy one of these with the old Armour on yet never mind the newer one.
B-A-E is B, A, E. not 'Bay' I know, petty of me but it bugs.
So what does the magic energy shield thing actually do ?
Rifling is used to cause the shell (or bullet in a gun) to spin. A spinning object (like a gyroscope) is not affected by torsional forces, and hence the shot can be more accurate.
Why does this video keep showing cannons with rifling when talking about smooth bore cannons?
If one side has tanks you have to keep your own, but this machine is not going to be any sort of game changer, particularly when you only have about 200 of them.
The UK would do better re-investing in factories that can produce cannons and ammo rather than relying on Rheinmetall.
Depend on your people. Some of the best
firstly, the only country capable of possibly getting air superiority to invade the UK is the US, so they aren't really made in bulk to defend the UK.
secondly, all of Britain's oversea's territories are islands, so navy and air force will be their defense too, except Gibraltar but what are the chances of Britain and Spain going to war.
thirdly, that means their main objective is to have tanks Britain can use to support allies in other parts of the world, so not be the main force.
lastly, until you have a way to actually destroy one then 200 of them entrenched in a position are definitely gonna be a game changer, especially if its holding a Hindenburg type line or holding captured territory.
@@bigenglishmonkey I'm fine with the UK ending it's perpetual wars so as long as we are not going to do any Gulf War or continental Europe type escapades you are right that we don't need many tanks.
relying on an historical enemy to supply your materiel...seems odd.
The rifled barrel wasn't really an issue in itself; it just wasn't wholly compatible with the use of APFSDS shells. Rifling is used to stabilise shells by imparting spin and therefore making them more accurate at range. An APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) is already stabilised so doesn't need to be spun. The British favoured the use of HESH shells though which did benefit from the spin; so the two rounds were in conflict with one another in terms of rifling.
I believe modern tanks now are generally lined with Kevlar spalling shields internally which reduces the effectiveness of HESH and makes the already stabilised APFSDS rounds more preferable and therefore better suited to a smoothbore gun.
When will it be in the field?And how many will they have?
Sounds like the first thing that would happen in a real extended conflict would be a shortage of complicated Rheinmetall made ammunition. Especially if all NATO tanks are designed to use it. Bets are we would have to use the Challenger 2 as we still had rifled ammunition in stock. Its all well and good widening compatibility so we can use other countries ammo, but we should still make sure we keep a stock of the tried Challenger 2 and home-made rifled rounds in backup, as well as the capability of producing more if needed.
Shame the one the Army gets isn't as good as the demonstrator. A few upgrades and a smooth bore gun are great,- but the demonstrator that won the contract was better and let's hope Rheinmetal haven't gone bust, given the state of the German economy.
British tank crews are top notch - I hope this tank lives up to the hype.
how could Reinmetal go busted,when only tanks would be built like 1000 for UA and 3000 for other countries. And when 50% of GER energy is free, Renewables-generated.
And when German economy is not falling, that were only 2 quarters. France still drops to recession but also it is ending, so as in whole western world.
As we see in Ukraine, no matter what tank you have - if you are spotted, and in range, you are done. All armored vehicles now need active protection against drones, guided rockets, and still not protected against depleted uranium projectiles.
Yep, I too try to hypnotize my opponent like this, but it doesn't work. 😆
The main reason for a large tank upgrade is to deal with newer AT weapons. However how they can call it the Challenger 3, when the hull is the same as the Challenger 2.
Because it's their sodding tank.
Rifled is more accurate, smooth bore requires stabilised shells. The change was purely to ensure compatibility with NATO rounds.
Surely a smooth bore if tight has more friction than a rifled one equally tight?
Shouldn't. Bore for bore the rifling adds more surface area.
RIfled barrels are very accurate and until very recently fired a greater range of shells. So it wasn't a lagging behind, more a pros and cons things.
And the cons outweighed the pros ;)
@@AlexG-vg2pg it was more pros than cons until new shells were developed for the smooth bore.
The Challenger kept the rifled gun because British tank doctrine prioritized infantry support over tank on tank combat because tanks are usually only seen in small numbers compared to armoured personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. The rifled gun gives superior long range accuracy and effectiveness for High Explosive Squash Head rounds which use chemical energy so don't lose effectiveness at longer ranges the way Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds do using only kinetic energy to penetrate armour. With the proliferation of composite and explosive reactive armours and the development of more effective multi purpose rounds for smoothbore guns switching over to a cheaper smoothbore now makes more sense. The Challenger will lose it's devastating long range power but the gun will suffer reduced wear gain access to cheaper slightly more powerful armour piercing ammo and be able to buy ammo from any NATO ally.
So basic they prowl behind the infantry to pop IFV and APC
@@TheGnue yep that has always been British military doctrine. Ever since the battle of cambrai the first large scale use of tanks it was clear a tanks greatest vulnerability was infantry sneaking up in their large blind spots and attacking too close for the crew to counter. That is why many early tank designs included pistol ports in the armour so the crew could fend off such attacks and why American tank designers resorted to sticking machine guns in every conceivable direction. These measures were never any actual use as it didn't address the real issue the tankers lack of situational awareness caused by limited visibility and deafened by their tanks engines. While this threat could be somewhat countered by the tanks mutually covering each other in open terrain this isn't viable in urban combat or dense woodland. As we've seen repeatedly in Ukraine tanks without close infantry support are just big noisy targets for skilled infantry with good anti armour weapons. One of the tanks biggest advantages is purely psychological up close they are genuinely terrifying but a trained soldier who understands their limitations can overcome this and destroy them unless enemy infantry prevent him from getting close enough.
And yet despite slagging off Chally 2 and its gun, it STILL holds the longest confirmed tank to tank kill using its "crap" 120mm rifled gun and HESH. The Leos have never fought tank to tank until the Ukraine war and have lost four already albeit not in tank to tank warfare. The Chally 2 has done so and has never lost a unit until it lost one due to a mine then follow up arty from the Russians in Ukraine. The M1 Abrams got hammered in Iraq. Just how many is kept an embarrasingly close secret but there are sources out there stating up to 50. I myself passed the carcass of a burned out M1 in Iraq in 2004, just off Route Irish. I must admit I was shocked at that.
Hi Petery, I thought the tankies were called Sallies? and Leppies? Who is auntie arty? Was she the one who knitted a lot? Your post sounds a bit wanky.
lol the chally hit a mine huh.... nice story bruv but the facts are, the chally is no better than any othe MBT when faced with a peer adversary instead of goat herders armed with .303 SMLEs. The brits wont send anymore challys now as they know the myth about their survivability and being immune to attack has been well and truly busted as PROVEN inn Uke
I think the main point here about the Challenger 2 lost in Ukraine is that the crew survived. I doubt that very few other tanks offer the same degree of protection.
Although it lost the tank the crew climbed out shaken but not stirred.
@@williamwilliam5066I,m ex Cav,and "Chally"and "arty"sounds Pukka to me,but there again I don't play WOT
Now that the Russians are thinking that there unbeatable, we definitely need the New Challenger 3 Tank but we need more than 250, just saying, Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎🇬🇧👍
Silly boy. British Secret Service are on Russia's side against our woukd-be conquers The EU. I mean, let's face it: The Tories are EU to the core!
NEED TO GET THEM BUILT AND WORK STARTED ON CHALLY 4 AND 5
Are the challenger 3 all new tanks or are the challenger 2 been used for the body's to upgrade the tank to 3
Challenger 2 hulls are stripped inspected, repaired and rebuilt for challenger 3 . They are getting MK3 upgraded hydro-gas suspension with low friction internals . Improved engine etc .
Upgraded hulls.
So we will have a massive army of 60 tanks if we're lucky
#excellent
i mean it has all the best parts of the leopard 2's and all of the best parts from the challengers. so yeah its a Truely formidible tank.
So are we refurbishing our old Mk 2's or are we building brand new Challengers 3's?
Also does this mean that we now have the capability of building more Challenger tanks as I thought we had done away with the factory that built Challenger's?
God I truly hope we can as I can see a big need for them sadly in our future.
Regards Chris
I listened to Leopard 2 on u tube ...the round makes a real crack...much sharper sounding than the Russian tanks. Reminds me of like C4......thsts goes crack not kerboom
Ah yes. The world famous Bay Systems. 🤦🏼♂️
Ruffled gun caused friction and slowed munitions down but it still holds the record for the distance taking out another tank 😁👌 thought it was rifle too heat up the depleted uranium round 🤔
Need to have built in mine / heavy metal detectors on the front. Csn not believe how every tank on the battlefield don't have them
1 that would be expensive, 2 that dosnt stop all mines, it would only stop pressure plate mines, not proximity mines or aerial mines. There are doctines for mine fields its wise to save money and use it where its needed more then waste it on something like that. Generally a mine doesnt kill a tank just stops it in its tracks.
Apfsds ie fin rounds on both guns use fin stabllisation despite the challenger 2 guns being rifled. this article is factually inaccurrate in many ways. particularly in regards to the challenger going smoothbore
It's going to be interesting to see how much further the Challenger 3 can shoot considering the Challenger 1 holds the record for the longest direct fire shot (I'm aware the Ukrainians are claiming the longest kill - it's a impressive feat but was using a T-72 in an indirect role so moving it away from a tank shot and more into an artillery shot instead).
Even on 1000 meter it's already indirect because of the bullet drop
@@bigmock141thats not indirect. Bullet drop is normal in each rifle shot and each aiming device has settings for it. In tank its point-blank fire usually 1200m.
Indirect is if you hit from above,not directly.
Just use google before spitting self-lies
0:16 - woah woah slow down there mate, we're not spendy any dollars 8D
The Russians are a joke,but they're not going to be frightened of 140 of these however excellent they are,and they are shit hot!
Bee Ay Eeeh, not Bay...As in British Aerospace.
AI narration…🤷♂️
You say that, but the longest record kill is with a Challenger 2!
The ONLY reason they are changing out the gun, is for NATO compatibility. The UK army does NOT want to give up it's hesh round, trust me!
As we won't have enough of these (I think 148?) to equip a full armoured division, I don't think Russia has much to worry about.
British Army now counts in brigade formations, not divisions anymore. Very small land force means way fewer casualties. When it's done, the army's done. Emphasis is sea and air power, but those look pretty token too.
@@franzmenzies5268 not quite, in total the UK has 556 aircraft, but the main ones are 137 typhoons and 26 F-35s (soon to be 47), and then theres the 6th gen tempest being built.
the navy has around 70 vessels without auxiliary vessels, 10 of which are submarines, and if ive added up all the new orders recently made we should be getting around another 2 dozen ships and 5 more submarines soon.
so its not as bad as a lot of news sites or you tube channels make out.
Can it stop a drone or Artillery ?
the smooth bore is a good step up ... but they have to increase their armor and speed ...
Chobham armour is the best armour in the world.
If you fire an arrow from a bow a long distance in a cross wind ? That was enough that during UK trials in Scotland, the Americans refused to take part against the British 120mm rifled gun. The Germans however (smooth bore) did take part. The results were as expected. The British gun has/had a life span of 100 round firing APDS - full charge. However, HESH and HEAT no problem. Bearing in mind the US Sherman had a lifespan of around 14 rounds in combat, 100 seems OK to me - especially if you hit the target on a windy day with a gun that actually did any good.
U can fit all the best state of the art defence systems and clad a tank with the most up to date defensive armour but they’ll still b knocked out on the battlefield modern anti tank weapons r so powerful now and in the field systems fail especially in the heat of battle u can only take things so far and it’s all a compromise the heavier it gets the less effective it is and when multi million pound tanks r being disabled or completely destroyed at the hands of a hand held missile that costs a pittance by comparison it alas comes down to costs as well like most things
The coming shape of modern warfare makes it feel like the eve of WWI where cavalry officers all stood round pontificating on who has the best horse for the war ahead.
Completely oblivious to the fact warfare has took a hard turn away from there field of expertise without them realizing.. such is much of the talk we hear today about this or that tank being a game changer on the battlefield...
Amour will still have its place but the future is clearly cheap small powerful drone combat systems used on mass, and as time progresses increasingly autonomous to keep ahead of signal jamming technology..
@@jimslade9320 couldn’t agree more like u said there’s always gonna b a place on the battlefield for something or some machine that can stop bullets ripping through u or at least help prevent it but I think the mbt glory days r behind us as Uve stated these modern drones with there relatively small but hugely powerful munitions that attack from above ( the mbt,s weak point ) in large numbers and there relative cheap cost by comparison will make the tank obsolete and a relic of the past not for a few years yet though it’s gonna take a battle where this scenario is played out before the powers to b realise it’s just not cost effective when it comes to killing ur enemies governments would rather do it cheaply if possible sad but true it comes down to the dollar
Challenger with the rifled barrel has the longest range tank to tank kill. Accuracy is the most important factor in a gun, if you can’t hit the target, nothing else matters! Why have we merged with the common thinking? I still feel a rifled barrel is the best firing solution
The day of the Tank is over. Drones have rendered them vulnerable and cost thousands as opposed to Tanks which cost millions. Aircraft Carriers are similarly limited in use these days.
Going smooth bore will make it a lot easier to sell to Nato allies .
Except we won’t actually have any spare ones to sell, the Challenger 3’s are just rebuilt Challenger 2’s because the U.K. no longer has any new tank production capability, unless of course the Government or BAE Systems are willing to fork out the Millions required to rebuild that capability.
I would hope they armoured the top of the tank with all the top-down weapons in the field now
A 105 mm L7 armed Isreali Centurion got a confirmed kill at over 10 miles against a syrian tank .
Biggest problem with any armored vehicle on the battlefield is its track, once the track is immobilized the tank or tracked vehicle is a sitting duck.
The main problem I see with the Challenger 2 rifled gun is it's life span. It is worn out after 400 full charge shots while the smooth-bore Rheinmetall gun used by Abrams and Leopard 2 lasts for well over 1500 shells fired.
Don’t no much then
@@ashleybevis9769At least I know how to spell but do fill me in what other major problems does the Challenger 2 have besides a gun barrel which wears out prematurely and prevents it from using standard NATO ammunition ?
Well a smoothbore gun means that the British army will be unlikely to fire HESH rounds. And really thats the round you want to use against buildings.
Makes the ruzzian armarta look like a cardboard armoured kiddies pedal car!
Sorry the armarta is a work of fiction! Its armoured with plywood and pushed along flintstone style
Most important part of the Armarta is the thing towing it 😂
When making videos like this you should avoid using descriptions like "Last Week". This description will be accurate for just a week and what you should do is use dates to make the video perpetually accurate.
Can it combat drones
The problem is the British will only make like 100 of them making it a non factor on a battlefield when your enemy has 3000 tanks .
As long as it has tea making facilities it'll be fine
Thumbnail looks suspiciously like the "Mako" from MASS EFFECT.
Hope Challenger 3 is better than Mako over rough terrain.😤
They are so professional that over 7500 a year fail the fitness test.
I want to see this in real life
Wonder if it still has tea facilities built in like the challenger 2 😊
All British armoured vehicles have a built-in heating unit, after painful lessons learnt fighting the Germans across Europe.
@@stevebarlow3154 Yes they do. Our Tankies would go on a walkout if they didnt!!!😆
Are you reddy for home love?
@@rondickinson9271 always ready
Can we just wait untill it actually comes into service.
what protection has it got or will have against drones
They are going to fit 'cope tyres' on the tank, just like Russia does.
Wasps and bees don't hurt tanks you silly person.
Tractor beam
For sure the UK MOD will be researching that one as we speak, and several enterprising defence companies will be tendering their solutions.
You can count on it.
As far as I have seen. The T80 is the baddest mf on the planet. The T72 has proven itself a beast too. Would love to see this go up against the either of those.
For the T72..you are decades to late. DS proved they blow up just like they are doing in Ukraine.
@@brucewelty7684 do you mean like how German and British tanks were easily taken out? and why the Americans are so afraid of allowing the M1A1s onto the battle field.
@@brucewelty7684 ps> all tanks blow up when taking a direct hit.
@@FirstLast-zk5ow actually NO. They don't. Your appreciation of Commie materiel is misguided. and historically 🐴💩. Go play in the sandbox and leave adults to converse.
You have been sent into timeout. When you grow-up enough to not be stupid, come on back to the party.
The main gun is being swapped because the Rheinmetall 120mm guns are now nato standard. Rifling itself is not a or the problem. The new M35 gun on the M10 Booker is rifled, because the nato standard for 105mm rounds is rifled because that what was being used at the time, all western tank guns of that era being based off the RO L7 105mm. When Chieftan & challenger were being designed 120mm rounds did not yet have a nato standard.
Standardisation has always been a nato thing, this caliber has always been the outlier.
you would think it would be better to make them unmanned these days. Safer for the (remote) operators and more space for the mechanics inside
Right up to the point OpFor start using advanced ECM to jam/cancel the telemetry required.
If a 25yr old tank just won iron spear, (Challenger 2)Imagine what this thing can do?
The Ukrainians love the Challenge 2 with its rifled gun they call it the long distance sniper tank.