@@x67th I didn't mention anything about their budget, also our armed forces has the 5th most in the world so I would hope we could afford a few hundred tanks at the bare minimum.
Finally moving to smoothbore. This change means we can use better ammunition and ammunition is the most important feature in terms of lethality for any main battle tank.
@@shaggings yeah for greater mobility speed enhanced C4I networked warfare digital systems and more .Especially Directed Energy weapons like Lasers and Microwave weapons
It will come to an end when humanity goes extinct. Unfortunately as long as there are people there's going to be war, and the need to defend your nations
@@aussieairconditioner8023 I just wonder how far armour can improve before that ya know. What crazy armour concepts will they come up with in the future. That'll be interesting.
@@empire-classfirenationbatt2691 Its gonna be real interesting. Heres hoping it's never going to need to be used in aggression. Though I have a feeling that's going to happen due to the stuff happening with China wanting to take Taiwan, and stuff happening in the middle east
These days I actually agree more or less with the MOD’s spending priorities but still think they should have more funding. We need more F-35, more navy ships, get building those new subs and I would lessen some of the older tech like heavy old tanks and focus on new tech and more of it. I wish we had a third carrier as well with catobar but I know that’s dream land but still- I’m pleased with the direction we are going and the spending increase. For years iv said cut foreign aid and increase funding for military as it trickles down throughout our whole British economy and secures us at home and abroad. Why should we fund India when they have a space program, nukes and spend more than us on military?
It's not perfect but overall it is a good step forward. We're at that stage in the evolution of land warfare when we don't know what kind of influence the mobility and firepower of MBTs will have (if any) on the future battlefield so this will keep us going for another 15-20 years while everybody tries to figure out what that future will be.
They should still be useful for years to come; for one, they offer good anti-tank capability for relatively low cost -- the flyaway costs for an Apache is 24 million USD, CR2 is almost 1/4th that cost. I assume however their future will also see them used for indirect fire in more hot areas where SPGs can't go. They'll likely be split apart operating in small groups as part of strike brigades, whilst SPGs and artillery pieces as planned by the British Army, will be quartered in heavily defended artillery bases supporting the strike brigades. The Strike Concept is the future of warfare, and the British Army are part of the few pioneering the concept.
How far do you think major belligerents would go before using nuclear weapons? Surely the side that's losing would be the one to press first. Obviously, that would trigger a preportionate response, so what would be the point of going through the ritual of a conventionally armed ors d'oeuvres? Presumably, these tanks are only going to be used against a non-nuclear adversary which has been supplied with the latest conventional equipment.
@@robertcook2572 To a certain degree, you're right but I wouldn't rule out any confrontation between nuclear armed adversaries where both sides know that without careful management things could get 'out of control' and go nuclear. So such a conflict would probably be confined to a specific geographic region for limited objectives only, perhaps assisted by proxies. A so called calculated risk (scary in itself and capable of re-bounding) of seeing how far one side can push it.
@@robertcook2572 I say this loads mate if another world war or any war happens at this point everyone will be annihilated wether your winning or not Challenger 2 is a beauty and I’m sure challenger 3 will be too but surely we should invest in some sort of shield from nuclear weapons wether that’s by interception or any other means? The only thing I don’t like is the size of our army at this point I honestly think we should have atleast 100000 soldiers. Look at all other countries they have massive armies. Would you agree?
The discussion around wherever tanks are obsolete is ridiculous because they rely on two ideas. One, that missiles have become so advanced they've made tanks obsolete like Aircraft carriers did to Battleships. And that we will always have air superiority which would be able to deal with tanks easily. The first is nullified by active protection systems, jammers and new steal technology and armour that has grown to match the penetrative power of the latest missiles. The second by how utterly foolish it would be to rely on always having control of the sky, especially with our two most likely adversaries, Russia and Chinas potent anti air defenses and air force. There's a reason that the only country that has given serious consideration to scrapping tanks has been the UK with every other major tank nation beginning to either develop their next generation MBTs or design them.
@@thomashambly3718 It hasn't been confirmed but I believe there were some kinda rumor's that and APS can be fitted easily as an upgrade to the Challenger 3
Shooting down a drone ought to be as easy as going to a trap or skeet shoot for the tank crew. Smart shot will be added to modern tanks to track and kill reconnaissance drones from miles away and then change to a new undisclosed location.
Idk if anyone else noticed it, but that runway footage showed later generation sea harriers, which I thought we got rid of, so was that a subtle nod to development of new Harrier models, or was it just old footage / old airframes?
why is Challenger 2 being upgraded? Isn't it already obvious?! Challenger 2 Outdated Gun. 30/100 Poor Firepower. 55/100 Very Good Armor. 75/100 Extremely Poor FCS. 40/100 Outdated Engine. 50/100 Total: 250/500 Challenger 3 Excellent Gun. 90/100 Excellent Firepower. 95/100 Very Good Armor. 75/100 Excellent FCS. 100/100 Excellent Engine. 95/100 Total: 455/500 See the difference? Challenger 3 Is The Shark, Challenger 2 Is The Dog trying to swim in the water.
It needs to be within the platform ready for action with modern technology. The armour around the turret and chassis is nothing but the best. Unfortunately modern technology has extra armour and modern technology put into the inner side of the tank. The sensor's and gun barrel have to match modern technology and tanks
She needs powerpack upgrades. + Why not a new tank considering the number of changes? and why challenger 3 not challenger 2 mk2, or similar designation.
The upgrade will be something like half the price of new tanks. Challenger 3 is a bit of politics but reasonable justified give the large number of changes, particularly the new gun.
Do we know if its getting the rhinemetal l44 (2a5) or l55 cannon (2a7) if its getting the L44 it's already obsolete let alone for 2027, trust me I'm a warthunder expert
@Yourda 473i , because BAE Systems in their infinite wisdom closed down the last tank production facility in the U.K. a few years back so now all we can do is upgrade those limited number of tanks we still have, and since nobody else, apart from Oman, used Challenger 2 there’s no way to export what we upgrade.
well, there were reasons for that. the overwhelming "success" of Cr2 on the international market was only the last nail in the coffin, but the uk tank industry, aka Vickers, was already fighting on its last leg due to budget cuts, more advanced and effective products from for example KMW and Rheinmetall on the market etc. its a shame that you guys lost a lot of jobs due to that, but on the other hand, the future is IN europe with combined european defense strategies and corporations, cutting national defense cost down by eliminating redundancies and increasing the overall potential of a central eu military with standarised high tech equipment. every member nation doing their own thing in respect to defense spending and armed forces results in a patchwork of non compatible and expensive, small militaries, wich are less effective than pooling resources.
Nope America adopted new improved DU apfsds for 120mm to defeat advanced armor. Also the US has something interesting in their new universal round. As for higher caliber, the US has tested 140mm caliber before on the Abrams. It will only be rolled out if the Russians and Chinese were to up gun from 125mm standard to 152mm or 155mm
@@petersone6172 to be honest during the Cold War with tank guns Britain set the Caliber first with the 105 from Centurion then the 120mm rifled on Cheiftain and now Germany with the 120mm smooth bore
The UK has had an obligation since the second world war to help protect the boarders of the European countries against the USSR and now Russia....Through NATO However we are no longer in the EU. The EU are rich enough especially the Germans to defend their boarders....we should help now only as a token force ....this I assume is the plan as we will only field 140 or so tanks....in the 80's we could field 900...... The EU Countries should hugely increase their spending on their military ....most EU countries put far less as a % of GDP as we do....... Our future needs are likely to be naval and this is where the money is going......... Challenger 4 will hopefully be an all new British designed and built tank......but I think this is not likely for out Home defence needs.... The mouthy EU needs to step up to the plate treble their Military spending........on their European army.........for which we should be compatible gear wise but completely separate in Command and control...... Our Air force will also need to be rebuilt and be at least twice the size as it is now........History tells us this... In warfare no matter how advanced your equipment.....numbers still matter.....
A lot more then just APS, laser detectors and softkill would also be necessary if the tank isn't to suffer. Would hate to be like America, getting a temporary hardkill system 20 years after asking for one meant to be a stop gap for a system supposed to be in service 10 years ago. *Like the Challenger 2 CLIP system.*
No. the cooling system is being upgraded, the rest of the power train is staying the same. even if the cooling system makes it a little more efficient, the challenger 3 will be 1 ton heavier, so it will probably be very close to the same speed as a base challenger 2.
@@creed797 The CV 12 is getting common rail Diesel injection AND the cooling system installed in Trojan/ Titan. The TN54 box will be strengthened and torque and HP improved. As C2 can already hit 80 kph on roads, I don't think it will be slow..................
The Challenger 3 is going out of service in 2030-2035 this is Why we need to start designing a new tank from scratch preferably with a 120mm railgun and autoloader
That would require some investment by either BAE Systems or the British Government itself, and since BAE have been slowly making the U.S. its main market and the Government has shown very little interest in putting money into brand new developments that, unfortunately, looks highly unlikely.
130 mm conventional smoothbore gun is good enough with room for modularity and add ons to add railguns with great power supply . But 130 isn't needed for railguns probably just 30/40 mm.There should be an unmanned turret as well however I agree with you next up after CR3 should be railguns mid way through the Challenger 3 lifetime .Hopefully UK can mature the technology along with France and Germany .U.S. pulled out however
Keep all the challenger 2 and buy a few of the new German France new gen tank then we have the numbers and technology common Britain bring British millatry to it best again
Quantity has a quality all of it's own. When will people who worship technology learn this? Technology does not like big impacts nor do skulls...especially skulls. Yes, I said impact not penetration.
Why is it being upgraded? That's easy. It's being upgraded because the Challenger 2 is inferior and was massively outdated by the time it came into service. Maybe it's time to add additional armour to the mantlet and fix that gaping weak spot that is the driver's viewport.
Lmao the challenger 2 hull is still perfect, the mantlet armour is weak on. Literally every modern tank. The challenger 2 was not inferior and outdated like popular believed, its still a perfectly capable tank
Most military types that I’ve ever encountered have been cretinous halfwits and as the tone and content here in the comments will demonstrate that aspiring wannabes are worse still.
Oh this blokes useless! If he's the man behind our changes that we need then isn't he a bit late :/ We should be in front of the curve not behind it.. We need to be in front of the curve 5 years not behind 5 years!!! You don't want a school leaver telling our army what it needs n when...... I mean what's he on, work experience gtfoh! Let someone with some vision handle what we need........,
Some people have speech impediments. It’s also incredibly nerve racking to be video interviewed when you don’t have a script, when you must be careful what you say, since you can’t tell them everything, and that your face and words will be posted on the internet for many to see.
Facts are the challenger 2 was rubbish and unreliable and this 3rd series will be the same.. Compared to the Russian and Americans main battle tank's the challenger 3 just doesn't cut the mustard.
Weird, because the crews have praised its reliability...... As well as its capabilities......... Going as far as to state the leopard 2, abrams and challenger 2 had similar lethality, stating it was the quality of the crews that would determine the victor........ Considering this guy i'm paraphrasing was in the army for 20 years, i'll take his word for it lol.
@@naja2270Kinda an invalid argument seeming that they have no other experience on other platforms, you also have to remember that no major threat has been faced within the past 30 years. Just some people with goats.....
When the challenger 2 was new it was a very good tank, nowadays it has fallen behind and also they are getting worn out. You seem to know an awful lot about a tank design that has not even been completed yet. Time will tell.
the challenger 2 and the american m1 abrams have been documented on their combat missions and it has been noted that the challenger 2 outperforms the abrams in some missions and the abrams in others. overall they are both good battle tanks & you are speaking out of your arse with countless evidence to prove it.
about 8 months ago we were told the british army was getting rid of its tanks
That is rather stupid on the Armies part tbh, that would make us so much weaker even if our tanks were outdated slightly.
@@ZeroX-py5yx On the armies part??? They don't decide their budget
It was just their way of getting funding..
@@x67th I didn't mention anything about their budget, also our armed forces has the 5th most in the world so I would hope we could afford a few hundred tanks at the bare minimum.
No you weren't. Tabloids said that. Not the MoD or the Army.
nice vid, thanks for the info about the new challenger 3 👍
to keep up with the tesco trolley .
no, Those things have wheels that are stuck in place.
I guess it makes it easier for Chally to catch up?
Not funny you is stuck with wolf in London stay there kid
@@hendey1950
if you don't find unjustified gov spendings funny ...
what else can i say ?
Finally moving to smoothbore. This change means we can use better ammunition and ammunition is the most important feature in terms of lethality for any main battle tank.
An engine with more power would be great aswell. It is the heaviest MBT in the world yet it has one of the weakest engines.
@@shaggings yeah for greater mobility speed enhanced C4I networked warfare digital systems and more .Especially Directed Energy weapons like Lasers and Microwave weapons
Will it have a BV?
You know it.
Nope, because Rheinmetall is heavily involved, there will be a bier dispenser instead of that
What sort of stupid question is this?
The need to constantly update armour, as weapons around the world improve, is surely exhaustive. I wonder when it will come to an end (if ever)
It will come to an end when humanity goes extinct. Unfortunately as long as there are people there's going to be war, and the need to defend your nations
@@aussieairconditioner8023 I just wonder how far armour can improve before that ya know. What crazy armour concepts will they come up with in the future. That'll be interesting.
@@empire-classfirenationbatt2691 Its gonna be real interesting. Heres hoping it's never going to need to be used in aggression. Though I have a feeling that's going to happen due to the stuff happening with China wanting to take Taiwan, and stuff happening in the middle east
@@aussieairconditioner8023 That's a quote from a certain man, A Genius.
im from the future. armour will be no more and we will just use xbox and playstation conscripts to control the unmanned moving guns
I’m hopefully going to be a tank crewman soon so it’s great to see all this!
Are you going through basic training soon?
These days I actually agree more or less with the MOD’s spending priorities but still think they should have more funding. We need more F-35, more navy ships, get building those new subs and I would lessen some of the older tech like heavy old tanks and focus on new tech and more of it. I wish we had a third carrier as well with catobar but I know that’s dream land but still- I’m pleased with the direction we are going and the spending increase. For years iv said cut foreign aid and increase funding for military as it trickles down throughout our whole British economy and secures us at home and abroad. Why should we fund India when they have a space program, nukes and spend more than us on military?
True, The pass years have been poor decision making by them.
I say this all the time 2 divisions are not enough for a great power, nuclear nation and member of the secrity council.
We don't need more F35s we need to Tempest to happen
It's not perfect but overall it is a good step forward. We're at that stage in the evolution of land warfare when we don't know what kind of influence the mobility and firepower of MBTs will have (if any) on the future battlefield so this will keep us going for another 15-20 years while everybody tries to figure out what that future will be.
They should still be useful for years to come; for one, they offer good anti-tank capability for relatively low cost -- the flyaway costs for an Apache is 24 million USD, CR2 is almost 1/4th that cost.
I assume however their future will also see them used for indirect fire in more hot areas where SPGs can't go. They'll likely be split apart operating in small groups as part of strike brigades, whilst SPGs and artillery pieces as planned by the British Army, will be quartered in heavily defended artillery bases supporting the strike brigades.
The Strike Concept is the future of warfare, and the British Army are part of the few pioneering the concept.
How far do you think major belligerents would go before using nuclear weapons? Surely the side that's losing would be the one to press first. Obviously, that would trigger a preportionate response, so what would be the point of going through the ritual of a conventionally armed ors d'oeuvres? Presumably, these tanks are only going to be used against a non-nuclear adversary which has been supplied with the latest conventional equipment.
@@robertcook2572 To a certain degree, you're right but I wouldn't rule out any confrontation between nuclear armed adversaries where both sides know that without careful management things could get 'out of control' and go nuclear. So such a conflict would probably be confined to a specific geographic region for limited objectives only, perhaps assisted by proxies. A so called calculated risk (scary in itself and capable of re-bounding) of seeing how far one side can push it.
@@robertcook2572 I say this loads mate if another world war or any war happens at this point everyone will be annihilated wether your winning or not Challenger 2 is a beauty and I’m sure challenger 3 will be too but surely we should invest in some sort of shield from nuclear weapons wether that’s by interception or any other means? The only thing I don’t like is the size of our army at this point I honestly think we should have atleast 100000 soldiers. Look at all other countries they have massive armies. Would you agree?
The discussion around wherever tanks are obsolete is ridiculous because they rely on two ideas. One, that missiles have become so advanced they've made tanks obsolete like Aircraft carriers did to Battleships. And that we will always have air superiority which would be able to deal with tanks easily.
The first is nullified by active protection systems, jammers and new steal technology and armour that has grown to match the penetrative power of the latest missiles. The second by how utterly foolish it would be to rely on always having control of the sky, especially with our two most likely adversaries, Russia and Chinas potent anti air defenses and air force.
There's a reason that the only country that has given serious consideration to scrapping tanks has been the UK with every other major tank nation beginning to either develop their next generation MBTs or design them.
It needs an active kill defence system to be really top tier
"hard-kill Active protection system"
It will be getting a hard-kill protection system
Will be getting better already
@@thomashambly3718 It hasn't been confirmed but I believe there were some kinda rumor's that and APS can be fitted easily as an upgrade to the Challenger 3
@@kk-gr3ly They are using Trophy hardkill APS .There were talks with Rafael systems
When’s it coming to WatThunder?
Plis no
Shooting down a drone ought to be as easy as going to a trap or skeet shoot for the tank crew. Smart shot will be added to modern tanks to track and kill reconnaissance drones from miles away and then change to a new undisclosed location.
Are we going to use the leopards gun or are we going to make our own smoothbore gun
'Off the shelf' gun from Rheinmetall, one of the RBSL partners.
But I heard you're using the longest barrel version
It’s going to be the L/55A1 from Rheinmetall.
@@francesboy2
👍
@@francesboy2 Its odd how long the British resisted the smooth bor
Idk if anyone else noticed it, but that runway footage showed later generation sea harriers, which I thought we got rid of, so was that a subtle nod to development of new Harrier models, or was it just old footage / old airframes?
I highly doubt they do subtle nods. Its likely just stock footage from a training exercise that used old airframes as props.
It was good just to hear a real human voice and not that robotic text synthesizer cr@p.
Some robot voices sound like they are having a Electric Stroke
I think we're in the battleship era of the 1930s regarding tanks; no one knows if tanks will be effective on the modern battlefield.
YEAAAAAAAAAA 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
More Soldiers are needed in all career lines
how can someone use so many words but say so little?
Has it got tea
Loading one piece ammunition will be a bit different to the current 3 (2 +1) piece round.
i think thats why the gun was not replaced on the existing turret , it had massive ammunition loading issues with the one piece ammunition.
why is Challenger 2 being upgraded?
Isn't it already obvious?!
Challenger 2
Outdated Gun. 30/100
Poor Firepower. 55/100
Very Good Armor. 75/100
Extremely Poor FCS. 40/100
Outdated Engine. 50/100
Total: 250/500
Challenger 3
Excellent Gun. 90/100
Excellent Firepower. 95/100
Very Good Armor. 75/100
Excellent FCS. 100/100
Excellent Engine. 95/100
Total: 455/500
See the difference?
Challenger 3 Is The Shark, Challenger 2 Is The Dog trying to swim in the water.
its obvious why the challenger 2 is getting upgraded, look at the rifled gun and how slow it is
It needs to be within the platform ready for action with modern technology.
The armour around the turret and chassis is nothing but the best.
Unfortunately modern technology has extra armour and modern technology put into the inner side of the tank.
The sensor's and gun barrel have to match modern technology and tanks
So long as we have a stove for the kettle...
Mmmm
Nice cup o'tea...
Need to keep the BV
Because it needs to im not even going to watch it hopefully I've saved some people some time .👍
She needs powerpack upgrades. + Why not a new tank considering the number of changes? and why challenger 3 not challenger 2 mk2, or similar designation.
Challenger 2 mk2 is given to black night so they can't used it again.
The upgrade will be something like half the price of new tanks.
Challenger 3 is a bit of politics but reasonable justified give the large number of changes, particularly the new gun.
So pretty much all guess work then?
Black soot exhausted. Drone attacks will be common vs tanks
2:59 Sea Harriers? :o
Do we know if its getting the rhinemetal l44 (2a5) or l55 cannon (2a7) if its getting the L44 it's already obsolete let alone for 2027, trust me I'm a warthunder expert
L55A1 believe its just a longer version
@@MrDakkyz hopefully
I might get a couple
It’s a real pity the U.K. seems to have decided to withdraw from the export market as far as tanks are concerned.
@Yourda 473i , because BAE Systems in their infinite wisdom closed down the last tank production facility in the U.K. a few years back so now all we can do is upgrade those limited number of tanks we still have, and since nobody else, apart from Oman, used Challenger 2 there’s no way to export what we upgrade.
well, there were reasons for that.
the overwhelming "success" of Cr2 on the international market was only the last nail in the coffin, but the uk tank industry, aka Vickers, was already fighting on its last leg due to budget cuts, more advanced and effective products from for example KMW and Rheinmetall on the market etc.
its a shame that you guys lost a lot of jobs due to that, but on the other hand, the future is IN europe with combined european defense strategies and corporations, cutting national defense cost down by eliminating redundancies and increasing the overall potential of a central eu military with standarised high tech equipment.
every member nation doing their own thing in respect to defense spending and armed forces results in a patchwork of non compatible and expensive, small militaries, wich are less effective than pooling resources.
Anywhere else got a bunch of burnt out Harriers other than RNAS Predannack?
Cuz it needs it obviously
Why have you kept the 120mm and not a 125mm canon?
The rifled gun isn’t being kept because it’s unique to the UK, having a 125mm wouldn’t solve that, unless we left NATO and joined Russia.
Isn’t America adopting a 130mm canon to defeat Russian armour
Nope America adopted new improved DU apfsds for 120mm to defeat advanced armor. Also the US has something interesting in their new universal round.
As for higher caliber, the US has tested 140mm caliber before on the Abrams. It will only be rolled out if the Russians and Chinese were to up gun from 125mm standard to 152mm or 155mm
@@jc-xb8ve I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be the first time America set a standard calibre which the rest of NATO have to follow.
@@petersone6172 to be honest during the Cold War with tank guns Britain set the Caliber first with the 105 from Centurion then the 120mm rifled on Cheiftain and now Germany with the 120mm smooth bore
If you were ever to brief senior UK military officers, your repeated use of the words "Um" and "Uh..." will not impress. Just FYI...
More importantly why are we shrinking our tank force?
The UK has had an obligation since the second world war to help protect the boarders of the European countries against the USSR and now Russia....Through NATO
However we are no longer in the EU. The EU are rich enough especially the Germans to defend their boarders....we should help now only as a token force ....this I assume is the plan as we will only field 140 or so tanks....in the 80's we could field 900......
The EU Countries should hugely increase their spending on their military ....most EU countries put far less as a % of GDP as we do.......
Our future needs are likely to be naval and this is where the money is going.........
Challenger 4 will hopefully be an all new British designed and built tank......but I think this is not likely for out Home defence needs....
The mouthy EU needs to step up to the plate treble their Military spending........on their European army.........for which we should be compatible gear wise but completely separate in Command and control......
Our Air force will also need to be rebuilt and be at least twice the size as it is now........History tells us this...
In warfare no matter how advanced your equipment.....numbers still matter.....
RIP the rifle gun
Hopefully APS, what a joke
A lot more then just APS, laser detectors and softkill would also be necessary if the tank isn't to suffer.
Would hate to be like America, getting a temporary hardkill system 20 years after asking for one meant to be a stop gap for a system supposed to be in service 10 years ago.
*Like the Challenger 2 CLIP system.*
But is 148 tanks enough?
I believe so, if were talking about only defending the British territory
Will be ready in three to five years maybe longer it will be ready to scrap by then.
Disappointing it won't have the new rheinnmetal 130mm gun
Yeah
👌
New engine??? Does anybody know????
only upgraded and modernised engine
No. the cooling system is being upgraded, the rest of the power train is staying the same. even if the cooling system makes it a little more efficient, the challenger 3 will be 1 ton heavier, so it will probably be very close to the same speed as a base challenger 2.
@@creed797 The CV 12 is getting common rail Diesel injection AND the cooling system installed in Trojan/ Titan.
The TN54 box will be strengthened and torque and HP improved. As C2 can already hit 80 kph on roads, I don't think it will be slow..................
erm erm erm erm erm erm talk man
The Challenger 3 is going out of service in 2030-2035 this is Why we need to start designing a new tank from scratch preferably with a 120mm railgun and autoloader
That would require some investment by either BAE Systems or the British Government itself, and since BAE have been slowly making the U.S. its main market and the Government has shown very little interest in putting money into brand new developments that, unfortunately, looks highly unlikely.
130 mm conventional smoothbore gun is good enough with room for modularity and add ons to add railguns with great power supply . But 130 isn't needed for railguns probably just 30/40 mm.There should be an unmanned turret as well however I agree with you next up after CR3 should be railguns mid way through the Challenger 3 lifetime .Hopefully UK can mature the technology along with France and Germany .U.S. pulled out however
*cries in LFP*
Lol, True.
Keep all the challenger 2 and buy a few of the new German France new gen tank then we have the numbers and technology common Britain bring British millatry to it best again
We told the British 2 things: don't vote Brexit. And don't believe that the Challenger 2 is the best tank.
Quantity has a quality all of it's own. When will people who worship technology learn this? Technology does not like big impacts nor do skulls...especially skulls. Yes, I said impact not penetration.
You can't wholly rely on technology but you have to progress technologically.
We already had the longest shot and kill with the challenger two. With the rifled barrel.
Wasn't a Challenger 2, it was a Challenger with the L11 gun (same as the Chieftain) back in 1991 🙂
Made in Britain 🇬🇧
Apart from the gun
@@ethapnerry5740 the whole turret.
I want see de armor """next gen""!!
Armour*
@@matthewmclean9012 Armor is also correct, no need to be pedantic
This matsimus?
It sounds like him but unfortunately it isn’t hopefully he’ll make a video on it soon.
Sounds nothing like him
@@funwithflags7506 idk I haven’t watched a matsimus in a while so I thought it kinda sounded like him
This guy looks nothing like Matsimus. Although if you go to his channel he just dropped a video on the Challenger 3.
erm erm erm
Why is it being upgraded?
That's easy. It's being upgraded because the Challenger 2 is inferior and was massively outdated by the time it came into service.
Maybe it's time to add additional armour to the mantlet and fix that gaping weak spot that is the driver's viewport.
Lmao the challenger 2 hull is still perfect, the mantlet armour is weak on. Literally every modern tank. The challenger 2 was not inferior and outdated like popular believed, its still a perfectly capable tank
Maybe it's time to study tank technology and design rather than playing silly WOT type games?
I’m not sure experience from War Thunder counts. The drivers port is not a weakspot in real life, as WT makes out.
Because it somehow ended up behind the upgraded russian t-72b3
Most military types that I’ve ever encountered have been cretinous halfwits and as the tone and content here in the comments will demonstrate that aspiring wannabes are worse still.
Stuttering waffle, makes this boring
Oh this blokes useless! If he's the man behind our changes that we need then isn't he a bit late :/ We should be in front of the curve not behind it.. We need to be in front of the curve 5 years not behind 5 years!!! You don't want a school leaver telling our army what it needs n when...... I mean what's he on, work experience gtfoh! Let someone with some vision handle what we need........,
Wouldn't last 2 minutes against an R3 T20 FA-HS
To little too late. By the time it's available everyone else will be using walking fighting machines. KEEP UP BRITS. geeeez
So basically it's a leopard with a couple of barrels at the back? Yikes
Have you seen the demonstration variant? It looks like a Challenger 2 with an L/44.
Ummm ummmm ummm learn to talk
Some people have speech impediments. It’s also incredibly nerve racking to be video interviewed when you don’t have a script, when you must be careful what you say, since you can’t tell them everything, and that your face and words will be posted on the internet for many to see.
Facts are the challenger 2 was rubbish and unreliable and this 3rd series will be the same.. Compared to the Russian and Americans main battle tank's the challenger 3 just doesn't cut the mustard.
Weird, because the crews have praised its reliability...... As well as its capabilities......... Going as far as to state the leopard 2, abrams and challenger 2 had similar lethality, stating it was the quality of the crews that would determine the victor........ Considering this guy i'm paraphrasing was in the army for 20 years, i'll take his word for it lol.
@@naja2270Kinda an invalid argument seeming that they have no other experience on other platforms, you also have to remember that no major threat has been faced within the past 30 years. Just some people with goats.....
When the challenger 2 was new it was a very good tank, nowadays it has fallen behind and also they are getting worn out. You seem to know an awful lot about a tank design that has not even been completed yet. Time will tell.
You are talking out of your arse.
the challenger 2 and the american m1 abrams have been documented on their combat missions and it has been noted that the challenger 2 outperforms the abrams in some missions and the abrams in others. overall they are both good battle tanks & you are speaking out of your arse with countless evidence to prove it.
Send them to Ukraine🇬🇧👍🇺🇦