Imortant Notes from our Audience The Community is great here. 1) "Qasim Mir" It’s important to note regarding driving is that the steering is geared. Meaning with each gear there is a different turn radius, so if you want to do a tight turn you must change down a few gears to be able to do it. Another thing is the steering tillers only control where the front of the tank is pointing. Meaning, if going ahead and you want to turn right, you must ‘come right stick’ pulling the right lever, but, if you’re reversing and you want to turn right you must ‘come left stick’ and pull the left lever. It would be good to touch on the tank’s suspension. Unlike other NATO tanks using torsion bars, Challenger 2 uses hydro pneumatic suspension. The British don’t like suspension that is mounted inside the hull on MBTs so you will never find a British tank with torsion bars. Before on Centurion and Chieftain they had Horstmann suspension. Challenger introduced the outside mounted hydro pneumatic which was easy to service but also performs better at springing and dampening than torsion bar. 2) "Qasim Mir" The firing procedure for a Challenger 2 engagement is as follows (as far as I know): Commander or gunner will acquire the the target: ‘A fin, a tank!’ (‘Fin’ means APFSDS) Operator will load the the relevant round Gunner when he’s brought to target by the commander and adjusted aim will shout: ‘ON!’ or ‘ARMED!’ Idk😳 Operator will report: ‘LOADED!’ Gunner will fire: ‘Firing!’💥 When the round hits, gunner will say: ‘Target!’ If the commander is satisfied with the damage he will reply: ‘Target stopped!’ End of engagement.
I LOVE IT THIS ARMOR IS STILL CLASSIFIED AND THIS VIDEO IS BULLSHIT IVE SEEN A BROKEN ABRAMS TANK SKIRT And holy SHIT Chalanger is a slow shooter I could load off a round on an Abrams less than a round every 3 seconds
Short correction here: 1. Challenger 1 still used the same Horstmann Suspension as Chieftain. 2. The shown weight of the different MBT´s and especcially Challenger 2 are false. Challenger 2 without TES (Theater Entry Standard armor addons) weights in 62.5 metric tons, with TES it weights 75-76 metric tons. Leopard 2A7V and M1A2 SEP.V3 weight in at about 66 metric tons. 3. The L30A1 rifled 120mm L/55 gun is exclusively used by the Challenger 2 (L11 rifled 120mm L/55 gun is the predecessor on Challenger 1 and Chieftain). No other NATO partner uses this gun. Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Ariete use variants of the RH120 smoothbore 120x570mm L/44 or L/55 gun, Leclerc uses the GIAT CN-26/52 gun, a 120x570mm smoothbore gun with 52 caliber lengths. 4. The Enforcer RWS is not regularly mounted on Challenger 2, even in TES configuration. This was added for the "Street Warrior" upgrade for urban combat. Only one Squadron was fitted out like this. 5. Black Knight, aswell as the other LEP Prototypes were in the end not procured and canceled. The described Challenger 2 would not be used in reality, the regular Challenger 2 does not feature a RWS nor an APS system. 6. The Incident where a Challenger 2 was hit by a Milan ATGM, the Milan used was a Milan 1 ATGM from 1972, wich was sold to Irak in 1982-83 by france. The Milan 1 ATGM had a single HEAT Warhead with about 350mm RHAe Penetration. This was indicently less penetration capability than the RPG-7WN and RPG-7WR used by iraki forces (wich had about 500-700mm RHAe penetration) This is btw not an example of exceptional survivability. If you throw a waterballoon at someone and another one filled with solid ice at another person, you wouldnt say that the person hit with the normal waterballoon is exceptionally tough because he can take the hit. CR2 is a late 1980´s design with armor thickness representing that. 350mm HEAT Penetration wont penetrate the frontal armor and would likely struggle with the side armor too. Similarly the RPG´s have 500-600mm penetration, that wont do much to the front, at the side this would also be likely not enough to penetrate. This would be also the case for Leopard 2A5 and later versions aswell as M1A2 Abrams versions. Other, more modern ATGM and RPG´s, like 9K135 Kornet ATGM with estimated 1200mm Tandem HEAT Warhead would seriously threaten Challenger 2, as it did with Leopard 2 and M1. 7. one also has to mention that the steering tiller system is quite outdated and anachronistic on a vehicle that entered service in 1998, while basicly all other NATO MBT´s from 1978 onwards used steeringwheels and more user friendly controls. 8. in comparison to other NATO MBT´s the Engine of CR2 is quite underpowered and both offroad and on road topspeed of CR2 is about 10-15km/h slower than the competition in both areas. 9. Major Con: Neither Ammunition nor Spareparts are in production for the last 10+ years, the Vehicle itself has basicly no export and is out of production since 2006. This turns the Cr2 into a logistical trap
It’s important to note regarding driving is that the steering is geared. Meaning with each gear there is a different turn radius, so if you want to do a tight turn you must change down a few gears to be able to do it. Another thing is the steering tillers only control where the front of the tank is pointing. Meaning, if going ahead and you want to turn right, you must ‘come right stick’ pulling the right lever, but, if you’re reversing and you want to turn right you must ‘come left stick’ and pull the left lever. It would be good to touch on the tank’s suspension. Unlike other NATO tanks using torsion bars, Challenger 2 uses hydro pneumatic suspension. The British don’t like suspension that is mounted inside the hull on MBTs so you will never find a British tank with torsion bars. Before on Centurion and Chieftain they had Horstmann suspension. Challenger introduced the outside mounted hydro pneumatic which was easy to service but also performs better at springing and dampening than torsion bar.
I always wondered how challenger was different from abrams you hear all the time about abrams blow out panel or how it drives. These vids are great very informative and gets straight to the point of how the tanks works that can’t get from a google search easily. I look forward to all the future vids.
In reality, in Ukraine they are kept at the behind the lines on demand of the British, the front is "not safe enough" I wonder what's the point for sending them.
@zz_mike-hawk_zz True challenger ii lost undefeated in Ukraine against a powerful atgm, only the Abraham m1a2 remains to be seen in action and performance.
I am Russian, and I can barely speak English. Much less be polite. First of all, thank you very much. 1. The coaxial chain gun looks much simpler, single barrel. It has features important for a close tank. 2. English tanks are one of the narrowest today. Even in comparison with the Soviet ones. The thing about railroad overpasses. Some decisions of this tank have to do with the width. 3. The hydraulic automatic transmission does not disengage the clutch, but reduces the power of one of the tracks. 4. The Challenger can still fire at a large downward lean angle, which increases its heavy turret. It has relatively high ground clearance, a smooth bottom, and mine protection. This, too, increases the height. 5. The suspension of this tank is unusual: compact and adjustable (located on sides, not on the bottom, which reduces the height of the tank). That is why the tank can withstand unprecedented overloading of the hinged protection. 6. The inclined multilayer armor barrier refracts (as in optics) the shock front of the penetrator many times. This leads to its defocusing (as in optics). In practice it looks like the penetrator is crumbled, by dissipating the energy to fluctuate the layers.
Point 5 the suspension system has inspired the new South Korean tanks and it will become more prevalent. Point 4 British tank designers have long valued being able to have a large depression angle, this has proved extremely valuable to them in many conflicts eg Korea and to the Israeli’s where the Syrian forces were at a significant disadvantage.
I'm glad you're talking about the Challenger 2 here and not the "Challenger 3". The UK government isn't fooling anyone that what is merely upgrade suite is a new tank.
Well it’s an entirely new turret, gun, firing system, self defence system, new armour and new engine. So i would hardly call it a light upgrade. It will do nicely and certainly better than anything potential foes have. Just need more of them
@@1maico1 Even then it's been changed, the lower Glacis has been up armoured on a chassis level not just add-on, the tank uses 3rd Gen Chobham called Farnham and has add-on armour like the Challenger 2 TES had called EPSOM which is upgraded from current standards (This is how we'd send tanks into battle with the add-on armour) So the Chassis has had a lot of work done, not forgetting APS has been confirmed, specifically Trophy.
A positive you failed to mention is the suspension that allows better cross country performance than its competitors even with higher power engines. Coupled with easier repair to the external suspension units when damaged in combat, whereas battle damaged welded torsion bars in the Leopards and Abrams require back to base, torsion bar torch-cutting, disassembly, removal and repair.
I wish I discovered this channel earlier. Every time there is a country show I never get to go in the challenger because the queue is too long. So it is nice to know how the internals, and periscope work etc
The combat weight of the Challenger is is actually 75 metric tonnes. The training weight of the tank is the standard 63 tonnes. For comparison, the combat weight of the M1A2 Abrams with TUSK is 68 metric tonnes.
Chobham armour = developed by DERA ( Defence Evaluation Research Agency) British army department in a village called Chobham in Surrey south east of England. I lived there for 15 years.
The Mk 4 was not just the first British Tank, it was the first Tank anywhere. To keep them secret before they were first used in World War One they were described as "Mobile Water Tanks", or just "Tanks". The name stuck. 😃
@chrisyoung9653 Already tested it against a professional army, Challenger lost the undefeated were 2 units lost out of 10, I don't think UK will give him more units.
@chrisyoung9653 It only remains the Abraham M1A2 to make their combat debut in Europe and see if they better withstand a high intensity war, I think France will never send its Leclercs.
Fantastic! Have just discovered AiTelly channel. It's absolutely great, with so much interesting and informative engineering and technical detail. But - vitally - you explain everything clearly for mechanical thickos like me.
Mistake on 1:54. T-72 is a russian tank (T-90 prototype) which is produced on Urals manufactories and is presented in a very small amount in the ua forces, while the main ukrainian army tank is T-64 made in Kharkov.
The firing procedure for a Challenger 2 engagement is as follows (as far as I know): Commander or gunner will acquire the the target: ‘A fin, a tank!’ (‘Fin’ means APFSDS) Operator will load the the relevant round Gunner when he’s brought to target by the commander and adjusted aim will shout: ‘ON!’ or ‘ARMED!’ Idk😳 Operator will report: ‘LOADED!’ Gunner will fire: ‘Firing!’💥 When the round hits, gunner will say: ‘Target!’ If the commander is satisfied with the damage he will reply: ‘Target stopped!’ End of engagement.
@@qasimmir7117 You've added a lot of variables, will attempt to clarify on certain things. "Commander or gunner will acquire the target: 'A fin, a tank!'" I don't know why you added the "A" to both of those. The easiest way to think about it is as; once the target is identified, an ammo nature is announced, followed by the target. Example is: Fin tank HESH BMP COAX Men. I'm on my phone so ill do each part individually
Slight correction on how the "Chobham" amour works: It's basicly a hollow steel box with the primary feature of the armour is it's NERA array, those aren't plastic armour plates but rather a form of Non Explosive Reactive Armour (or NERA) that uses a synthetic polymer (artificial rubber) not plastic. These work just like the ERA blocks, the have a thick plate of armour with a block of "rubber" behind it with a backing plate of thinner steel behind it. The round hits the front plate, compressing the rubber stores that energy like a spring. Once the rubber is compressed to a critical point, it releases that energy and "pops out", slamming the front plate into the projectile or HEAT jet. Now NERA isn't as effective as ERA but it's biggest pro is that it can be used safely in a confined space (you can't use ERA inside of a block of armor for obvious reason) and it doesn't blow itself up so it can take several hits before failing. To make up for the fact that a single plate isn't that powerful, they are stacked in a array of several NERA modules with enough of a gap between them that they won't take each other out when they go off. Modern version of this armour (such as next generation special armor on the Abrams M1A2 variants or Dorchester for the Challenger II) are a bit more complex, though I'm only going to be vague here.... this stuff is classified after all and I don't want to go to jail. These add plates of High Hardness steel to the back of the armor and in the more modern version of the armor, advanced ceramic/steel composites in front of the NERA array (you can tell which have them because the armor sticks out more to accommodate them). DU is used as well, but usually only in the turret checks (at lest with the Abrams. They did experiment with using it in the hull but it was found to not be worth the extra weight and cost since the type of weapons that tend to be used against the hull are already stopped well enough by the armor it has already), there is some neat stuff with how it's used but I can't really go to deeply into that. The NERA arrays have also been updated with some pretty exotic stuff, the material used acts more like a reusable explosive (like I said, it's pretty crazy stuff) which of course brings the NERA closer to ERA in power. It's also now placed in the armour at odd and counter intuitive angles (they're not placed following the slant of the armour). The reason for this is that they found by changing the angle the round hits, it can change the direction the round moves after hitting the array and is usually set so that it directs the attack upwards so that it punches through the roof of the armour instead of going deeper into the tank.
Things I learned today: the Brits basically have to put some sort of a rifle clip to ignite the Challenger 2´s main gun 😄 Yeah looking forward for the T-90M animation 👌
Amazing to think that the Chally's main gun shares, in effect, a 3 component ammo system with the likes of a rifled musket in the American Civil War some 130 years earlier with the latter's ammo consisting of a cartridge with powder, a Minie ball and a percussion cap.
So, we have absolutely no idea what its Dorchester armour comprises off. The only reference we have is we know what Burlington arrays No.1 to 4 looked like, which were in fact bulging plate technology using plastic and steel. However, that technology was patented in 1962 and Dorchester is a much newer and advanced development from the Burlington arrays and like how the Germans dropped the bulging plate armour design in their B-Tech armours and started using ceramics in newer armours in C-Tech and the US went with using depleted Uranium in some way with is HAP and NGAP armour over the bulging plate armours in its early BRL armours, it's likely Dorchester has moved onto incorporating more advanced material arrays. However, despite what most people say, there is absolutely no available information that gives us an idea of what Dorchester is made off. I'd be lying to say it didn't bug me to see the composite armour animated right in the front within the 100mm steel plate armour but I know its just for education purposes.
The upgrades you mentioned will be on Challenger 3, Dorchester armour, 1500hp engine, Triumph protection system, better third gen optics and the new Rhine metal 120mm smooth bore gun.
What is the maximum firing rate (rounds per minute) of the main gun? How much pressure do the tracks exert on the ground? How do these parameters compare to other main battle tanks?
Hit a mine. The crew bailed and sometime later it took a hit from a Kornet. Any tracked vehicle will be immobilized by ATMs. It was noticeable there were no armour modules fitted, they have not been supplied to Ukraine.
@@blackmantis3130 there is nothing modern really about T-72 in comparison to T-64. And the most modern Ukrainian tank is T-84 Oplot, again not T-72. T-72s were barely operational. If you like their indices - there were also T-80s in Air-assault brigades since like 2017.
HA funny kid, Most of the videos were Ukrainian T70 and T80 tanks of the Soviet era, the upgraded t90M withstood the blow of NLAW and Javelin, the crew survived but the tank was disabled.
What a great video you have done here very easy how you explain information in this video great video graphics love it. Just to let you know, not long ago, the USA wanted this classified armour for the USA tank's so both the uk and us did a deal to share the technology as the uk got some technology on the us submarine technology so ONLY the USA and UK are the only tank's to have this armour.
you are writing absolute nonsense.firstly, the world's first tank with composite armor was built in the USSR, the T-64.Secondly, the spaced armor in the forehead of the tower of several dozen armor plates with air gaskets and other materials is not a privilege of the USA and England.This has been done on the T-90 in Russia since the 90s
@@макслюлюкин He didn't say "spaced" armour or "composite" armour. He was referring to Chobham armour specifically, which was used on the Challenger 1 and shared with the US for the M1A1. Dorchester is the upgraded Chobham variant on CH2, while the Americans developed their own variant for the M1A2.
Another detail, with a full system the gunner does not correct for wind and elevation. Elevation is calculated at the point of lasing and acquiring the range to the target. Windage is calculated via data from the MET sensor mounted on top of the turret. Only when all systems have failed does the gunner have to resort to manual correction. Great video though, brought back memories. 👍
If memory serves me correctly, the safety switch on the GCP does not isolate the firing circuit it only isolates the Gun Control Equipment ie. turret movement, same for the Commanders Safety switch. The Loaders Control Panel Safety switch does however isolate the Firing Circuit and the GCE.
the laid back driver position in the forward hull of the Challenger 2 needs a proper steering wheel, instead of two levers . . . the hydro-pneumatic suspension in the Challenger 2 can be upgraded with a additional variable coil spring setup that'll function in tandem with the tank's torsion bar suspension . . . the Challenger 3 could seriously do with a lightweight hull made of anti-ballistic high strength steel alloys & lithium composites . . . this should limit the overall mass (without the add on Chobam® armour & ERA) of the tank to less than 46.35 ton . . . one piece pressed/moulded hull sections is another weight saving feature . . . the 360° deg rotating manned turret needs to be lighter as well . . . a turbocharged 20.0 in-line-8 & a iSmartHYBRId® power pack . . . the turret top mounted 360° deg rotating Enforcer RWS next to the gunner's could be armed with a 25 MM GAU-12/U six-barrel rotary cannon & the standard 0.50 Cal . . .
"....the Mark IV. The first battle-tested tank made by British engineers......". In fact the first tank made by anyone anywhere. Called a "tank" because that was the code word for it while under development and the name stuck.
Spot on… The tank was originally named land ship by British Military in WW1. The name "tank" was initially a code name to maintain secrecy and disguise its true purpose by making it appear to be a water transport vehicle for bringing water to the troops at the front line. Extra Facts: Challenger 2 (CR2) tank can also set a smoke screen by the injection of diesel fuel into the engine exhausts. The secret weapon of any British Armoured Vehicle BV. A boiling vessel (BV) is a water heating system fitted to British armoured fighting vehicles that permits the crew to heat water and cook food by drawing power from the vehicle electrical supply. It is often referred to by crewmembers as "the most important piece of equipment in a British armoured vehicle".
No one has ever destoryed a Challenger 2. I wonder if Russia can be the first to destory a Challeneger 2 in battle. I hope this is not the case but if it is, It shows the level of skill the british army have when using the Challenger 2
@@Robin-sf3gk Does the fact it hasn't been destoryed bother you? Just wondering why you take my comment ( about a single tank ) and turn it into your own so you can compare. I don't know how many battles, i dont think any goverment is going to tell us the true number. But enough to known it's the best performing tank in Nato. But seeing as you wanted to compare tanks. Can you name a single tank from any other country that has in a single battle been hit with 15+ RPG's plus bullet, granades ect And still drove away? I don't know how many battle i dont think any goverment is going to tell us the true number. But enough to known as the best performing tank in Nato.
Nothing, they are interlinked. You can drive the tank with 1 tiller. You pull the left back, the right goes forward, push it forward and the right goes back and vice versa.
A few things - surely the loader has to close the breach? You don’t explain how the Chobham armour deals with RPG shaped charge and why don’t you briefly mention where the battles were re 14 and 70 RPG hits?
Your driving demo is missing a few key points the tillers are linked so pulling the left tiller causes the right to move forward and vise versa so the tank can be driven one handed while operating other controls and pulling the tiller operates the brakes on the relevant final drive this increased resistance causes the opposite side to accelerate due to the differential gearing. The steering is reversed when reversing much like trying to reverse a car with a trailer.
Could be worth to mention that one of the cons is the rifling of the gun, which slows down the sabbot rounds (so less penetration power) but are neccesary for HESH rounds which are less effective because of explosive reactive armor. I think they are considering going smooth bore for their next challenger version.
Imortant Notes from our Audience The Community is great here.
1) "Qasim Mir"
It’s important to note regarding driving is that the steering is geared. Meaning with each gear there is a different turn radius, so if you want to do a tight turn you must change down a few gears to be able to do it. Another thing is the steering tillers only control where the front of the tank is pointing. Meaning, if going ahead and you want to turn right, you must ‘come right stick’ pulling the right lever, but, if you’re reversing and you want to turn right you must ‘come left stick’ and pull the left lever.
It would be good to touch on the tank’s suspension. Unlike other NATO tanks using torsion bars, Challenger 2 uses hydro pneumatic suspension. The British don’t like suspension that is mounted inside the hull on MBTs so you will never find a British tank with torsion bars. Before on Centurion and Chieftain they had Horstmann suspension. Challenger introduced the outside mounted hydro pneumatic which was easy to service but also performs better at springing and dampening than torsion bar.
2) "Qasim Mir"
The firing procedure for a Challenger 2 engagement is as follows (as far as I know):
Commander or gunner will acquire the the target: ‘A fin, a tank!’
(‘Fin’ means APFSDS)
Operator will load the the relevant round
Gunner when he’s brought to target by the commander and adjusted aim will shout: ‘ON!’ or ‘ARMED!’ Idk😳
Operator will report: ‘LOADED!’
Gunner will fire: ‘Firing!’💥
When the round hits, gunner will say: ‘Target!’
If the commander is satisfied with the damage he will reply: ‘Target stopped!’
End of engagement.
Hello, when will Turkish subtitles come to your videos. Because there is no Turkish subtitles even in the automatic translation section.
Thank you for sharing my information.
I LOVE IT THIS ARMOR IS STILL CLASSIFIED AND THIS VIDEO IS BULLSHIT IVE SEEN A BROKEN ABRAMS TANK SKIRT And holy SHIT Chalanger is a slow shooter I could load off a round on an Abrams less than a round every 3 seconds
Please also do one content for the South Korean K2 Black Panther. Thanks!
Short correction here:
1. Challenger 1 still used the same Horstmann Suspension as Chieftain.
2. The shown weight of the different MBT´s and especcially Challenger 2 are false.
Challenger 2 without TES (Theater Entry Standard armor addons) weights in 62.5 metric tons, with TES it weights 75-76 metric tons.
Leopard 2A7V and M1A2 SEP.V3 weight in at about 66 metric tons.
3. The L30A1 rifled 120mm L/55 gun is exclusively used by the Challenger 2 (L11 rifled 120mm L/55 gun is the predecessor on Challenger 1 and Chieftain). No other NATO partner uses this gun.
Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Ariete use variants of the RH120 smoothbore 120x570mm L/44 or L/55 gun, Leclerc uses the GIAT CN-26/52 gun, a 120x570mm smoothbore gun with 52 caliber lengths.
4. The Enforcer RWS is not regularly mounted on Challenger 2, even in TES configuration. This was added for the "Street Warrior" upgrade for urban combat. Only one Squadron was fitted out like this.
5. Black Knight, aswell as the other LEP Prototypes were in the end not procured and canceled.
The described Challenger 2 would not be used in reality, the regular Challenger 2 does not feature a RWS nor an APS system.
6. The Incident where a Challenger 2 was hit by a Milan ATGM, the Milan used was a Milan 1 ATGM from 1972, wich was sold to Irak in 1982-83 by france.
The Milan 1 ATGM had a single HEAT Warhead with about 350mm RHAe Penetration. This was indicently less penetration capability than the RPG-7WN and RPG-7WR used by iraki forces (wich had about 500-700mm RHAe penetration)
This is btw not an example of exceptional survivability.
If you throw a waterballoon at someone and another one filled with solid ice at another person, you wouldnt say that the person hit with the normal waterballoon is exceptionally tough because he can take the hit.
CR2 is a late 1980´s design with armor thickness representing that. 350mm HEAT Penetration wont penetrate the frontal armor and would likely struggle with the side armor too.
Similarly the RPG´s have 500-600mm penetration, that wont do much to the front, at the side this would also be likely not enough to penetrate. This would be also the case for Leopard 2A5 and later versions aswell as M1A2 Abrams versions.
Other, more modern ATGM and RPG´s, like 9K135 Kornet ATGM with estimated 1200mm Tandem HEAT Warhead would seriously threaten Challenger 2, as it did with Leopard 2 and M1.
7. one also has to mention that the steering tiller system is quite outdated and anachronistic on a vehicle that entered service in 1998, while basicly all other NATO MBT´s from 1978 onwards used steeringwheels and more user friendly controls.
8. in comparison to other NATO MBT´s the Engine of CR2 is quite underpowered and both offroad and on road topspeed of CR2 is about 10-15km/h slower than the competition in both areas.
9. Major Con: Neither Ammunition nor Spareparts are in production for the last 10+ years, the Vehicle itself has basicly no export and is out of production since 2006.
This turns the Cr2 into a logistical trap
You miss the most imprtant part, the very core and soul of this tank and all british tanks, the tactical tea maker.
That tea reference is so hackneyed
Chally of the woods approves.
The tactical tea maker was in the Challenger 1. The Challenger 2 has a boil water unit that can do more than make tea but is mostly just used for tea
As an English man I would be offended if it didnt have one
@@davidbridge5652 I can tea bag you if you want?.....
One of the few channels which actually point out its 3 part ammo....Well done.
Thank You
tu saresti il nobile Staminchia?
Кто-то этого не знает😂😂😂?
Please Subscribe 🤘
Ok
How does a mig 29 work plzz
@@mathijeba5375 Ok after we are done with the T90 Russian tank Autoloader Mechanism
@@Aitelly please make a video explaining the Fly-By-Wire for unstable aircrafts.
Oke dokey👍👍👍😁😁😁
It’s important to note regarding driving is that the steering is geared. Meaning with each gear there is a different turn radius, so if you want to do a tight turn you must change down a few gears to be able to do it. Another thing is the steering tillers only control where the front of the tank is pointing. Meaning, if going ahead and you want to turn right, you must ‘come right stick’ pulling the right lever, but, if you’re reversing and you want to turn right you must ‘come left stick’ and pull the left lever.
It would be good to touch on the tank’s suspension. Unlike other NATO tanks using torsion bars, Challenger 2 uses hydro pneumatic suspension. The British don’t like suspension that is mounted inside the hull on MBTs so you will never find a British tank with torsion bars. Before on Centurion and Chieftain they had Horstmann suspension. Challenger introduced the outside mounted hydro pneumatic which was easy to service but also performs better at springing and dampening than torsion bar.
Thanks for the beautifully written notes.
Learned a lot today
We have Credited you for this insightful comment.
HAS to have good suspension or the crew might spill their cuppa!
@@danhodson7187
Indeed. Tea is vital for victory.☕️
Great read. My dad spent his career transporting challengers and other vehicles nice to have a good insight into it all.
I always wondered how challenger was different from abrams you hear all the time about abrams blow out panel or how it drives. These vids are great very informative and gets straight to the point of how the tanks works that can’t get from a google search easily. I look forward to all the future vids.
Next Russian T90M Autoloader
Can't get from a Google search easily? Lol
still a coward in ukraine 😂😂
ora hai capito perchè gli abrams bruciano che è una meraviglia?
Wow! What an amazing machine. Excellent video.
Thanks for the comment
In reality, in Ukraine they are kept at the behind the lines on demand of the British, the front is "not safe enough" I wonder what's the point for sending them.
Now we know why.
@zz_mike-hawk_zz True challenger ii lost undefeated in Ukraine against a powerful atgm, only the Abraham m1a2 remains to be seen in action and performance.
@@overdrivelzma.9219 I have made a video about it, it you want to check it out.
Send them back then, talk about biting the hand that feeds you
and that the reason for Merkava 4 b the best tank in the world. The Merakava's Marching to the battlefield, and know how came back home safely
Amazing what engineers can achieve when it comes to weaponry 💥
yes
Imagine if engineers were hired to build space ships that ran on rocket-less propulsion. It's already been done.
@@Aitelly 2:20 The Soviets made their bridge capacity 45 tons so that when western tanks passed, the bridge would immediately collapse
I am Russian, and I can barely speak English. Much less be polite. First of all, thank you very much.
1. The coaxial chain gun looks much simpler, single barrel. It has features important for a close tank.
2. English tanks are one of the narrowest today. Even in comparison with the Soviet ones. The thing about railroad overpasses. Some decisions of this tank have to do with the width.
3. The hydraulic automatic transmission does not disengage the clutch, but reduces the power of one of the tracks.
4. The Challenger can still fire at a large downward lean angle, which increases its heavy turret. It has relatively high ground clearance, a smooth bottom, and mine protection. This, too, increases the height.
5. The suspension of this tank is unusual: compact and adjustable (located on sides, not on the bottom, which reduces the height of the tank). That is why the tank can withstand unprecedented overloading of the hinged protection.
6. The inclined multilayer armor barrier refracts (as in optics) the shock front of the penetrator many times. This leads to its defocusing (as in optics). In practice it looks like the penetrator is crumbled, by dissipating the energy to fluctuate the layers.
@
Ernest Awesome point of view
@@Aitelly I was trying to present facts, not opinions. There are too many opinions around.
Point 5 the suspension system has inspired the new South Korean tanks and it will become more prevalent.
Point 4 British tank designers have long valued being able to have a large depression angle, this has proved extremely valuable to them in many conflicts eg Korea and to the Israeli’s where the Syrian forces were at a significant disadvantage.
"I can barely speak English" delivers a seminar of information on the tank concisely.
Please never learn English properly, you will make us look bad.
This video is extremely helpful for someone that wants to 3D model a game ready tank with an Interior and physicalized damage. Thanks for this video.
I am very happy to see that your video quality is developing. Hope you get more subscribers soon . ❤ from 🇮🇳.
Thanks Better Video as we try to recruit more people
really useful. I am about to break into an armored division's HQ and steal a tank and this is going to be helpful. appreciate the info!
thanks
Can you grab me one while you're there?
Stumbled upon the video. Now hooked. Excellent work!
Awesome of you thanks 🙏
So basically, they designed this tank all in defend stat, the attack is based on the elite crews from British
I'm glad you're talking about the Challenger 2 here and not the "Challenger 3". The UK government isn't fooling anyone that what is merely upgrade suite is a new tank.
Well it’s an entirely new turret, gun, firing system, self defence system, new armour and new engine. So i would hardly call it a light upgrade. It will do nicely and certainly better than anything potential foes have. Just need more of them
The only thing the same between the II and III is the chassis. The gun is switching to smoothbore.
@@1maico1 Even then it's been changed, the lower Glacis has been up armoured on a chassis level not just add-on, the tank uses 3rd Gen Chobham called Farnham and has add-on armour like the Challenger 2 TES had called EPSOM which is upgraded from current standards (This is how we'd send tanks into battle with the add-on armour) So the Chassis has had a lot of work done, not forgetting APS has been confirmed, specifically Trophy.
Thanks!
Thank You so much.
We have also credited your name in our last Video
@@Aitelly thanks, I really appreciate that
A positive you failed to mention is the suspension that allows better cross country performance than its competitors even with higher power engines. Coupled with easier repair to the external suspension units when damaged in combat, whereas battle damaged welded torsion bars in the Leopards and Abrams require back to base, torsion bar torch-cutting, disassembly, removal and repair.
Challenger 2 is lovely and is the most beautiful MBT in the world
Indeed she is.
Да , красивый...Только поэтому на него и соблазнилась одна страна в мире , кроме Англии.
After the Leopard she's definitely one of the most beautiful.
@@rockrock8706 جون
جون
Beautifully animated 🔥
First Challenger was destroyed today
I wish I discovered this channel earlier. Every time there is a country show I never get to go in the challenger because the queue is too long. So it is nice to know how the internals, and periscope work etc
the up armoured variant you show is actually pushing 85 tonnes
no it isn't, the full TES version is 72 tonnes
The combat weight of the Challenger is is actually 75 metric tonnes. The training weight of the tank is the standard 63 tonnes. For comparison, the combat weight of the M1A2 Abrams with TUSK is 68 metric tonnes.
This channel is exactly what I’ve been looking for. Thanks 👍
U plannin on stealing a tank?
@@loadapish 😊
Thanks! I've been having trouble firing my Challenger tank
Chobham armour = developed by DERA ( Defence Evaluation Research Agency) British army department in a village called Chobham in Surrey south east of England.
I lived there for 15 years.
They call "Chobham" most composite NERA armour variants, including non-British. Actually, part of Challenger2 armor plating and APS - made in Israel.
The Mk 4 was not just the first British Tank, it was the first Tank anywhere.
To keep them secret before they were first used in World War One they were described as "Mobile Water Tanks", or just "Tanks". The name stuck. 😃
Remarkable work. Excellent!
Thanks 👍
You forgot it's most important feature, the water boiler so you can have a nice cup of tea after the battle.
Yes. We thought everyone knew about it
Kettle you silly billy
@@D1shortfatoneat00.19secconds boiler vessel
During the battle, dear boy
My favourite tank,beautiful
Your videos never fail to amaze me
Thanks 👍
Thank you to the channel, interesting information) Thank you to Great Britain for helping in the fight against aggression!
Wow thanks another excellent video..... 👍 Mark from UK..... The home of the challenger 2
Im obsessed to your channel.
we love you Guys so much.
Thanks!
My previous favorite was the L2 A7, but I would take this anyday.
the challenger 2 just won a NATO tank competition last week. leopard came 2nd and abrams 3rd
still a coward in ukraine 😂😂
@@zulfanirich7594 no need to use the good tanks yet. any old tank will do against poor wee russia and their egg cartons🤣🤣🤣
@chrisyoung9653 Already tested it against a professional army, Challenger lost the undefeated were 2 units lost out of 10, I don't think UK will give him more units.
@@overdrivelzma.9219 no they were only given so Germany would send leopard 2s. Worked great
@chrisyoung9653 It only remains the Abraham M1A2 to make their combat debut in Europe and see if they better withstand a high intensity war, I think France will never send its Leclercs.
Fantastic! Have just discovered AiTelly channel. It's absolutely great, with so much interesting and informative engineering and technical detail. But - vitally - you explain everything clearly for mechanical thickos like me.
Так понимаю в передней части где место мехвода нет активной брони по центру?
Mistake on 1:54. T-72 is a russian tank (T-90 prototype) which is produced on Urals manufactories and is presented in a very small amount in the ua forces, while the main ukrainian army tank is T-64 made in Kharkov.
T 90M Provy3 vs T 84 Oplot.
This encounter will never happen Ukraine does not send its oplot to the front only owns 10 units.
"Its not how it works Its how it burns" -Chadimir Poutine 2023
Finally, the challenger 2 !
It's a pity that Challenger II lost the undefeated in Ukraine to a semi-professional regular army.
Great video, fantastic animation, top notch narrative.
6:35 The Challenger 2's Chobham armor is much thicker. The weld on the side is the outermost steel plate covering the chobham armor.
The chobham armoured challenger ii variant was sent to Ukraine or it was an old version destroyed by the 0rcs russians...
The firing procedure for a Challenger 2 engagement is as follows (as far as I know):
Commander or gunner will acquire the the target: ‘A fin, a tank!’
(‘Fin’ means APFSDS)
Operator will load the the relevant round
Gunner when he’s brought to target by the commander and adjusted aim will shout: ‘ON!’ or ‘ARMED!’ Idk😳
Operator will report: ‘LOADED!’
Gunner will fire: ‘Firing!’💥
When the round hits, gunner will say: ‘Target!’
If the commander is satisfied with the damage he will reply: ‘Target stopped!’
End of engagement.
Mostly accurate. Not bad
@@BurningSovereign
What is the true firing procedure for Challenger 2 and the phrasing?
@@qasimmir7117 You've added a lot of variables, will attempt to clarify on certain things.
"Commander or gunner will acquire the target: 'A fin, a tank!'"
I don't know why you added the "A" to both of those. The easiest way to think about it is as; once the target is identified, an ammo nature is announced, followed by the target. Example is: Fin tank
HESH BMP
COAX Men.
I'm on my phone so ill do each part individually
Slight correction on how the "Chobham" amour works: It's basicly a hollow steel box with the primary feature of the armour is it's NERA array, those aren't plastic armour plates but rather a form of Non Explosive Reactive Armour (or NERA) that uses a synthetic polymer (artificial rubber) not plastic. These work just like the ERA blocks, the have a thick plate of armour with a block of "rubber" behind it with a backing plate of thinner steel behind it. The round hits the front plate, compressing the rubber stores that energy like a spring. Once the rubber is compressed to a critical point, it releases that energy and "pops out", slamming the front plate into the projectile or HEAT jet.
Now NERA isn't as effective as ERA but it's biggest pro is that it can be used safely in a confined space (you can't use ERA inside of a block of armor for obvious reason) and it doesn't blow itself up so it can take several hits before failing. To make up for the fact that a single plate isn't that powerful, they are stacked in a array of several NERA modules with enough of a gap between them that they won't take each other out when they go off.
Modern version of this armour (such as next generation special armor on the Abrams M1A2 variants or Dorchester for the Challenger II) are a bit more complex, though I'm only going to be vague here.... this stuff is classified after all and I don't want to go to jail. These add plates of High Hardness steel to the back of the armor and in the more modern version of the armor, advanced ceramic/steel composites in front of the NERA array (you can tell which have them because the armor sticks out more to accommodate them). DU is used as well, but usually only in the turret checks (at lest with the Abrams. They did experiment with using it in the hull but it was found to not be worth the extra weight and cost since the type of weapons that tend to be used against the hull are already stopped well enough by the armor it has already), there is some neat stuff with how it's used but I can't really go to deeply into that. The NERA arrays have also been updated with some pretty exotic stuff, the material used acts more like a reusable explosive (like I said, it's pretty crazy stuff) which of course brings the NERA closer to ERA in power. It's also now placed in the armour at odd and counter intuitive angles (they're not placed following the slant of the armour). The reason for this is that they found by changing the angle the round hits, it can change the direction the round moves after hitting the array and is usually set so that it directs the attack upwards so that it punches through the roof of the armour instead of going deeper into the tank.
Things I learned today: the Brits basically have to put some sort of a rifle clip to ignite the Challenger 2´s main gun 😄
Yeah looking forward for the T-90M animation 👌
🙏 thanks 👍
And the Leclerc tank animation too 👍
Amazing to think that the Chally's main gun shares, in effect, a 3 component ammo system with the likes of a rifled musket in the American Civil War some 130 years earlier with the latter's ammo consisting of a cartridge with powder, a Minie ball and a percussion cap.
@@DH.2016 ...the reality is though its no slower than single piece tank ammo.
So, we have absolutely no idea what its Dorchester armour comprises off. The only reference we have is we know what Burlington arrays No.1 to 4 looked like, which were in fact bulging plate technology using plastic and steel. However, that technology was patented in 1962 and Dorchester is a much newer and advanced development from the Burlington arrays and like how the Germans dropped the bulging plate armour design in their B-Tech armours and started using ceramics in newer armours in C-Tech and the US went with using depleted Uranium in some way with is HAP and NGAP armour over the bulging plate armours in its early BRL armours, it's likely Dorchester has moved onto incorporating more advanced material arrays. However, despite what most people say, there is absolutely no available information that gives us an idea of what Dorchester is made off.
I'd be lying to say it didn't bug me to see the composite armour animated right in the front within the 100mm steel plate armour but I know its just for education purposes.
Great work as always! Dang, that tank is a beast! Watching your videos,I'm gaining a bit of knowledge, you know what they say about that.
Bro Can you make a detailed video like this on a apc(armored personal carrier) maybe Boxer
The upgrades you mentioned will be on Challenger 3, Dorchester armour, 1500hp engine, Triumph protection system, better third gen optics and the new Rhine metal 120mm smooth bore gun.
What is the maximum firing rate (rounds per minute) of the main gun? How much pressure do the tracks exert on the ground? How do these parameters compare to other main battle tanks?
8 rounds in 42 seconds I think is the record.
Next is a t-34
yes
Merkava MkIV
@@valera5689 no next any ww2 tank
Yeah ww2 tanks were not mentioned in all of the videos
@@jacinthenricoso352 bruh the kv1 was mentioned
The British touches are always mind-blowing
Challenger 2 Tank How it Works:
It's on the side of the road.
It burns very much.
It smokes a lot.
Hit a mine. The crew bailed and sometime later it took a hit from a Kornet. Any tracked vehicle will be immobilized by ATMs. It was noticeable there were no armour modules fitted, they have not been supplied to Ukraine.
@1maico1 The Kornet is very powerful drill 1200 mm of composite armour, it would also have drilled the armour module.
It runs on TEA 😂
Amazing animation ❤
Thanks 🙏
Dorchester armour refers to the reactive armour package that’s added on, chopham armour is the built in armour
Correction: The first tank to ever go into action wasn’t the Mark IV but the Mark I on 15 September 1916 on the Somme.
MARK 4 was the first battletested tank meaning .it destroyed two German A7V tanks
I like the commander and gunner animation. They looked more alive than other videos
Thanks
Thanks- we try our best
Love this video! Great detail and information. Can’t wait to see if you have videos on other MBTs after I finish this!
They really improved so much
The challenger tank has a rifled gun but the ammo you showed was a piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot that is used on smooth bore gun
1:57
Russia is relying mostly on T-72B3, not T-90
And the Ukrainian tank fleet is comprised mostly of T64BV, not T-72
He is comparing the modern versions being used not the frequently used .
They were relying on as they have lost 510 of them, or 37% of their fleet.
@@blackmantis3130 there is nothing modern really about T-72 in comparison to T-64.
And the most modern Ukrainian tank is T-84 Oplot, again not T-72.
T-72s were barely operational.
If you like their indices - there were also T-80s in Air-assault brigades since like 2017.
Tbh, this is just bad quality of content, too many minor issues.
I decided to unsubscribe.
Please do other lesser known tanks like Oplot, Al Khalid etc, SR-72 etc.
That's very very informative
Thanks 🙏👍
The tank lacks the ultimate feature of emergency turret extraction system of russian tank.
HA funny kid, Most of the videos were Ukrainian T70 and T80 tanks of the Soviet era, the upgraded t90M withstood the blow of NLAW and Javelin, the crew survived but the tank was disabled.
Зато присутствует аварийная система принудительного извлечения погибшего экипажа
we had seen many western tanks with poped turret...its not only soviet thing😮
@@Lipi19821 Western tanks don't keep ammo in the turret
@@HaydenLau. 10 немецких Леопард 2 в Сирии не имели боеукладки в боевом отделении , а башни у них сорвало . Как , так?
I was waiting for your new video.😊. Please, upload next video faster. Please, upload video on 🇮🇱Merkava Thank. ❤ From 🇮🇳.
T-72 is a Russian tank. Ukraine uses Soviet T-64.
What a great video you have done here very easy how you explain information in this video great video graphics love it.
Just to let you know, not long ago, the USA wanted this classified armour for the USA tank's so both the uk and us did a deal to share the technology as the uk got some technology on the us submarine technology so ONLY the USA and UK are the only tank's to have this armour.
Thanks for the support and Feedback notes
you are writing absolute nonsense.firstly, the world's first tank with composite armor was built in the USSR, the T-64.Secondly, the spaced armor in the forehead of the tower of several dozen armor plates with air gaskets and other materials is not a privilege of the USA and England.This has been done on the T-90 in Russia since the 90s
@@макслюлюкин He didn't say "spaced" armour or "composite" armour. He was referring to Chobham armour specifically, which was used on the Challenger 1 and shared with the US for the M1A1. Dorchester is the upgraded Chobham variant on CH2, while the Americans developed their own variant for the M1A2.
Few things wrong but still a very impressive video over all.
Few things wrong, refuses to elaborate, leaves.
@@Powerof7even There are quite a few errors in the vid. Obviously the tank expert didn't spot them..............
Another detail, with a full system the gunner does not correct for wind and elevation. Elevation is calculated at the point of lasing and acquiring the range to the target. Windage is calculated via data from the MET sensor mounted on top of the turret. Only when all systems have failed does the gunner have to resort to manual correction. Great video though, brought back memories. 👍
If memory serves me correctly, the safety switch on the GCP does not isolate the firing circuit it only isolates the Gun Control Equipment ie. turret movement, same for the Commanders Safety switch. The Loaders Control Panel Safety switch does however isolate the Firing Circuit and the GCE.
Great video well done
Thanks
the laid back driver position in the forward hull of the Challenger 2 needs a proper steering wheel, instead of two levers . . . the hydro-pneumatic suspension in the Challenger 2 can be upgraded with a additional variable coil spring setup that'll function in tandem with the tank's torsion bar suspension . . . the Challenger 3 could seriously do with a lightweight hull made of anti-ballistic high strength steel alloys & lithium composites . . . this should limit the overall mass (without the add on Chobam® armour & ERA) of the tank to less than 46.35 ton . . . one piece pressed/moulded hull sections is another weight saving feature . . . the 360° deg rotating manned turret needs to be lighter as well . . . a turbocharged 20.0 in-line-8 & a iSmartHYBRId® power pack . . . the turret top mounted 360° deg rotating Enforcer RWS next to the gunner's could be armed with a 25 MM GAU-12/U six-barrel rotary cannon & the standard 0.50 Cal . . .
"Cornet" has already burned two Challenger 2 tanks.
Wheres the 2nd Challenger 2 corpse then?
As much as I love Tanks, I love me some Mighty-Mo! Hope to see some ships!
Coming soon after we are done with Autoloader
"....the Mark IV. The first battle-tested tank made by British engineers......". In fact the first tank made by anyone anywhere. Called a "tank" because that was the code word for it while under development and the name stuck.
Spot on… The tank was originally named land ship by British Military in WW1. The name "tank" was initially a code name to maintain secrecy and disguise its true purpose by making it appear to be a water transport vehicle for bringing water to the troops at the front line.
Extra Facts:
Challenger 2 (CR2) tank can also set a smoke screen by the injection of diesel fuel into the engine exhausts.
The secret weapon of any British Armoured Vehicle BV. A boiling vessel (BV) is a water heating system fitted to British armoured fighting vehicles that permits the crew to heat water and cook food by drawing power from the vehicle electrical supply. It is often referred to by crewmembers as "the most important piece of equipment in a British armoured vehicle".
this is really nice video ,please more
But we did not get any views 😔
Great as usual
thanks
👨💻Excelente una vez mas .tienes mis saludos .⬜🟦🟥 👏👏👏
Thanks for great video
Always welcome
No one has ever destoryed a Challenger 2. I wonder if Russia can be the first to destory a Challeneger 2 in battle. I hope this is not the case but if it is, It shows the level of skill the british army have when using the Challenger 2
It has been … by another Challenger 2, friendly fire 😬
@@hushpuppykl only the British have destroyed one
But in how many battles has it been yet compared to the Abrahams, Leclerc and Leopard?
@@Robin-sf3gk Does the fact it hasn't been destoryed bother you?
Just wondering why you take my comment ( about a single tank ) and turn it into your own so you can compare.
I don't know how many battles, i dont think any goverment is going to tell us the true number. But enough to known it's the best performing tank in Nato.
But seeing as you wanted to compare tanks. Can you name a single tank from any other country that has in a single battle been hit with 15+ RPG's plus bullet, granades ect And still drove away?
I don't know how many battle i dont think any goverment is going to tell us the true number. But enough to known as the best performing tank in Nato.
@@Robin-sf3gk the challenger has seen much more combat than the leclerc and leopard
to know how it work you just have to ask on war thunder forums and wait until someone give you classified document
Underrated comment.
Hai, is Aitelly a company or just an individual..
Should have told warthunder maybe the challenger would become a better tank love your videos guys
What happen when you pull both tiller? The tank stops?
Nothing, they are interlinked. You can drive the tank with 1 tiller. You pull the left back, the right goes forward, push it forward and the right goes back and vice versa.
Excellent visualization
great content❤❤
Thanks
Next level video. Good job!
great job bro👌 thank you 👍
Always Welcome
This series is great
Your channel is great
A few things - surely the loader has to close the breach? You don’t explain how the Chobham armour deals with RPG shaped charge and why don’t you briefly mention where the battles were re 14 and 70 RPG hits?
Forgot to say great video..just some questions not criticism
Why have to press 2 buttons in order to fire co axil chian gun ? If I got that right ? Still cool tank.
Your driving demo is missing a few key points the tillers are linked so pulling the left tiller causes the right to move forward and vise versa so the tank can be driven one handed while operating other controls and pulling the tiller operates the brakes on the relevant final drive this increased resistance causes the opposite side to accelerate due to the differential gearing. The steering is reversed when reversing much like trying to reverse a car with a trailer.
I can now operate the tank thank you aitelly
Well done, for sure.
Could be worth to mention that one of the cons is the rifling of the gun, which slows down the sabbot rounds (so less penetration power) but are neccesary for HESH rounds which are less effective because of explosive reactive armor. I think they are considering going smooth bore for their next challenger version.
Great 👍 videos