@@Ivanna_Jerkov who are they? What they were worried about was escalating the war to their countries. Any tank can be destroyed today. They just need to use it where it is a force multiplier not a coffin.
I loved loading. The big advantages of split ammunition are as follows. 1 Ease of ammo stowage. 2. It is much easier to handle. You don't lose as much speed leading as you might think, because of the shorter length and lighter components. 3. It assists protection because to load at (near) full depression you don't need so much clearance behind the breech -to turret roof. This means you can have 10deg of depression which has a HUGE effect on visibility. Much much less of the tank is exposed when hull down. Those of us who did the officers Long Armour Course will remember the photos illustrating both protection and concealment. Americans who used 5deg, and the Brits who insisted on 10. The US tanks, to bring the gun on, towered over a crest. You are technically correct when you say the ammunition is in 3 parts - using a vent tube as the initiator (which had some disadvantages in consistency of ignition, now overcome) . But the vent tubes are fed from a magazine by the vent tube (auto)loader. So they have no effect on rate of fire. (Though feed was unreliable in the early Chieftain days. "Still Rammer out" and all the pain of removing the VTL, and extracting a mangled vent tube. Early days in my crew, we left the loader off and loaded by hand. Caused by breech block bounce, and fixed yeas ago) The reason we stayed with HESH was not because we liked it. It was because that was, of the 2 rounds, the one that passed the NATO standard accuracy test. (Which APDS did not at the time) Also in terms of EFCs HESH is 1/10th of that of APDS . So barrel life is much greater. Challenger was, because of its suspension faster x country than Abrams. And a lot less troublesome with fuel resupply. And of course, because of that suspension, so much less demanding on the gun stab kit. And lower, compared with torsion bars, so assisting with both concealment and protection.
Ahhh Chieftain, I can still smell my Diesel soaked Coveralls! Certainly the best tank in the World as long as it broke down in a good fire position, that crappy L60 killed the Chieftain.
As Sqn Sigs NCO I was my Sqn Ldr's loader on Chieftain. I agree with you on all points. Vent tube inefficiency... "Misfire, wait 30 minutes"! I once removed a bag charge with a screwdriver stabbed into the flash pad, after a misfire. It was probably the closest I, and the crew, ever came to leaving this planet.
@@gaptaxi 94, my tank, a mk2 never broke down. When I had done my time at MVEE and went back to the Regt 13/18 H, I took over as Sqn 2I/C. My mk 5 never broke down. At MVEE I ran Chieftain trials, and we had the then new uprated and new linered engine. The one with the very harsh exhaust note and tuned exhaust. It would run forever, but of course the trials tanks were not hangar queens, and that has a lot to do with reliability. I liked driving, and so drove CH for literally several hundred miles, trundling the then new fin ammo. Our ARV are was a Cent with a Conq engine. We also had ATR 2, now in the museum at Bovington. That had a CV12, and latterly an uprated version with twin turbos. Rated at 1500 horse, when you could it get it started. So you got drive a lot and that helped keep the waggons going far better than at RD, where drivers never go such chances.
The Challenger withstood far more than 7 RPGs "During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to the British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident"
@@timespaice haha kornet? that weapon is a pile of shit. Go google Nucking futz Yuri and you'll see how his whole crew survived a kornet hit, in a fucking humvee, not a main battle tank. So I expect the Ukrainian cr2 crews may not even notice something so weak hitting their armour.
I do believe that one of the crew members in the crippled Challenger (that had to endure an hour of having Iraqi rockets fired at) broke his toe, it was the only injury from the incident, which I find to be the greatest testament to the Challenger tank. When a Challenger loses it's tracks it just becomes a concrete bunker/pillbox.
@@krashd I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm not sure, but that sounds like the incident where a tandem warhead rpg bounced off the ground penned the belly armour and blew off a couple of toes of the driver. Though I may be mixing two things up.
The Challengers have already done their primary job - broken the deadlock and enabled Leopards to be sent, more numerous and easier to supply, anything else they achieve is gravy.
Y'see It's the Brits who step up again. Reviled by Europe because of Brexit, The British shrugged off the snub and sent two full Challenger 2 companies plus spares, backup and crew training to NATO standard. Before this the European slackarses were pissing their pants for fear of upsetting that chinless little shit, pootin. ' We'll send some tanks if you send some tanks' 'Ok, but we're not going first' fukin playground politics. Want Europe saving AGAIN? Call the British.
Some accurate information surrounded by a lot of BS. The M1 Abrams tank used Chobham armour so are you saying that the M1 was sh!te also? The Chieftain was superior to the T-64 and the T-72 , having a better stabilized gun, then consider that the Challenger V1 is far better than the Chieftain. If anyone doubts what I'm saying, take a moment to look at the results of the Challenger V1 against Iraqi T-72s. Ya, I know the Iraqi tanks weren't the latest and greatest T-72s, but the base flaw of the T-72 is still being shown in Ukraine today. It's a flawed designed that no amount of bandaids can cover. The Challengers cleaned the table. To this day, no Challenger, V1 or V2 has every been killed by enemy fire. The only loss was from a friendly fire incident. I'm sure a few will be lost in Ukraine, but ask yourself this question. If you were in Ukraine, would you want to be sitting in a pop goes the turret T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 or a Challenger 2?
@@trevortrevortsr2 This guy is down playing the Challenger 2, the Americans talk up the Abrams But i suspect they are worried it will fail in Ukraine they have maintenance issues with it, and i read somewhere the newer ones are using a German engine, the engine they have been using is unreliable and a gas guzzler, they keep on saying it's the best tank in the world then bring it on !
@@davidpickavance9628 Much will depend on the quality of the crews and how they are used in a combined arms group - I think your right some are nervous - certainly the Lepard A4 armour has been shown wanting - any Russian will want to prioritise their demise - if the Ukrainians are clever they will use the fear factor to their avantage
Good points, well made. Obviously an old tankie. The best use of Challenger is "Fire and Maneuver, Fire and Maneuver" and avoid, like the plague, toe to toe slugging matches. Challengers don't hold up well in that situation. I've always felt that tanks are mobile artillery. So, keep a distance. Keep moving. Keep firing and keep out of "urban" situations as much as possible. You're too vulnerable. But, there again, I'm very ( very !!) old school.
A British challenger two is an accurate tank in the hands of the British. We’ll see how the Ukrainians deal with the tank, but if there’s good as the British, the Russian tanks are in for one hell of a big surprise, specially at distance.💪🏻
depend on how good they work with the infantry. I wonder what Ukraine will do use them as a unit in vast stretch's of flat country or filter them out (like 2 tanks a unit) to have some tanks that can be use in close range with them like the M4 and the Fireflys of ww2
The Challenger II gets a lot of stick for it’s rifled bore, but this is also highly useful on a battlefield. First is range and accuracy, second is its use of HESH rounds. This type of round will obliterate an apposing tank making it un repairable as it rips through the hull as it squashes on impact and leaves a huge hole. Remember that the Russian tanks have fully realised rounds which can explode and destroy the target tank from withinOn the other hand, minimally damaging and disabling a tank by concussion with smooth bore rounds ( I.e. taking out the crew ) means that a tank could be repaired theoretically. The trade off is fire rate vs toughness. In normal situations the Challenger II should not be up front and in close range to the enemy. It doesn’t need to be. It outranges the Russian T90s. These are the things the Ukrainian tank crews and commanders will be taught by the British, and I expect the fighting Ukrainians to make full use of their advantage. After all, this is a nation that has stopped Russia for over a year, no small achievement when we consider the asymmetry between the two sides.
I served with The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars on Chieftain as a fully qualified Crewman (Operator/Loader, Driver and Gunner) and specialised as a Gunner Mechanic. Let us look at the 3 piece ammunition, firstly the igniters are loaded in a magazine, which is attached to the back of the breech in such a position to allow the igniter to slide easily into the breech block on each cycle as part of loading the round and bag charge the loader taps the rammer to check that the igniter is seated properly and then closes the safety guard and checks that his switches are armed. Additionally the loader and commander will have pre-decided what rounds to have in the ready racks, this in turn allows the loader to change where the bag charges are stowed so that he has optimum availability. Now I learned basic gunnery when we still used the 0.50" Ranging Machine Gun on the old 4 dot sight and part of one's training (which is still taught these days) is that the gunner draws a ranging map of the country in front and around the position because being able to fire first and to keep on firing even if the tank is hit and you lose the majority of your gun systems you can still fight. Yes lasers are nice and accurate and they are detectable. Quadrant Fire (QF) is still an ability and pre-ranging your position out to 5,000m or more gives you an awareness of your area of concern for long range fire directed by the Commander. In the Challenger there is duallity of control and many of the gunner's function are taken over by the commander and in many ways gunnery is now done in tandem and is much improved. Looking back to the days of Chieftain we achieved high rates of fire even allowing that in the early days the loader had a 7.62mm GPMG on the left middle of the breech and a 0.50" RMG on the left of the breech and the waste clips from both used to jam and you had to clear them fast and keep loading and keep your feet as you were bounced around as the vehicle was going at speed across the ground; you had to communicate with both the gunner and commander so that you could get to all of your bag charges while the turret was rotating left and right and you had to listen to the driver who was telling you about bumps, holes and changing gear. In all of that insanity we regularly scored over 90%. Also, for the American 'Tankies' we did our own maintenance.
Not only is the Challenger a tough tank to kill, but with it's rifled barrel giving it longer range, it'll kill you before it's within the range of your gun. Used intelligently it's going to cause Wagner some serious problems.
Having seen the performance of Russian equipment from the Middle East to Ukraine, I seriously don't think the Challenger 2 tanks will have much difficulty. The Russian claim that the T90 is the best tank in the world has been proved to be a load of hogwash. In fact, my friends and I, all former servicemen who trained to fight the Soviets, are now wondering what the f**k we were ever worried about! We would have wiped the bloody floor with them! I also think that this is why Putin has backed away from his threats against NATO. NATO could take Russia to pieces.
Even Putin said years ago that he´d have to be mad to take on NATO! And that is why he stayed out of the Baltics which would have been easier to invade than the Ukraine, much smaller etc.
We lost the ability to make tanks 20 years ago ; now we buy virtually ALL our military equipment from the Germans certainly NONE of it is made in the UK. When the last Challenger is lost in Central Europe, there can never be another.
@@leewheeler8308 "Production began in 1993 at two primary sites: Elswick, Tyne and Wear and Barnbow, Leeds, with over 250 subcontractors involved. And the Challenger 3 upgrades will be done in Newcastle. All in the UK, for those unfamiliar with those places "
@@leewheeler8308 The only thing the Germans will be making is the gun and Rhinemetall already make the best guns used by most of NATO. It is true that Rhinemetall bought BAE Land Systems but the factories are and always will be in the UK, just as BAE Systems make half of the land equipment and weaponry of the US forces, it doesn't mean any of that equipment is British - it is made by Americans on American soil, only the ownership of the company is British.
This tank just won the Iron Spear NATO competition held last week in Estonia. It beat Leopard and the Abrams because it allows both the gunner and the commander to target independently and simultaneously, meaning it has a higher kill rate. So, if it’s susceptible to the Russian tank on firing rate, then the Leopard and the Abrams are going to be even more susceptible.
The bradlay is not a tank tho, it's an armouredscout vehicle with a tiny faast firing pew pew. it's good but not a main battle tank.@@williamoloughlin8298
The Chieftain was well armed and armoured for its time - it was the first to use a 120 tank gun when others were using 105mm - its only downside was mobility it was underpowered with a weak engine - The Challenger 1 was very good off road with a 1200 hp Perkins engine and hydrogas suspeension and Chobam armour - Challenger 2 has hunter killer system much like Abrams and upgraded Dorchester armour - Brits like their Hesh round for all but head on MBT - The Sabo round is slightly less effective than the best smooth bore however it will easily slay most Russian tanks
the big defect of the guns with grooved cores, it is their lifespans, approximately 450/500 shootings, the guns with smooth souls have a lifespan higher than 2200 shots and they cost less to manufacture, no need to make grooves (and if some speak of a higher precision of grooved cannons, it is false, smooth-bore cannons fire shells which, as soon as they leave the cannon, deploy fins which ensure rotation and therefore gyro stabilization)! the biggest defect of the Challenger II remains its mobility, without the over armor of 11 tons, it reaches 59 km/h, with 11 tons of over armor, it does not exceed 56 km/h! its biggest asset is when it is equipped with its 11-ton armor, it is practically indestructible against another tank with a conventional shell fire, on the other hand, against a JAVELIN, AKERON MP or NLAW type missile , which strike the roof of the tank, it will be as fragile as a Leopard II, an Abrams or a Leclerc! but hey, against any Russian tank, it will be far superior!! just like other western tanks!
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq I've been in one - the lads said its gun is chrome lined on the best steel with a thermal jacket and good for 680 firings before swapping out - i think much depends on the charge they use and round used - I think if the Bridges dont collapse under them they will make great breakthrough tanks
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq You need to start talking about EFC when taking of gun life. This a standard artillery term Equivalent Full Charge. It depends on the type of ammunition used, especially in artillery when they load shell and charge separately, and the charge varies according to range and trajectory. As for speed. Well that depends on the soil and ground pressure. And suspension. You are a lot faster cross country with long travel hydrogas, than with the US torsion bars. And of course, removing a damaged suspension unit is a lot easier with hydrogas than it is with torsion bars, particularly modern double torsion bar systems. And of course, the route you will take in action is always the one of best concealment - into the low ground , which is usually going to be the softest, where ground pressure and the ramping effect under the track becomes important. (and dramatically affects fuel consumption - Abrams note) Additionally, you don't leap into your panzer and roar across country with the commander flaunting his smalls yelling "Yahoo". Fire and manoeuvre in contact, so distances between halts are not that great, because you keep in overwatch range, and a k or 2 of extra speed here and there is no great significance in contact. It is never quite as simple as a few facts and figures. Personally, I would far rather go into action in a Challenger than Abrams. I can hide better, and move more quickly. Less thermal signature,
Not correct. The first British tank to carry a 120mm gun was the FV214 Conqueror super-heavy tank, which was in service from 1955 to 1966 in West Germany. The Chieftain didn't come out until 1967.
I’ve heard criticism before on the challengers speed, or lack there of, but when you think about it speed really is irrelevant, if you run over an anti tank mine it doesn’t matter if your doing 1 mph or 100 mph, the end of the day your going to be toast, also anti tank rounds have a velocity of 3000 + fps, so then again it doesn’t matter what speed your doing because you ain’t going to out run one. If I was in a tank, and had a choice of a bit slower because of weight from heavy armour or a bit faster from less armour and less survival protection, well I know which one I would choose.
The Brits have been training Ukrainian NCOs for years, now thousands of infantry are in the UK training. Light reconnaissance tanks are already in the field, I wonder if all this will be combined in one place? From Chieftain onwards British tanks were designed to fight outnumbered swarms of invading Russian armour who were to be the follow up to nuclear artillery. The kit is good, the troops are well trained and motivated. The Russians have none of the above, this has the potential to get brutal.
As a former tank /armor mechanic in the Gulf war, serving in an armored cavalry unit, The Challenger 2 tank is suited for long and moderate-range support against enemy armor. That is to give long-range support to light and medium and even other heavy armor on the front line. They will perform just fine so long as they do not end up in a close-range slugging match on the front line. Fire and move, fire and move strategy will also increase the tank's survivability and usefulness. It seems to me to be a glorified mobile-tracked artillery anti-armor piece. Used as such will be its best strategy to be useful.
@@mikeoglen6848 Serious Question here, wasn't the friendly fire loss of a Challenger caused by the crew brewing tea , left unattended , i.e. a real fire while they were being briefed on the eve of kicking the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.
The Russian 9M133 Kornet ATM goes straight through the side armor of Abrams and Israeli tanks hence the development of systems like the Israeli Trophy APS (active protection system.) Without it the Challenger II will need careful deployment to survive.
It's never faced a A-10 equipped to carry GPS- and laser-guided bombs, such as the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, Paveway series bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bombs. A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense.
I am a veteran centurion gunner and they were brilliant, after watching a video on the challenger 2 I’m really impressed they seem to be better than anything they can come up against, even better than the invention of sliced bread
Challenger will see and destroy Russian tanks before the Russians even see the Challenger. As for the Russians getting 4 shots off between the Challengers 1st and 2nd, I refer you to my previous point. :)
A Challenger has never been defeated although one was damaged by friendly fire, the Ukrainians have shown very good adaptability to modern weapons so they will be fine, Challenger 2 is a good tank and will do well but its all bad news for the Russian tanks and has the longest tank on tank kill so I think the best a T72 can do is hit reverse at max speed and get out of range - or die
The UK has always seen the tank as primarily for infantry support and the destruction of static defensive positions, for this the HESH round is far better than the APDS rounds. Tank on tank engagements tend not to be too common, but even though a hit with a HESH round may not kill a modern main battle tank, a large explosion on its exterior would likely destroy a tanks sensors and render it inoperative. The HESH round does not rely on the speed of the projectile, so a hit at any distance creates the same effect. Really, how useful the two different ideas are has never been tested in this sort of combat and how they are used will be central, but on balance I think I'd feel safer in a Challenger, 70+ tons of Dorchester armour is quite a challenge.
That's a very creative re-write of British armour strategies and tactics. Have you proposed it to the Ministry of Defence? You should also give the Russians a wise word in their ears, because they keep on deploying tanks without any infantry. Or did they already follow your advice on this one? We only take on what we find in front of us. Real-life military activity is not what you see in films... There was nothing glorious for either side at Kursk. The Russian "victory" was pyrrhic...
@@towmlvb3423 I don't understand your comment, it doesn't seem in any way related to what I said, the information is all in the public domain including on the UK military sites. I didn't mention any film or Kursk. I don't know if you were attempting to be insulting and maybe struggled because of language difficulties. However, there does seem to be quite a few well-informed comments that should help you out.
@@Cleatorman Je n'ai pas de probleme linguistique, ni en anglais ni en francais, sauf les limitations de ce clavier rigoureusement anglophile. Don't try to wind me up, child. I have no language problems. Pick on someone your own size, I can't reach down far enough to confront you.
Thank you Sir, The CH2 will do the job in the hands of our Ukrainian Heros. I,m 69 now - ret RM Commando, do you think its too late for me ? I love a good bundle 😂
@@robinbishop468 I'm a couple years younger and in poor health planning to go in soon just to see if I can find a gap in the Ukraine lines to fill. Thank God for Brits help in Ukraine. I've, been on eggshells since Georgia Moldovan invasions. That № is an area code by the way, not to be confused with any military designation. Tanks again!
I'm looking forward to a meaningful clash between British and Russian tanks, and I'm putting my money on the British armour. Any Russian tank closing to within 2 klicks becomes vulnerable to infantry anti-tank weapons, which negates the close-range concerns (I think a big part of the training of Ukrainian troops that the Brits have been so closely involved in includes extensive 'combined arms' training, so I don't anticipate these Challenger 2s being out in front on their own). Time will tell! Thanks for the video 😁
You World of Tanks people have no idea what British tanks with zero support will look like after meeting the wall of Russian military destruction in real life.
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Please elaborate on your 'zero support' claim and give a source for your information. So far the "Russian military destruction" has been the destruction of civilian targets, cities and infrastructure. Russolini will lose this war.
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Yeah yeah, that's just misplaced pride talking. Tell us why you support putin's gangster regime. How much longer before you realise he is the enemy of all Russians? 🙄
Everyone forgets the 1973 Yom Kippur tank battles on the Golan Heights when 70 Centurions kept 1500 Syrian tanks (T-55 and T-62) contained using their longer range guns to provide a killing ground. There was a 10:1 destruction rate, despite the lack of night sights on the Centurion. The Chally has a deep history of success against Russian armour. Aren't the Rusky's bringing the T55 back into service? Putin must be desperate and severely lacking in brain power.
One of the first tanks to be able to train the gun and fire while on the move. The software was so secret, it wasnt even given to the US and the control unit was set with explosive so that if the tank took a hit, it would be destroyed. This highly secret software was the forerunner of fuzzy logic.
@@Withnail1969 let me guess, you also heard that the F-35 can't dogfight an F-16 and everyone in the military loves the A-10? I'd pretend my top of the line stuff is garbage until I'm actually using it for its job anyways. Also when NATO is doing stuff it's always a good bet its either the US or Germany either wanting to show off or sell you their invention, not to say that I know one is better than the other, I just don't think this is a good metric to judge any tank by (especially when some of the points are earned from "dismounted operations")
@@Withnail1969 putting in "NATO gunnery competitions" into Google only comes up with 2 main ones The first is the "Canadian Army Trophy" (which is probably the one you are talking about) where there is a lot of fun poked at the British Challenger 1 as trash tanks to which they withdraw (1987) then once on the battlefield people judged it as a generation ahead of anything it faced on the battlefield hitting targets at in some cases 4 times the distance the barrel was designed for, but we are talking about a competition that ended in 1991 and the main production of the challenger 2 started 1993. The second competition that comes up is the "Strong Europe Tank Challenge" which the challenger only competed in the last year it was ever run (it didn't come last) you would have to give me a specific competition name and again the gunners themselves are being tested in a showing off environment
Where did you get the 30 seconds to load a Challenger 2 from? A good loader can load a challenger 2's gun in a few seconds. It's far from impossible, or unheard of, to have more than 1 HESH round in the air at a time.
On a 5,000 metre QF you can get 3 rounds in the air before the first one lands and it is possible to maintain that for the fire mission, usually no more than 12 rounds per tank. Most missions are a round to fire for effect and targetting and then once you are on you fire the required number of rounds per tank into the target area depending upon what the target is and how big it is.
The challenger isn’t made for close contact it makes kills at 5 miles it holds longest tank kill in history at 5.12 miles so you info is a little of on that one
You do not know what you're talking about. No tank has a computer-assisted effective range of 5 miles. If you're lucky and can see the target with the limitation of a scope and with the maximum range of a lob shot you might be able to hit something.
@@calibermgcalbermg he's confusing kilometres and miles - the challenger record was 4.7km or possibly 5.1km depends on who you believe, but that and scope limitation is old school - the Ukranians are now using drones and software (Kropyva) for targeting to lob multiple high explosive rounds at Russian supposedly as far away as 6 miles - they may need 20 rounds re-targeting each shot as they go but apparently it's working
@@calibermgcalbermg who said it was computer assisted at 5 miles? I didn’t ? I just said it made kill at 5 miles called reading buddy and called using the tank which is what the brits can obvs do very well 😂😂
Interesting facts about the all British Challenger 2 tank about to be sent to Ukraine. The tank is fitted with not one but two tea making facilities. The 2 in challenger 2 is actually the number of boiling vessels on board. The challenger 3 is gonna have a 3rd one. Fuelled by that much tea, the crew are going to be unstoppable. It's not a tank, it's the world's best protected mobile tea brewing facility. What people don't generally know is that the boiling vessel together with the tea is the "secret sauce" that makes the platform and the crew into real super heroes. That is why they are fitted with two boiling vessels for extra-super-powers. An historical fact, the "secret sauce" is actually a development, an upgrade, of the well known "magic potion" as famously used by Asterix and Obolix. This potion was invented in antiquity by the Britons who at that time inhabited most of the British Isles, (Grand Bretagne) and Brittany, ('Petit Bretagne'). We recommend all Russian infantry see the original potion in use by watching any Asterix and Obolix film. They are further advised to leave the battlefield immediately if there is a Challenger 2 suspected in their vicinity. It is rumoured that The Challenger 3 will not only keep the two boiling vessels, but will also have a small crumpet griddle and a miniature oven for scones. "This tank is awesome! I saw three Scottish manned tanks take on 10 T54/55 out side Basrah, Iraq turn and then demolished a row of houses being used by the enemy. Then just drove off to another hot spot." Challenger 2s don’t miss. A British tank commander said so. He was in Iraq. The problem, he said, was avoiding the enemy tanks turrets flying through the air. Challenger has the longest recorded tank on tank kill at 4.7km. This was technically out of range of the Challenger 1 at the time.
"Challenger one turned out... bad" No it didn't, it didn't perform well at 'Tank Olympics', but when it came around to an actual war (1991) it was rated, by the Russian military analysts who were observing the war, as the best western tank on that Battlefield.
I concur. This video seems to have a lot of details quite wrong. The other that stuck out for me as well as the one you brought out was the top speed of Challenger II being only 25 mph. This is actually it's cross country speed with overall top speed being close to 40 mph (I think).
@@smokinfree5555 exactly. The popular view of the day is that ‘Brit tank bad!’, and a lot of misconceptions and ‘truths’ in these sorts of videos are based around that. In reality British armour just follows a different doctrine than the other NATO nations. Specifically either supporting infantry (hence rifles guns firing HESH) and defending entrenched positions (Fulda gap/British army of the Rhine sort of operations) where as most other NATO nations are more focussed on either speed (Germany and France) or general purpose (America mainly)
@@joecal97 Agreed. I guess we'll have to wait & see how each NATO tank compares to it's contemporaries in Ukrainian hands, but I know which one my money is on. They don't call it "The Beast" for nothing.
@@smokinfree5555 Indeed. They seem to very much like the British equipment they've received so far (camouflage jackets and equipment, the APC/IFVs etc) so I'm sure the tanks will also be to their liking. At this rate though the Russians will be less equipped than the Iraqis were.....
@@joecal97 And that is saying something, especially when you think back as to how both Challenger I & II decimated Soviet supplied Iraqi armour of course.
Challenger 2 proved to be a handful for the opposition during the gulf war and was able to take hits and still keep fighting even though there were and still are many doubters as to its abilities it did surprise many. Unlike the Leopard and most Russian tanks which are designed from the ground up to be used and maintained by conscript troops and crews, the C2 is a system tank. consisting of the tank itself and the crew and in the hands of a well-trained crew will make short work of most opposition unless it meets them in large numbers where any tank would be overwhelmed eventually. The crews are trained to fight the tank to its best advantage and not rely on blind luck and it is yet to be seen how Ukraine integrates the tank into its service in this war. My money is on the C2 in this respect if used properly it may yet continue to surprise many people.
It does exactly what we made it to do. The rifled barrel is great for hesh rounds, which are considered to be more destructive than heat rounds by the british brass, and the sabot rounds have proven capable of killing everything it needs to. Also it proven to be extremely survivable. Say about the gun again its like the 75mm sherman was preferred over the 76mm as the high explosive performance was better and most of the time they were shooting at targets other than enemy tanks , it could kill the panzer 3 and 4 and how uncommon were the panthers and tigers?
A direct hit by the squash head rounds fired from Challenger's rifled barrel will wreck any of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine unless it happens to hit an ERA block. That might mitigate it somewhat and allow the tank to survive for another 30 seconds or so. The 2nd hit will be the knockout punch to the jaw. Russian tanks will be in a world of hurt if they take on Challenger in the open fields of Ukraine. Slava Ukraine!
This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Ukraine ...man you guys are so bent on getting visits to you videos.. you just dish out false headlines like this...shame on you
in iraq not ukraine " This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Iraq" longest range most accurate will win ruzzian tanks are crewed by conscripts Slava Ukraini
Both the Challenger and Abrams were specifically designed, engineered and built to take on Russian armour. So yes, your money is probably well placed.... The first indication of how well this might go was in Iraq, during the Gulf War, when both the Abrams and The Challenger fared exceptionally well against the best Russian tank, the T72. The Russians now have the newer updated T90, but even that has turned out to be vulnerable to Western anti-tank weapons in Ukraine.
The headline is false. There is no news that I've heard that confirms that the Challenger tanks have been used at all in Ukraine yet. Even this video didn't make that claim. Why lie about it?
I think that the Challenger ll will be much more suited to the Ukrainian army than the Abrahams M1, why? 1) Because it’s actually in Ukraine the M1 won’t even arrive for another year 2) It’s far less complex than the M1 with its turbine engine. If the Ukrainian engineers can’t work out the Challenger, they will have two chances with the M1 …. Slim and F’all !
I think your second point is moot, but on the first the Ukrainians are great Engineers. They built most of the heavy stuff ( ships, tanks etc) in Soviet years and they still have that ability. Also as we have seen they are great Warriors, Russia is about to get its scruffy rag tag army booted firmly in the balls.
@@chopperaxon6171 lol, u talk crap, based on western media lies. Ukr army is almost finished. soviets havent even started sendng in their people, its mostly been chechen & wagner, with old weapons. meanwhile USA has almost used up its reserves of ammo. maybe get some unbiased info 4 a change. And i dont even like russia due to its past. read up on history b4 u pick who is good or bad- & its never that simple anyway.
it was a Challenger 1, during the Gulf War, which allegedly had the longest range tank-on-tank kill. The Challenger 1 took out an Iraqi T62 at a distance of 4.7kms.....
@@louv4437 no they r not. Only the woke western media r saying that. Listen to military sources (not the lying US generals who r paid/bribed with promotions to lie)
Even the T-90 doesn't stand a chance against the Chally-2 if it's a 1v1. Oh sure, the Chally 2 has a lower fire rate... but what does that matter when one shot from the Chally 2 will send the T-90 flying, while the T-90 won't get penetration on the Chally. I'm not saying we won't lose a single Chally, but what I am saying is that it took another Chally with its own special penetration round to take out another Chally, and it's never happened otherwise (in combat). That was friendly fire. That says a lot about both the protection Chally 2 provides, and the destructive power it brings. Ruzzia stand no chance.
The difference in range between the respective guns means that the Challenger will typically have at least 5 shots before the T-90 can respond. The man in the chip shop on Salisbury Plain says that tankies reckon that it should take no more than 2 shots to convert a T-90 into scrap metal.
Great shame the vid continuously showed one piece rounds being loaded into any library picture available, while talking about three piece . Having served with UK armour in a previous life, I can assure you that the rate of fire is certainly better than two rounds per minute - and with three piece, the projectile is smaller, and easier to handle than shown / the bag charge is lighter, and the wrestling match that you were showing is in no way representative of a UK MBT - not from Chieftain onwards. The bag charge are held in pressurised cooloant surrounded containers, and obviate the turret launch system demonstrated by recent videos of Russian kit. I sincerely hope that these beasties are never needed, but if they are, I am sure they will put up a very convincing show - and probably form a lot further off than most MBTs ;-)
Correction - The gun does have a "three part" load, but one of those three is the primer - akin to a 50 Cal round, its fitted in a 10 round magazine, so doesnt have to be loaded every time - also the two (remaining) parts, one is inert (the APFSDS) so can safely be lap loaded whilst a one part round cannot.
I understood that most bridges in the USSR, and thus in the Ukraine were build specifically with light tanks in mind, so that only T72 like tanks could go over them. Than there is the issue that Britain does not want any possibility for a challenger to be captured...
Mixed tank formations by the Ukrainians so that their soviet era ones can deal with short range and the challenger longer range seems the answer to me.
a main battle tank is just that, a main battle tank. It's a heavily armored box with a large gun designed to take heavy fire to the face and survive; as such it is good to breach enemy bunkers, strongpoints and such. in Modern combined arms warfair; a MBT by itself is useless; as infantry can take out tanks fairly easily . So you need to integrate it in a group; and use it best for it's intended purpose. One thing the Challenger 2 does really well is make thing go boom at a distance ... those HESH rounds are like artillery shells hitting. M1 and Leopard 2's don't have that capability. as such, a good commander will know depending on the battle where to put the challengers, where to put the leo's, bradleys, marders and amx10's ... And the Ukraïnians by now are a veteran professional motivated army; the learn really quick.
@@jonsnow3521 I've read that too. It seems somewhat low; and the foreign fighters lasted months on the fronts. Ukraïne has a much smaller supply of fighting age men; if they die by the 4-hours; wouldn't they have run out by now? This is basically an information war. I refuse to believe numbers from either side without hard proof. I just believe this war and the invasion of Crimea were diplomatic problems, and should have been solved diplomatically. The current war is a diplomatic faillure from both sides.
I don't appreciate the narrator dissing this wonderful MBT. Not one has been destroyed by enemy fire, and it holds the world recored for a long range tank kill The Armour on the Beast is very probably the best in the World, and it may be that we share this technology with our American Friends. When the Challenger 3 comes out, with the smooth bore gun, it will again become one of the best MBTs in the world, Russia has nothing equivalent. Meantime Slava Ukraine
some utter shite spurted on here..... even showing CR3 and claiming CR2, the 27 litre V12 originally Rolls Royce, later Perkins, but rebuilt on failure by CAT is still there, no other engine fitted. Nor have 28 been gifted........
Having served in the RAC and been a course officer down at the RAC Gunnery School. I have never heard so much drivel and miss quoted stats about Challenger 1&2. This lad has clearly learnt all he knows from “world of tanks”. What a total muppet!
Get your facts right... From the official UK government website and I quote verbatim "Training on UK Challenger 2 tanks for Ukrainian soldiers is continuing at pace in the South-West of England after the UK committed to provide 14 vehicles and accompanying ammunition to support Ukraine's defence."
You should do more research. Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine ambassador to the United Kingdom, announced on March 4 that the UK had promised 14 more tanks to Ukraine, in addition to the initial 14. It is very unlikely that this statement is untrue, but in line with current policy, no formal confirmation of the deal will be made until plans have been completed for preparation, training and shipping the equipment.
@@hb1338 From Uk Defence Journal: "Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, had claimed that the United Kingdom has decided to increase its pledge of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine." "UPDATE - This article has been corrected and amended, we have been officially informed since publication that the UK does not, in fact, intend to double the number of Challenger 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine and that the Ambassador appears to have misspoke."
A very negative review of the Challenger. The only tank never have been lost to enemy action.. no other MBT can claim that plus the crews have have excellent training by the Royal Armoured Corps!
Rubbish! The T90 and earlier models if hit even by an rpg lifts the turret off because of the auto loader system. That is why the most advanced tanks don't use an auto loader. If you do you will lose look at what is happening to the most modern russian tanks in Ukraine their turrets flying off everywhere! I've never seen that with any challenger 1 or 2 or Abrams Leopard etc Revise your info because you are incorrect.😆
I love how you state that Challenger one was a bad tank with no justification at all. In fact the tank turned out way better than anyone expected exceeding the range accuracy and mobility predictions of both the army and the manufacturer. The tank had some teething issues with automotive and gunnery systems reliability but even with those initial issues it was a quantum leap compared to the Chieftain's it replaced which had reliable but far less advanced turret systems and an absolute pig of an engine. The Challenger one's poor reputation was established during it's disastrous first ever NATO gunnery exercise the Canada cup due to a series of problems with the turret systems the crew didn't have enough experience with to work around due to how little time they had on the tank. The tankers were devastated because they knew both they and the tank massively underperformed.
The Challenger 1 was not a bad tank. It was adequate and easily produced on existing production lines. Why do you refer to the English? There has been no English army since 1707. You are way out of date. It is the British army you are referring to. The Challenger 1 carried the same type of armour as the M1 Abrams when it went into production. The Chieftan itself could destroy both the T64 and T72 in its day. The Challenger1 and 2 just did it better. The Challenger 2 brings the Ukrainian army a whole generation of tank fighting with it’s suite of electronic aids.
quite a lot of US and other foreign clips in there whilst talking about Challenger 2 [as opposed to bits about Russing tanks]; During the 2003 invasion of Iraq...In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile.[55] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later.
In the British Tank crew's hands the Challenger is a brilliant tank. Hopefully, the training given will be good enough and the Tank will once again show its power on the battlefield. I am Ex 1RTR and loved all the tanks we had. FN
Given the shortage of Challenger 2 tanks available, why doesn't the UK Government repurchase some of the 400 upgraded Challenger 1s out of service and in storage in Jordan? Though not up to current NATO standards, a hundred Chally 1s would make a very significant impact against Russian armour in Ukraine.
When comparing those stats, it's probably safe to say the Challenger and its Ukrainian crews will both be better prepared with maintenance and training than that of the Russians. Ukraine is big, but It's not a fast moving war over vast distances, extending supply lines each day, and there is a lot of western support to get the logistics & training right.
A FGM-148 Javelin a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a top attack flight profile against armored vehicles has already destroyed thousands of tanks since it's inception and not much more is needed against Russian tanks and helicopters beside Stingers. Plenty of armor and MIG-29s are laying around in nearby NATO countries. The Leopard tank is a lot more practical then the Abrams tank. Obviously, both a far superior in Ukrainian hands then anything the Russians or Wagner Group can oppose them with. I flew a Loach in Viet Nam and even today flying low with missiles and M134 Minigun would do pretty good.
the 50+ ton heavy tanks are going to have way more problems with the terrain than anything else. this includes both British and American tanks. in many places these tanks become static guns until they can be pulled out of the mud. the ground just can't support that amount of weight. but when it can stay on the ground the Challenger 2 is a very good tank. they even did pretty well against American friendly fire.
I'm an American Veteran from 2/2 Armored Cavalry Regiment Eagle Troop and I know how good the Challenger is a great Main Battle Tank
Americans don't win wars. Your opinion is irrelevant.
It is, the A1 M1 is a great bit of kit to.
@@heshtankon7212 Then why are they afraid to put it up against a competent military?
@@Ivanna_Jerkov who are they? What they were worried about was escalating the war to their countries. Any tank can be destroyed today. They just need to use it where it is a force multiplier not a coffin.
@@Ivanna_Jerkov also what competent military are you talking about.
I loved loading. The big advantages of split ammunition are as follows.
1 Ease of ammo stowage.
2. It is much easier to handle. You don't lose as much speed leading as you might think, because of the shorter length and lighter components.
3. It assists protection because to load at (near) full depression you don't need so much clearance behind the breech -to turret roof. This means you can have 10deg of depression which has a HUGE effect on visibility. Much much less of the tank is exposed when hull down. Those of us who did the officers Long Armour Course will remember the photos illustrating both protection and concealment. Americans who used 5deg, and the Brits who insisted on 10. The US tanks, to bring the gun on, towered over a crest.
You are technically correct when you say the ammunition is in 3 parts - using a vent tube as the initiator (which had some disadvantages in consistency of ignition, now overcome) . But the vent tubes are fed from a magazine by the vent tube (auto)loader. So they have no effect on rate of fire. (Though feed was unreliable in the early Chieftain days. "Still Rammer out" and all the pain of removing the VTL, and extracting a mangled vent tube. Early days in my crew, we left the loader off and loaded by hand. Caused by breech block bounce, and fixed yeas ago)
The reason we stayed with HESH was not because we liked it. It was because that was, of the 2 rounds, the one that passed the NATO standard accuracy test. (Which APDS did not at the time) Also in terms of EFCs HESH is 1/10th of that of APDS . So barrel life is much greater.
Challenger was, because of its suspension faster x country than Abrams. And a lot less troublesome with fuel resupply. And of course, because of that suspension, so much less demanding on the gun stab kit. And lower, compared with torsion bars, so assisting with both concealment and protection.
Ahhh Chieftain, I can still smell my Diesel soaked Coveralls!
Certainly the best tank in the World as long as it broke down in a good fire position, that crappy L60 killed the Chieftain.
Another advantage, other than a spent vent tube there's no large brass shell to get rid of or take up space inside the turret.
As Sqn Sigs NCO I was my Sqn Ldr's loader on Chieftain. I agree with you on all points. Vent tube inefficiency... "Misfire, wait 30 minutes"! I once removed a bag charge with a screwdriver stabbed into the flash pad, after a misfire. It was probably the closest I, and the crew, ever came to leaving this planet.
@@gaptaxi 94, my tank, a mk2 never broke down. When I had done my time at MVEE and went back to the Regt 13/18 H, I took over as Sqn 2I/C. My mk 5 never broke down. At MVEE I ran Chieftain trials, and we had the then new uprated and new linered engine. The one with the very harsh exhaust note and tuned exhaust. It would run forever, but of course the trials tanks were not hangar queens, and that has a lot to do with reliability. I liked driving, and so drove CH for literally several hundred miles, trundling the then new fin ammo. Our ARV are was a Cent with a Conq engine. We also had ATR 2, now in the museum at Bovington. That had a CV12, and latterly an uprated version with twin turbos. Rated at 1500 horse, when you could it get it started. So you got drive a lot and that helped keep the waggons going far better than at RD, where drivers never go such chances.
Thanks for the detailed explanation
The most click-baity title ever put on a video: "This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Ukraine."
The owner of this page is illiterate. These tanks aren't even in ukraine yet, and they know it.
With pic of big balls chad tank on roids
Yep.. sadly it works
Oh the keyboard warriors knows "more"
How many wars have you been in Mr expert?
@@Silent_Steel , hence thumbs down.
The Challenger withstood far more than 7 RPGs
"During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to the British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident"
They ll taste kornet which is far tougher than RPG, Hezbollah destroyed Merkava with that so Challenger 2 isn t even a deal.
@@timespaice haha kornet? that weapon is a pile of shit. Go google Nucking futz Yuri and you'll see how his whole crew survived a kornet hit, in a fucking humvee, not a main battle tank. So I expect the Ukrainian cr2 crews may not even notice something so weak hitting their armour.
I do believe that one of the crew members in the crippled Challenger (that had to endure an hour of having Iraqi rockets fired at) broke his toe, it was the only injury from the incident, which I find to be the greatest testament to the Challenger tank. When a Challenger loses it's tracks it just becomes a concrete bunker/pillbox.
@@krashd I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm not sure, but that sounds like the incident where a tandem warhead rpg bounced off the ground penned the belly armour and blew off a couple of toes of the driver. Though I may be mixing two things up.
@@ChullsterOG the toes of the driver was a different blue on blue event.
Same old US bull. In the Gulf War, the M1 Abrams tank lost 4 to the Iraqis. Not one Challenger lost. So, the latter was bad .
The Challengers have already done their primary job - broken the deadlock and enabled Leopards to be sent, more numerous and easier to supply, anything else they achieve is gravy.
I'm sure glad their on NATO's side
Y'see It's the Brits who step up again. Reviled by Europe because of Brexit, The British shrugged off the snub and sent two full Challenger 2 companies plus spares, backup and crew training to NATO standard. Before this the European slackarses were pissing their pants for fear of upsetting that chinless little shit, pootin. ' We'll send some tanks if you send some tanks' 'Ok, but we're not going first' fukin playground politics. Want Europe saving AGAIN? Call the British.
This is the most on point comment yet.
@@Garyandrewalexander without a doubt. It annoys me! I thought we are all on the same side.
Some accurate information surrounded by a lot of BS. The M1 Abrams tank used Chobham armour so are you saying that the M1 was sh!te also? The Chieftain was superior to the T-64 and the T-72 , having a better stabilized gun, then consider that the Challenger V1 is far better than the Chieftain. If anyone doubts what I'm saying, take a moment to look at the results of the Challenger V1 against Iraqi T-72s. Ya, I know the Iraqi tanks weren't the latest and greatest T-72s, but the base flaw of the T-72 is still being shown in Ukraine today. It's a flawed designed that no amount of bandaids can cover. The Challengers cleaned the table.
To this day, no Challenger, V1 or V2 has every been killed by enemy fire. The only loss was from a friendly fire incident. I'm sure a few will be lost in Ukraine, but ask yourself this question. If you were in Ukraine, would you want to be sitting in a pop goes the turret T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 or a Challenger 2?
Unfortunatly there are many errors in this post - A Chieftain tank gun could easily outrange and kill a T72 even today
@@trevortrevortsr2 he never said the chieftain couldn’t. . What he was saying is with upgrades to both platforms the challenger is still better.
@@trevortrevortsr2 This guy is down playing the Challenger 2, the Americans talk up the Abrams But i suspect they are worried it will fail in Ukraine they have maintenance issues with it, and i read somewhere the newer ones are using a German engine, the engine they have been using is unreliable and a gas guzzler, they keep on saying it's the best tank in the world then bring it on !
@@davidpickavance9628 Much will depend on the quality of the crews and how they are used in a combined arms group - I think your right some are nervous - certainly the Lepard A4 armour has been shown wanting - any Russian will want to prioritise their demise - if the Ukrainians are clever they will use the fear factor to their avantage
Good points, well made. Obviously an old tankie. The best use of Challenger is "Fire and Maneuver, Fire and Maneuver" and avoid, like the plague, toe to toe slugging matches. Challengers don't hold up well in that situation. I've always felt that tanks are mobile artillery. So, keep a distance. Keep moving. Keep firing and keep out of "urban" situations as much as possible. You're too vulnerable. But, there again, I'm very ( very !!) old school.
A British challenger two is an accurate tank in the hands of the British. We’ll see how the Ukrainians deal with the tank, but if there’s good as the British, the Russian tanks are in for one hell of a big surprise, specially at distance.💪🏻
*they're" as in "they are as good.
depend on how good they work with the infantry. I wonder what Ukraine will do use them as a unit in vast stretch's of flat country or filter them out (like 2 tanks a unit) to have some tanks that can be use in close range with them like the M4 and the Fireflys of ww2
@@Au60schild Pedant alert !
The Challenger II gets a lot of stick for it’s rifled bore, but this is also highly useful on a battlefield. First is range and accuracy, second is its use of HESH rounds. This type of round will obliterate an apposing tank making it un repairable as it rips through the hull as it squashes on impact and leaves a huge hole. Remember that the Russian tanks have fully realised rounds which can explode and destroy the target tank from withinOn the other hand, minimally damaging and disabling a tank by concussion with smooth bore rounds ( I.e. taking out the crew ) means that a tank could be repaired theoretically. The trade off is fire rate vs toughness. In normal situations the Challenger II should not be up front and in close range to the enemy. It doesn’t need to be. It outranges the Russian T90s. These are the things the Ukrainian tank crews and commanders will be taught by the British, and I expect the fighting Ukrainians to make full use of their advantage. After all, this is a nation that has stopped Russia for over a year, no small achievement when we consider the asymmetry between the two sides.
@@soyentak5076 The Challenger ll is a hybrid of a tank and heavy artillery but highly mobile. It should be employed with these things in mind.
I served with The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars on Chieftain as a fully qualified Crewman (Operator/Loader, Driver and Gunner) and specialised as a Gunner Mechanic. Let us look at the 3 piece ammunition, firstly the igniters are loaded in a magazine, which is attached to the back of the breech in such a position to allow the igniter to slide easily into the breech block on each cycle as part of loading the round and bag charge the loader taps the rammer to check that the igniter is seated properly and then closes the safety guard and checks that his switches are armed. Additionally the loader and commander will have pre-decided what rounds to have in the ready racks, this in turn allows the loader to change where the bag charges are stowed so that he has optimum availability. Now I learned basic gunnery when we still used the 0.50" Ranging Machine Gun on the old 4 dot sight and part of one's training (which is still taught these days) is that the gunner draws a ranging map of the country in front and around the position because being able to fire first and to keep on firing even if the tank is hit and you lose the majority of your gun systems you can still fight. Yes lasers are nice and accurate and they are detectable. Quadrant Fire (QF) is still an ability and pre-ranging your position out to 5,000m or more gives you an awareness of your area of concern for long range fire directed by the Commander. In the Challenger there is duallity of control and many of the gunner's function are taken over by the commander and in many ways gunnery is now done in tandem and is much improved. Looking back to the days of Chieftain we achieved high rates of fire even allowing that in the early days the loader had a 7.62mm GPMG on the left middle of the breech and a 0.50" RMG on the left of the breech and the waste clips from both used to jam and you had to clear them fast and keep loading and keep your feet as you were bounced around as the vehicle was going at speed across the ground; you had to communicate with both the gunner and commander so that you could get to all of your bag charges while the turret was rotating left and right and you had to listen to the driver who was telling you about bumps, holes and changing gear. In all of that insanity we regularly scored over 90%. Also, for the American 'Tankies' we did our own maintenance.
Thank you for your service from 🇬🇧
Thank you so much for your service and for letting us have this hands on insight to tanking as a Loader. Very much appreciated.
Why do you guys always have to lie about the content of your report! We're not all stupid, you know!
Don't lie in the video title - it's cheap.
Not only is the Challenger a tough tank to kill, but with it's rifled barrel giving it longer range, it'll kill you before it's within the range of your gun. Used intelligently it's going to cause Wagner some serious problems.
Tanks seldom engage each other at the maximum range of their weapons and often at less than 1000 metres.
Having seen the performance of Russian equipment from the Middle East to Ukraine, I seriously don't think the Challenger 2 tanks will have much difficulty. The Russian claim that the T90 is the best tank in the world has been proved to be a load of hogwash. In fact, my friends and I, all former servicemen who trained to fight the Soviets, are now wondering what the f**k we were ever worried about! We would have wiped the bloody floor with them! I also think that this is why Putin has backed away from his threats against NATO. NATO could take Russia to pieces.
Even Putin said years ago that he´d have to be mad to take on NATO!
And that is why he stayed out of the Baltics which would have been easier to invade than the Ukraine, much smaller etc.
@Daniel evans Another fuking dreaming Ivan swigging too much smirnov.
@@gaptaxi
His plans to invade the Baltic nations was snuffed when NATO let them join as member states in 2004
NATO would always beat Russia, problem is they hold the self destruct nuclear option.
I wish they would.
what a tank!!! Brits make excellent tanks. Thank you for sending them over to the Ukraine .
We invented them and gave it the name Tank
We lost the ability to make tanks 20 years ago ; now we buy virtually ALL our military equipment from the Germans certainly NONE of it is made in the UK. When the last Challenger is lost in Central Europe, there can never be another.
@@leewheeler8308 "Production began in 1993 at two primary sites: Elswick, Tyne and Wear and Barnbow, Leeds, with over 250 subcontractors involved. And the Challenger 3 upgrades will be done in Newcastle. All in the UK, for those unfamiliar with those places "
@@leewheeler8308 bullshite
@@leewheeler8308 The only thing the Germans will be making is the gun and Rhinemetall already make the best guns used by most of NATO. It is true that Rhinemetall bought BAE Land Systems but the factories are and always will be in the UK, just as BAE Systems make half of the land equipment and weaponry of the US forces, it doesn't mean any of that equipment is British - it is made by Americans on American soil, only the ownership of the company is British.
This tank just won the Iron Spear NATO competition held last week in Estonia. It beat Leopard and the Abrams because it allows both the gunner and the commander to target independently and simultaneously, meaning it has a higher kill rate.
So, if it’s susceptible to the Russian tank on firing rate, then the Leopard and the Abrams are going to be even more susceptible.
they lost 2 leo's and 10 bradleys last week...but Russia lost 54 tanks
@@williamoloughlin8298 I’m sure they got good mileage out of those leos and bradleys before they got taken out.
My vote goes for the Challenger. It will perform well and will mystify its critics.
Nice to read comments from people who know their stuff.
I know feck all.
The bradlay is not a tank tho, it's an armouredscout vehicle with a tiny faast firing pew pew. it's good but not a main battle tank.@@williamoloughlin8298
The Chieftain was well armed and armoured for its time - it was the first to use a 120 tank gun when others were using 105mm - its only downside was mobility it was underpowered with a weak engine - The Challenger 1 was very good off road with a 1200 hp Perkins engine and hydrogas suspeension and Chobam armour - Challenger 2 has hunter killer system much like Abrams and upgraded Dorchester armour - Brits like their Hesh round for all but head on MBT - The Sabo round is slightly less effective than the best smooth bore however it will easily slay most Russian tanks
the big defect of the guns with grooved cores, it is their lifespans, approximately 450/500 shootings, the guns with smooth souls have a lifespan higher than 2200 shots and they cost less to manufacture, no need to make grooves (and if some speak of a higher precision of grooved cannons, it is false, smooth-bore cannons fire shells which, as soon as they leave the cannon, deploy fins which ensure rotation and therefore gyro stabilization)! the biggest defect of the Challenger II remains its mobility, without the over armor of 11 tons, it reaches 59 km/h, with 11 tons of over armor, it does not exceed 56 km/h! its biggest asset is when it is equipped with its 11-ton armor, it is practically indestructible against another tank with a conventional shell fire, on the other hand, against a JAVELIN, AKERON MP or NLAW type missile , which strike the roof of the tank, it will be as fragile as a Leopard II, an Abrams or a Leclerc! but hey, against any Russian tank, it will be far superior!! just like other western tanks!
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq I've been in one - the lads said its gun is chrome lined on the best steel with a thermal jacket and good for 680 firings before swapping out - i think much depends on the charge they use and round used - I think if the Bridges dont collapse under them they will make great breakthrough tanks
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq You need to start talking about EFC when taking of gun life. This a standard artillery term Equivalent Full Charge. It depends on the type of ammunition used, especially in artillery when they load shell and charge separately, and the charge varies according to range and trajectory.
As for speed. Well that depends on the soil and ground pressure. And suspension. You are a lot faster cross country with long travel hydrogas, than with the US torsion bars. And of course, removing a damaged suspension unit is a lot easier with hydrogas than it is with torsion bars, particularly modern double torsion bar systems. And of course, the route you will take in action is always the one of best concealment - into the low ground , which is usually going to be the softest, where ground pressure and the ramping effect under the track becomes important. (and dramatically affects fuel consumption - Abrams note)
Additionally, you don't leap into your panzer and roar across country with the commander flaunting his smalls yelling "Yahoo". Fire and manoeuvre in contact, so distances between halts are not that great, because you keep in overwatch range, and a k or 2 of extra speed here and there is no great significance in contact.
It is never quite as simple as a few facts and figures.
Personally, I would far rather go into action in a Challenger than Abrams. I can hide better, and move more quickly. Less thermal signature,
Not correct. The first British tank to carry a 120mm gun was the FV214 Conqueror super-heavy tank, which was in service from 1955 to 1966 in West Germany. The Chieftain didn't come out until 1967.
@@Dragonblaster1 yes I saw one once - there were so few and not really MBT more super heavy's rather unwieldly
The max speed 25mph is speed cross country. On roads it can achieve 40-45mph
I’ve heard criticism before on the challengers speed, or lack there of, but when you think about it speed really is irrelevant, if you run over an anti tank mine it doesn’t matter if your doing 1 mph or 100 mph, the end of the day your going to be toast, also anti tank rounds have a velocity of 3000 + fps, so then again it doesn’t matter what speed your doing because you ain’t going to out run one.
If I was in a tank, and had a choice of a bit slower because of weight from heavy armour or a bit faster from less armour and less survival protection, well I know which one I would choose.
@@richarddickinson7788 Very true. Also, the Challenger out ranges the Russian tanks and can be thought of as heavily armoured artillery 😀
The Brits have been training Ukrainian NCOs for years, now thousands of infantry are in the UK training. Light reconnaissance tanks are already in the field, I wonder if all this will be combined in one place? From Chieftain onwards British tanks were designed to fight outnumbered swarms of invading Russian armour who were to be the follow up to nuclear artillery. The kit is good, the troops are well trained and motivated. The Russians have none of the above, this has the potential to get brutal.
Bring it !
As a former tank /armor mechanic in the Gulf war, serving in an armored cavalry unit, The Challenger 2 tank is suited for long and moderate-range support against enemy armor. That is to give long-range support to light and medium and even other heavy armor on the front line. They will perform just fine so long as they do not end up in a close-range slugging match on the front line. Fire and move, fire and move strategy will also increase the tank's survivability and usefulness. It seems to me to be a glorified mobile-tracked artillery anti-armor piece. Used as such will be its best strategy to be useful.
In the plains of the east it will dominate.
You can't even spell Amour - you're not a Brit.
🤣
@@dinsomnia4352 Yes it will.
@@martinenglish6641 Just like the Tiger did in the same part of the world during World War II. Oh wait, that didn't go too well did it.
challenger 2 can provide tea.
Ukraine loves tea
You are absolutely right! This whole video never mentioned the tea making capabilities, and we all know tea is good for moral and keeping you sharp. 😄
Too right. A mark of civilisation along with umbrellas and tweed jackets.
Tea-making capabilities makes this Tank Invincible...
@@mikeoglen6848 Serious Question here, wasn't the friendly fire loss of a Challenger caused by the crew brewing tea , left unattended , i.e. a real fire while they were being briefed on the eve of kicking the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.
@@richardvear4413 I doubt that theory holds any water, Rich...
Chalanger 2 has never been lost to an enemy either. It has the best armour protection of any MBT in the world.
Sadly I think it will be in Ukraine. They will be selling it
The Russian 9M133 Kornet ATM goes straight through the side armor of Abrams and Israeli tanks hence the development of systems like the Israeli Trophy APS (active protection system.) Without it the Challenger II will need careful deployment to survive.
It's never faced a A-10 equipped to carry GPS- and laser-guided bombs, such as the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, Paveway series bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bombs. A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense.
@@SK-xv3hn it likely has. The US have never been good at identifying the enemy and have sot at friendly forces plenty of times.
@@cplcabs kind of inevitable sadly, but hopefully it'll make the russians bleed for any success.
Whatever the technical pros and cons of the Challenger, let’s all hope and pray that it brings a quicker conclusion to this conflict.
Ukrainians will never be able to operate it after a couple of months training
Ukr is finished. Its delusional to think they can continue losing by 10 to 1 & still win.
I hope our Ukrainian friends enjoy the built in tea making facilities :)
😂 tea and medals 🏅 my old man Served not me army air core
Is there a kettle in the back of the Challenger two the most Important part of the tank
@@douglasmurdoch cook food in that boiling vessel too👁
@@alanslater3855 "Meals Refused by the Enemy"
stop being a wanker
I am a veteran centurion gunner and they were brilliant, after watching a video on the challenger 2 I’m really impressed they seem to be better than anything they can come up against, even better than the invention of sliced bread
Thank you for your service from 🇬🇧
please look out for Russian turrets entering Earth's atmosphere. soon
Russia needs new tank designs and needs to get rid of Putin.
Challenger will see and destroy Russian tanks before the Russians even see the Challenger. As for the Russians getting 4 shots off between the Challengers 1st and 2nd, I refer you to my previous point. :)
A Challenger has never been defeated although one was damaged by friendly fire, the Ukrainians have shown very good adaptability to modern weapons so they will be fine, Challenger 2 is a good tank and will do well but its all bad news for the Russian tanks and has the longest tank on tank kill so I think the best a T72 can do is hit reverse at max speed and get out of range - or die
all western tanks will turn into scrap metal against russian superior weapons & logistics supply tanks are just another target without air support
It's not Ukrainians operating them.
The UK has always seen the tank as primarily for infantry support and the destruction of static defensive positions, for this the HESH round is far better than the APDS rounds. Tank on tank engagements tend not to be too common, but even though a hit with a HESH round may not kill a modern main battle tank, a large explosion on its exterior would likely destroy a tanks sensors and render it inoperative. The HESH round does not rely on the speed of the projectile, so a hit at any distance creates the same effect. Really, how useful the two different ideas are has never been tested in this sort of combat and how they are used will be central, but on balance I think I'd feel safer in a Challenger, 70+ tons of Dorchester armour is quite a challenge.
That's a very creative re-write of British armour strategies and tactics. Have you proposed it to the Ministry of Defence? You should also give the Russians a wise word in their ears, because they keep on deploying tanks without any infantry. Or did they already follow your advice on this one? We only take on what we find in front of us. Real-life military activity is not what you see in films...
There was nothing glorious for either side at Kursk. The Russian "victory" was pyrrhic...
@@towmlvb3423 I don't understand your comment, it doesn't seem in any way related to what I said, the information is all in the public domain including on the UK military sites. I didn't mention any film or Kursk. I don't know if you were attempting to be insulting and maybe struggled because of language difficulties.
However, there does seem to be quite a few well-informed comments that should help you out.
@@Cleatorman Je n'ai pas de probleme linguistique, ni en anglais ni en francais, sauf les limitations de ce clavier rigoureusement anglophile. Don't try to wind me up, child. I have no language problems. Pick on someone your own size, I can't reach down far enough to confront you.
so sweet to see these excellent machines be put to use in the cause of justice.
what justice?. Learn history of teh area b4 making such an ignorant comment.
Those Brits, always modesty when assessing their kit. TIA from a 907.
Go Ukraine!
Thank you Sir, The CH2 will do the job in the hands of our Ukrainian Heros. I,m 69 now - ret RM Commando, do you think its too late for me ? I love a good bundle 😂
@@robinbishop468
I'm a couple years younger and in poor health planning to go in soon just to see if I can find a gap in the Ukraine lines to fill. Thank God for Brits help in Ukraine. I've, been on eggshells since Georgia Moldovan invasions. That № is an area code by the way, not to be confused with any military designation. Tanks again!
@@robinbishop468 You'll be younger than most of the Russian recruits.
God Bless Europe and Britten for defending those that need to gain the freedom of being a nation of liberty and growth, to say the least.
I'm looking forward to a meaningful clash between British and Russian tanks, and I'm putting my money on the British armour. Any Russian tank closing to within 2 klicks becomes vulnerable to infantry anti-tank weapons, which negates the close-range concerns (I think a big part of the training of Ukrainian troops that the Brits have been so closely involved in includes extensive 'combined arms' training, so I don't anticipate these Challenger 2s being out in front on their own). Time will tell! Thanks for the video 😁
You World of Tanks people have no idea what British tanks with zero support will look like after meeting the wall of Russian military destruction in real life.
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Please elaborate on your 'zero support' claim and give a source for your information. So far the "Russian military destruction" has been the destruction of civilian targets, cities and infrastructure. Russolini will lose this war.
@@Ivanna_Jerkov go do it then
Hopefully British tanks are more reliant than British autos
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Yeah yeah, that's just misplaced pride talking. Tell us why you support putin's gangster regime. How much longer before you realise he is the enemy of all Russians? 🙄
Everyone forgets the 1973 Yom Kippur tank battles on the Golan Heights when 70 Centurions kept 1500 Syrian tanks (T-55 and T-62) contained using their longer range guns to provide a killing ground. There was a 10:1 destruction rate, despite the lack of night sights on the Centurion. The Chally has a deep history of success against Russian armour. Aren't the Rusky's bringing the T55 back into service? Putin must be desperate and severely lacking in brain power.
One of the first tanks to be able to train the gun and fire while on the move. The software was so secret, it wasnt even given to the US and the control unit was set with explosive so that if the tank took a hit, it would be destroyed. This highly secret software was the forerunner of fuzzy logic.
interesting, from what i have heard the UK always loses the NATO tank gunnery competitions
@@Withnail1969 let me guess, you also heard that the F-35 can't dogfight an F-16 and everyone in the military loves the A-10? I'd pretend my top of the line stuff is garbage until I'm actually using it for its job anyways. Also when NATO is doing stuff it's always a good bet its either the US or Germany either wanting to show off or sell you their invention, not to say that I know one is better than the other, I just don't think this is a good metric to judge any tank by (especially when some of the points are earned from "dismounted operations")
@@AnD1262 iread this in mainstream Uk newspapers. as i recall the UK stopped participating in NATO gunnery competitions
@@Withnail1969 putting in "NATO gunnery competitions" into Google only comes up with 2 main ones
The first is the "Canadian Army Trophy" (which is probably the one you are talking about) where there is a lot of fun poked at the British Challenger 1 as trash tanks to which they withdraw (1987) then once on the battlefield people judged it as a generation ahead of anything it faced on the battlefield hitting targets at in some cases 4 times the distance the barrel was designed for, but we are talking about a competition that ended in 1991 and the main production of the challenger 2 started 1993.
The second competition that comes up is the "Strong Europe Tank Challenge" which the challenger only competed in the last year it was ever run (it didn't come last) you would have to give me a specific competition name and again the gunners themselves are being tested in a showing off environment
@@Withnail1969 Then you must be deaf! they just wiped the floor with Abrahms, and the Leopard at the NATO tank trials
Where did you get the 30 seconds to load a Challenger 2 from? A good loader can load a challenger 2's gun in a few seconds. It's far from impossible, or unheard of, to have more than 1 HESH round in the air at a time.
Seen it done at B A T U S in Canada
On a 5,000 metre QF you can get 3 rounds in the air before the first one lands and it is possible to maintain that for the fire mission, usually no more than 12 rounds per tank. Most missions are a round to fire for effect and targetting and then once you are on you fire the required number of rounds per tank into the target area depending upon what the target is and how big it is.
The challenger isn’t made for close contact it makes kills at 5 miles it holds longest tank kill in history at 5.12 miles so you info is a little of on that one
You do not know what you're talking about. No tank has a computer-assisted effective range of 5 miles. If you're lucky and can see the target with the limitation of a scope and with the maximum range of a lob shot you might be able to hit something.
Are you visually impaired or do you have a problem with comprehension. There is a little bit of a difference between 5100 meters and 5.1 miles.
@@calibermgcalbermg he's confusing kilometres and miles - the challenger record was 4.7km or possibly 5.1km depends on who you believe, but that and scope limitation is old school - the Ukranians are now using drones and software (Kropyva) for targeting to lob multiple high explosive rounds at Russian supposedly as far away as 6 miles - they may need 20 rounds re-targeting each shot as they go but apparently it's working
@@calibermgcalbermg who said it was computer assisted at 5 miles? I didn’t ? I just said it made kill at 5 miles called reading buddy and called using the tank which is what the brits can obvs do very well 😂😂
Wrong. The Challenger 1 has the longest tank on tank kill in history, none have ever been lost in battle unlike the Abrams.
Interesting facts about the all British Challenger 2 tank about to be sent to Ukraine.
The tank is fitted with not one but two tea making facilities.
The 2 in challenger 2 is actually the number of boiling vessels on board.
The challenger 3 is gonna have a 3rd one.
Fuelled by that much tea, the crew are going to be unstoppable.
It's not a tank, it's the world's best protected mobile tea brewing facility.
What people don't generally know is that the boiling vessel together with the tea is the "secret sauce" that makes the platform and the crew into real super heroes.
That is why they are fitted with two boiling vessels for extra-super-powers.
An historical fact, the "secret sauce" is actually a development, an upgrade, of the well known "magic potion" as famously used by Asterix and Obolix.
This potion was invented in antiquity by the Britons who at that time inhabited most of the British Isles, (Grand Bretagne) and Brittany, ('Petit Bretagne').
We recommend all Russian infantry see the original potion in use by watching any Asterix and Obolix film.
They are further advised to leave the battlefield immediately if there is a Challenger 2 suspected in their vicinity.
It is rumoured that The Challenger 3 will not only keep the two boiling vessels, but will also have a small crumpet griddle and a miniature oven for scones.
"This tank is awesome! I saw three Scottish manned tanks take on 10 T54/55 out side Basrah, Iraq turn and then demolished a row of houses being used by the enemy.
Then just drove off to another hot spot." Challenger 2s don’t miss.
A British tank commander said so.
He was in Iraq.
The problem, he said, was avoiding the enemy tanks turrets flying through the air.
Challenger has the longest recorded tank on tank kill at 4.7km.
This was technically out of range of the Challenger 1 at the time.
Absolutely spot on regarding the BVs
Love it !
as long as we can brew up! priorities and all :)
I always hit the dislike button when the title doesn't match the content.
The AMX 10rc is a Citroen 2CV with a limp baguette hanging out of the sunroof...
Great analysis 😅😅
😂😂
"Challenger one turned out... bad"
No it didn't, it didn't perform well at 'Tank Olympics', but when it came around to an actual war (1991) it was rated, by the Russian military analysts who were observing the war, as the best western tank on that Battlefield.
I concur. This video seems to have a lot of details quite wrong. The other that stuck out for me as well as the one you brought out was the top speed of Challenger II being only 25 mph. This is actually it's cross country speed with overall top speed being close to 40 mph (I think).
@@smokinfree5555 exactly. The popular view of the day is that ‘Brit tank bad!’, and a lot of misconceptions and ‘truths’ in these sorts of videos are based around that. In reality British armour just follows a different doctrine than the other NATO nations. Specifically either supporting infantry (hence rifles guns firing HESH) and defending entrenched positions (Fulda gap/British army of the Rhine sort of operations) where as most other NATO nations are more focussed on either speed (Germany and France) or general purpose (America mainly)
@@joecal97 Agreed. I guess we'll have to wait & see how each NATO tank compares to it's contemporaries in Ukrainian hands, but I know which one my money is on. They don't call it "The Beast" for nothing.
@@smokinfree5555 Indeed. They seem to very much like the British equipment they've received so far (camouflage jackets and equipment, the APC/IFVs etc) so I'm sure the tanks will also be to their liking. At this rate though the Russians will be less equipped than the Iraqis were.....
@@joecal97 And that is saying something, especially when you think back as to how both Challenger I & II decimated Soviet supplied Iraqi armour of course.
Challenger 2 proved to be a handful for the opposition during the gulf war and was able to take hits and still keep fighting even though there were and still are many doubters as to its abilities it did surprise many. Unlike the Leopard and most Russian tanks which are designed from the ground up to be used and maintained by conscript troops and crews, the C2 is a system tank. consisting of the tank itself and the crew and in the hands of a well-trained crew will make short work of most opposition unless it meets them in large numbers where any tank would be overwhelmed eventually. The crews are trained to fight the tank to its best advantage and not rely on blind luck and it is yet to be seen how Ukraine integrates the tank into its service in this war. My money is on the C2 in this respect if used properly it may yet continue to surprise many people.
The Russians are not the Iraqis
@@scoffmax True…..the Iraqis were better soldiers.
That was Challenger 1.
It does exactly what we made it to do. The rifled barrel is great for hesh rounds, which are considered to be more destructive than heat rounds by the british brass, and the sabot rounds have proven capable of killing everything it needs to. Also it proven to be extremely survivable.
Say about the gun again its like the 75mm sherman was preferred over the 76mm as the high explosive performance was better and most of the time they were shooting at targets other than enemy tanks , it could kill the panzer 3 and 4 and how uncommon were the panthers and tigers?
As long as it kills Russians.
A direct hit by the squash head rounds fired from Challenger's rifled barrel will wreck any of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine unless it happens to hit an ERA block.
That might mitigate it somewhat and allow the tank to survive for another 30 seconds or so. The 2nd hit will be the knockout punch to the jaw.
Russian tanks will be in a world of hurt if they take on Challenger in the open fields of Ukraine.
Slava Ukraine!
Remember, please, that many of the ERA blocks were found to contain corrugated cardboard.........not known for its explosive properties.
@@tacfoley4443 LOL really?
I must have missed that news :)
It was here on YT last year.....
@@tacfoley4443 A suitable metaphor for the whole Russian Empire...
@@tacfoley4443 got to be true if its on yt
This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Ukraine ...man you guys are so bent on getting visits to you videos.. you just dish out false headlines like this...shame on you
in iraq not ukraine
" This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Iraq"
longest range most accurate will win
ruzzian tanks are crewed by conscripts
Slava Ukraini
Updated title: this monstruous British FAILURE was destroyed ON FIRST DEPLOYMENT DAY before EVEN MAKING CONTACT with any Russian tank
Would somebody tells this balloon to get his facts right before mouthing off. he's doing ma box in .
My money is on Challenger 2 against any Russian Tank. Actually I would bet on any Western main battle tank against any Russian modern tank.
go tell India that.
Both the Challenger and Abrams were specifically designed, engineered and built to take on Russian armour. So yes, your money is probably well placed.... The first indication of how well this might go was in Iraq, during the Gulf War, when both the Abrams and The Challenger fared exceptionally well against the best Russian tank, the T72. The Russians now have the newer updated T90, but even that has turned out to be vulnerable to Western anti-tank weapons in Ukraine.
@@julesmarwell8023 What India chose is India's problem.
The headline is false. There is no news that I've heard that confirms that the Challenger tanks have been used at all in Ukraine yet. Even this video didn't make that claim. Why lie about it?
Clicks=cash
Max it reffered to the tank fighting in Iraq Einstein bahahaha watch the video and pay attention .😮
@@Noreturns read title of video and pay attention……. Einstein
I think that the Challenger ll will be much more suited to the Ukrainian army than the Abrahams M1, why? 1) Because it’s actually in Ukraine the M1 won’t even arrive for another year 2) It’s far less complex than the M1 with its turbine engine. If the Ukrainian engineers can’t work out the Challenger, they will have two chances with the M1 …. Slim and F’all !
I think your second point is moot, but on the first the Ukrainians are great Engineers. They built most of the heavy stuff ( ships, tanks etc) in Soviet years and they still have that ability. Also as we have seen they are great Warriors, Russia is about to get its scruffy rag tag army booted firmly in the balls.
@@chopperaxon6171 lol, u talk crap, based on western media lies. Ukr army is almost finished. soviets havent even started sendng in their people, its mostly been chechen & wagner, with old weapons. meanwhile USA has almost used up its reserves of ammo. maybe get some unbiased info 4 a change. And i dont even like russia due to its past. read up on history b4 u pick who is good or bad- & its never that simple anyway.
What you say maybe true, but which tank holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill?
Challenger 2 holds the record only because the crew loved long shots. They didn't like driving to the enemy😂😂😂
it was a Challenger 1, during the Gulf War, which allegedly had the longest range tank-on-tank kill. The Challenger 1 took out an Iraqi T62 at a distance of 4.7kms.....
@@IknowonlywhatimtaughtSound like the crews were using their equipment sensibly to win the battle.
@@Iknowonlywhatimtaught Are you calling us cowards? Back in your box, russian sympathiser.
@@Iknowonlywhatimtaught Only an idiot would drive to the enemy when it can easily kill them from distance 🤔
Interesting how you use our Chobham armour on your M1 tank. Ever the same, the Brits do the inventing and the yanks take the credit. Radar anyone?!!!
Computers?
@@sybaseguru yup, and computers, and hovercraft, and sonar and on and on!
And jet engines atomic bombs the list goes on
@@davidkennedy7743 You have ignored one extremely important item which the Americans invented all on their own - the frisbee.
@@hb1338 AND the definitive acme of musical instruments - the Kazoo.
Ohh ! Hello Mr Challenger! I hope you enjoy Ukraine
why so the intro picture of a sci-fi tank ??, not exist, it's misleading and then it all seems suspicious and not true...
They also got 88 Leopard 2’s and 55 Leopard 1’s just recently. Russia is in trouble
when in trouble, lol?
@@jonsnow3521 they are losing to Ukraine lol
@@louv4437 no they r not. Only the woke western media r saying that. Listen to military sources (not the lying US generals who r paid/bribed with promotions to lie)
I bet Vlad is Pootin his pants now.
Even the T-90 doesn't stand a chance against the Chally-2 if it's a 1v1. Oh sure, the Chally 2 has a lower fire rate... but what does that matter when one shot from the Chally 2 will send the T-90 flying, while the T-90 won't get penetration on the Chally. I'm not saying we won't lose a single Chally, but what I am saying is that it took another Chally with its own special penetration round to take out another Chally, and it's never happened otherwise (in combat). That was friendly fire.
That says a lot about both the protection Chally 2 provides, and the destructive power it brings.
Ruzzia stand no chance.
The difference in range between the respective guns means that the Challenger will typically have at least 5 shots before the T-90 can respond. The man in the chip shop on Salisbury Plain says that tankies reckon that it should take no more than 2 shots to convert a T-90 into scrap metal.
yet russia is winning easily. hmmm
Great shame the vid continuously showed one piece rounds being loaded into any library picture available, while talking about three piece . Having served with UK armour in a previous life, I can assure you that the rate of fire is certainly better than two rounds per minute - and with three piece, the projectile is smaller, and easier to handle than shown / the bag charge is lighter, and the wrestling match that you were showing is in no way representative of a UK MBT - not from Chieftain onwards. The bag charge are held in pressurised cooloant surrounded containers, and obviate the turret launch system demonstrated by recent videos of Russian kit. I sincerely hope that these beasties are never needed, but if they are, I am sure they will put up a very convincing show - and probably form a lot further off than most MBTs ;-)
Correction - The gun does have a "three part" load, but one of those three is the primer - akin to a 50 Cal round, its fitted in a 10 round magazine, so doesnt have to be loaded every time - also the two (remaining) parts, one is inert (the APFSDS) so can safely be lap loaded whilst a one part round cannot.
The title of this video had literally nothing to do with the content of it...
I expect Ukrainian tank crews to use Challangers and Leopards in ways that nobody has yet thought of, especially the Russians. 😎
I understood that most bridges in the USSR, and thus in the Ukraine were build specifically with light tanks in mind, so that only T72 like tanks could go over them. Than there is the issue that Britain does not want any possibility for a challenger to be captured...
Hence the software self destruct.
In the latest Nato competition Iron Spear, Challenger 2 won. In that exercise was Leopards, Abrams and various national modifications of russian MBTs
Mixed tank formations by the Ukrainians so that their soviet era ones can deal with short range and the challenger longer range seems the answer to me.
the extra distance will be the decisive factor, like it was for the 88 and the Tiger
and look what happened to them. Too few of them to make a lasting difference, just as there will be too few Challengers, Leapords and Abrams.
Well as i see it, the russian tanks are losing against Ukrainian tractors so the Challenger shouldn't be a problem.
thats because u see western media BS. try listening to USA colonels who say otherwise
the chally 2 is actually faster to reload with a half decent crew than auto loaders
the extra distance will be the decisive factor in the front line, like it was for the 88 and the Tiger.
The Ukraine war is to tryout in real situations all military hardware. Everybody is doing this at the expense of the Ukraine people.
a Challenger got disabled and got hit by well over 40 RPG and 2 missiles. still survived.
the track fell off and was back in action the following day.
a main battle tank is just that, a main battle tank. It's a heavily armored box with a large gun designed to take heavy fire to the face and survive; as such it is good to breach enemy bunkers, strongpoints and such. in Modern combined arms warfair; a MBT by itself is useless; as infantry can take out tanks fairly easily . So you need to integrate it in a group; and use it best for it's intended purpose. One thing the Challenger 2 does really well is make thing go boom at a distance ... those HESH rounds are like artillery shells hitting. M1 and Leopard 2's don't have that capability. as such, a good commander will know depending on the battle where to put the challengers, where to put the leo's, bradleys, marders and amx10's ... And the Ukraïnians by now are a veteran professional motivated army; the learn really quick.
i agree with your comment except for last sentence which is wrong. average life span of ukr infantry is 4 hrs on front line.
@@jonsnow3521 I've read that too. It seems somewhat low; and the foreign fighters lasted months on the fronts. Ukraïne has a much smaller supply of fighting age men; if they die by the 4-hours; wouldn't they have run out by now?
This is basically an information war. I refuse to believe numbers from either side without hard proof. I just believe this war and the invasion of Crimea were diplomatic problems, and should have been solved diplomatically. The current war is a diplomatic faillure from both sides.
It's 14 tanks not 28. I can see the source of the suggestion of 28 tanks. The Daily Mail - an absolute horror show of a news journal.
I don't appreciate the narrator dissing this wonderful MBT. Not one has been destroyed by enemy fire, and it holds the world recored for a long range tank kill
The Armour on the Beast is very probably the best in the World, and it may be that we share this technology with our American Friends.
When the Challenger 3 comes out, with the smooth bore gun, it will again become one of the best MBTs in the world, Russia has nothing equivalent. Meantime Slava Ukraine
Been hearing about these for a few months now, when are they going to be seen on the battlefield?
When the ground dries, and the last Russki has been bled in Bakhmut. Soon
Challenge 2 Still has never been Destroyed by a Enemy in Battle 😊
The Challenger 2 has hydrogas suspension that gives it one of tge smoothest rides over rought ground of any tank.
some utter shite spurted on here..... even showing CR3 and claiming CR2, the 27 litre V12 originally Rolls Royce, later Perkins, but rebuilt on failure by CAT is still there, no other engine fitted. Nor have 28 been gifted........
Having served in the RAC and been a course officer down at the RAC Gunnery School. I have never heard so much drivel and miss quoted stats about Challenger 1&2. This lad has clearly learnt all he knows from “world of tanks”. What a total muppet!
Get your facts right... From the official UK government website and I quote verbatim "Training on UK Challenger 2 tanks for Ukrainian soldiers is continuing at pace in the South-West of England after the UK committed to provide 14 vehicles and accompanying ammunition to support Ukraine's defence."
You should do more research. Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine ambassador to the United Kingdom, announced on March 4 that the UK had promised 14 more tanks to Ukraine, in addition to the initial 14. It is very unlikely that this statement is untrue, but in line with current policy, no formal confirmation of the deal will be made until plans have been completed for preparation, training and shipping the equipment.
@@hb1338 From Uk Defence Journal: "Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, had claimed that the United Kingdom has decided to increase its pledge of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine."
"UPDATE - This article has been corrected and amended, we have been officially informed since publication that the UK does not, in fact, intend to double the number of Challenger 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine and that the Ambassador appears to have misspoke."
A very negative review of the Challenger. The only tank never have been lost to enemy action.. no other MBT can claim that plus the crews have have excellent training by the Royal Armoured Corps!
So glad to hear British tanks are splitting Russian tanks apart.
kermit the frog springs to mind
Rubbish! The T90 and earlier models if hit even by an rpg lifts the turret off because of the auto loader system. That is why the most advanced tanks don't use an auto loader. If you do you will lose look at what is happening to the most modern russian tanks in Ukraine their turrets flying off everywhere! I've never seen that with any challenger 1 or 2 or Abrams Leopard etc Revise your info because you are incorrect.😆
I love how you state that Challenger one was a bad tank with no justification at all. In fact the tank turned out way better than anyone expected exceeding the range accuracy and mobility predictions of both the army and the manufacturer. The tank had some teething issues with automotive and gunnery systems reliability but even with those initial issues it was a quantum leap compared to the Chieftain's it replaced which had reliable but far less advanced turret systems and an absolute pig of an engine. The Challenger one's poor reputation was established during it's disastrous first ever NATO gunnery exercise the Canada cup due to a series of problems with the turret systems the crew didn't have enough experience with to work around due to how little time they had on the tank. The tankers were devastated because they knew both they and the tank massively underperformed.
The Challenger 1 was not a bad tank. It was adequate and easily produced on existing production lines. Why do you refer to the English? There has been no English army since 1707. You are way out of date. It is the British army you are referring to. The Challenger 1 carried the same type of armour as the M1 Abrams when it went into production. The Chieftan itself could destroy both the T64 and T72 in its day. The Challenger1 and 2 just did it better. The Challenger 2 brings the Ukrainian army a whole generation of tank fighting with it’s suite of electronic aids.
Cannot wait to see the new challenger 3
It's an old Challenger 2 hull with an upgraded turret and engine. No new tanks will be built.
"In every ill turn of fortune the most unhappy sort of misfortune is to have been happy." Was that the quote? Boethius.
This has gotta be one of the most ignorant videos I've seen in a long time
If the Challenger 2 is too heavy; what does that make the Abrams?
Lighter
quite a lot of US and other foreign clips in there whilst talking about Challenger 2 [as opposed to bits about Russing tanks]; During the 2003 invasion of Iraq...In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile.[55] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later.
In the British Tank crew's hands the Challenger is a brilliant tank. Hopefully, the training given will be good enough and the Tank will once again show its power on the battlefield. I am Ex 1RTR and loved all the tanks we had. FN
Well said Kieth. FN
@@MIB-1RTR Thanks Kev. You know if they get it wrong our Tank will be classed as crap. We know its not. FN
Given the shortage of Challenger 2 tanks available, why doesn't the UK Government repurchase some of the 400 upgraded Challenger 1s out of service and in storage in Jordan? Though not up to current NATO standards, a hundred Chally 1s would make a very significant impact against Russian armour in Ukraine.
Obviously, despite their limitations, these Challengers can destroy whatever the Russians throw at them because of their
NO Challenger 2 Tank or crew has been lost to enemy action. Stick THAT in yer pipe and smoke it Ivan.
When comparing those stats, it's probably safe to say the Challenger and its Ukrainian crews will both be better prepared with maintenance and training than that of the Russians. Ukraine is big, but It's not a fast moving war over vast distances, extending supply lines each day, and there is a lot of western support to get the logistics & training right.
Not a battalion. A tank army. 100% truth.
7:45
Me: ....!
Announcer: "fuh-GO"
Me: .....oh. Gotcha.
A FGM-148 Javelin a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a top attack flight profile against armored vehicles has already destroyed thousands of tanks since it's inception and not much more is needed against Russian tanks and helicopters beside Stingers. Plenty of armor and MIG-29s are laying around in nearby NATO countries. The Leopard tank is a lot more practical then the Abrams tank. Obviously, both a far superior in Ukrainian hands then anything the Russians or Wagner Group can oppose them with. I flew a Loach in Viet Nam and even today flying low with missiles and M134 Minigun would do pretty good.
the 50+ ton heavy tanks are going to have way more problems with the terrain than anything else. this includes both British and American tanks. in many places these tanks become static guns until they can be pulled out of the mud. the ground just can't support that amount of weight.
but when it can stay on the ground the Challenger 2 is a very good tank. they even did pretty well against American friendly fire.