UK Challenger 2s vs Russian T-14 Armatas: How do the tanks compare?
2022 ж. 12 Шіл.
33 264 Рет қаралды
Here's a side-by-side comparison of Britain and Russia's main battle tanks - the UK's Challenger 2 and Russia's T-14 Armata.
The Challenger 2 is heavier than the T-14 Armata by a good 10 tonnes and its weaponry is unique in having the L30A1 120mm rifled gun as its principal weapon system.
The T-14 meanwhile is technologically ambitious and a departure from the historical tradition of Russian tanks being pragmatically designed and easily mass-producible.
Read the full breakdown here: www.forces.net/services/army/...
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: instagram.com/forcesnews/...
Twitter: / forcesnews
The main advantage of the T-14 Armata is that is the most advanced tank ever made. The advantage of the Challenger 2, however, is that it exists.
T14 is Russian made. That says it all in my book. No body makes better weapons the UK. Except maybe America and really I would say nobody does.
And is battle proven.
That's spot on! Only 22 have ever been produced. Its a ridiculous video!
@@claudemaggard7162 that's funny... How many countries use the Challenger 2? And now look at other MBT's and how many of those get exported. America is a clear favourite when it comes to weapons sold, miles ahead of everyone else. Germany exports about 3 times more weapons than England. If England makes the best weapons, clearly the world doesn't agree with you.
@@claudemaggard7162 Germany, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden and Czech. Republic all make excellent weapons. Even the French make good stuff sometimes even if it is a bit 'unique'. Most arms design and manufacturing is global now anyway, it is rare to find a weapon the only one country has helped develop and build.
not a fair comparison, as T-14s are only operational on the red square.
When towed.
Ya challengers actually work
@@mikeycraig8970 Don't think they even towed them - they Fred Flinstoned them (holes in bottom, powered by foot) :D
🤣👍
If that lol. The tank is a concept. But the fact still remains 40,000 invaders killed from Russia and for what ?
I think the comparison should be boiled down to this: The UK uses Challenger 2s The RF parades T-14s
@moneypoww, yeah I was going to pretty much say the same thing. The C2 is a REAL, HONEST-TO-GOD WORKING tank whereas the T14 is a hollywood prop. Pretty much like the rest of the commie "wonder weapons".
T-14 broke down during the last parade. Super embarrassing
@@dimwitsixtytwelve Well the Russian army claimed they forgot to take the handbrake off.🙄 Either way it was not a good look,
T-14 has been in service since 15 but is prone to breakdowns. The Russians will try testing it in Ukraine to see if Afghanit APS can stop UK Made NLAW and US Made Javelin ATGMs. *Remember T-14 Armata Afghanit APS has heat sensors that can pick up Bayraktar TB-2 MAM ATGM NLAW & Javelin inbound towards it and activate Afghanit APS*
the uk has 200 challengers thats pathetic some small military bases in russia have more tanks than that for training
Can't wait to see the T14 turret tossing championship.
Underrated comment.
Does that have the ammo magazine under the turret like other Soviet era tanks? Incredible.
Forgot to mention that the Armata can put its turret in flight mode
I'd pay good money to see that! 😄
@@PrivateWalker it's all over youtube.
@@TheTwoFingeredBulldog Sorry, I was replying to the 'Amrata putting it's turret into flight mode'. Now I really would pay good money to witness that! 💥💩💥💩😂
Challenger is combat tested in battle no units lost, and was hit by 70 xxxx RPGs, slight damage in the middle East, and drove of.
On the occasion where that Challenger was hit by 70 RPG's some of those RPG's were actually Milan Anti Tank Missiles.
@@Kakarot64. yes
Thats just pure propaganda
@@matexhdchannel4193 no it’s not, you can look it up. They are wrong on no losses though. One was hit by friendly fire in Iraq.
1 loss. Apparently it takes a challenger to beat a challenger **Only 1 Challenger 2 has been destroyed in combat; by another Challenger 2 in a friendly fire incident**
Why do all Russian videos of the T-14 have the turret spinning round constantly, it's a tank not a helicopter 🙃
they are just showing us how they come off so nicely
They are helicopters...when they get blown up. 😏
Because they are clockwork and you only get 30 seconds of movement from three twists of the turret.
Haha. Its true. The crew are trained in helicopters firstly, just so the crew knows what the sound of something spinning around up in the sky sounds like!
They can't stop it the control system is broken :D It's just going wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Challenger 3 is a well needed upgrade though. However, the challenger 2 remains one of the best.
The T-14 has some production issues. They don't have enough washing machines from Ukraine.
Ah the burn :D :D :D :D
Challenger 2:battle tested T14: barely put of proto-type phase, breaks down during parades= paper 🐯
as with F22 and Su57
The SU 57 are used in Ukraine.
The T14 broke down during a parade? 🤣🤣🤣
@@PrivateWalker from what I understand it was driver error when changing gears
@@Jasonth131 you are suppose to say it like this” BuT the Su57 Is UsEd iN UkRaInE” 😂
The Challenger 2 hands down. It is battle tested while the T14 is hyped up vaporware. The war in Ukraine has seriously damaged the reputation and credibility of Russian military equipment especially tanks.
More like destroyed their reputations. Even the Indians have cancelled their remaining orders.
T-14 only looks good on paper.
Or on parade
I think it looks an ugly & ungainly machine.... somewhat reminiscent of Pug from the Bash Street Kids 🤣
@@adolfshitler even then not brilliant, they break down most of the time, and they probably will never get them into any real production.
T14 is a metal coffin/crematorium with a flying turret, challenger clearly is fit for purpose as it saved countless soldiers lives.
The T-14 needs help to drive across the red square while the other can work off-roads in battlefields.
And all that don’t really matter well it does a little bit but most of it is down to how good the crew are trained and how well they can work together under extreme pressure and under heavy fire which me personally would go with a Challenger 2 tank crew any day of the week I might be a little biased but British Tank Crews are very well trained I mean very well trained. From Mud, Through Blood, To The Green Fields Beyond, Fear Naught.
Did the T14 inherit the Turret ejection system from the T72? (AKA the autoloader)
T14 has a crewless turret allowing a smaller crew. It's an automated loading system
ppl think the T14 is built for combat but its actually cutting edge in the russian space program.
@@Aples888 I think you missed the point. Go away.
pretty much, yes.
The Armata height is crazy high for a machine that needs a low silhouette. And as to the speed, it shows how little armour it has for a MBT. ( i checked its overall weight.) When it actually gets to do anything other than drive passed Putin on the parade ground (or sometimes it doesn't!) then we can talk about it .
The crew is all in the frontal hull isolated with an armored wall between them and the turret area, much of the turret armor has been removed and a blowout panel has been added. Allowing for less weight and better crew survivability.
I'd like to see a comparison with the new challenger 3 that's just been announced.
You should also consider that the UK actually has Challenger's, while russia doesn't, it's usually a pretty big part in how effective they are.
First of all, one is fielded and the other one chokes when on parade. 😂
I can't believe you didn't address the most basic question!!!... Can a Ukrainian farmer tow a T-14 with his tractor? You are starting to let me down Forces News.🙃
I doubt it. The T-14 has the most powerful handbrake known to man.
lol You believe a 4 ton tractor pulled a 40 ton tank out of a field , with no operable tracks and steering . Is Ukraine still winning ?
@@laurencesmith2199 yes I do believe that as there is plenty of footage showing just that
@@laurencesmith2199 Afarta is only 35 tons. John Deer, hold my beer
I wouldn't bet against the farmer any day.
Why does this even matter? surely it's more important how it compares to a kornet missile or a 152mm artillery shell or something?
UK tank regiments professional highly skilled soldiers , Russian tank regiments conscripts
Alot of them are professional soldiers they just received poor training can't even imagine how little training the conscripts got they're basically cannon fodder
Its almost impossible to compare any two tanks as the accepted doctrine is whoever fires the first shot in any engagement usually wins. In WW2 an inferior sherman would not take on a superior panther or tiger unless it was in a favourable firing position to have a successful outcome . But it always helps to have the bigger gun ! 😃
Agreed, whoever shot first usually won. However, the Sherman had a far higher rate of fire than either the Tiger or the Panther. The crews understood their vehicle's strengths and weaknesses. The tactics developed later in the war by the crews of Shermans envolved smothering the German armour in HE and then trying to outflank their opponent. This was effective as the German armour by this stage was only deployed piecemeal and at shorter ranges. The Sherman was faster, had a greater road range and was far far more reliable than any of the German heavy tanks. Therefore I think that you are being a little unfair by saying that the Sherman was inferior to it's German counterparts. Look at the Firefly for instance it's 17 pounder outperformed the main armament of the Tiger and Panther. Different doctrine breads different tanks, it is how they are crewed, supported and deployed that makes or breaks these weapon systems. Kind regards 🙂👍
@@my_handle.... Good points but I think you are missing a major factor: Crew Experience and Numbers. During WW2 the Americans and Russians had to adapt their tactics and doctrine on the fly as the war went on. A key factor was exactly as you pointed out ; a group of Shermans in coordination acting together to out maneuver the Tigers and Panthers by using their speed and numbers. Experienced Sherman crews and Commanders developed this tactic NOT to go head on or 1-1 with them, until the FireFly. Our armor units became more and more effective because of battle field experience. Numbers is still a big deal as well because of the very same principles. Doctrine as well. NATO tanks were built for defense, thus the heavy armor. Russian tanks are built for offense, thus the emphasis on speed. Russian Armor heavy MTGs goals are usually to punch through enemies defensive front once recon units find a weak point, then "blossom" out in the rear with speed and maneuverability in multiple directions to cause havoc and build mini cauldrons that chew up that defensive front or just to isolate it for a later date. Russians tactics are EXTREMELY flexible and the T-90s and T-14s are net-centric. Constant feedback building a dynamic battle map that is continuously updated and allows for Tank commanders to talk directly to air, infantry, and artillery support instantly provide targeting data on the fly which is updated on the map for ALL to see. The one thing not mentioned about the Armata is that the crew is in a protected space within the hull, not in the turret or where the powder charges are stored.(38 rounds and charges) with a quicker autoloader. It also is able to fire a laser guided missile from its main gun (smoothbore) that has a range between 7000-12000 meters. That means it can fire a missile at a identified tank well out of the other tanks main gun range. THAT is important. As a former Tank Commander I can tell you that is bothersome because anyone can mark the target, not just the tank firing the missile. This is why their net-centric communications are built into these tanks. Our side needs to quit acting like Russian armor is junk. It is not, and never was. People point at the T-72 that blows the turret of when spalling blows the exposed round charges under the turret. YUP it does but what people dont talk about is that they are in fact durable, low maintenance, and there are plenty of them still around for that reason. They are this day and ages Sherman Tank ironically. IMHO
@@meddy833 Thank you kindly for taking the time to put together an extremely informative reply. Yes I completely agree that the T72 is still a relevant, reliable and capable platform when deployed and supported correctly. Yes it is in many ways forfilling the modern day role of the Sherman or more appropriately the T34/85 of old! Kind regards 🙂👍
@@my_handle.... speed is great but the tiger tank could easily hit targets up to 1km and back then that was far, Germany’s main issue was they were producing expensive tanks (both in cost and raw materials). If Germany stuck to just making panthers, the war might have had a different take but with the wide spread costs in to many failed projects i.e the Ferdinand/tiger(p)which wasted a lot of materials and created tanks with massive maintenance issues. The tiger 1 was a great tank but it had a limited range without good logistics, only a limited number of them (still a lot but in comparison to the production rate of the sherms, T-34-85 (later in the eastern conflict). Also the constant bombing from the RAF on factories limited production and parts produced (as there were so many different tanks requiring loads of different parts). The german engineering was ahead of its time with tanks but sadly everything else the germans needed just wasn’t
@@Jord2123 Thank you kindly for your reply. I agree completely, but I believe that the decision of which heavy tank to produce did not cost Germany the war. Although it didn't help. Germany lost the war at the strategic level as Germany was never industrially or tactically geared up for or resourced to undertake a protracred conflict. That said, the WW2 German tank development programme was the most efficient in history. Panther from paper to deployment in six months. In hindsight it could have done with twelve months but time was not on Germany's side in 1943. 🙂👍
# built: challenger 649, t14 1
You forgot, fully trained professional crew, vs 3 thugs who will abandon their tank to go raping, then run away when they see a soldier.
Doesn't the challenger 2 have the longest tank on tank kill? Edit: it was the challenger 1.
Nope, that was the Challenger 1 during Op Granby in 1991.
Challenger 1 in the first gulf war.
Actually thats a Challenger 1 but the Challenger 2 is equipped with an upgraded version of the Gun that made that kill.
No. Challenger 1. But Imagine a tank that does that with half the ability as the Challenger 2! Scary thought.
Challenger one weakness i can see is the huge Lower front plate, and is not an auto loader. But T-14 is not battle tested yet so can't compare much
The difference is how they are crewed, operated, fought and supported.
Russia has 20 ish prototypes of the Armata T-14 and due to sanctions cannot build GPS rockets, jets or Armatas. They are stuck with building T-72B3s and Artillery for the remainder of this conflict. 😂
It’s not just about the tank it’s more about the people inside the tank
id rather be in the challenger in a fight
Well it is not a fair comparison because one Challenger 2 is 90s design where the T 14 is a most recent design meaning the growth potential on the Armata is higher where by the Challenger 2 is and will reach its growth potential in the coming years. Two the Challenger 2 is already in active duty where by the Armata is still in the testing phase (I think) and not to mention the corruption in the arm forces, defence industry and government of Russia that slowed the production of the Armata. Three some of the modules that the Armata is using still have problems where by the Challenger 2 don't have that problem ( I think ). Four the Russians does love to show off but does not show the results meaning the Challenger 2 have already shown its results in real time war such Iraq where by the Armata has only been tested in Syria ( I am doubtful of the Russians when they announced that ) meaning the Challenger 2 has already shown its weakness that the designers didn't found out in the initial design and make improvements upon it. Five the armaments and munitions used are different, yes I know it's clear as day the information but you got to understand that the Challenger 2 uses a rifled cannon instead of a smoothnore one, to put in simple words the difference is the barrel life ( for does who want to know the difference in depth google it) meanwhile the Armata uses a new cannon that is the 2A82-1M according to its makers one of highlights is that is has greater muzzle velocity than the German L55, now the munitions used for the Challenger 2 I am not sure what type of kinetic penetrator, HE and type of ammo it uses ( comment to let me know) but Armata has a wide range of new kinetic penetrator, HE, Barrel launch ATGM and so on. Five the the protection level on both are different very very different, on the one hand the Armata has an active protection System meanwhile the Challenger 2 even the recent upgrade one does not have them, base armour are different, Armata has its own new ERA type, crew protection ( Armata uses a crew capsule and an unmanned turret) and others. If I explain all of the difference I am pretty sure it wouldn't be a comment. PS the reason where one case the Armata in Victory day parade suddenly stop is because the Russian use consripts to drive that vehicle that have a lot of training time in that tank so, from what I have research apparently the driver accidentally hit the Emergency Brek of the tank so yeah
How about comparing Challie3 against the KF51 Panther?
Any chance you can standardise? Height in metres, speed in miles per hour. I guess I should be happy the height wasn't in "hands" or something else.
Judging by the leaked documents on the Challenger 2 before thankfully being scrubbed off the Internet it's actually still one of the best for it's protection levels. Especially against HEAT rounds. It falls somehwere between the M1A2 SEP & Leppard 2 A7. The M1A2 SEP having similair HEAT protection (both without ERA) but has better kinetic energy round protection.
How would the future Challenger 3 compare?
gtfo. The T-14 is a Tik Tok tank just needs a Chechen crew.
Armata needs to go 50 mph so it can loop round the back of Red Square quickly.
Any tank that actually exists is better than one that doesn't.
Against the Challenger 2 they might stand a chance although they are already outnumbered by it at about ten to one. The Challenger 3 that will enter service over the next decade will outclass and outgun it completely. Add that the Russian army only has about 16 T-14 they already are available in nearly the same amount in prototype and test examples.
Some say that inside the T-14 is a smaller tank. The T-13 and inside that is a T-12 and....
That was hardly fair, comparing an in-service and operational tank against one designed to look good in parades.
The T-14 was only built to look good rolling through Red Square on parade.
Challenger 2 still uses rifled? There’s reasons why USA went smooth bore for the m1 Abrams and the new light infantry tank
Challenger 3 is smooth bore
The Challenger 3 will use a 120mm smooth bore.
The reasons why the UK stayed with rifled was that there was no HE round for smoothbore. (Smoothbore was mostly APDS / APDFFS with DU and tungsten sabot). HE is far more effective against infantry targets. Engagements in Iraq have forced the development of an HE round for the smoothbore 120mm and the UK are now moving to smoothbore for the challenger3.
the Yanks went smooth bore as it was going to become NATO standard, so the Chally 3 has the same (uniform ammunition across the board) the Chally 2's riffled barrel is still a superb cannon, but 400 rounds and they're knackered! Smooth bore 120 around 1000 rounds I believe.
The major difference between the challenger 2 and the T-14, is the challenger 2 is battle proven.
Really? In which battles?
My moneys on Challenger and it’s crews .
With a handful being shipped out to Ukraine right now, i think it’s a good choice to send Challenger 2s. They’re the toughest MBT to exist, and they’re designed to support infantry first, rather than needing to be supported by infantry like most other NATO mbts. This fits the defensive requirement of the fight in Ukrainian perfectly. The HESH shells will be a huge help in taking out any emplacements, infrastructure, or support columns Russia try to establish. The range of the cannon on this thing can help it act as some form of mobile artillery too, placing long range shots on targets before they can return fire. It’s ability to Hull Down with its great gun depression make it even more lethal defensively. UK might not be sending many of them, but that’s all that may be needed for the time coming.
Tonnage? Armor? Counter measures? Fire control?
Should compare challenger 3 as this is much more modern like the t-14
Armata's need to be towed out of the Red Square Parade. Have not seen any in Ukraine yet.
And you wont see them in Ukraine, Russia would have a nightmare of a time trying to maintain any dignity in the field of tank design if its limited number of "best" tanks were to get mauled like the rest of their mechanized coffins. T14 is a propoganda weapon not a battlefield weapon.
I hear the hand brake is a bit of a problem on the armata
Well the Orc Armata is a phantasy tank. No chips no hardware! Even in the Orc square they stall!
How about a comparison between a Challenger 2 tank and a unicorn?
In warfare tanks are used as part of a collective network, their effectiveness or not is based on that!!
This is ridiculous. There are less than 20 operational T-14's. None outside Red Square.
How about Challenger 3?
What comparison?! I didn't need to watch the video... 🇬🇧
They both need at least a .50 caliber machine gun instead of the 7.62
It would be more fair to compare the Challenger 3 to the T14 as if the T14 ever enters service (which is unlikely) it will be in service around the same time
Maybe, but teh Challenger 3 is currently vaporware. After Ajaz it may stay that way.
One is in production and active service. The other is a showpiece made to try to get foreign buyers.
I feel bad for the T-14 gunner who has to shoot blind because his CO sold all the optics.
And the diesel.
Except there aren't any T-14s except in parades.
Shove the music. It's a turn off.
Can’t wait to see a challenger vs a 1968 Russian tank
One is real The other is fictional
No worries. Russian products such as ships, helicopters, or tanks just blowup anyway.
Well the challenger 2 exists in the real world and the t14 doesn’t
That's it!? Was it really worth posting this video?
That was a poor persons top trumps found at a car boot sale with all the cards missing except 2.
challenger 2 and m1a2 abrams have some big weakspots, the t-90 doesnt have very big ones
This is just not very cool. The T-14 is not even used yet..lol
challenger 2
Why do you compare the combat tank and the parade tank, which isn't real?
Real Tank vs. Parade Tank.🙈
Crew of 3? Autoloader?
The russians claim that the T14 has a crewless turret which sounds great until the autoloader doesn't..
@@karlhofmann1446 Thanks. If the autoloader quits, then the crew is sitting beneath a useless explosive turret (at least, death would be quick). Brilliant idea to confine it to Red Square parades.
T14 has one advanced feature no western tank has …… tractor towing eyes
That's supposed to be funny? What a disgrace to humanity.
Challenger Tanks gold standard in crew protection and perfect for fighting in limited engagement areas such as Ukraine or Libya. Can't speak to Russian equipment much at the moment as presumably they have held something now in reserve to defend the Capital Moscow. If not presumably the plan is to use tactical nuclear weapons but that presumes proper/valid/validated Command and Control and of course some type of rationale for being the first to use any WMD as part of a kinetic conflict since 1945. Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister of Great Britain needs noting as well.
Good video however you failed to mention the best feature of most Russian tanks - they fly! 😂😂😂
the challenger 2 is very outdated. It;s like comparing a crusader tank to a panzer 3.
As the T-14 Armata relies heavily on imported parts and equipment, which the sanctions from Russia's invasion of Crimea has stopped, I cannot see this happening for some time.
What do you mean, the Russians can make perfectly good plywood ...
You cannot compare the two, the T14 is not even in service and Russia cannot afford to buy them hence upgrading the T72 and T80, plus it does look like a Tonka Toy whereas the Challenger 2 is a beast of a tank and still one of the best in the world
The T-14 operational effectiveness is still a myth......
Why are they not being used in Ukraine if they are that good ???
But how many does Russia have? Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen a single T14A in Ukraine.
Well one tank has an auto loder and the crew is situated in the chassis and has a 125 mm gun, the other doesnt? Infact the chally has only been in combat with russian exports against an untrained army, they literally hand cranked their t 72s, and the fact is i know the challenger has its weaknesses including that flat ass armour that is a target for tandem warheads.
Erm we have 120 challengers I’m not sure there take out hundreds of Russia tanks before there all gone,,numbers game
this was about the Amata, they've only got about 20 of them. besides the Chally 1 has killed at nearly 5km sure the Chally 2 could kill at 3.5km all day long. No Russian tank will do that I'm sure.
Well yess, however I can't think of too many possible conflicts where the UK would need tanks where it's allies were not involved and brought their tanks too
Thank god Russia only built 20 of them then 😂
The Russian T-14 has speed over the Challenger 2s I guess thats in reverse though
Well considering the Uk pioneered modern composite armor, and the T-14 is made out of cardboard.....
The T 14 is the better tank hands down but they also can't afford to make many of them so it's really all kind of pointless until they can find buyers for them it will remain a rarity
T14 is ideal for stealing money from the russian budget. That's about it. Countries neighboring Russia couldn't ask for more. So, more power to this project.
Challenger will easily beat the one t-14 Russia has 🤣🤣 I don’t care how fancy it is in design if your army can’t afford to make it in valuable numbers
T-14 - for parade only
Nato will rofl stomp the drunk and corrupt army of inmates, gangsters and contractors. I will greatly enjoy the high rate of blyats per second xD
Please stop buying int the T-14 BS, its a show case vehicle wich will never see combat. The Russians are too scared to lose one or have a ukrainian tractor tow it over the border to a waiting C-5 for a US Holiday
Another thing that was missing is that there can be a Kord HMG 12.7 Remote operated machine gun instead of 7.62x54R PKP LMG. If the price of the tanks are here T-14 Armata $3.7-4.6 million (£3.1-£3.8 million conversion is $1 = 84p)Challenger 2 $5 million (£4.2 million £1=$1.19 as of 13 July 2022). That means a foreign buyer can get 2 Russian T-14s for the price of a Single Challenger 2 tanks. Same thing also applies for T-14 vs M1 Abrams $6 million (£5 million) meaning countries can get 2-3 T-14 Armata tanks for a Single M1 Abrams.
Life is too short to drive cheap tanks... In fact, it has been demonstrated very clearly that cheap tanks shorten the lives of their crews...By the time the T14 is in production with all of its problems ironed out the price will be considerably higher than advertised and the US and Brits will be driving round in weapons systems as yet not even thought of...
Go get um lads Britain 🇬🇧first always
They cannot possibly be compared; Ukraine hasn't killed one yet.
In order to find one, the Ukrainian Armed Forces would have to go find the few that exist in Russia. The Russians will be Very reluctant to risk losing one of the handful they have, or worse, have one captured intact (which happens a lot given poor Russian morale and training). I am sure that a T14 is near the top of the Ukrainians 'wish-list' in order to pass it on to Western supporters for analysis.
200 Challengers vs. 3 T-14s. Russia is a joke.
Russia has lost lots of their equipment to the Ukrainians. And its not as good as we thought it was. Give me a British Tank any day.