- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Today we take a look at Challenger 2 tank and some of the problems the tank had and still has. While some of those problems have been blown out of proportion, some of them still hold water, and they become really apparent when you compare the tank to its western counterparts such as Abrams, Leopard 2, Leclerc, etc.
Patreon: / redeffect
- Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Ok
Matsimus wil be trigered dude.!.
Can you make a video about the most modern romanian tank
Pls make pt 91 tank dude
Can you do a video about the Japanese type 10 or type 90?
The biggest problem is that the tea boiler has a big IR signature
Swift , some sacrifices are worth it
Tea must never be boiled. As soon as the water starts boiling, turn off the heat and put in the tea.
Just use a knitted cosy.
Esh11_WOTB , shit!!! I’ve always boiled
I read for watched a documentary recently (the second part of the tank Museum's two part C2 tank I think) that post WW2 analysis showed 37 % of tank personnel injuries/deaths occurred outside the tank (which is saying something given British/American tanks at the time), which was why the capability was added to he Centurion tank design (and every other british tank since).
well, if the rifling in the 120mm rifile gun get's worn out, you now have 125mm smoothbore! It's just a joke, I'll see myself out
For a joke that bad I hope the door hits your butt on your way out through it! :P
@@Tuberuser187 i liked it xD
Free uighur ..fuck china
@@zmc2585 ur mom
A great one too, stick around 😂😂😂😂
Problems with Challeger 2: sponsored by Rheinmetall Problems with Leopard 2: Sponsored by Hiundai Rotem Problems with Arjun: sponsored by Pakistan Problems with Al-Khalid: sonsored by India ... :D
Good joke but u missed the P in sponsored
A+
Problems with T-14 Armata : Sponsored by General Dynamics Problems with M1 Abrams : Sponsored by Uralvagonzavod and Norinco
Problems with the T-64 : Sponsored by Uralwagonsawod Problems with the T-72 : Sponsored by Malyshev Factory
Vermilion77 LoL
Lol. Oh goodness.
You both should battle in war thunder against each other
Matsimus what?
Battle ples
Le Matsimus has Arrived
While I’m here, Matsimus, the problem with fitting the German gun to the Challenger 2 because of trying to fit one part ammunition in storage for three part ammunition, why don’t they get Rheinmetall to build a 120mm smoothbore with a three part breech, or even attach their barrel to the British breech?
Imagine RedEffect in a T-90M vs Matimus in a Challenger 2 fighting a tank duel to the death cuz of this video XD
question is in which game/place they will fight in?
Some Dank Boi IDK, maybe Fulda Gap 😂
Idc what tank Red uses I’m still putting my money on Mat in the challenger
@@A.S.M.10 still red effect can play t80u vs mat's challenger in war thunder
That's somewhat the the story behind the paris gun if im not wrong.
*Challenger 2*: Man I wish my lower plate had more armour. *Leo 2:* Man I wish my gunners sight had more armour behind it. *Arjun Tank:* You guys are getting armour?
AMX-30: No armour is the best armour
Not sure what issue is here. They probably never go into combat without adding exterior Dorchester armour to that section anyway. So I've been informed that is.
TheBarnestah Ik it was just a joke
@@oceanman3804 Oh sorry.. my bad oops.
@@ReviveHF Fun fact : AMX 30 had better armor than Leopard 1 without it's add-on armor
The problem is that it carries too many rounds! *NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR TEA!*
Whaddymean ?! Chally 2 Tea Maker holds 1000 rounds of standard 40mm PG tips tea bags...
@@tobymaltby6036 PG Tips!!!!You were lucky!We had Compo tea bags,made from the sweepings up from the tea factories
Basically it goes like this, Challenger 2: I can use ceramics as armour Leopard 2: I can use empty gaps as armour Leclerc: I can use speed as armour Merkava: I can use engine as armour M1 Abrams: Being big is the best armour T72/T80/T90s: Being short is the best armour M48/M60: Being tall is the best armour Type 96: balanced armour, No more no less, Yin and Yang Arjun: armour? What armour?
@Naveen Mishra sources?
@@ReviveHF armour kanchan is type of indian cheese
@@themarast Sources? Haha
@@ReviveHF says his grandmother while mating with the neighbor mr.arjunk
@@limcharles9730 XD
You forgot the single most important part of the tank....the tea boiler
Known to grateful crews as the BV
There the most important job of a tanker track tension. Chally 2 has best track tension.
No,the tank IS the tea boiler
Kettle
The short message of the video: GO PLAY WARTHUNDER FOR FREE Oh and some facts about the challenger 2
Oi...at 57 seconds that's me.... :) (Not the little girl in a pink dress) **Taken from my Samsung S9 by my mate at RIAT in 2018. Was speaking to a couple of lads there who crewed it, and they are in the process of transitioning from CR2 to AJAX. They are well happy about it too. ***Where on earth did you find that photo? :)
what is cr2 and ajax i try to look it up but all i get is batteries
@@cptnrice6313 lol.. CR2 (Challenger 2) & AJAX (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Ajax)
Nice
Nice
@@maxsteele20 cr is the abreviation? thats so weird. who the hell takes the first and last letters of a word and abreviates it like that
When you have problematic equipment, there's always Rheinmetall here to solve it.
*The British Em... I mean Commonwealth would like to know your location*
Loader wouldn't necessarily have easier time loading the one-piece ammo. That one-piece ammo with a huge and long APFSDS projectile wouldn't be light by any stretch, and would by significantly bulkier too which would make loading a lot more awkward.
Thank you, my dude, the preview is the best.
been waiting for this video for ages, thanks mate
He's wrong on the front plate it was an IED and in one attack chally was hit 14 times with RPG and one MILAN crew stayed in tank and chally was recovered and back in action 6 Hours later, another incident reports being hit by 70 RPG
Source: Trust me bro
lol
Dorchester block on the lower front plate was added in 2007
And that was only because the MOD was slow, they really do protection of this tank seriously.
You know what I get the most from your videos, the knowledge that all tanks have their weaknesses.
Still love the beast Rheinmetal. And BAE system are supposed to be working together to modernize the tank and fix its flaws. Fave tank of all time centurion 😁
Indeed. I heard Caterpillar are on the power plant side of things also. So hopefully that could be good.
@@TheBarnestah well if they are then that could be a gd thing as they make strong engine's the tank does need a power boost especially with its additional armour packages
Perkins are part owned by cat now.
Still using the centurion South Africa still a great tank by today’s standards. Needs a few upgrades probably could still beat the Indians and Russians haha well Russia’s older tanks so all of them
So the solution is to mount a Leopard 2 turret on the Challenger ? :) here is an article about the tank : nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/epic-fail-expert-claims-united-kingdoms-new-challenger-2-tank-terrible-mistake-118061
Nothing really majorly wrong with the challenger then?
apart from the engine and gun no. it's just that it's mobility and lethatlity are really lacking, plus ineffecient composite arrays (against Kinetic projectiles that is) and the hull layout is rather outdated to say the least
@@BatteredWalrus lethality thing I don't agree with. Can they make the the gun more lethal I'm sure they can. But has there been any instance where the gun hasn't destroyed what it hit?
@@sammni Well since it only fought massively outdated tanks, its hard to say but against something like the t-14 armata it definitely needs more firepower. In military standards its always better to go as overkill as you can rather than risk the chance of them surviving. Also if you watched the video, no making the gun "just more lethal" isnt quite as simple-
@Alex Elliott I was wondering with HESH couldn't they add something to it to give it the spin needed to be usable?
@@BatteredWalrus in real combat situation, except from rushing over open desert, like desert storm, the tank that's not moving has the advantage if it's well hidden, I think that's the doctrine behind the CR2, and when that's taken into account speed isnt as big a deal. The vehicles still reasonably quick, just maybe not as quick as it's counterparts.
You need to take in to account that it's much easier to load two part ammo in a confined space. Plus its battle teste, never been knocked out and holds the record for the longest kill. The engine doesin't have as much horse power but how fast do you really need to go in a tank? Plus it's a very reliable engine. The upgrades might make it go slightly faster and might make loading a fraction faster but it's much more important to have a well trained crew, which challenger 2 has. Even the "cheftan hatch" said he would only pick the Abrams over the challenger because he was more familiar with it and that's before any upgrades. If I had to be a passenger in a tank in battle, I'd always chose the challenger, it's all about survivability and killing power, both of which the challenger has proven in combat, better than the Abrams or Leopard 2.
Some people think it would be a good idea to manual load one piece ammo, at 98 cm and 41 lbs this might prove fun bouncing around cross country ? Clearly the new Germany designed turret with magazine is the way forward rather than bodging a smooth bore into the current turret and chopping off and putting a new rear section on the back !
As long as the engine keeps going that's all that matters and is reliable
Challenger def don't have the same survivability than abrams , and just because the chieftain said doesn't make Challenger 2 good
3:07 if anyone here watches *Matsimus's* channel that looks like him lol. Could it actually be him? He used to work on Challenger 2.
Yup
It's his twin(k) brother Batsimus
Matsimus was operating warrior IFV, not tanks
@@warmbreeze7996 but he did work as a mechanic for CR2 afaik.
@@AdotLOM Working as a mechanic has ZERO bearing on using the vehicle and its assets in war.
KZhead keeps unsubscribing me from you, this must be the 5th time I've re-subbed in 6-7 months.
1:56 You can hear him laughing at the end when he mentions the Challenger 2 can fire HESH projectiles
Nice video but the challenger still remains to be my favourite tank. Also keep up the great work
I wouldn't call the rifled gun a flaw, but rather a decision with specific trade-offs. It is true that muzzle velocity of sabot rounds will be slightly less due to the need for isolating driving bands but the tank is much more accurate with other types of ammunition, especially HESH which is an excellent multipurpose round. the two-part ammunition however is pretty much a complete drawback
a big reason we kept with the rifle was mainly 1) if it ain’t broke don’t fix it 2) we still have a mountain of leftover rifle ammunition from challenger 1 and cheiftain 3) as mentioned in the video we are moving to smoothbore soon with the main reason being ammo compatibly with other NATO members rather than firepower
@@atinofspam3433 one of the primary reasons for the continued use of the rifled gun on challenger 1 was the Thatcher Government saying buying the german gun is too expensive and also its german. On challenger 2 this repeated again.
*Giggles in one of the best combat service history of pretty much any MBT.* In all seriousness, have you seen it, or Challenger 1's service history? Not having a go at anyone. Just pointing out the very interesting read on how well they performed their duties.
@Sjwaria Law *Laughs in Abrams and Leopard being destroyed in same theater.*
@Sjwaria Law Yes i know what you said, i was keeping in the same theme of my original comment, what you said is true, the Challenger 2 has not come across equal competition. Whilst wriitng this i just realised something, neither did the Challenger 1 nor Chieftain. Guess that's a good sign since a good weapon makes a great deterrence.
@Sjwaria Law What MBT has actually faced an enemy that's a threat and not t-72's?
@Sjwaria Law Iraq had only very few T-72's and those they had were stripped of every modern feature and electronics. They didn't even have powered turrets. Not only that, but they had obsolete ammunition that had no chance of dealing with modern armour, unlike Soviet T-72's.
Sjwaria Law dispute they’re age the T-72 is still capable of dealing damage on some modern MBTs such as the Abrams, which isn’t much of a test I know but still
BTW the barrel is chrome lined so wear isn’t too bad. Also the ammunition is technically 3 piece as there is also a charge igniter which is basically a 50. Cal bullet to ignite the propellant.
The 'charge igniter' is not a .50 calibre 'bullet'. It is the TVE - Tube Vent Electric which although similar in size to a .50 calibre cartridge case, is, as its name implies, electrically initiated. It is loaded automatically into the two part breech block so as far as the loader is concerned the gun indexes to the load position, he loads the projectile which is already in his hands, then withdraws a charge from the armoured bin which is below the turret line, loads it, closes his guard which shuts the breech and makes the safety switch "Loaded"!
Thank you for helping me out with weak spots
Actually the rifled gun has been found to be more accurate firing apds rounds. Studies have found the difference as to the pull of gravity in a smoothbore leads to uneven seating and consequently comparatively poor grouping compared with its rifled counterparts. Also another fallacy is the greater perceived wear rate. In fact the the gun has greater max full charge round wear rate than its smoothbore counterpart the m1a2 Abrams. The British chose wisely. Especially with its added ability to fire greater kinds of ammo like he's making it also a more versatile weapon. Common opinion is not always correct.
Greater...I should have said better wear rate and thats hesh rounds aswell.
The upgrade to the LFP with dorchester came in 2007, not 2016, but on the whole I think challenger 2 came off lightly in this video. Also HESH is never stored in the turret regardless of it being mostly inert plastic explosive. The Rifling is chromed so service life isn't as bad as you'd think. The tank is slow and very heavy in comparison to other MBTs but this hasn't seemed to cause any issues in terms of its operation as the tank is still fairly mobile. On top of this the engine is amongst the most reliable in terms of maintenance. Challenger 2 LEP seems to want to incorporate a smoothbore gun, new 1500-1600hp engine, active protection system and commander thermal imaging system so the future looks good until it being finally retired around 2035.
The challenger isn’t slow at all! It is the same top speed as the much lighter T90 (48tons compared to 68-75tons) with a top speed of 37mph whilst being one of the heaviest tanks in the world, but with far superior armour! And it has active protective systems already but an upgrade with the challenger 3 won’t be a bad thing!
Really should look at tank chats by the tank museum" because is russian bias"
Tbf, then you've got English bias.
Question how do you the lower plate is only 60mm thick and is that just steel ?. Can I have the site you got this from please.
It’s been announced challenger 3 this is much improved
Love how everyone mentions weight, lack of mobility and top speed. Yet they fail to realise challenger can cover bad ground very fast and effortlessly, engage targets at speed. due to its hydra gas suspension units. Try bombing x country on torsion bars 🙄 thats Abrams and leopard use by the way.
Video starts at 0:52 for people who want the quality to be better.
I know you are more of a tank person, but can you look at some infants fighting vehicles like the German puma and Marder or the US Bradley? While they of course are not as armored than tanks and don't have as much firepower, I think they are still an important part in an army and somthing that also deserves some love
A CR2 vid! Thanks RE.
Bob semple tank ftw
the arjun suck but it crush that shit in few second
Damian Rivoli the bob semple can obliterate the arjunk in one shot
Just to add some facts, Challanger has the longest range tank kill in history (so say what you like about its gun) No challanger tank has been destroyed by enemy fire
No challenger tank has been destroyed by enemy fire? You sure bout that? Idk seems fishy
There aren't that many challengers around the world and they barely saw combat.
@@eugenianmarkic5568 You have heard of the two Gulf Wars, right?
@@casmsfrought9956 Might sound fishy but have some chips with it coz it's true.
@@Mk1Male Fish n chips it is then
Aged like a fine vine.
great video
Don't forget that we have test data from 1987 that confirms that even the frontal turret armour is only between 550-600mm RHA equivelant vs kinetic, as it was beaten by thr M1A1 HA in British tests, and that even the production version has only 650mm RHA equivelant according to Swedish tests. This means the 75 ton, underpowered beast of a tank is actually considerably LESS protected than a 68 ton, full equipped Leopard 2E, A7, or STRV 122, which also have superior firepower and mobility. Hmmm.... Let's hope the new turret brings the armour values up to suitable modern standard.
@@komradearti9935 Didnt know that about the 2E... damn. Spain is cheap though. Point about Challenger 2 still stands. Armour is massively overrated. People act like blocking 13 RPG 7 hits is impressive. Nope.
placeholder The weight of the Leopard2 A7V ( despite being fitted for, as already the A7) is also the reason why the side protection elements were not added. A new drive train and final drives were added, to improve the mobility and to support a combat weight of 70 to and more. But before the maximum power output of the engine will be improved by 150-200kw, these side protection elements will not be added. And I also heard rumors, that for a possible A8 upgrade, there are plans for addressing the ground pressure problem ( A7V already more than 10N/cm2).
Your channel is great, keep it up 🥰
The massive amounts of armor doesnt really do that much when the tank has giant weakspots in the middle of the front. The mantlet and driver hartch openening are huge compared to similar tanks. So a centermass hit will probably result in a pen on a tank that sacrificed everything for armor protection.
Problem is no one has so far managed to destroy one of these. Even when they know it has these weaknesses
@@RR-us2kp Cause it fights under equipped and untrained guerillia and countries that aren't the 4th in the world when it comes to military spending. Also 2 were lost and one was a mission kill. 1 to incorrect ammunition storage during a training excercise, one to an ied and one to a RPG26 a light anti tank weapon.
@@hungryhedgehog4201 last 2 are not true. It wasn't destroyed by an ied or rpg. It was damaged. But it managed to return to base on its own power. The driver was wounded. Only loss during a mission was due to a friendly fire incident from another challenger 2 tank. Ammunition storage issue didn't destroy the tank. 2 crew members died. Other 2 were injured. Tank survived. So like I said, no one has managed to destroy one except another challenger which shot during an open hatch. Compare that to Russian, US and German tanks that were lost during the past years.
@@RR-us2kp It's not very impressive...like what the previous commenter typed. It hasn't faced off against substantial opponent's. Now it will be deployed to Ukraine, where every tank we can imagine has been destroyed, abandoned or captured. It can't pass over certain bridges in Ukraine due to weight and it'll most likely get stuck in Ukraine's mud.
the lower plate "weakness" is a video gamers myth. CR2 is always supposed to be fitted with modular front armour in battle. in fact the front modular armour was built before the tank went into production.
the barrel life isnt really an issue as it is chrome lined and made with electro slag refined steel and even then they are good for 400 full charges but they will get a lot more than 400 as training ammunition which is the most commonly used is lighter and uses much less powerfull propellant. plus there with the fleet being reduced by 40% their are plenty of spares to cannibalize and of the 446 made they would have been a lot of guns made. and the one of the advantages of 2/3 piece ammo is that you can carry more than 1 piece ammo. personaly i think the MOD should wait on the upgrade untill the 130mm Rheinmetall Rh-130 L/51 is ready and design the turret around that and give it a new powerpack and its back to being one of the best again like it was when it was first introduced
If you're designing a new turret to fit a bigger and heavier gun, with the engine no doubt needing to be upgraded due to the heavier weight, it would be cheaper to just buy a new tank.
roryforham If the Challenger 2 will get a 120mm smoothbore gun and a new turret, that will be the Rh-120mm L-55A1 gun able to sustain higher gas pressure. In connection with the new DM73 (still under development) round, the armour penetration capability should be enhanced by at least 20% compared to the combination of the old L-55 gun and the DM63 round. At least according to Rheinmetall.
*" MOD should wait on the upgrade untill the 130mm Rheinmetall Rh-130 L/51 is ready and design the turret around that"* kzhead.info/sun/fZyMkcOpZH6waZ8/bejne.html Yes, it's a chally hull
There is already a Challenger 3,hence Ukraine has the Challenger 2, and I don't understand what all the hassle was with the Leopard 2 when Germany has the Leopard 3.
The Challenger unlike other western tanks has not been destroyed by hostile action and now its protection is even better. It has also has the record for the longest tank on tank kill at over 4,300m, with a older gun than s fitted now. It does not use two piece ammunition but uses three piece, do your research! Which as a ex-crewman I have used. Though I am not an expert on tank guns and ammo I can see not reason why suitable modifcation could not be made to either to obtain greater penetration.
Against a t55 are you proud of that? And challenger 2 only faced outdated tanks like t55 and t72m1 so no the combat history doesn't prove nothing
Where would you like your ass sat in? Me...I will always referer to be sat in Chally 2. Most survivable and ergonomic for the crew. Crews make tanks, not Tanks on thier own.
I’ll probably choose abrams with tusk upgrade even though I prefer Russian tanks normally
Anthony Gadway I’m with u and mobility is solid
You are forgetting the most important fact. The tank just 'looks' bloody amazing, as if it really means business. Its presence on the battlefield should give any potential enemy the shaking colliwobbles. The Brits are coming!
meh.. they just copied the abrams. i heard the armor used is similar.
For experienced enemy looks mean nothing
@@usaisthebestiockdownpoiice816 well the armor they both use was designed by the brits so, maybe the other way around?
Wow people really didn't like 'USA is the best's comment... In all seriousness though, the UK didn't just design the armour the Americans used, but also made a special version of the Chieftain to wear it into battle. But they got rid of that in favour of the MBT 80 then the Challenger 1 MK3
Initially, the Abrams had the British 105mm L7 as well as British Chobham armour. It retains that armour to this day.
Wait for the smoothbore 130mm gun with improved turret and hull to go in to production
Considering that tanks have always spent most of their time hurling big f*** off lumps of high explosives at enemy soldiers, one could argue that the gun the Challenger 2 has is superior (in the majority of cases) to the smoothbore ones on practically every other nation's tanks... And accuracy is ammunition type dependent... Rifled guns are MORE accurate when firing HESH (which is more useful more of the time... Like when you don't just want to blow the bloody doors off, but demolish their building entirely) Fair enough, they might be worse for tank-on-tank combat, but that has been rather rare recently. The problem is, people get a narrow view playing games like war thunder where everything is a very artificial engagement. The new smoothbore will probably be an overall positive, especially in maintenance, but it doesn't come without some drawbacks, which many forget.
It seems to me that in its fully loaded combat set-up, C2's main weakness is the lack of HP from the engine. I wonder how ,much impact this actually has in combat given that its unlikely you'll be using full speed all of the time and terrain protection is probably more important. The tank commanders lack of a thermal night imager is probably more critical in practice. More recently the shorter length of C2 CHARM sabot rounds has become a growing issue as protection is improved on the most modern Russian tanks. Since WW2, British tank doctrine has always placed firepower and protection above absolutely speed. I don't see this changing. It seems to me that the mid-life upgrade programme will probably fix the munitions issue and modernise the turret electronic systems (plus add active protection alongside passive IED protection systems already in use). They may well also fix the engine issue at the same time.
nuking russia and wiping them out is also an option.
Challenger 2 does have hydrogas suspension, a 6 speed transmission and a GUE working in conjunction with the main engine, so in reality its mobility in many respects is very good. Fact of the matter is the M1 Abrams, CR2 and Leopard 2 series have received countless armour and firepower upgrades but no mobility upgrades at all which indicates mobility was overly prioritised in their design. CHARM 3 L27 has already been superceeded by the new longer L28 round. Performance isn't the issue with the main gun, it's more down to economy of scale. If the MOD spent £200m developing new rounds for the rifled gun their entire market would be limited to 150 Challenger 2's. If they swapped to smoothbore their potential market is exponentially larger.
In the 80's, when NATO was rolling out the new Armour, a study analysis of various exercises in Germany found that the faster tanks suffered a higher rate of loss. This was due to them running into unseen opposition positions at speed, and thus placing themselves at a tactical disadvantage of being - a) Surprised. b) A lot closer to the enemy than they would care to be. Such closeness effectively reduces their armour protection. Central European terrain tends to have a lot of trees, bushes, hills and shitty weather. Lots of ways to drive into a ambush or enemy tank column without realising it. LOL. There is a lot to be said about slow and thoughtful in war. Interestingly the Israeli's also prefer protection over speed, and they also know a thing or two about Armoured warfare.
@@agt155 L28 projectile? Care to elaborate as I've been teaching CR2 gunnery for 9 years and been a commander for 6 and this must be a round that only you can see as an L28 round I've never heard off...
@@andys7314 I believe the new turret design fixes that issue on both the BAE and the Rheinmetal design. I guess we'll find out more about the combined design fairly soon.
You cant really compare the Abrams engine with the challenger 2s as the abrams has a much different turbine engine whereas the cr2 has a diesel
I went into this thinking I would be annoyed at you. but, honestly... this was fair and accurate 😂
The cheap carbon rubber mud flaps are bent 90 degrees round the metal mud guard which means the expansive and compressive forces cause them to crack after about two weeks at the bend. The no step heat shield over the apu exhaust requires a step above, costs a lot of money to keep replacing them. The push nuts on drivers seat should have been a drilled hole with washer and split pin. Side light design allows water ingress when the vehicle is jet washed. Marriage panel should be a bolt on plate to allow easy replacement of south-down sockets. Proposed quick release fuel hose mod should have been implemented, fuel/ oil filter guard and apu socket guard makes access difficult so squaddies throw them away !
I always think a Challenger 2 tank is a sniping and defensive tank.
CIA that’s because it’s mainly based off of that doctrine, too be hard as nails and to hold out until overwhelming reinforcements can arrive
it should be at least according to doctrine it was designed for
CIA , challenger 1 was very offensive in the gulf war
@@fanfeck2844 Iraq was very cucked then
@@fanfeck2844 except they were only fielded in areas T-55s and T-62s were located, the upper brass kept them away from fighting the T-72s which were only ever engaged by M1A1s and USMC M60A1s (as revealed in recently declassified documents)
But wat u fail to say is this wat ever problems the Charlie 2 has it's still the best protected tank on the planet nothing even comes close
The longest range tank on tank kill in combat. Survivability is legendary. Took several RPG hits and still returned to service. Longer range gun and first shot kill. Tactically they could use it in a combined role. Similar to how the allies used the upgunned Shermans, like the firefly, in ww2.
yeah thats alot of mystification. Longest range tank on tank kill is by now a T-64BV from Ukraine hitting and destroying a T-72B3 with HE-FRAG on 10+km. Also Challenger 2 didnt do the kill you are talking about, that was Challenger 1. They hit a T-55 with the third shot. The L11A5 or L30A1 dont have longer range. in fact, they have equal or shorter effective range to the RH120 L/55 gun, due to lower possible maximum chamber pressure, higher friction in the barrel and lower muzzle velocity. Plus they need a more complex sabot for the APFSDS, because the Rifling of the gun has to be neutralised (because rifling does NOTHING for APFSDS rounds in best case, without rifling neutralisation you basicly throw your APFSDS sideways at the enemy) Challenger 2 took primarily RPG-7WN and WR and RPG-29 recoilless Rifle, Penetration capability is between 400-700mm. That is not enough to penetrate CR2´s frontal armor (with exception of the lower frontal plate) or side armor. Its like throwing waterballoons at a car and claiming it is indestructeble. Other modern MBT´s with similar armor to CR2 (Leopard 2A4 and M1A1) have been hit with ATGM´s with 1000+mm penetration and tandem warheads. They didnt look very well afterwards. (That would be the brick you throw at the car)
@@zhufortheimpaler4041no way in hell he-frag could destroy a T-72 at 10 km that’s impossible
@@mbtenjoyer9487 yes its possible. HE-FRAG has enough penetration to punch through the turret roof armor of a T-72. Thats what happened.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 nope
@@mbtenjoyer9487 yeah, the ukrainians used a drone for fire correction. nobody says it was a first round hit. And considering that HE-Frag fired from a 125mm gun has alot more than 50mm penetration and the T-72 Roof armor is less than 3cm monosteel without ERA or composite armor.... There is even video footage of that event
Wasn't the 2 piece ammunition made in the UK - and production was stopped few years ago?
Don’t know why people get obsessed about tank stats, when no tank has come up against a comparable tank in battle for years. The U.K. is an island and will only use tanks as support in a coalition with others in mainland Europe, and as in the gulf war, air power will do the heavy work.
Air power cant hold ground
Fanfeck agreed. During the invasion of Iraq the Bradley claimed more tank kills with its TOW missiles than the M1 did... beautiful creations though they are, MBTs are a dying bread. Modern infantry portable munitions can defeat even the toughest heaviest composite armours and in a post-cold war climate no western nations wants to invest in really modernising tanks.
@@RandomNickyDee2 ADS would like to have a word with you.
@@Burner.Account.. Unfortunately we've seen systems like ADS fail throughout history. Battleships are a great example, where developments in AA technology couldn't keep up and mitigate the risk posed by aircraft. I think much like surface warships, we are probably moving into an era where the days of the ultra-heavily armored 70-ton, 120mm main gun MBT are done. We're probably now looking at a future where larger volumes of cheaper/more disposable units armed with systems like TOW are the direction of travel.
@@RandomNickyDee2 basically t-34 with tow missiles?
75 tons? This video made me respect the all-around-super-protected 50 ton T-84 Oplot that much more. It owes it to the revolutionary, yet crammed, T-64 design. Made for one swift short-lasting strike at Fulda Gap.
t84 protection is not on the same level
The best Tank channel
For all fans of armoured vehicles read sniper one. The description of challengers and warriors, nearly 80 I believe, relieving an outpost is incredible!
Good analysis. I understood the lower glacis was rather underprotected (due to being designed for hull down fighting), but did not consider the length of APFSDS being limited by 2 part ammo. Engine and weight concerns all valid too. Also the rifled gun requires that the APFSDS needs to be countertorqued by driving band to aviod spinning for accuracy to be maintained, another reason to replace gun with smoothbore.
He forgets to add that war thunder is insanely unbalanced and infested with top rank premium vehicles that are plenty better than standard vehicles
well yeah... its an advertisement not his opinion on the game...
@@britbong1457 well then its false advertising if he doesnt add one of the main flaws of the game
@@vocatusk407 lol no that's not how that works
@@britbong1457 he doesnt advertise the full experience of the game
@@vocatusk407 he doesn't advertise the full experience because its not a video on fucking warthunder lmao, a lot of game ads don't show the "full experience".
I do believe they are upgrading to smooth bore as well
Really should just go for challenger 3 with all titanium alloy construction either laser welded or just milled from a single piece... at least 130mm main gun with an autoloader at the back of the turret feeding off 2 dismountable protected magazines I'm thinking of about 1500 mm of rod length... clip on hard kill modules... adapting armour... fully cooperative attack capacity... hard counter targeting ability... and a lot more..... so what this will cost 60 mil gbp per unit... we only need a few 100s BTW challenger was a ww2 tank.. you know that Cromwell hull with a 17pdr so the numbering is off already
What, but I've been told by my British friends that this tank literally has no weaknesses, and that everybody should use it because it's invincible :(
Everybody thinks their tanks is the best in the world and will steamroll other tanks. Although Challenger 2 is not the best, it certainly is a good modern MBT.
That's exactly what my American friends were just saying about the Abrams; what a coincidence.
Better than Abrahams
@@bluestingray8955 You know it's not better than the Abrams when you know so little about it that you don't know it's name.
@@t1e6x12 oh boo hoo I spelt it wrong gonna cry?
The engine certainly needs an upgrade and its a shame that such an advanced suspension system does not provide the full benefit that it can because of that. Whilst it's not the quickest in a straight line the Cr2 seems the best at navigating obstacles due to the hydrogas suspension. Slap a 1500hp in the thing and it would be even more of an offroad monster.
What do you think of the PT-17 Polish tank?
Please just remember all of it is thought about and everything is planned to fit to a strategy. I agree with you on all of this however it has all been thought about.
Now do a 2 hour video on what's wrong with the abrams 🤣 The Chally 2 is the best tank in the world, has the longest confirmed kill in the world and has never been destroyed by the enemy. 👍
Not being deployed makes that pretty easy lol
@@David-eh9le they've been deployed everywhere a Abrams has
Never been destroyed by an enemy TANK, things like rpgs and IDEs did destroy them
@@cursedcliff7562 nope, your thinking of abrams. 1 only chally has ever been destroyed. google about a chally that took a shite load of RPGs and 2or3 Anti tank rockets like a boss and was still fine.
Djordje Oljaca CR2 in Iraq lost a track and spent a whole day getting pounded by insurgents with RPGs and small arms from point blank range and they barely scraped the paint of the Challenger 2. The crew just sat there drinking tea until the REME salvage turned up.
Are those on the side turret of Challenger 2 thumbnail exposed composite armour?
No.
No, it's thermal fast identification panel
@@507rcc7 what does those do?
@@VladislavDrac I would image glow in a particular colour.pattern in IR to identify the tank as friendly for trigger happy flyboys. The US were particularly trigger happy in Gulf War 1 when they didn't recognise a US design.
@@nickbrough8335 okay thanks for thr info.
can you do the "how good is the TAM wich is the "tanque mediano argentino" or "how bad is the TAM"
I thought this tank is a beast lol I still like it.
It was a beast, but it's obsolete by today's standards. The British military wants to get the Leopard 2A7V, but some politicians don't want that. They want the turret and gun of the Leopard2 mounted on Challenger 2 chassis, with armor upgrades, new sensors and a new engine. That will cost more than just buying the Leo 2. The decision was postponed to 2021.
It is a beast.
Dude.... Matsimus.. If u read this... Pls. Dont be trigered. I love ur channel so much!. I know this is ur fav tank... But fact is the fact... So... Be patient
Same
So far i can remember Matsimus had similar critics in his video. The engine was one of his biggest points.
Fact is fact? This video is short just shows how little flaws there actually is. It's the most tested and reliable western mbt. Even nicholas Moran tank jesus thinks its world class lol
@@rayhan_2k841 indeed
@@rayhan_2k841 yeah what ever... I know the detail... The upgraded CR 2 WAS AMAZING! but the problem only the engine bruh. so dont take it to the heart...
I think the challenger's gunner thermal sight has some problems, I heard that it is not independently stabilized and have a hard connection with the main gun. so I think while using the thermal channel, the sight might not be properly stabilized.
Can you make a comparison video of arjun mk 2 from india and Challenger , bec I think there is lot of same problem
i remember when top gear called the smoothbore on the abrams inaccurate even tho it isnt
Ahhh, Jeremy's humour, although give it to him, rifling is more precise
@@davidfriend9042 no difference in accuracy as stated in video
@@kilmentvoroshilov2827 Rifling allows for more consistent accuracy
That top gear, not a military analysis show. It's a show with three pal fucking about with cars.
Rifling gives greater accuracy out to farther distances. The rheinmettal based main guns are having to use bigger main charges to achieve higher velocities to compensate which puts more wear on the main gun.
what? You want to tell me there are people that thinks that CR2 rof is lower than on other western tanks? Oh BTW nice video Red even for CR2 fanboy :D
I know you have to find something to highlight, Red, but the LFP is a bit of a reach! The 'incident' in 2006 involved the tank being hit by 10-15 tandem charge rockets. The damage wasn't enough to knock the tank out; in spite of serious injury to his foot the driver, Tpr Chance, managed to drive the tank over 2.4 km to safety. No tank is immune to enemy fire, but on that day, facing incredibly intense fire, I'm not aware of any that would have performed as well as the Challenger 2. As for 'taking a while'? You say 2016 for the Dorchester upgrade, but questions asked in the House of Commons in 2007 were answered by a claim that the weakness had been addressed. British tankers called the interim upgrade 'streetfighter'. It was available in early 2007. On weight. Yes, with the full TES suite the tank weighs 75 tons. There's a price to be paid for being the heaviest armoured tank in the World! Having said that, the individual elements can be removed to lower the weight for bridge crossings if that's deemed to be a problem. You seem to have 'mobility' and 'speed' somewhat confused. The Challenger 2 is slower than tanks of similar size, but battlefield mobility is not only about speed. The hydrogas suspension allows better traverse across country, compared to, say, torsion bar (which also takes up valuable space within the vehicle). Challenger is geared to climb impressively well and has a high reverse speed. On the mud or climbing slopes, (where it counts!), the Challenger is often faster than other Western designs that have a much higher road speed. Rifled guns vs smoothbores is a fun topic. It's fair to say that the 120mm rifle the British use has seen it's day. However, it is still capable of dealing with all known battlefield threats and it's getting upgraded to the Rhinemetal L55 120mm smoothbore as soon as funds allow. The engine could do with more power, but it's unfair to just write it off with a one liner about Abrams being better. The big diesel is more reliable and less thirsty than the American turbine design. Again, there's an upgrade inbound. (HAAIP). In spite of all that, I really enjoyed the video and others in the series. Keep up the great work!
Cool thumbnail dude!!!
is it just me or does the story of the challenger 2 sound awfully similar to the story of the L85
Not really. Crews love their Chally's. First up, No Challenger has been destroyed in action. Minor Damage yes but repairable. Then there is the Gun - all Gun technology has ageing issues especially regarding improved target protection, be it the gun power or ammo. Technology moves on. But while Red suggests that smooth is more accurate, he should also throw in that the Chally Rifle has the longest range Combat Kill on record. Mobility is less of a issue for the UK. The Uk prefers Protection over speed. There was a study analysis carried out in the 80's when NATO was fielding all their new tanks back then, and that in large scale exercises In central European terrain - the front line of the expected war - It was found that the faster tanks ended up dead a lot quicker than the slower ones. Why ? Well the conclusion was that the crews ran their tanks - though accidentally - into the unseen enemy positions far closer than was tactically wise. It seems Commanders were too busy speedily motoring along, with a sense of gaining ground, and forgot to ask what was behind the next corner/hedge line/wood/ hill crest etc. There is a lot to be said about slow and methodical in war.
Further more I am a CR2 commsnder(well I was until I left in December) so after 14 years on the vehicle and also a a CR2 gunnery instructor I can, tell you now the only thing wrong with CR2 is, the thermal and night vision capability in which RBSL are working on...
why are you suppressing food from the public - upgraded ? Fair enough. But wasn’t really the case with the first issued rifles.
@@SerinaDeMadrigal not when they first came into service
Stephen _ that’s then this is now
Remember when Russia 🇷🇺 blew a 3-1 lead to Canada 🇨🇦 at the 2020 World junior hockey championship Pepperidge farm remembers
Hmm
What's the name of the ending music?
Challenger 2 with 74 ton *Arrived* Bridge : *You shall not Pass*
Brits love the HESH.
Chalenger 'll holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill.
So? Other countries just dont use tanks for that because they arent stuck in the 40s
dave well if we can hit you while we are not in range of you our chances improve
@@David-eh9le You do realise that tank on tank combat is extensively fought at long distance...
@@Samthebritishgent every modern MBT can hit at that distance...
@@a39tortoise40 its not. Because tankcombat with modern MBTs nearly doesnt happen anymore. Tanks arent used to fight other tanks. Its not WW2
I'm pretty sure that the LFP composite block has been available since 2009, as there are a number of photos of CR2s from 2009 carrying it (just search "Challenger 2 2009" on Images). I suspect it hasn't been shown off that much since the Chally 2 simply hasn't seen much combat since then. collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=2014-09-26-67
should have spoken about the weird hole in the upper front plate. (if you pay attention on challenger's (both 1 and 2) hull design, instead of using an more conventional and secure like they did on centurions and chieftains, they made something weird )
Loading two piece main armament was EASY. After loading the first round you had the first part in your arm before the gun fired. In Canada, on the move, we fired 8 rounds in the minute and then 6 rounds a minute for next 3 minutes. On a still vehicle our loads could have the gun ready 6 seconds after firing. With single part rounds you have to get rid of a casing before you can load
Now at 2.52 into this video .. So he's now trying to compare smooth bore ammunition with rifled bore ammunition Isn't it funny how he says, its a negative about the lack of ammunition stowage space however CR2 is capable of holding more ammunition than the leopard, abram and le clerc....
Just a quick question regarding 2:53: What exactly do you mean with "western counterparts"? That usually refers to tanks like the Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger 2 and Leclerc when talking about Russian tanks. Shouldn't it be "its western colleagues" or something like that?
Even though the nations are in a mutual alliance, since you are comparing the vehicles directly, they are counterparts in such hypothetical competition.
@@janchovanec8624 Counterparts yes, but not "western" counterparts. At best you could talk about its "German/French/etc. counterpart". Maybe "continental" counterparts, though that'd then exclude the Abrams and include the menagerie of Russian/Ex-Soviet vehicles.
The lowerfront plate isn't as bad as people make out it is always fitted with extra armour and the fact that a rpg 29 which would make mincemeat out of most tanks penetrated it and only broke the drivers foot is actually impressive the ammo stowage also works very well there was an incident on a range where there was a breech explosion inside the turret and not a single piece of ammunition was set off. Mobility is a good point but it is still agile can can keep up cross country with much smaller and faster vehicles(its actually faster on rough ground than cvrt) the armament is an issue that was inevitable bit originally they most likely planned to replace the tank by now but thats expensive:/
RPG-29 would have trouble penetrating Leopard 2 or M1´s lower front plate. thats the point. Both Leopard 2 and M1 have composite armor with HEAT Protection in excess of 700mm penetration on their lower frontal plate, while Challenger 2 only has 60mm steel and later a 20cm composite block (wich adds about 400mm protection vs HEAT)
Challenger 2 why you be so thick. 75 tons?
Warthunder realistic. Wahahahaha! Always start your video with a good joke.
I find the pictures of the knocked out tanks out of order men i knew were kill in them bang out of line
Exactly what I thought.
The only people that have a problem with the rifled gun are enemy tankers. Doesn’t make it more accurate? Yet that rifled gun has the record for the longest tank to tank kill.