Why Doesn't Any Country Buy the Challenger 2 Tank? The Problem is Just One Detail
The Challenger 2 was built in the 1990s in Great Britain as a main battle tank. It is equipped with modern electronics and is one of the most protected in the world, and in addition - it was from it that the longest shot in the world was fired. The crew of a Challenger managed to hit an enemy tank and destroy it at a distance of more than 4 kilometers.
So it's not such a bad tank, huh? But why then doesn't any country in the world want to buy it? What makes the Challenger 2 tank so different from the Abrams tank, the Leopard 2, or the Russian T-72 and T-90 tanks? All of these tanks are widely purchased around the world. The British Challenger 2 tank has a number of shortcomings, but its biggest problem is only one (!) part. Because of it, no one wants to buy a British tank! What is this part? Find out in this episode!
Hi there, I would just like to point out a couple of errors, having served on both Challenger 1 & 2's. Technically Challenger has 3 piece ammunition. A carry over from Chieftain. Underneath the breech you will find a removable magazine that resembles a rifle magazine but larger. This accommodates specially converted 0.50 calibre empty cases filled with gunpowder, each magazine holds 10 cases. So when the main armament is fired the firing pin hits the case which in turn burns the bag charge to then send the shell on its way. My second point is that British Tank Crews usually stay together on one vehicle for up to 2 years and so they make a formidable team. A good crew can achieve 9 rounds a minute under battlefield conditions. Having worked with both the Americans & the Germans and observed how their crews operate they can manage only 7 rounds with one piece ammunition! And that is under optimal conditions.
I'm so sorry, but the firing rate of the Leopard 2 is about 10 rounds a minute. The main advantage of Leo 2 and Abrams is their ability to use more specific rounds, also from other manufacturers, like the LAHAT from Israel.
I have personally seen an Abrams loader load a shell in under 5 seconds...
as I said a sht tank. 3 piece ammunition in 2020? FFS Cockerill have a two-man auto-loading smooth bore 120mm turret- it would be the first thing to replace on this underpowered shtheap. Challenger failed trials after trials after trials. The only advantage it has over a T72M is faster reverse. and Russia isn't going to btch and whine when you use it against paid armed separatists. The only thing worth buying from UK now is suspension advice from Timoney (yes we know it's in Ireland for the Dutch-Irish tax sandwich) Starstreak, the FNSS platform they (BAe Defence Systems joint stock company with Rheinmetall) working on in Turkey and arguably Arrowhead although Mogami seems to be a superior ship. New unmanned drones look interesting though the Germans probably make a better one.
The Challenger 2 tank just beat all NATO tanks and won the prize for the best NATO tank😉
@@azzajames7661 that's not exactly an achievement. And the foreign sales are...? Non existent. It's slow, ponderous, heavy the Churchill tank of WW2 today with a less useful gun..
Weapons of the UK - longest tank kill, longest sniper kill
The main reason no one except Oman bought Challenger 2 mainly two reasons, one it was built at a time when not many countries were buying tanks and two is because Challenger 2 is very much custom made for British army doctrine. The ammunition is not slower to load than one piece ammo because the projectile and charge weigh less, can be lap loaded and is more readily accessible. It does however limit its armour penetration performance in the long term. But it must be noted that tank engagements in combat are rare and that high explosive based projectiles are used more. This is where HESH has shown its strength. Its blast performance and range are excellent.
Oman has Challenger 1s. Not 2s.
@@mikeycraig8970 Wrong, they indeed have 38 Challenger 2 main battle tanks. They are slightly different from the British ones they are still Challenger 2s.
@@qasimmir7117 Well that's something I didn't know then, they'll be Challenger 2Es then (export version) they do have 400 Challenger 1s though the got from HM Government for free, they're updating to Leo 2 s now, so if they got those tanks for free (obviously it wasn't free FREE, there was a dodgy handshake of some sort) then they could hand them over to the Ukraine.
Oman has the 30 plus ch2 and its Jordan that has 400 ch1 which they no longer want or use it seems, shame we can't buy them back , upgrade them or turn the hulls into ifv like merjeva tanks :)
@@TheRst2001 I knew it was one of those countries. Am I also right in thinking (I heard it somewhere, can't remember where) they were GIVEN them but the British government? As mentioned above, I think there would've been some sort of deal done, I can't see John Majors (that's how far back we're talking) would just give them away for free. At least I hope not.
The Germans and French offer the best back handers to buyers
And Wristies 🧘
No superior technology transfers and no whining about how to use it.
True the Leclerc tank is probably the best tank on the market ..
Oh yeah!!!.
@@sebastienleblanc2708 Its armor is sus. Also several years before Ukrainian war happened, French came to Ukraine to train with Ukrainians, and Ukrainian ground wrecked havoc with its tracks.
Little willie was the first tank ever built by the British in 1915....yes brits invented the tank!🙂
And the Germans beat them horribly, ecxelled and out performed them in every military field of technology since. Panzerbuchse was a cheap anti-Mark IV weapon as was a stick grenade or a field howitzer. Yes they may have lost the war- but who won the peace? Germany's the powerhouse of Europe. UK? Not making friends by telling people how to rule themselves while very publicly not doing a thing about swivel-eyed lunatic Saudi Arabia.
I ve always thought that,but really the first "real" tank that conforms to modern design was the little Renault FT
@@stevenbreach2561 well we know how badly the French were defeated in WW1 to require UK to assist. French population did not recover until 1960- tragic- to die for idiot Serbia Gavrillo Princip and his Freemsaon Black Hand anti-monarchists.
@@stevenbreach2561 true but the commander had to do 3 tasks.
@@markiobook8639 Par for the course for the French!!!!!
they use rifled barrels because they wanted to b able to use hesh rounds . also they were custom made for british army doctrine , but if they're so bad why have they just won the nato tank comp
It just beat every other Tank that NATO use in this year's NATO Tank competition! It also holds the record for taking around 70 hits from RPG's and still drove away
Yes that is true
and it has tea making facilities.
And the British invented the Tank
@@trevorsomers8344 And the Germans invented a cheap oversize rifle to kill it. Rudyard Kipling: A scrimmage in a Border Station- A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail. The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride, Shot like a rabbit in a ride! No proposition Euclid wrote, No formulae the text-books know, Will turn the bullet from your coat, Or ward the tulwar's downward blow. Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can The odds are on the cheaper man." Wonder why they like to ban proper English literature in school?
Ill tell you guys what. You give me 1 RPG7 and i will shoot it in the engine and this tank will be just as dead as all the others. Dont step in the bullshit.
My father worked for 37 years as a fitter where these tanks were made. Unfortunately the factory closed down many years ago. That's the reason why nobody can buy any.
Vickers on the Tyne Ioved watching them drive out a build/rebuild was one of the reasons I joined up in 99.
UK tanks have always been sh it unfortunately 😢
@@bastogne315😂so who first invented the Armour on the Abrams😂
🇬🇧 tank’s historically have been “specialised” and shit in many ways, but the challenger program has clearly put that to bed.
Rheinmetall- BAe is doing the renewal.
No other country knows how to operate the most important device the boiling vessel 😂 The tank is designed and built to defend and protect the boiling vessel at all cost, the heart and soul of the British Empire.
Absolutely! The British Secret Weapon!!
The interesting thing about people buying the Challenger is that after the First Gulf War the Kuwaiti government wanted to buy Challenger and placed an order for several 100, but the US said to them "you can buy Challenger tanks - and the US will withdraw its forces from defending your nice, newly reclaimed nation. Or, you can cancel the contract and buy Abrams tanks - and we will retain US forces locally to protect Kuwait." So the first major buyer of Challenger decided not to go ahead with the purchase. The same may well have happened on other occasions.
There has been more than a few instances where the US has threatened other countries with no support if they bought the C1 or 2.
Proving that US is not really UK's friend, just a bully that cares not for British power nor it's independence.
The Americans and their shite modern aircraft. The S92 is a pig to operate and the F-35 took too long because the Americans have too many military air wings
"Problem" is the wrong word to use as it implies the Challenger 2 has inferior capabilties. This of course is not true. Tha Challenger 2 has an exceptional main gun that unfortunately is not NATO standard. If any crew wants to survive an enemy attack then the Challenger 2 is the tank for that.
Instead of "problem" it might be better to say " best fit" with regard to usability when talking flexibility with ammo and maintenance of rifled barrel. It's a great tank that has support and supply "problems".
Depends on what the attack is. If Ukraine is any indication, artillery kills any and all tanks on the battlefield, be it T-64/72/80/90, Leo-2A6 or whatever else. If those NATO tanks carry HE-FRAG or HESH ammo in decent amounts and it's hit in the ammo rack with a modern round, that thing will send the turret up the same way Soviet-era tanks do.
If the barrel was so excellent why is Challenger 3 upgrade being fitted with Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore L55? If UK technology was so good- why is Challenger 3 upgrade going to use French SAFRAN sights? It is a tank along the same lines as the Covenanter. Looks impressive but that's it. Woefully slow, hopelessly overweight, hideously underpowered.
No, it won't HESH is High explosive squash head you dunce, everything Russian has spall lining, and everything has ERA Kontakt which is excellent thirdly, Challenger 3 upgrade will be the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore in L55 - an open admission of the total stupidity and waste of resources on a useless gun and obsolete WW2 ammunition @@Max_Da_G
Hahahaha. It was never really tested until in Ukraine, and 2 sent out and 2 have been destroyed.
It is now becoming obvious how good the Challenger 2 is. Unfortunately the UK establishment decided to have an order famine of British armoured vehicles for thirty years so domestic suppliers and their UK based supply chain disappeared. Other countries (France, Germany, USA, Japan, Italy ... ) carefully nurtured their armoured vehicle industry so that their domestic suppliers survived. So the real question is why did the UK develop what is arguably the best tank in the world thirty years ago and then simply allow its domestic armoured vehicle industry (tank builders, gun development, engine suppliers, steel makers, electronics suppliers ...) to disappear. Assembly plants for overseas manufactured tank kits don't count as a domestic armoured vehicle industry. Much the same has happened with the rest of the UK's defence industrial base with the remaining UK aerospace companies recently being sold to US owners. BAE and RR have quietly closed down most of their UK operations and are mostly overseas based. Some day the historians will write it all up. Just like the Roman Empire, the UK collapsed from within.
Even before watching the video, i can name atleast 4 reasons for "why nobody buys (correct: bought. The tank isn't produced any more and thus not available for purchase anyway) the Challenger 2". - It's barrel is rifled, and thus loses a whole lot of it's AP-potential - It's ammunition is modular, with projectiles and propellant being seperate, thus increasing logistics demands. - It's armor is a matter of military confidentiality; which in return means that export versions would have been equipped with a downgraded version to prevent theft. - It is equipped with a tea pot. Outside Britain, people prefer coffee. Oo
At the very beginning I read it with full seriousness, but the last point destroyed all seriousness))
Yes we don't make them anymore. The rifled gun is indeed unique to the challenger 2 and does have a major advantage over smoothbore variants. It can engage enemy tanks further away. Also it has just won some kind of competition involving Abrams,. leopard and leclerc tanks. Testimony to the brilliant 4 man crews they have and of course to the best tank ever built.
Couldnt agree more! Its better to be able destroy a tank before it can hit you, meaning you can engage more tanks than others. All UK has to do is sign licences with other countries to make rifled ammo....
They are shifting over to smootbore on version 3, luckily. The l55 from Leopard 2. Much easier for NATO, when all NATO countries use the same ammo. Rifled gun have shorter life, while a little more precise
@@hyp77 And range
@@Dusty2feathers But smoot bore is the best choice all round. Leopard 2 have won all the competitions before last year. Challenger 2 is better protected and will have the same firepower as Leopard 2. My country chose the Leopard 2a7.While I wanted the k2 Black panther to be chosen.
"The rifled gun is indeed unique to the challenger 2 and does have a major advantage over smoothbore variants" The new ammunition used in smoothbored will most likely win over a rifled one due to the penetration capability.
Yes, you are quite right. Britain has now downgraded Challenger to carry the less effective populist smoothbore main armament. Other nations emphasise interoperability over perfection in seeking accuracy. The British however have always said 'who cares how quickly other tanks can reload if we can pick them off at 4.2km before they can fire back', unfortunately perfection costs more so we have to go the way of budget. A shame nobody else joined Britain in the pursuit of excellence.
Sorry Ivan , if you can take a tank out before it becomes a threat isn’t that better ? And the cost of shell or a barrel more important than the lives of the crews ?? And you are wrong , the challenger is the only tank not the be destroyed in combat
Not really my friend, smoothbore is a lot more effective right now, because your anti-tank round is now shaped more like a dart for maximum penetration (APFSDS rounds). That's why the Challenger can't use the same ammo as everybody else, the Challenger need ammo that does prevent the projectile from spinning. But you can use a HESH round with a rifled gun, which was better against targets with light armor, but now isn't anymore. In other words, a rifled gun makes your anti-tank rounds more expensive and complicated. And it allows you to fire HESH rounds, that were better somewhat better than the old HE rounds, but get outperformed from the modern HE rounds.
@@patrick3426also barrel wear is a factor
@@EmperorLionflame I think you guys are confusing the purpose of these two vehicles. The challenger was built heavily around infantry doctrine. So having a rifled barrel for hesh makes it perfect for that. Abrams on the other hand are more focused on destroying enemy armour, it still can do the job of a infantry support perfectly fine. It's like comparing apples and oranges both are fruit but are they the same?
@@EmperorLionflame I'm starting to think you are a teaboo because at this point with what you just stated it's not even worth debating as you keep stating "muh records" "muh long range capabilities" and just completely ignore everything else.
Here is some inaccurate things: 1. Slow reload - acttually the fastest reload and best safety for 4 crew members only Leclerc in NATO has best reload with 3 crew members 2. Rifled guns are on paper produce slower shells, but if you use the Coriolis effect in mind then you realise if someone has smoothbore guns that doesn t means he will have better range, also coriolis effect has impact on force on plate if you have minimum coriolis effect that means on longer range the SIN of F- force will almost the maximum. Rifled gun has bores it works like ribs on radiators better exchange of heat in this situation better chilling. The main reason is lack productivity in NATO for this standard of ammunition, and more expensive producing for this type doctrine. I wish you best from ancient Bosniak - Bosnian. Rule Brittania
well said - but hey, we should "never let the facts spoil a good story" as some say - certainly applies to this vid.
@@RockinRedRover Thank you on comment!! God bless you and I wish you best from Bosnia
@@RockinRedRover My comment on this video it is not about to insult admin or anyone else. I studied war doctrines from my childhood cause I coming from country which is attacked by Serbia directly and indirectly by their proxy army also mu grandfather, and my family served ex JNA Army in Belgrade, Nis as artillery man, radio decoders, tank drivers etc. I also learnt a lot of stuffs, especcially about british history, big part of world laughing on British, people literally understimate the british for example: They are doing so wrong in economy in front of europe, they think the are the smartest bla bla. History learnt us one thing - Never mess with Brits. They have own path of thinking. They respect other religions. If you look in history of Bosnia you can see that we had own church which was oposite to Vatican church same as England church, that is of main reasons when Ottomans liberated Bosniaks from Vatican crusaders then Bosniaks accept Islam. Mostly same thing with Brits, they never accept to be slave of anyone, they just wanted to live under god without foreign intereference. We are under one god. God bless you all.
Range and muzzle velocity depends on several factors: propellant energy, amount of propellant, projectile mass and projectile shape. Ballistics would be similar between rifled and non-rifled guns these days thanks to modern fire control systems. Rifled barrels with protruding rifling are more difficult to produce and thus more expensive than smoothbore ones. APFSDS ammo that's the most common anti-tank ammo in the western armies does work better with smoothbore barrels HESH round which is what demanded the rifled barrel to begin with is good against fortifications, but against enemy tanks with composite armor or that have ERA on them it's no longer effective from frontal hemisphere.
@@Max_Da_G hello!! I absolutely agree on that statement but smootbore guns generates much moore heat, and why British goverment use German company to switch guns instead good Brittish company Vickers etc? Rheinmetal surely has best smootbore guns maybe in te world but they should gain experience by Ukranians in counterofensive cause tank need to have good antipersonall capability with HESH round. Rheinmetall has sold a lot of licenses to USA etc. If they sell to British license that is different story then they should make transition. War demands sometimes old school doctrine without so much tech. I wish you all best.
This video misses quite a few interesting points. Chally prioritized infantry support capabilities over armour penetrating which has always been British doctrine. When the tank was being designed composite armour and ERA was rare and in their infancy so HESH rounds were more than capable of dealing with almost any conceivable target. The better long range accuracy and wider squash area provided by the rifled gun would make a Chally hull down in the crest of a hill devastating for enemy forces. However this capability came at a price APFSDS rounds had to be designed to counter the spin imparted by the rifling and friction in the barrel slightly reduced muzzle velocity which partially dictates the fin rounds armour penetration also resulting in increased barrel wear. With all near peer forces having some form of composite armour and wide availability of ERA the HESH round is far less effective and with the development of newer programmable ammo these compromises no longer make sense hence the smoothbore upgrade. But probably the biggest reasons Chally didn't sell are that it was expensive too heavy for most counties road infrastructure and arms deals are heavily political and people want to be America's friend much more the Britain's these days.
Also misses out the fact it WAS heavily marketed and failed. I am sure we can find some Chally 1 & 2 sales material from BAe Defence- complete with Chally 2 virgin never been penetrated Teaboo fantasy centrefold, "Oooh Chally 2-shisuta-chan your glacis is still so FIRM and so intact fop fop fop fop fop fop fop fop fopppity...
any one who has a nickname for it (chalky ) has a problem 😎
@@anthonymitchell8893 and anyone who doesn't know that almost all military equipment is given a nickname by the men who use it needs to read more before making themselves look stupid in public.
the infantry support focus is not really true. The L11 and its further developement the L30a1 120mm L/55 rifled guns were designed and intended as high powered, high velocity anti tank guns in their primary role. The thing is,that the UK missed out at about 45-50 years of tank main gun developement and ammunition developement. The UK still uses the 120mm rifled gun, because the Thatcher government 1 in 1979 canceled the advanced MBT-80 project, wich would have used a NATO compatible 120mm smoothbore gun, vetoed the aquisition and implementation of the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 smoothbore into Challenger 1 to cut cost and did the same thing with Challenger 2 almost a decade later, due to the same reasons. (cutting cost) With that the UK continued to use the 120mm rifled gun, wich was at the point of introduction of Challenger 1 already seriously outdated. That was 40 years ago... guess how outdated that thing is today
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 the MBT 80 project which was already massively over budget and no where near producing a working vehicle. The rifled gun was specifically preferred because a spinning HESH round spreads over a larger area on impact causing more spalling and internal damage to lightly armoured targets such as APC's and field fortifications by definition infantry support targets. I know it's trendy these days to hate everything remotely right wing and blame Thatcher for all the worlds evil up to and including the potato famine but her government got a lot of things right. For example they were the first UK government to make defence contractors responsible for cost overruns when they inevitability over promised then under delivered. This didn't completely fix the issues as quite a few companies went bankrupt without fixing their garbage products but at least the taxpayers got some value for their money.
Maybe the 'Incentives' offered by the American competition has some part of this?
The Challenger was originally developed by Vickers for the Iranian market pre Aiatollah. The tank was designed to be broader than those previously designed by Vickers because the restrictions of road & rail for use in the European theatre did not apply. When this market abruptly ceased the British government somewhat reluctantly compromised over the width restrictions & in order to maintain British manufacturing bought Challenger. I used to work with the retired senior manager of Vickers & from time to time we 'talked tanks'.
What about the Vickers the Indians bought- that god awful machine?
@@markiobook8639 was that the pre-WW2 Vickers which was the basis of British Army tanks in the interwar period?
@@pcka12 the light vickers? No the Vijayanta- Vickers Mark1
@@markiobook8639 'looking it up' it seems that post WW2 Vickers continued it's 'Private Venture' tank design & manufacture then became the owners of the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger lineage of tanks with privatisation although there were clear links all along with the Leyland engine being offered with that Vickers tank.
The Tanks in question were the Shir 1 and Shir 2,the Challenger 1 was basically a Shir 2 modified for use in Europe.If the Shah had stayed in power the British Tank Industry would be in a better shape than it is now.
Didn't it just win some competition out of all the other main battle tanks recently?? None are perfect but some are constantly competing on a high level, something to think about yeah
The challenger 2 not long ago won a competition of NATO tanks, so the Challenger won the war war games👏
I remember the Challenger1 losing a competition by a long way, yet it more than proved itself in Desert Storm.
@@amyntas97jones29Okay, show us the details of this?! If you can't prove it, it may be a mistake on your behalf😉 All the documents and research online suggests you are incorrect.
The Challenger has proven remarkable survivability as well as combat effectiveness. The leopard has been withdrawn from front line service in Ukraine due to high losses. Just because lots of people have bought them, it does not make them better.
Remarkable survivability when you never enter the ring to have punches thrown at you. It's why I've never lost a fight to Mike Tyson!
@limedickandrew6016 Do some research to stop yourself from looking silly, 😆 lol The Challenger 2 has been used by the British Army on operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Iraq, and has never experienced a loss at the hands of the enemy.
@@azzajames7661 I have done the research. One war, and two peace keeping operations. That is the CV of the Challenger II. Not very impressive. like I said, if you don't step into the ring, no one is going to hit you. And you can claim you've never lost a fight. It ain't me looking silly.
@@limedickandrew6016 Um, A total of 23 M1 Abrams were destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, but yet NO Challenger 1 or 2 have ever been destroyed in the same wars/battles. Also In one incident near Basra, one Challenger 2 was hit by Soviet-made RPGs around 70 times and still survived. Went back to base and was sent back out in the same day.
@@limedickandrew6016 P.s sadly you are incorrect and you are the one looking very silly😉 Keep it up👏
The main reason other countries don’t buy challengers is that they need a professional crew having spent 12 years in the Royal tank regiment leopard and Abraham’s are better suited to amateur crews which most countries use
Abrahams? Never heard of an Abraham tank.
Do not sell a tank thats perfect for your own country. Keep safe your secrets
I thought Challenger tank was already destroyed in Ukraine, what secret to keep?
Yep, in a "battle royale" of the various 3rd gen MBTs, the tank you'd want to be crewing would definitely be inside the chobham armour of the Challenger 2, staring down that most accurate of rifled gun barrels.
and being able to use the boiling vessel to make tea.
Dorchester armor
What missiles can it fire from a rifled bore?
@@Mishima505 essential kit, I even have one fitted in my offroad vehicle here now they are so useful/safe.
Do they still use boiler plate for the armour ?
It's because the steering wheel is on the wrong side!
Strange, an ammunition fire and explosion in a machine that uses two part ammo the charge of which is stored in containers that prevent them cooking off, the other part being a solid shell. I smell something is somewhat amiss with this report.
2:47 - T72: “Amateurs! AMATEURS! I serve in 44 countries!”
Comment about composite armour, challenger always had it, poor research
One often-overlooked fact about the Challenger is that it has its own tea urn fitted, so the crew can make a cup of tea whilst hitting a target 3 miles away. Cheers!
Clear evidence of cultural superiority!
Wasn't the upgrade to Challenger 2 adding a second tea urn? ;)
This dude would describe Ferrari as a failure because there isnt one on every driveway
I'm British and I thought this was a very reasonable and professional explanation of the lack of Challenger sales . I understand the problems now and that they are surmountable .
Wrong the challenger 1 was built for export originally, actually sold to Iran as the Shar but the unfortunate Iranian revolution occurred and the export order cancelled, and was then modified fo be the replacement for chieftain, and before you underestimate the British defence industry, just think about who actually runs the M1 Abrahams refurbishment and upgrade program, it’s BAE systems
Shir, not Shar. The Challenger was originally designed as an improved Chieftain (Shir 1 in Iranian service) as the Shir 2.
Yhea and now Rheinmetall does that for the Challenger lll
@@marius-arnoldpeper9228 not quite true actually. The Challenger III program is being undertaken by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land. which is a joint venture of Rheinmetall and BAe.
The rifled gun was retained because. HESH round, Storage and survivability if hit. Long range. The ammo was already in stock. Challenger 2 was much more than just an upgrade of chally1. The switch to smoothbore is mainly coz of NATO interoperability. So few British tanks are required now I doubt they could even supply many to an overseas customer. Logically a NATO standard MBT should exist. But there's very little room for logic in military procurement.
Why on earth do you think HESH has any advantage- its method of kill is spallation- which is nullified by anti-spall poly-aramid liners (Kevlar).
@@markiobook8639 Because as the Ukraine conflict shows that even with several thousand tanks on a battlefront, tank on tank is exceptionally rare. HESH is more effective against the majority of targets - bunkers, trenches, buildings.
@@elgentleman6259 Total rubbish. HESH will do nothing HE cannot do- HE striking something causes spallation. HESH does nothing if it strikes earth. HESH does nothing if it strikes a building- becaue it is High Explosive SQUASH HEAD- which means it does not enter the building then explode- which is the most effective form of destruction and killing- overpressure in a confined environment is the most devasting anti-personnel and anti-material means of destruction. Otherwise you would not have the US investing in ground penetrating bunker-buster ammunition- you would have the Americans spending years bombing the ground with idiotic Squash Head weapons which do NOTHING. If you'd actually been in the military you would know that. HEAT with shaped-charge monroe effect penetrator is a vastly superior weapon against bunkers- we've known that since world war two with the Panzerfaust and the bazooka.
The challenger 2s in the British army are being upgraded with the long version of the 120mm Rheinmetall gun and being predesignated challenger 3. It was the destructive nature of the HESH round that kept the rifled gun in service for so long. Tanks mostly shoot at things that aren't other tanks.
Isn’t this the tank that is burning in Ukraine now? 🔥
@@hugoramirez6698 yes it is. The crew all survived though.
@@SlappyTheElf Ohhh Bravooo!! Inmortals! 👏
Not immortal, just got really good armour things like blow out panels for the ammo and designed by an culture that values the lives of its soldiers. Unlike the Russian death traps like the T72 or T90 made by a culture that considers its people to be cannon fodder. Hopefully those Ukrainians who were crewing that tank will get another one so they can keep on killing orcs.@@hugoramirez6698
@@hugoramirez6698 Because it went over a mine. No tank can survive a mine. Still unbeaten in actual combat though 😂
I see a few reasons. One: it'd have the highest ground pressure possible since it weighs around the same as Abrams, but has only 6 wheel design. Two: gun and ammo. HESH round these days is only good against fortifications, but not against tanks since modern composite armor and ERA make it completely impotent. Rifled barrel is actually bad for APFSDS ammo since it's not supposed to spin in flight. Three: percieved reliability. During 90s when Chally-2 was made, Leo-2 had a lot more time under its belt, and a lot more models, so was a more refined design. Four: price. There are far more Abrams and Leo-2 tanks made for the manufacturing country than Challenger 2s, so easier to get them cheaper due to economies of scale. Fifth: politics. US and Germany were far more politically influential than Britain back during 90s when Chally was made.
HESH is actually a good all purpose High Explosive round, not just an excellent bunker buster. So no, it is not ONLY useful against fortifications, it is useful against any target against which you would use a general purpose HE round. HESH is not carried in British tanks for Anti tank purposes, they are carried as the general purpose HE round. The problem with the APFSDS ammunition for the rifled gun is NOTHING to do with the fact it is rifled. It is possible to get such rounds working well with rifled guns, the Challenger II does have such rounds after all. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact the Challenger II uses three piece rounds. In one piece rounds a simple way of increasing the mass (thus effectiveness) of the penetrator rods is to extend the rods further into the shell body where the charge is held. This increase the length of the rod, thus increases its mass. You cannot do that with three piece ammunition, which limits the potential length of the penetrator, thus reduces its mass, and its mass along with velocity that dictates penetration. The British are not moving to the smoothbore because they dislike the rifled gun, or think it is ineffective, they are doing it because of ammunition availability. Rounds for the rifled gun are expensive because only one gun uses them, rounds for the smoothbore are comparatively cheap (as much as tank main gun rounds are cheap). Also there are some modern, advanced rounds that are unavailable for rifled guns, possibly not because they would not work for such guns, but more likely because no one has bothered trying to make them for such guns because virtually no one uses them.
Where did you get your facts from as they are incorrect!
Seeing the British invented the tank they deserve to remain at the top
And how long was it before the Germans worked out they could completely destroy a complicated, expensive, often mechanically unreliable tank with a shot from a penny-apiece field howitzer?
They invented football as well, turns out doesn't mean much.
@@sapphyrus Again the Germans seem to beat them at that too
It's not just the gun, there are many reasons why nobody buys the CH.
Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land are upgrading the Challenger 2 to 3, it's a joint venture between the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems and Germany's Rheinmetall.
Makes sense since they created a spinoff joint venture called FNSS Turkiye to hide from their public their weapons industry. No criticism- UK-German joint ventures make good products like Tornado and Typhoon.
Have you heard of the Challenger 3 not to mention the Challenger 2 has the longest tank on tank kill of 5,000 meters that’s 3.1 miles.
Kornet costs $USD 150,000 and can penetrate 1200mm of RHA, 600+600 mm ERA tandem charge from 5-12000metre. The cheaper man wins. A scrimmage in a Border Station- A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail. The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride, Shot like a rabbit in a ride! No proposition Euclid wrote No formulae the text-books know, Will turn the bullet from your coat, Or ward the tulwar's downward blow. Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can The odds are on the cheaper man- Rudyard Kipling
The Germans had a tank kill at 4.1 kilometers in ww2. The tank was a Ferdinand, just because it can shoot far and take a hit did not make it the best tank.
In one incident near Basra, one Challenger 2 was hit by Soviet-made RPGs around 70 times and still survived.
Yeah, I heard about that as well. Absolutely legendary. Also, I love the fact that the Challenger 2 has a tea-making facility for the crew. I wouldn't be surprised if that is also stipulated as a must-have in the Challenger 3.
RPG7 rounds. be specific. None of them were tandem rounds otherwise the armour would have been defeated. There are more variants of RPG than single explosive projector- including stand-off rod and tandem charge.
@@markiobook8639 How about you look into it, as you are the one trying to argue the fact!
I have actually the Telegraph wrote this article- it's going to show your Waifu was a Meghan Markle- multiple penetrations never admitted to: "MoD kept failure of best tank quiet" by Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent 13 May 2007 • 12:01am. "The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier's foot and injured several others." "Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said he would challenge the government on why the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had apparently misled the public over the timing of the first incident in which the hugely robust defences of the Challenger had been breached. He said: "Obviously, no armour is indestructible and there is no doubt that the insurgents have increasingly sophisticated technology but it is important in maintaining public confidence that the MoD and the Government tell the truth to the -British public." The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull. The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons." Funny that.
Yes, the only Challenger 2 destroyed in combat was by another Challenger 2, whereas the Leopard 2 and Abrams have suffered TEN loses each in combat. Britain has been at the forefront of tank design since the Centurian, and a pioneer of composite armour (initially also used on the Abrams M1A1). The Changer 3 upgrades mean that it will be joining the Leopard and Abrams in using the same German smooth-bore cannon, but they’re all variations on a theme, keeping Challenger in the Top 5.
Think it was in Basrah when the challenger was hit and it was back in service a week later
Well of course there's only one challenger 2 that has been destroyed. The Abrams were deployed in the thousands and not hundreds. So trying to portray it as an invincible tank is I think, disingenuous. (I love the challenger 2 tho)
The factory that made them closed down years ago... and the chances of a new tank factory opening up in Britain are basically zero. When the army needs a new tank design or greater numbers of tanks, we won't be getting Challenger 4's. The mod will buy something made abroad. Sad but true.
I think it was in training not combat that one CH2 shot into the back of another CH2.
@@EmperorLionflame @EmperorLionflame not to detract from the tank itself, I am confident that any other tank could have done that record shot, it was just the challenger 1 that was given the opportunity to do so. Plus it wasn't the tank itself but the skill of the crew inside. Since, they had to manually lay the cannon because they had disabled the FCS because it wouldn't go that far. Considering the tank was shooting at a stationary target at near perfect weather conditions, any other tank at it's time would've been able to do it. ( Plus it got dunked on in the NATO trials)
Although yes the rifled cannon may have negative effects such as the lowered velocity and heightened recoil it largely makes up for this in accuracy. The rifled accuracy does decrease with apfsds rounds however does increase it none the less. The rifled cannon best helps the HESH and HEAT rounds in which the cannon fires. The main cause of the switch to the smoothbore on the challenger 3 is the more assessable ammunition and it allows for higher standardization in nato among other befits like the heightened velocity (range) and penetration capability.
Nothing to do with the FACT the Challenger 2 was never meant to be an export tank due to the fact the armor was so secretive that the Brits did not want to sell it and its secrets Oman being the only exception.
explain why they entered it into the Greek tank trials then
@@teatotal8822 That was the challenger 2 E it failed the trials and was never exported then the challenger 2 series was pulled from the export market. As I said it was never MEANT to be a export tank. As it was designed for what the British needed at the time not designed to be a multinational use system .
But were the leopard 2 and Abrams designed for export?? I can't find any evidence that they were. They were designed for the requirements of the West German Bundeswehr and US Army during the Cold War. I'm just confused because you make it a point to say that the CH2 wasn't designed for export, and thus sort of imply that other tanks such as the Leopard 2 and Abrams were perhaps designed for export, but that assumption is based on false premise.
@@teatotal8822 The M1 YankTank was DESIGNED to use a Yank turbine engine, a German Rhinemetall gun, and BRITISH "Chobham" composite armour. Note the armour, "Chobham". Britain upgraded from "Chobham" to "Chobam 2", aka "Dorchester". Even the Yanks didn't get that, as it was still classified. You don't EXPORRT top secret tech. Same way the Yanks will sell F-35's to certain countries, but not others, and even then, they KEEP BACK certain tech details regarding the computer operating system that makes the F-35 actually work.
Iran was supposed to buy the challenger tank then there was a revolution so the sale was cancelled to keep the production line open the challengers for Iran had a few mods done to make it suitable and was issued to the british army
i'd buy it for it's tea making facilities alone, creates good moral & that's what wins battles, there's TEA in TEAmwork.
It all has to do with the ammunition which isn't used by other NATO countries. The armour is also unique and we have only ever agreed to one other country having it. And they had to pay a premium for it.
And you cleverly lost out on billions of pounds of selling to other nations like your swivel eyed lunatic colony Saudi Arabia- the land of mad Wahabi's ruling majority Shia. Hmmm sounds kind of like the Kingdom of Iraq- how well did that one fare?
And just as the avionics fit on RAF Tornados was different to Luftwaffe aircraft, so it was decided not to make Chobham available to BDR/W Germany. Why? Because we had a Cold War maxim: London Monday, Bonn on Tuesday, East Berlin Wednesday and Moscow by Friday. The DDR had so penetrated the BDR’s state organs that we simply did not trust West Germany with critical technology or intelligence. This suspicion was fully confirmed when the Wall fell and the Head of W German counter-intelligence was identified (in 1991) as a Stasi agent.
@@anthonydunn5853 What ill-founded self-importance and pomposity you seem to have conveniently forgotten all the British double agents and moles like Kim Philby. Head of Mi5 for Christ's sake. Far better than some DDR plod. So don't dare take a lecturer's tone of supreme authority on the, sorry I have to pause to stop guffawing- the "professionalism" and the water-tightness of the "Intelligence services". The UK leaked like a sieve. The FDR was one of the few professoinals the CIA trusted and they TOLD UK PHILBY WAS A SPY. Cannot be, said sherry totting Ruperts- he's a chap. He's a Cambridge chap. Admittedly not an Oxford chap, but, by Jove, 1 pence short of a shilling. You do a few Operation Mincemeat and think you're cock of the walk. Surprise, surprise, the Germans already thought the most likely landing place was Calais and Sicily- it was NOT a fait accomplit par excellence of intelligence. Where did the US land? Sicily. What a fcking shock. Many Germans already suspected Normandy or Breton likely as Westerwalle was weakest there and there had been, now just imagine how the Germans leapt to this unthinkable conclusion- there had been markdely more than normal RAF activity around Normandy and Breton. How did they possibly crack the code? Children from the school whose schoolmaster wrote the Daily Telegraph crossword had heard from the Americans and British in camps nearby terms like: Juno, Neptune, Mulberry, Utah, Gold, Sword, The Bundesnachrichtendienst and Militärischer Abschirmdienst (yes I actually served in the BAOR, Rupert, in the cold and muck well away from the Officer Schloss's) were the only ones CIA trusted because they were full of ex Abwehr and OKW staff who knew how to run Intelligence. Now CIA was hardly infallible- but less of a Benny Hill disaster the Mi5 and Mi6 was How compromised was PM Edward Heath the pedo? Yes the Soviets new all about him and his peccadildos (yes I know the correct term, but Heath loved to sit on them)- and supplied him Sunny Boys galore. What a joke- anyone above Brigadier in the British Army has wool between their ears- always has and always will because Grammar school chaps just aren't Charterhouse, Eton, Harrow, Merchant Taylor’s, Rugby, Shrewsbury, King's, St Paul’s or Winchester chaps. The REAL operative adage of the Btitish forces has ALWAYS BEEN: A CHAP WHO CANNOT GET INTO BOODLES IS NOT TO BE RANKED ABOVE BRIGADIER. A total fcking clown show The IRA had fully infiltrated RUC and actively served in the Connaught Rangers, for feck's sake. You're so naive: how many Northern Irish converted to marry one side or another? You don't even know- you silly Rupert. In my own family it goes Catholic, Presbyter, Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, Catholic and depending on whether the wind blows on side of the Shankle Road or the other, they're one or t'other or neither and nor. Quaire git as they'd say. And the utterly Northern Irish Catholic word" "Quaire"comes from the Pale English who lived outside Dublin. You really know nothing, do you? Such affectation of authority can only come from a public school ninny. Ian Fleming wrote fiction- he was, like Leyland management the Mi5 and Mi6- a total shtshow of a spy. Utter twits, imbeciles, dilettantes and utterly unaware of active infiltration by KGB and honey pots- be they boys for compromised politicians like Edward Heath or lithe long-legged natural Russian blondes taught specifically to seduce and be professionals in the carnal arts in KGB honey-pot school (a real thing look it up). These public school Rupert sherry-totters fooled into thinking they were God's gift to women. To return to Philby: as an Mi6 operative was quoted as saying "'I did not let Kim Philby go. He gave me the slip'- it's worse than Allo Allo. And those other five rotters of the Cambridge Ring- who Mi5 and Mi6 VOUCHED for as 100% "proper chaps, the Queen's own chaps". And the nonsense the DDR was somehow impenetrable was nonsense- my relatives from FDR routinely visited DDR- it was DDR who could not visit FDR. DDR gruen SS Fulda Gap would have been easily taken, it was a nonsense we could stop them, Mi5 and Mi6 was and will forever be run by clowns playing at spies- they were colonial intelligence agencies and domestic political intelligence agencies NOT espionage experts. UK was superb at getting rid of nasty colonial upstarts like Subhas Chandra Bose and Azad Hind, and playing former sergeant Gandhi like a fiddle. And Gandhi, like all soldiers had to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, did he not? Because I know for certain all my Northern Irish and South-Western English relatives who served King, Queen and Empire did- Catholic or not.
@@anthonydunn5853 and more for you General Rupert, Captain of the Oxford Tiddlywinks team: From the Guardian- a red rag so it should know: UK government launched campaign to block memoirs being published fearing damaging disclosures Wed 30 Dec 2020 Fears that the double agent Kim Philby was being exploited by the KGB prompted a government campaign to minimise political embarrassment and prevent his memoirs being published, according to secret files released to the National Archives. Details of pressure put on journalists, behind the scenes lobbying and attempts to deflect blame on to the French appear in 1960s Cabinet Office files. The news that Philby, a former MI6 officer, had been spying for the Russians since 1933 sounded an alarm in Whitehall. Shortly after the extent of Philby’s penetration was publicised in October 1967, the home secretary, Roy Jenkins, wrote to the prime minister, Harold Wilson, warning it could lead to the exposure of another mole, Sir Anthony Blunt. Sir Denis Greenhill was informed by Harold Evans, the Sunday Times editor, in late October 1967 Evans he had received a telegram from Philby in Moscow offering an interview. This is the utterly verbatim seriousness of the total amateuristic dilletantism of British Intelligence leadership: In January 1968, Greenhill met Evans and suggested his paper might ask: “Is there a French Philby?” The official recorded: “I suggested the article might start from the point that Philby’s memoir seemed likely to appear in Paris Match and then go on to speculate that whether the French had escaped penetration which Philby and company successfully achieved here”. According to Nicholas Elliott, British spy, who had understandably been deeply wounded by Philby’s double treachery - towards him as well as the country- a “deal” would have saved Philby from a prison sentence- a classic establishment cover up. After all, Philby was considered by the colleagues he had betrayed to be “a gentleman”. Greenhill added: “I think we have taken all reasonable steps to impede Philby in [publication of his memoirs] and I much regret it if the French have finally agreed to pay him a considerable sum. “However treachery is more familiar to the French than it is to us and no doubt the publisher was for this reason better able to accommodate himself to the fact that he was liberally rewarding someone who had damaged his own country’s interests.” Blunt had been recruited by the Russians in 1936 when at Cambridge University. He confessed in 1964, at which time he was surveyor of the Queen’s pictures, but his betrayals were not made public until 1979.
@@anthonydunn5853 and more: BBC "Cambridge Five spy ring members 'hopeless drunks' " Published 7 July 2014 Members of the "Cambridge Five" spy ring were seen by their Soviet handlers as hopeless drunks incapable of keeping secrets, newly-released files suggest. Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, "Kim" Philby and Anthony Blunt were recruited as Soviet spies while at Cambridge University in the 1930s. There may have been a fifth spy in the ring, possibly John Cairncross. Documents from the Mitrokhin Archive have been made publicly available for the first time. The FBI described them as the most complete intelligence ever received. Major Vasili Mitrokhin smuggled the information out of Soviet archives during 12 years working for the KGB. He defected to Britain in 1992. Among the thousands of pages of documents are profiles outlining the characteristics of Britons who spied for the Soviet Union. They include references to Donald Duart Maclean and Guy Burgess, two of the five men recruited while studying at the University of Cambridge during the 1930s. A short passage describes Burgess as a man "constantly under the influence of alcohol". Written in Russian, it goes on to recount one occasion when Burgess drunkenly risked exposing his double identity. "Once on his way out of a pub, he managed to drop one of the files of documents he had taken from the Foreign Office on the pavement." Moving on to Maclean, the note describes him as "not very good at keeping secrets", "constantly drunk" and binged on alcohol. It was believed he had told one of his lovers and his brother about his work as a Soviet agent while he was the worse for wear, the file adds. The notes also provide an insight into the extent of the group's activity as they helped the KGB penetrate the UK's intelligence network at the highest level. They describe how Burgess alone handed over 389 top secret documents to the KGB in the first six months of 1945 along with a further 168 in December 1949. Along with Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt and a fifth man, thought by many to have been John Cairncross, the Cambridge Five passed information about the UK to the Soviet Union throughout World War Two and into at least the 1950s. After being recruited during their studies, the group went on to occupy positions within the Foreign Office, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). Shortly before the end of the war, Philby was promoted to head of the SIS's anti-Soviet section - meaning he was in charge of running operations against the Soviets while operating as a KGB agent. Honestly "Allo Allo's" David Croft and Jeremy Lloyd, and "Yes Minister's" Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn could not possibly come up with a better display of total buffoonery.
I´m sure the British never ever thought they would have to take a German gun for their best tank... o,O
The rifled gun was also a Rhinemetal variant, pretty much everybody uses Rhinemetal licenced copies, including the Yanks.
yes the ammunition is limited but HESH shells can be used against a lot of other targets , buildings , etc,
the problem is polyaramid fibre is not a secret anymore and the Russians like every other modern tank have Kevlar (polyarimid) anti-spall lining.
@@markiobook8639 Problem with what you said is the HESH round is not retained for anti tank targets, it is a bunker buster and general purpose HE round. If Challenger II needs to engage a tank it will use a fin stabilised penetrator round like everyone else. Unless of course there happens to be a HESH in the breech. Much easier to unload a loaded tank gun by simply firing it then loading in the ammo you require.
the problem with the fanboi-ism and jism over HESH is that HE causes spallation anyway when it strikes what it about to penetrate- with the added advantage of not being Squash Head- meaning it is a comparatively hardened jacketed shell with an explosive core than does the most devastation when high explosive is detonated in confined room as per HE fuzing..@@alganhar1
The Challenger 2 tank just beat all NATO tanks and won the prize for the best NATO tank, so the best tank in the world😉
Thats about right . Crap equipment. Government cut backs in personal and military equipment. As an x soldier myself i can personally say that this is a correct assessment.
I would much rather be in a Challenger 2 than a T-90
Hmm, some of this is actually factual, and a lot of it is not.
?
Oman had Challengers in 80s one of our staff trained their troops up in Oman in this era.
Oman didn't get their CR2 till the 90's,they operated Chieftain before that.
On one buys it because it's basically not for sale. It's virtually undefeated in battle and can run one almost any fuel which gives it logistical advantage over other tanks like the Abrams which can only use basically aviation fuel. It lacks the range of some of it's competitors but is very accurate and doesn't need to stop to fire. The Challenger 2 is a beast of a take and when the upgraded 3 is ready it will kick ass too.
I have no idea where your getting your info, the M1 Abrams can use multiple fuels. It can use: jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and marine diesel. The Challenger 2 uses a diesel only engine...
I didn’t know that the challenger 2 had it rifled it really makes sense now
It is a fantastic Tank, and in the right trained crews who are working as a team it is almost invincible. It's firing rate is all down to crew training... The trained soldier is worth 50 untrained.
wait till it meets a kornet missile what ? it already has ? oh dear 😃😃😃🤣🤣🤣🤣😣😎
Imagine getting hit from 4.5KM away. That would be a very bad day indeed...
Yes being hit by a tandem warhead Kornet, a Sagger, any of the Russian weapons including a Russian variant of top-down shape-charge would be terrible. ERA does not self generate, so multiple strikes in the same zone= kill. Again- Rudyard Kipling $150,000 for Kornet, $5+ million for Challenger 2/3 "...odds are on the cheaper man".
A challenger 2 with smooth ore option exists. If another country wanted to buy a challenger 2 with smoothbore cannons that is readily available.
Major reasons for the lack of overseas sales of the Challenger 2 were a) cost, the tank was only built in small numbers compared to the Abrams and Leo. 2 initially, which made them more expensive unless BAE Systems, or Vickers as it was at the time, were willing to accept a loss on the sale, a large order might have made the difference but at the time Challenger 2 came out no one, who didn’t build their own tanks, was placing large orders, b) the continued use of a rifled gun, admittedly it made sense for the British Army who at the time still had large stocks of HESH ammo, any purchaser of the tank would have been limited to who they bought their ammo from, and in all honesty very few countries like the idea of limiting who they purchase ammo from. There is also the issue that countries like the U.S., Russia, France and Germany build things like tanks with an eye on the export market whereas the U.K., for the past thirty to forty years, has produced military equipment specifically tailored to the requirements of the British military with the idea of export sales being secondary.
Actually Challenger 1&2 both riffled guns fired standard nato rounds it's just couldn't fire the complete range, rifled barrels were chosen for a particular round that's better for the targets the challengers were believed would face more often light armer and bunkers. Challenger 2 just won Nato tank contest, also in Iraq us Abrahams to rocket propelled granades only destroyed Challenger was to a Challenger with longest hit record, usa was reluctant to send Abrahams to Ukraine as needs more maintenance than Challenger so your arguments don't hold water as for more Rusian tanks sold there cheep that's the only reason just ask an Iraq solder what they would have preferred a Challenger or what they had
Iraqis had Chinese T55. Your premise argument and argument hold water like a tea-strainer.
When that tanks was designed and the gun selected the British had a doctrine of shooting over a distance to start knocking soviet tanks out asap from positions that had been prepared in advance, rather than close combat. Likewise the British army was much bigger and the Uk had more resources so we could rely upon our own logistics then to supply our tanks in Germany. take time on a little and after years of wasting cash upon Brussels along with other social projects and the UK has now been forced to rely upon a wider logistics network and NATO partners in many areas, likewise the UK army is much smaller and does not have the luxury of the days from the 70s/80s BAOR Germany. You should also note that when you say "Rheinmetall", what you really mean is Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) as they are a defense engineering company based in the UK dealing with the design, manufacture and support military vehicles used by the British Army and international customers. BAE Systems sold a percentage of the Land Systems business to Rheinmetal (probably cheaper to do that than invest in the plant/machinery that already existed with Rheinmetal giving economies of scale and brings Rheinmetal to the table to work and not compete with BAE) BAE group is huge, they have come a long way over the years and you will see them contracting for projects and working in partnership with many nato/other partner nations to deliver weapons/platforms/systems to a wide range of armed forces worldwide including the USA. Challenger 3 will be an excellent bit of kit, with the ability to draw upon a huge amount of technological and military resources via BAE and I'm looking forward to seeing it operation asap.
That is completely full of errors. Rheinmetall retains some foundries and smelters. UK has near nothing. the Joint Venture of Rheinmetall-BAe is FNSS Turkiye. BAE- questionable. BAe Hawk inferior to a lot of trainers and light attack- especially Alpha Jet's successor FMA IA-63 Pampa, Yak 130, Aermacchi MB-339, Aero L-39 Albatros (cheap most common light attack/trainer) and T-50 Golden Eagle. And a lot worse than the Embraer Super Tucano as ground support. Parts of it are good. Some are not. Arrowhead is believed not to be as good as Mugami class- the Indonesians are going to operate both- which will be interesting.
@@markiobook8639 my info reflects the corporate statement. "Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land is a joint venture between the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems and Germany's Rheinmetall AG for military vehicle design, manufacture and support. The company received regulatory approval on 13 June 2019" Rheinmetall and Krauss-Maffei Wegman (KMW), (ARTEC) announced that it had awarded two separate subcontracts to RBSL and WFEL respectively for the local production and assembly of over 500 Boxer armoured vehicle for the UK. The contract with RBSL is worth around £860 million. Delivery of the vehicles is expected to start from 2023. There must be a little bit more than 'nothing' here in the UK to complete this programme as RBSL Telford and sub contracted WFEL in Stockport will complete "fabrication of the armoured vehicle structures together with assembly, integration and test of the complete vehicles" The British Army order is a relatively small production volume, (by commercial standards), so most of the work will be conducted by hand, although automation of certain aspects of the welding processes that involve a high level of precision is being considered by RBSL (Makes sense to keep capital investment down). RBSL has around 700 emplyees over their UK sites. Rheinmetall have around 50 in the UK and approx. 20 of those work with other projects outside the RBSL work. While initially focused on these major UK programmes, RBSL would also form an integral part of Rheinmetall’s Vehicle Systems Division and participate in military vehicle contracts globally. BAE got the order from the UK government, decided it was cheaper to do the deal by selling a share of RBSL than invest in heavy industry that would recreate the capability of Rheinmetall already has, Welcome to the world of corporations where they win by deal structure. The UK government get what they need and without having to invest into more than the kit required, (no infrastructure or production kit). I've no interest in the aircraft stuff you posted, I'm sure if anyone is they can make their own call on that, but I'd suggest what I said was not 'full of errors' just kept concise and what I have posted and followed up with can be referenced with BAE, RBSL, Rheinmetall, and Janes as correct as of this month. I'd add the work in Telford will also include installing key subsystems such as the powerpacks into drive modules supplied by the WFEL facility in Stockport and then mounting the mission modules onto them to create complete vehicles. Likewise all the key technology items will also be delt with here. So while modern kit can be made under joint ventures, to suggest we are offering nothing to the project is full of errors.
Its ours and its dead good and no one else can have our beast.
The Challenger by weight is limited in its combat environment, in Ukraine a land with many bridges it needs a lot of planning as to where it can be used!
wheeled vehicles need roads. That's why they have tracked vehicles that don't need civilian infrastructure. If they were designed for roads they wouldn't have the top speed of a tractor.
@@whitesun264 I'm glad your not planning a armoured attack for Ukraine! Just take a look at the problems the Germans had with the heavy tanks you need Bridges that can take 60+tonnes an not just one bridge the next an so on. You also need firm ground even a small stream can cause big problems and a tank that's stopped becomes a sitting duck.
@@rogercude1459 I was one of the few people who correctly predicted that Russia would invade when everyone else was equivocal and flip-flopping about what was likely to transpire. I also advocated the sending of MLRS, sniper rifles and Javelin all of which soon after were adopted, if you wanted military planning you could do a lot worse than me. Ukraine is perfect tank country. It is by and large dry and flat. There are large rivers but engineers have bridging equipment for just such a purpose. Again I refer to my previous comment the military avoid using highways and roads where possible because it makes routes predictable and more easy to target. Minor streams are not a problem as you have said. I refer you to the D-day landings were tanks were effectively deliverd onto beaches through the sea. We have tracked vehicles for a reason, their footprint is much lighter than that of wheeled vehicles. I keep hearing the repitiIion of the same argument that weight is bad because of bridges it's a nonsense you only have to look at British light weight tanks in the second world war to see that they were no match for the bigger heavier tanks. The small light weight tanks were just obliterated by the bigger better armoured (heavier tanks). Like I said we are in the summer months these are perfect conditions and country for tank warfare. use of roads and civilian infrastructure is just one element or consideration amongst a host of other considerations which are of much greater importance than bridges!
@@whitesun264 I would love to see you lead a column of tanks heading East towards Russian lines, first your going to run in a mine! Next they probably have blown the bridge you need an while your sat there like a spare dick at a wedding waiting for a bridging team you can be sure your going to come under fire. Not as easy as you think Mr General..
Probably because it comes standard with a kettle and no one outside the UK understands this secret weapon.
From memory it was ordered for the Iranian army, when in 1979 the revolution happened the army kept it. I was told that whilst visiting at a defence college in the UK
This is full of mistakes. 1. Challenger famously always had composite armour. It's called Chobham. 2. Challenger favours HESH over APFSDS armour not because it's too long but because its gun has a rifled barrel which is not well suited to APFSDS. They are still able to fire APFSDS rounds though, but they have some compromises vs APFSDS through a smooth bore. 3. The smoke screen feature is not a Soviet doctrine, it's simply a by-product of having a diesel engine, which is notably different from the gas turbines of e.g. Abrams. That's a difference you could have commented on if you had a clue, but instead you're grasping at straws saying smoke is for Soviets.
Also since it’s rifled instead of smoothbore it limits the ammunition that is used but the protection is better then other tanks.
incorrect there is more types of ammunition avalible to it but they are not as widely produced which is a missconception that propaganda claims. UK are changing to smooth bore but only so they fire the same ammo as the rest of nato but it is sooooo much better
It's a good question. I suspect basically because Vickers was super focussed on UK MOD requirements and didn't provide any support (or have any experience providing support) for overseas clients, plus probably some backhanded deals. Now of course the answer is because the factory is closed and nobody can make them.
Challenger 2 is not a mk,1 upgrade. Its a all but a completely new tank . I think its over 90% new . The only reason the smooth bord is coming in is commonality..this tosser knows nothing about tanks . It already had new laminated armour called Dorchester which was a complete improvement over chobham which is still superb. The battlefield has been litterd with leopards and Abrams burning ..no enemy tank has knocked out any challenger one or two..they are absolutely superb. The reason why our tanks don't sell so well is our government lets the krauts ,frogs and yanks shout from the roof tops about how good their barbeques are whilst decrying our amazing design teams. So the only shit part of challenger is Westminster. Maybe our next armour should be called Westminster because you can get through to it !!
What’s the issue with the rifled barrel if it can fire apfsds?
Hello there, I would like to say you have great content for a channel that has just started, I love the thumbnails and reminds me a bit of the "Not what you think" channel! Keep going brother because you've got me definitely coming back, I think what would definitely assist you is to get English subtitles to give more accessibility for users. Again, thanks for the great content and keep it up! I'm sure you'll grow into a large channel :)
Brother, you have no idea how deeply and strongly your words hit right into the heart. Thank you so much, I can't put into words how important and how nice it was to hear this! Sorry, I’m not a native speaker. The channel "Not What You Think" is a decent channel, I hope to achieve the same results as it has. I will try to continue to please with new high-quality videos on the channel. And thank you very much!
Yes I correct me if I am wrong but isn't true that lepard tanks have been destroyed in Ukraine?...
They showed only one destroyed Leopard tank, and took photos and videos of this damaged tank from hundreds of different angles. This is a little weak statistics, it seems to me that one damaged tank should not be judged on the effectiveness of Leopards 2. Besides, even good tanks are not invulnerable. Especially when you need to advance without superiority in artillery and with almost no aviation. But I do not undertake to assert 100%, this is only my opinion)
How can you keep repeating this "never bought by any country in the world" crap and then report on the sale to Oman? Don't yo think that's a country? Is not the UK itself a country? Chieftain could also make an exhaust smoke screen by the way.
Em.. I didn't mean that the UK and Oman are not countries - they are countries. I meant that for at least the last 20 years, no one has been buying a Challenger tank at all, and it seemed very strange to me when compared with other tanks in its class. The last time the Challenger 2 tank, as far as I know, was sold to Oman in 1997. Around the same years, the UK last purchased the Challenger 2. For a record-breaking tank that has been tested in many wars and has good armor and electronics, this is somehow not enough. It is, one might say, nothing. Don't you think so?
@@casperarms 'Many Wars'? One war isn't it? 2nd Gulf War, plus a couple of peace keeping duties. Not much show for a tank that has been around for almost three decades.
@@casperarms my father fitted the guns on challenger 2 tanks. He went to many firing ranges and saw the amazing accuracy of the rifled gun. Unfortunately Vickers defence system and the British government had no interest in making tanks. The Leeds factory closed fully in the early 2000s , leaving the less capable Newcastle factor to make a light wheeled tank for the African market.
@@squashed_helmet_face7317 it's very sad..
I was serving in Germany when they had a no-notice NATO exercise, designed to test NATO's response to a surprise Russian attack. The exercise was stopped before the planned End-Ex when they discovered that over 50% of the American tank crews didn't know how to fire the tank's main gun,
Honestly, it sounds like fiction. It's like NATO soldiers who fire several thousand rounds a year would say, "We don't know how to load a rifle." I'm sorry, but it sounds too implausible
@@casperarms Exactly how long did you spend in the Military, and how many NATO exercises did you take part in? I'm guessing the answer is none, especially if you believe soldiers fire "several thousand rounds a year " in peacetime.
@@bobdylan7120 Are you saying that soldiers don't shoot in NATO armies? Of course, the NATO army is a general concept, and there are small armies there, like the army of Bulgaria or Lithuania. But something tells me that a soldier of the US Army releases a lot of cartridges at landfills. Am I wrong?
Britain made the best tank and gun combination in the world ..... just as everyone was switching to a system that essentially fires guided munitions down a smooth tube. It is an insanely effective platform, but people just wont buy it because technology its unfashionable. It would be like inventing the G3 rifle in 7.62mm a few months before NATO standardised to 5.56mm. Its a great gun, but if someone is on the market they will buy something like an M4 or Famas. Great video mate. Keep up the fine work.
Thank you so much!)
I don't know where the story of a Challenger tank being destroyed in Iraq because the commander's hatch was open comes from, but it is not true. The true story is that a column of Challenger tanks were operating in Basra, Southern Iraq. A single tank came from an unexpected direction and in the heat of the moment it was misidentified as Iraqi by the leading British tank. Who fired one round, which may have been depleted uranium, at the misidentified tank. It scored a hit on the tank and blew its turret off, killing the tank's commander and gunner. The loader and driver in the hull of the Challenger survived. There was no fire, the Challenger fire suppression system stopped it. I believe the tank was later repaired and returned to service.
And like Ukraine- UK is absolutely desperate the Challenger NOT face advanced anti-tank missiles like Spandrel or Kornet. 2 strikes on ERA armour remove it exposing the sandwich of composite armour. Plenty of knocked out T72 to demonstrated that.
Best tank in the world. Ask the crew not people sitting at home weighing up theoretical pro and cons
How on earth would the crew know when the Challenger is the only tank they know?
The question is- does this crew have any experience in other tanks otherwise their answer is meaningless
It’s not bought internationally, not because it’s bad, but because it’s essentially custom built for the UKs specific tank requirements and doctrine. This is like saying the Abrams is bad because most western countries use Leopards.
Well the place where it was made Vickers in Newcastle upon Tyne is not there anymore soooo
Another thing about the Challenger is that its size and weight make it difficult to transport. We had the same problem with the Conquerer, which was a good tank for its day but some bridges couldn't take the weight and some rly tunnels couldn't accommodate its size, and if it travelled under its own power it chewed up the roads. In WW2 most tank v tank engagements did not take place at very long ranges, though many tank guns were capable of doing so. The ability to knock out another tank at 2 - 3 miles is surplus to requirements.
That's not really true. I spent many years doing Tank Transporting in the British Army and the bridges that either the Challenger (we shall use both varients here as the weights are pretty much the same even with extras bolted on), M1 Abrams or other similarly weighted vehicle can use are quite varied. Even in Bosnia and Kosovo we didn't have any problems with routes we had to use. And if there is a weak/narrow bridge in an area you are to operate in, then you get the engineers to make/lay you one. The bridge weight argument kinda falls over when you work in an organisation that carries them around with them. I've had a Scammell Commander weighing over 100 tons with Challenger on in some pretty rural settings in many countries and never had any problems. This may be an issue with some countries with less developed infrastructure that may want to purchase a lighter tank, but then they have to decide if they a lighter and faster tank over a well armoured one.
Could that be because the capacity of all British bridges is well known and any which cant bear the weight are avoided? You are talking about peacetime conditons where you can choose your bridges, but in wartime your options are limited. Send engineers to strengthen the bridge or build a new one@@ChrisByers100 and Murphy.'s Law will ensure they are blown to bits before they can get the job done, In war you seldom have enough time to wait for a bridge to be built.
@@ChrisByers100 Hello Chris well put mate
@@ChrisByers100 well said mate! Being an ex Tankie myself.
you tend not to have those luxuries on a battlefield- WW2 Germans had tank transporters too- far superior FAMO and Benz fully steerable tracked wasn't entirely helpful @@ChrisByers100
The Abrams has a major flaw as it uses a turbine jet engine. Many American tanks broke down in the Gulf due to sand. The Abrams also uses the German gun which is ironic as the German company who make the gun made guns for the German army in WW2.
No that was Krupps. Rheinmetall had other contracts. Borsig was another contractor for panzers which amalgamated with Rheinmetall.
@@markiobook8639 ok
Thats not irony
Rheinmetall and Borsig mainly built tracked vehicles, (half tracks) panzers, railroad engines and very heavy vehicles. Krupp was famous for its guns- especially the railway guns.@@RB-lt8kt
I don't think you know what irony means.
The Challenger 2 has the longest range tank kill of any tank, by thousands of meters. You could only do that with HESH.
in ww2, a German nashorn , which is technically not a tank but a lightly armored tank destroyer killed a t34 at over 5km.. so technically you are correct in a tank vs tank engagement
Why would the US and USSR invest in sabot discarding darts as hard kill ammunition, as well as ALL NATO members including UK. Explain how HESH actually works?
@@markiobook8639 "A high-explosive squash head (HESH), in British terminology, or a high-explosive plastic/plasticized (HEP), in American terminology,[1] is a type of explosive projectile with plastic explosive that conforms to the surface of a target before detonating, which improves the transfer of explosive energy to the target. Squash head projectiles are similar to high-explosive projectiles and are well suited to many of the same targets. However, while HESH projectiles are not armour-piercing, they can defeat armored targets by causing spall, which can injure or kill a vehicle's occupants or detonate some types of ammunition.[2]"
yes I know what HESH is- we had it in BAOR . Every IFV and AFV that is fielded now has been upgraded with a cheap polyarimide (Dupont brandname Kevlar) inner liner. That negates all Spallation. So there is no indrect kill from shell splinter which are the bulk cause of all fatalities including in Ukraine. That makes HESH utterly useless- it has to directly strike a target to be effective, whereas a miss by HE will spew shrapnel everywhere resulting in at least a mobility kill or crew kill- either way the vehicle and crew are effectively out of action and taken out of the fight. HESH when it misses does what? Fck all. HE remains superior because the shell containing either anti-personnel ballshot or merely explosive will at least enter a confined cavity before exploding, maximising the effect of overpressure in a confined space and thus far more lethal than localised spallation. If you;re going to justify regression, why not go the whole way bring back Barnes'Wallis utterly useless Bouncing bomb or some ofHobart's Funnies. If you're fielding material from Dad's Army era, just go all the way- just regress completely and build Covenanters and A38 Valiants, some A8 Cruisers and Black Princes. Maybe some Lancasters, or better yet Short Sunderland flying boats. a retorif@@BRANFED
The US and the UK should collaborate on their next MBT. We need to get away from the gas turbine.
We should make metal gears instead
No thanks keep the Americans away from anything to do with British defence.
@@timphillips9954 Winston Churchill just rolled over in his grave…..
We tried it was called the MBT-70 but the USA would not collaborate preferring to dictate. SA-80 was another example of a Joint SP 155mm that failed leaving the UK to produce the AS-90 instead.
@@trevorhart545 ok I guess you’re right…. 50 years ago the evil USA broke with west Germany and developed their own tank. So for the next 1000 years there can be no collaboration on anything.
Abrahams have the same Rheinmetall Canon as the Leopard
Never mind.
Abram not Abraham!
The true reason why nobody buys the Challenger 2 is not that its motor has less power than its western competitors but that it's equipped with a tea cooker inside (no joke, all Britsh tank had this feature since the Centurion), but everybody but the Brits drinks coffee😉.
I don't think the reasoning behind the barrel is explained very well. Modern anti-tank ammunition typically uses a shaped charge, but the rifling on the barrel impacts the copper jet by scattering it outwards on impact, meaning the penetration is far reduced. As in the past, the UK decided to use squash head rounds (which expand on impact and cause huge spalling rather than penetration) to kill the target, the rifled barrel made sense. That does not mean that one is better than the other, but as modern tanks tend to have ERA, the UK is moving away from squash head ammo meaning moving towards a smooth ore is logical
" no country has bought them. The only country to buy them is Oman" lol makes sense.
Waiting to see how it copes with drones carrying a shaped charge
What would put me off buying the Challenger 2 is it's gun. Being rifled means two things: It cannot use the same ammo as the Leopard 2 or Abrams and it wears out really quick ie after 400 shots the barrel is worn out while the Rheinmetall smooth bore use by Leopard 2 and Abrams last well in excess of 1500.
The UK is going smooth bore for compatibility with Europe. It is unlikely the UK would be at war with Europe and in a war with Russia the fighting would be on mainland Europe first not the UK. It makes more sense to prepare for a war with (and in) Europe. If we were just defending the mainland UK the smooth bore would make no sense. Two stage shells are safer. The Challenger armour was licensed to the US for the Abrams.. The Challenger is considered to be the most protected tank. A tank without the best armour available is a pointless thing. It is no good carrying more shells when your gun is less accurate because you are likely to need those extra shells to compensate for the fact you are not hitting the target as often as a Challenger.
It's really cool they can nail a target at that range, but considering they already had to up the armor for in city, close range combat, feels like a missed the forest for the trees situation
ANY MBT has that same problem - it's not confined to Challenger 2.
@@jackaubrey8614 noted. Are there some good examples or is that part of the point of the platform?
They Americans did the same for the abrams with their TUSK programs,the abrams,challenger and leopard were all designed to fight the Russians on the plains and countryside of west Germany,no m.b.t has ever been designed for urban warfare but the upgrades available have made city/urban combat a viable option
@@matthewfindlay2242 is it true the Abrams tends to sand choke? Any engine will if you put enough through it, but heard whispers about Abrams being countered and even destroyed by guys on the ground just kicking up sand until it cuts out and they become sitting targets. Why are they so much more susceptible, if they even actually are?
@oganvildevil I was in the british army during gulf war 1 and challenger 1 was upgraded in theatre with reactive armour and air filters suitable for the gulf environment, I don't know if the Americans did change there air filters for heavy duty ones but I think there gas turbine engines where definitely temperamental out there but I also know the u.s and us brits learned a lot about our tanks and changes and updates were made
Yes so what but as you sed only 1 tank as ever been lost how manny leaped and over ones you have sed have been taken out in battles mmmm so which tank has the longest kill in battle which tank will take a betting the uks so haha your wrong I’m afraid
Terrible English, go back to school you fool!
Is this available in English?
@@nexus_of_a_crisis no only in gibberish no translation I'm afraid.
The challenger is not a challenge for the Russians tandem missiles, the 1st charge blows the armor, the 2nd one cooks the troops.
The Chally is 62 tonnes and too heavy to cross many bridges. The German Government subsidised many Leopard sales (such as Greece) and there were lots of corruption scandals. The reliability of the Chieftain engine may have hampered export sales of the Chally 1. Many of the Centurion users opted for Leopards in Europe. The Israelis developed their own Merkava tank programme and many Arab states bought cheaper T-72 as part of bigger arms deals. There are lots of reasons why the Chally has sold comparatively fewer than the Abrams and Leopards. The main points raised on this video are the upgrade areas for the Chally 3. The armament change from rifled to Smoothbore is more to fall in line with NATO standardised ammo than any real accuracy or rate of fire issue.
Such a good aim for Lancet!
If you look how easily the Leopard tanks are being destroyed in Ukraine, it looks like the Leopard was over hyped ( like all German stuff is ).
Seriously? How many Leopard tanks were destroyed? What is their ratio (serviceable/destroyed) and how many post-Soviet tanks do they have?
@@casperarmsthey've lost over a third . Read the news .
@@jasonhartley1305 More than a third? I read the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Reznikov: we were supplied with 60 Leopard tanks. Then I read Oryx: 5 Leopard tanks destroyed, 12 more tanks knocked out (which can be repaired)
Still better than the Challenger ll
@@marius-arnoldpeper9228 not shown at last NATO meeting or in action. Challenger is top in every way. Best armour ,best gun , best ammunition and by far the best crews. Explain how they are better ?
You made one mistake including Russia as a leader, nope t90, t72 variants suck balls any country with russian equipment is in big trouble.
The Challenger 2 has a rifles barrel as standard but can easily swap out the barrel for a smooth-bore using the Challenger Clip so this is not a disadvantage.
Also, doesn't anyone remember the episode of Braniac years ago when they got a Challenger 2 to use a sabot round to destroy a safe but everyone seemingly forgets that it used it. The MOD may be hilariously inept at times in a very British way but a simple barrel and breach swap isn't yet he their abilities before deploying. Instead of looking at the stats.of the tank maybe we should look at the combat record which proves in the hands of a capable crew, this tank is worthy of being in the top 3 tanks of the world today alongside the Leopard and the Abrams.
Challenger 3 will fix this....
Warum viele Länder deutsche panzer lieber kaufen als englische? Wahrscheinlich aus dem gleichen Grund warum man lieber deutsche Autos kauft, als englische 😂
As a Russian, I confirm that we choose German cars, not English ones🤣I hope everyone understands my irony 😁