Challenger 3 | Britain's New Main Battle Tank | Is It Really Any Good?
Since it entered service in the late 90's, Challenger 2 has been a controversial tank, with several features seeming outdated or regressive. For over a decade, competitions and technology demonstrators have attempted to find what would be Britain's next MBT, or at least a future upgrade for Challenger 2 itself. Well, several weeks ago, the question was answered, as RBSL's proposal for what was previously known as the Challenger 2 LEP (Life Extension Program) was unveiled as the new Challenger 3. Now the question is... will this thing be any good?
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Support the channel on Patreon!
/ armorcast
═════════════════════════════════
◄► Koala's Channel
/ thescottishkoala
◄► Twitter!
/ sc0ttishkoala
◄► Merch!
teespring.com/stores/thearmory
60 MPH is legit, it's the speed the Tank is capable of reaching in dire emergency situations... Such as when the Crew run out of Tea.
You underestimate our TEA POWER!
Guys it is obvious, the new armour package is a carboard box with a buzz saw in it to shave off the armour!
Tea and hot rations = comfortable soldier. comfortable soldier = morale. Morale = a willing to fight professional soldier. No conscripts in British army bombing x country on torsion bars and metal seats 🤦🏻♂️
@@Leon-ix6xy you do know it’s a joke
Lads, ammo and spares maybe, but we never run out of tea. 60 is kph, you wouldn't want to be inside at 60mph, believe me, I've been there.
Yes, so we've established that I'm an old bastard! Because not only do I remember the Challenger 1 being replaced by the Challenger 2, I remember when the Chieftain was the big boy on the block and also when we weren't using the Fisher Price SA-80 with it's teeny little rounds, degree level sling antics and mag release catch up nice and tight against your rig.
My dad had a chieftain as a company car.
The challengers replaced the chieftains wich you forgot to mention
Best Chieftain we built at Chobham was the hybrid RR/Perkins conversion. Basically a stop gap to CH1. The Iranians money was king then so we concentrated on Shir1/2, that became CH1. I won't go over the things we found about the SA80.
I can still remember going to the armoury and signing out proper rifles that made sure what you were shouting at stayed down
@@bobbybates2614 Didn't replace all of them
One factor people seem to forget is crew survivability and general well being in the tank! I'm being serious! The M60 was much loved by crews and so was the centurion: the chieftain was comfortable despite having a poor engine, remedied somewhat by the Sundance upgrade, but the challenger is very liked by crews
Challenger 2 is probably the best tank in the world for ergonomics and crew comfort. I’d say Abrams is better for outright survivability, but it’s certainly a little more difficult to escape from! It’s very much an underrated factor, and we’ll have to see if CR3’s turret is as good as CR2’s from an ergonomics standpoint… since it’s built by Germany… … I kinda doubt it.
Imo the thing that made the centurion the first mbt is the crew being able to work with the tank, as apposed to forcing it to complete its function, which is also the reason why I think the T34 is genuinely garbage.
Won't last long enough to feel at home in a real war
@@jonathon5411 Is that little nugget from vaults of your vast armoured warfare knowledge.
Wow Great Britain it’s gonna have one heckuva tank division of 147 tanks give me a break America gives away more tanks than that I mean every NATO nation should have a least 750 tanks I mean just control great Britain you need at least 1000 tanksmaybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so. I almost fell off my toilet ball when I read that.😊
My boss was a tank platoon commander in Desert Storm. We talked about it quite frequently over beers. Fascinating stories. The M1s he ran came with a speed governor that restricted the top speed to 40 mph. It was the first thing removed when they arrived in Saudi Arabia. He has personally had one up to 53 mph. That’s across flat, hard packed desert mud and sand with a friggin turbine engine. And you’re seeing data that puts the Challenger III at 60 mph? That’s nuts. And scares me
well, even though the tanks today are heavy as shit, the engines we are talking about are in the 1200-1800 horsepower range (depending on the tank), so when shit hits the fan and you need to get out of the area RIGHT NOW!!!, they will get you out of there, albeit suffering damage in the process, as they arent meant to run at such ferocity very often
imagine being on a UK motorway in a lorry and getting passed by a tank coz that is was could happen. Trucks here are capped at 56mph
@@M3PH11 there are vidéos of that on ukr highways at start of the war lol amazingly scary
@@M3PH11 Happened on roads in Germany all the time - collisions between cars and Chieftains / Challengers never went well for the car.
@@paulevans7742 Grandad crashed his vovlo into a Chieftain in Warminster years back... car was *wrecked* - tank was barely scratched 😂 Years of litigation, that one!
I served on chally 2. I can honestly say it was an absolute amazing bit of kit to work on. I hope the chally 3 works better. Along as it has a b.v then thats all that matters hahah
i drove chieftains in Germany .. the engine ALWAYS broke down .. the main armament 120 was awesome though
@@seangraver5511 chieftains were prone to that. Challys are not
@@riso9059 chally still sucks though. 80mm of base lower plate armor is horrendous
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here and you know the exact specs how?
@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here ofc itd be the russian coping about things he knows jack about. What classified doc did you read about the armour of the chally and its exact specs? Id like to know your source
Fun fact: The place seen at 8:37 is in Estonia at the Central Training Ground (or something like that) during exercise Sibul 2017 where the forces of EFP were against the local Defence League. In the clearing seen ahead the very same tank was taken out by a cleverly placed Swedish 90 mm anti tank gun (Pvpj 1110). "Virtually" of course. But it did slow the armored column down quite a bit ;) I had the chance to rain down mortar shells on them. "Virtually" of course.
Yeah, just like virtual play station football, never reflects the reality
@@Korvintage64 l'm sure the Swedes don't know anything about anti tank guns. It's all a load of bofors if you ask me.
I as a German am proud to deliver the „new“ cannon to a British tank - welcome to the family 🇬🇧 🎉🇩🇪
And with current German shenanigans over heavy weapons it would not surprise me if use of German main guns is being reconsidered right now.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 lol - try harder
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 If you can produce a better one, go ahead...but I really doubt it^^
@@erikstolzenberger1517 The question is not about it being better or worse. It is about the stupid German government potentially blocking the UK from reexporting the Challenger 3 tank in the future because it has a German gun in it and "reasons" that just make the rest of Europe mad at the Germans.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 As an old german saying goes: Nichts wird so heiss gegessen, wie es gekocht wird. I do agree that Scholz did a piss-poor job in communicating his delay, all in all he's not a very charming person.But he has to do his job, and I think at least 50% of the outrage was stifled by media outlets and some salty poles.
Update news, Trophy is being used on chally 3 prototypes and commander scopes of various types are also being selected via testing. Maybe this will be the weapon system we want on the battle field?
As you may well know, early (lighter) Abrams tanks were more than capable of breaking their 45 mph limit; that speed governor was put in place so those tanks wouldn't throw their tanks or blow up their transmissions.
It's a common misconception the abrams has a speed limiter. It doesn't. It can go over the speed limit like almost every tank can in the right conditions. It's just hard to do so and even when the chance occurs they don't let it.
@@nothingspecial6925 Abrams tanks do or did actually have a hyromechanic speed governor system, though it isn't something one can easily "switch off" and takes a fair amount of tinkering inside the transmission hydraulics to modify or bypass. I've seen reports of early M1s being clocked in excess of 80mph, though those reports are admittedly dubious. It may not be present on the A2s to save complexity and space because the added weight makes those speeds far less likely to achieve under ideal circumstances. However, they definitely were present on the original 105mm M1s, and some crews definitely modified and disabled them to go at absurd speeds. The larger point is that 60mph road speed for a tank is entirely plausible and is less limited by modern engines and more by track and transmission capabilities.
@@KiithnarasAshaa pretty much most modern tanks can and do exceed their listed top speeds. Challenger 2 was reportedly capable of achieving 80kph in Iraq. I don't belive its capable of 100kph though/60mph as listed.
@@nothingspecial6925 Pads and top rollers will not like that speed as the vehicle rolls over the track making track top speed 2 x road speed lol
M1 and Leo2 both also have significantly more powerful engines and better HP/t ratios around 25hp/t, while cr2/3 sits at barely 16hp/t (thats just a bit more than ww2 heavy tank standarts)
The crews will tell you if it’s any good when we get our hands on it 😉
How do you feel about the flat sides of the turret?
@@jonathanrobison9667 it would be nice to have it sloped but transporting the vehicle by road or rail would then be impossible. We counter the flat sides by ensuring the weapon always points towards the enemy threat mate
Let’s just hope with the new electronics and all you guys can stop friendly firing on your own British troops… especially in training missions. Obviously take some of the responsibility of of you guys because obviously you can’t handle it
@@henrymorrey4150 you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and couldn’t be further from the truth, but if it makes you feel big to talk shit on the Internet while you’re in a safe space you go right ahead.
@@chalky042 I like what u say and agre, however friendly fire dose happen (tho mainly between us and UK or 2 other aly countries at places like new f.o.b's that are not marked on their map)examples would be in Bosnia a friend of mine Kenny drove tanks in this conflict and said the were hit by British artillery on a small number of occasions (bout4or5) but I've never heard of two of the same country's tanks destroying each other in recent history in or out of training tho no doubt it has happened, anyway would like to know if u agree with me and no how the fuck it ur fault u risked ur life 4 it country and 4 that u have my respect 110%
ik u wont see this koala but thank u for making these vids i watch them over and over again to deal with my depression when im alone for days and im thankful for u being here!!!!
Wouldn't comedy be better for you?
@@oxcart4172 ???
I agree with you 100% with regard to the weight, it would have been better to just focus on reducing it to around 50 tons, and there are different effective ways to accomplish that, like for example the way Japan did it with their Type 10, by utilizing modular armor. Thereby you can use different armor packs, depending on the situation, transport it separately, can be easily replaced on the field and upgraded later on if new materials and such are developed. I think they missed a huge chance to make a better tank, which is easier to maintain, and support logistically as well as have a good punch.
You couldn't do that with challenger 2 unless you built a completely new chassis which is what they're trying to avoid. The base weight of the tank is 64t and that goes up to 75t with its modular armour equipped.
The weight makes zero diference it already gets transported only by the c17 even reducing that weight it would still only be transported by a c17. 60-70kmph is perfectly fine for a MBT.
The most fragile part in high speed driving a tank are the tracks ... notcthe engine or the transmission... just imagine the force working on a 2,8to track at 100km/h... long befor the engine or transmission would break the tank would throw its tracks... the Diehl tracks on the Leo2 are tested up to 120km/h The Trophy Leopard2 A7A1 are only bought in small number and the only reason is they are for the fast NATO reaction force were they fight together with M1A2 with Trophy to make the logistic more easy by only using one hard kill system. Germany will use ADS for their armored vehicles in numbers
Yeah but they usually don't do max speed
Wasnt there some story going round that the tracks couldnt get traction on an ordinary roadside kerb?
@@redf7209 That would be unlikely, considering all the weight on top of those tracks. But I guess that depends on the type of track used, as steel performs worse on concrete then rubber.
@@Adierit I'm thinking a long rail vehicle will always have a lot of its weight distributed on track either side.
@@redf7209The tank destroys road side kerbs . you are supposed to leave about one foot between kerb and track so when the tank is guided away and turns it doesn't destroy it. At Babcock Bovington the workers frequently park right next to the kerb , many are wrecked. Don't care or poor training !
I’ve never thought about this as a new tank and this video really nailed that point home
It's not new... its an upgrade to C2. Let's be honest here.
Agreed, but ‘marketing’ 😜
@@kalicom2937 oh yeah that’s what I’m saying
It’s got a new number! 3️⃣
@@kalicom2937 It is effectively a new tank. They've replaced the engine, transmission, suspension, all the armour, computers, digital systems, comms systems, fire control and optics, completely replaced the turret with a brand new massively uparmoured turret and heavily modified the hull with more armour. There is very little to nothing left of a Challenger 2 in the Challenger 3. This 'upgrade' is the same as the Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 'upgrade', ie a brand new tank wearing a skinsuit of the previous tank.
It definitely has the feel of a stopgap about it, like how the Tornado F3/ADV was kind of a stopgap while the Typhoon was in development. Definitely hoping that we've got something bigger and better planned out for the future beyond the 2040s.
Pretty much this. The life extension program is only supposed to carry the Challenger 2 (Now going to be called the Challenger 3) up until 2035, I imagine they'll stretch that to 2040 whilst they design a new tank design.
The replacement has been constantly delayed due to issue's implementing the various technologies that will be present amongst other things. The armour that will be the backbone of chally 3 is a part of the project for it's replacement and offers many advantages over Dorchester and that will be reflected in a number of ways but it isn't the same as the armour the replacement will have think of it as an incremental improvement.
The longer this video went on the clearer it became that you have obviously been doing your CR2 research in the Sunday Sport!!!!
I think they just got confused with kph and mph. When going at over 60kph the Challengers engine would rev over its limit, which could damage the engine. It is the same as driving 50kph in 1st gear at 6.000 rpm in you VW Golf. You could go 60kph if you increase your rpm to 8.000 and risk damaging your engine or you could shift wich loweres your rpm at the same speed. The Challenger would by now be in its highest gear, the only way of going faster is to increase the rpm of the engine. In order to increase the "safe speed" they would either have to adjust the gear ratio , wich would make the tank loose power because the engine would rev at a lower rpm at 60kph. They also did not mention thath they modified the transmission, so that is not the case. The other way of increasing the "safe speed" is by strengthening components in the engine, but there are no mentions that the Challenger 3 received such upgrades. Everything i could find was that they impproved the cooling system which increased the power output a bit so it compensates for the increased weight.
They stated that its the Power Pack that is being upgraded. that is both the engine and transmission.
Maybe there adding an extra gear, or extended range to the torque converter. I have no idea how a tank transmission and engine work these days but that’s what would do it for a D9 bulldozer.
@@knucker2730 They only impproved the cooling of the entire powerpack
@@notinmyairspace uprated turbos give the power increase!
Or... or. Just hear me out. They could just put a bigger engine in the tank or give it another gear
It’s the enemies from within that the armed forces need to worry about when it comes to the procurement and building of our military equipment, too many beaks in the gravy train who couldn’t care hoot about those using the equipment as they wont be doing the fighting.
You are close to the truth my friend.
Evidence?
@@32shumble Look no further than the infamous Type 42 destroyers. Designed and constructed down to a price. Not given the required radar or much needed basic protection against the simplest of anti ship missiles from day one. Sunk by aging Skyhawk A4 bombers. Only dumb luck and superb seamanship kept the losses to two of the class, with others damaged by unexploded bombs. Let's ignore the cheap hull design, aluminium that burned and cost so many lives.
@@32shumble Look at all the major weapons procurements made for 50 years and see how they overspend way off the original budget look at the consistency of this behaviour then drill into the behaviours and you will see the same trends every time - this will require some reading and effort if you are inclined to corroborate this.
@@dickdastardly5534 If you'd ever worked on a dev project you would know how costs, and time are impossible to predict accurately. Oh yes, there COULD be corruption, but budget overrun is, at best, circumstantial evidence of that.
Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Makes good sense. I really like hearing the horsepower per ton number. In the world of physics horsepower describes how much time it takes to do work. Tons describe the weight of the work to be done. So more power is more better.
More power is not more better. More power is better.
I was around for the Chally 1 to Chally 2 changeover, heck I remember the stink when the T62 hit the news as well, which makes me just a bit younger than dirt and I'd like to clarify your information regarding the use of APFSDS rounds fired from the rifled gun. U.S. Pat. No. 4,242,961 to Moredock, et al. issued Jan. 6, 1981 covers the use of an obturator that surrounds the sabot petals and spins when the round is fired, allowing the penetrator and sabot petals to maintain a steady state while the obturator engages the rifling and spins around them. This is discarded along with the petals when the round leaves the barrel. The sabot petals themselves don't spin around the penetrator, they are fixed until discarded when fired. I'm a fan of the Challenger 2 and its attention to the infantry support role, I trust its sibling will maintain the relationship with the promised, programmable rounds. Great vid, some excellent information and lovely footage.
I had a two hour discussion with a family member who wanted to talk to me about this, and it range true with almost every point you made. UK procurement cycle goes like this: Step 1, design a vehicle which is excellent for the year in which you have designed it, and ultra-optimised to meet and defeat the threats of that period, usually with design work nearing completion right at the time when that threat is going out of fashion, and a sweeping change is coming to all vehicles of this type, rendering your new design (at best) highly conservative, and at worst, obsolete before it's even reached troops. Don't forget to recycle as much as possible from older designs and hamper your new one in as many ways as possible by insisting on nothing clean sheet, all upgrades of upgrades of equipment that has heritage in 1945. Wherever possible, take the cheapest approach short term, whether or not it costs more later. Step 2, spend upwards of 10 years testing the hell out of the prototypes. Really make sure all the minor details are polished to perfection, and that the vehicle is massively over-built, so that it's really mechanically reliable, well laid-out for the crew, and has lots of quality of life features that will ensure the users love it. Don't bother talking about the big details, like how the over-built chassis weighs far too much, or how the armour and gun are now 20 years out of date and it's not even reached troops yet. Rest assured that a fifth re-arrangement of the buttons on the gunner's controls will make it superior to your rivals. Step 3, after spending a decade testing your originally budget vehicle, likely selected over rivals purely because it cost less, you have now spent far more than your rivals did for their development. Cash strapped MOD cuts leave you with a small production run that causes cost per vehicle to spiral. Necessary upgrades are totally forsaken because it cost so much to get the vehicles to troops at all that there is no cash left to make them remotely modern. While vehicles that were already more modern continue to be upgraded, yours grows more and more useless. At this stage it is important to let the troops and public know that they have the absolute best vehicle in the world, which nobody else wanted on export, and you should keep stressing everything is the best right up until the exact moment you order a replacement, at which stage you will change tune and reveal everything was garbage to justify the new expense, acting like you have been saying that all along. Step 4, repeat the cycle. This happens in 30 year intervals. Never accept as a nation that this is a problem, always feel smug and self assured that being British makes all equipment the best in the world. Repeatedly use codename jargon to imply that every part is better than everyone else's and whenever challenged with evidence, claim it's classified and they couldn't possibly know. You will find, the more you dig, that this isn't just exclusive to armoured vehicles. This cycle happens with British submarines, surface warships, aircraft... it's pretty much every MOD project. Spend more money, get a worse outcome, usually obsolete on arrival, or "designed for, but not fitted with" necessary equipment it will never receive, and fiercely defend it as being somehow world-beating so nothing ever changes.
The sad part is, sometimes, they do the exact opposite (look at the L129A1) so we know they can do it well when they really want to. almost like the more expensive the project the more scared they are of wasting money and end up wasting more money
they are sending challenger 2s to Ukraine and claiming its superior to all Russian tanks when its subpar even to the t72b3 in every way except reverse speed.
Think you need to remember that we're competing with tech inferior to our own, so having a well optimised vehicle represents a quality investment for battlefield resources and logistics. If we ever go to war with USA / Germany etc. Then you'll have bigger things to worry about than mod profligacy with funding.
So it’s not just the upgraded fire/ sighting systems, armor packages or the upgraded gun. It’s the entire crew that operates the tank that will provide the best case scenario for how the tank performs.
Battlefield awareness, intel, coordination, surprise. Lots of factors can grasp victory from . . . . .
With the army looking to save money and a decreased priority placed on mbts the procurement choice was probably between this mild upgrade, or no upgrade at all. A completely new design or more radical upgrade was probably never on the cards for cost reasons.
NOTE: Spin messes up HEAT rounds too. The needle-jet of the ultra-high-velocity penetrator is made up of the cone-shaped front end of the projectile and thus the outer edges of the cone at its wide-open "mouth" must be very quickly squeezed down to the center to form the jet and you want that narrow jet of quasi-liquid metal (usually) to stay at that size and shape as it extends into the target like a tongue of a frog shooting out to catch a bug, though here to punch a narrow, but very deep hole through thick armor. If the jet material formed from the edge of the wide end of the cone is spinning, it will try to spread out again sideways and defeat the entire purpose of the jet: Forward penetration at a concentrated point. So, HEAT rounds from a rifled gun also have to have some sort of internal de-spinning system for the inner explosive and cone, as was used in the French tank guns or using de-spinning outer rings and fins for actual stability. Otherwise, non-pinning or very-slow-spinning projectiles must be used in missiles and bazooka-type launchers.
Heat rounds are not spin stabilized. They are fin stabilized. Hep or hesh are spin stabilizer.
Once the heat round hits the target it will not be spinning ! So the cone won't spread out !
Yep the HESH round was the round for the only Challenger lost in combat from a blue on blue incident. It was a fluke hit, the HESH kill round hit the commander’s open hatch sending HE fragments into the turret, unfortunately killing some of the crew, and starting an internal fire…
I don’t think it was the HESH round to destroy the tank but was the commander hatch open that have destroyed the tank. That’s a big difference.
@@ermirohri The HESH round hit the open turret hatch and the explosion was sent down into the turret. 2 crewmen were on stag in the turret, the other two were asleep under the hull. The incident's covered in a book called 'Main Battle Tank' by Niall Edworthy. It's well worth a read!
Sorry to hear that brother. That was a fluke of a shot.
Not too thrilled about a visit from the rozzers if they read this... but you are miss informed. The tank was inoperable as it's up armoured turret had been forcibly relocated to the back of the engine deck. Spall from a HESH round is the least of your problems….!!
@@navnig Wait, they were asleep under the Hull? Do tank crews sleep under their tanks?
The two biggest things I come away with in researching this vehicle is: 1. It's not a Challenger 3, it's a Challenger 2 upgrade. 2. The pinnacle of tank achievement for the British was Centurion.
I mean the only thing challenger 2 about it is the hull...everything else is completly new, even the hull insides have little commonalities with the CR2
@@warhead_beast7661 not really true - the hull inside and out is pretty well unchanged, the only significant changes being to the ammo storage. The turret is all new though, but very similar in design overall
@@ArmorCast and new engine
@@ArmorCast didnt they say it got a new engine, Transmission and Suspension?
Centurion was already just a slightly better Panther.
A well balanced, honest and interesting video. Thank you.
Gotta hand it to you for coming back and still responding to comments on videos and answering questions. Cheers
I think you're right when you say "too little too late". Seeing as only about half the tanks we have are being upgraded, is it possible that the others will get something like the Black Knight upgrade or the 130mm verrsion that Rheinmetall showcased in their promo video? Also QinetiQ have their hybrid drive unit that the yanks are testing so that will be happening at some point. It's all well and good being the first to adopt something but you end up spending fcuk loads of cash and take all the risk and seeing as our media crucify the military/government/defence companies every time there's teething problems, I can understand why the cautious approach has been taken.
@Morfidus Mor fair enough, just thought it would be typical that we upgrade to the smoothbore and the rest of NATO swaps to the 130 or 140mm. Still if we're going to keep deploying tanks it would be good to have a more constant rolling upgrade schedule.
This should have came much earlier, contemporary upgrades.
It was planned to. Since the early 2000's. They just kinda maybe sort of decided over time that they could save the money (for themselves) for better upgrades at a later date. Like the MK.2 CLIP, Britian literally swapping the gun and ammo bins out for the L/55 (Not A1 like the 3 has) and wet ammo for its ammo in the hull.
I can't believe I hadn't seen this video before, I really do hope they can amend a lot of these issues before these tanks enter service as they are still so far away. Interesting but very concerning stuff, amazing video and just subscribbed
While a hypothetical "which tank beats which…" scenerio is a academic circle jerk, there is still a valid argument for a comparison of _practicality and usability_ - which tanks are more desirable for a *clean sheet military* to aquire. That would involve a lot of metrics, of which who would win in a straight slugging match is not the top category … And even if it came down to a actual tank on tank battle, there are a lot of other factors in play than just firepower vs armour. It would be a interesting idea for a video.
Modern tank rounds in the West can pierce any tank's side and rear armor. The vast majority of them use thermal computer targeting. The main difference is their logistical foot print. Some tanks use more fuel than other tanks and some tanks break down more. Those things are rarely discussed because they don't seem cool to talk about.
The speed of tanks is typically limited by the transmission and final drive. The Abrams for example is completely capable of straight line speeds of 62mph, but the transmission will prevent it to protect itself as well as the final drives. Also, the forces exerted when making a sweeping turn at those speeds on the track guides could have you hearing a loud bang and then watching your track sail down the road. They probably improved the transmission and final drives along with better guide pins. The Abrams can actually be adjusted by a mechanic, I've had one at the theoretically top speed and there are still plenty of RPMs to go faster. Plus the speedo goes up to 62 in those.
Abrams isnt capable of 60+mph, it is capable of 42-43mph.
Thank you for that. All that I read on that said nothing about that. Thanks again.
@@kf8575 that's a limited top speed on the transmission. And top speed is actually 45mph on all models and in all TMs. But it can theoretically go 65mph if it wasnt governed.
@@Deathbomb9 What would be the point of that if it destroys the transmission in the process? Its like the Soviet MiG-25's jet engine. Or the eighth gate (Gate of Death) in Taijtusu in Naruto.
@@death_parade typically the transmission isn't what gets destroyed first. The final drives would become overheatedand start to cause excessive force that the transmission doesn't like to deal with. You would damage the transmission for sure if you ran it at those speeds for an extended period of time, but before the transmission failed your final drives would fail and either break completely of you would end up with a lot of noises that they aren't supposed to make (metal on metal grinding of seized bearings or completely destroyed bearings and the shaft rubbing in ways its not supposed to). The transmission can handle theoretical speeds close to 72mph, but that was tested with resistance of about -5tons of what the original XM1 weighed at the end of testing and trials before it entered service. Limiting the transmission to 45mph is good because over the road your supply line can keep up and cross-country your supply line can cope with meeting you when you need it. It also allows the infantry support you would need to keep up in their Bradley's. The military is all about redundancy and never exceeding about 80% of capability on just about everything it has. So when you looker the US military and think how advanced they are, understand that the equipment is only being worked at 80% rather than 100% so it lasts a lot longer and is much more reliable. And there are points where you can get 100%, but that's when you risk breaking things or causing some sort of damage. And those times are typically reserved for emergency combat use, you are unlikely to ever see footage or video accounts or recreations because the military does everything in its power to foresee and prevent those cases.
First of all, talk coming from the MOD suggested that we may drop the MBT from our Forces. This new tank is to be celebrated. Whatever it is called, Challenger Mark 3 or Challenger 3, it is an improvement on it's predecessor. From what I have seen Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 did pretty well in both Gulf Wars. I haven't heard any Tanker complain about the quality of their ride. Secondly, has it got the kit to shoot down A10s. Any plane that does not respond to FOF should have a missile up it's arse immediately. It doesn't have to be the best tank in the world it just needs to be effective.
Grew up with CH1, served on CH2, retiring as CH3 comes online. each version is an evolution from the previous incarnation, within the budget set by people who'll never crew them. But as long as they retain the BV they'll always be a favourite
B.v for the win
Whats that bv ?
Oh shit ahahah found the wiki
Boiling vessel. Nice (and of course vital)
No BV = no crew 😂
Remember the day they launched the original Challenger 1 at what was ROF Barnbow in Leeds, I lived a mile from the factory. Great channel btw
It’s kinda like the T90 in that the CR3 is a super upgrade like the T90 was for the T72.
T90 is a new update design mix features of T72 and T80
@@huntermad5668 well considering there was basically no changes from the T-72BU to the base T-90 it was a T-72 upgrade in all but name
@@BatteredWalrus To reflect the difference between it and original T-72. Seeing they share the hull and autoloader but different turret, different gun, different fire control system, different engine. More than half of T-72BU is new parts. Both from t-80 and new. That is why i called it a mix of T-72 ans T-80
I still believe they made a conversion error with the speed and it’s meant to be 60kph.
Seems like an extremely simple error for some very high-technological production guys to make, not just once but multiple times... It’s possible, but honestly it seems more likely to me that 96kph (60mph) is the maximum SAFE speed the power pack could withstand without damage, whereas Challenger 2’s max safe speed is about 62kph, though the tank has been known to reach up to 70, with a general max speed (under its own power alone) of 59kph. Challenger 3 would likely be about the same, but the engine would no longer suffer damage if it gets up above 62kph, say on a downhill straight where it could reach ~70
@@ArmorCast It's not the highly technical people that said that, it's the PR department. And no, even with a 1500hp powerpack it's still at the lower end of NATO tanks in terms of hp/t, so it's not reaching 60mph in any safe or regular fashion that doesn't involve a downward slope and superjumbo's runway's worth of acceleration as well as a willingness to replace the gearbox after.
@@lsq7833 well this is what I mean - Challenger 2 can reach 59kph under its own power alone. It’s power pack is able to sustain it up to 62kph without damage, but CR2’s have been known to reach up to 70 on a long downhill highway... and then they need their power packs replaced. Challenger 3 will also be able to reach anywhere up to 70 or perhaps even slightly higher, as it’s the same weight, better suspension, same power output, etc., but in this circumstance the power pack won’t sustain any damage, as it’s safely rated for up to 96kph. Of course that’s assuming it’s NOT just a typo, but once again I wouldn’t think that sort of very simple mistake would make it past so many people at RBSL and into promotional content for the new tank... seems far more likely to me that the safe speed for the engine was raised, and that’s where the value of 60mph comes from... but in general CR3 will share all the speed characteristics of CR2
@CSO Class Supercarrier Halo The Fall Of Reach hard and soft aps are part of a seperate program that will be in the TES kit not just onto the tank and rbsl does say it has laser warning
but it is a typo. daddy red effect said it himself. same 1200hp engine and weighing one ton heavier with improved engine cooling dont make it go over 100 kph. its literally impossible
Very interesting video on a very interesting vehicle. I do agree with your conclusion that the Challenger 3, as it's currently proposed, is only a more modernized and upscaled version of 2 with some extra capabilities. For me it bears the hallmarks of an interim vehicle rather than a true replacement with futuristic capabilities, something to tide you over until you can design a truly revolutionary vehicle. Going without active protection in a modern battlefield though does seem both anachronistic and dangerous at this point though. With UK politics being what they are currently, it wouldn't surprise me if this was more to establish jobs and political capital now and make a more futuristic design later on.
15:38 Just on APS it has now been finalised it’ll have a Trophy system - on the British army website under Challenger 3 it states “Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s Trophy Active Protection System (APS) for armoured vehicles has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for detailed assessment on Challenger 3.”
One massive advantage when developing this new tank is the amount of validation done post Iraq wars !
We really need to ask ourselves "Is the MBT going to retain its title of King of the Battlefield?" With integrated battle management systems and stand-off weaponry that can be launched from several miles away and steered to target by a drone or number of drones all talking to each other, does the MBT become just the well protected up front eyes on target? If this is the future then Challenger 2.5/3 might just be the gateway to a whole new philosophy of warfare.
@@petermeyerhoff8737 most insightful comment here 😂
The thing is one has to see where the UK MoD was a couple of months ago : scrap the concept of tanks in the Army all together or rework a solid and sturdy platform as is the Challenger. The Challenger 3 may be the foundations of many projects to come as it's been proved in the 130mm Rheinmetall demonstrator, the Black Knight, among others. It´s funny though that after WW2 Germans adopted the British L7 gun as standard while nowadays even the British Industry has fallen to mount a German cannon.
Everyone in the world adopted the L7 - best gun of its time, today the Rheinmetall 120mm is the best. There were many wise men in the army who confidently told us the tme of the tank was over and we needed to go fast and light, they went silent after the Ukraine fighting started.
back in the days, the german defense industry was more or less dismantled by the British, French, Americans and Sovjets. there were some remnant experts etc sitting around, but the expertise etc was gone. that is why the germans adopted a british main gun, because they had no real weapons research programmes and relied on weapon imports at that time. but after that/during that, RHM and others had regained a lot of expertise etc and rebooted their arms research programmes with federal funding. meanwhile the UK´s arms industry took a wrong turn and drove down a dead end with their MBT concepts and gun developement
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The L7 I would say was an exceptionally good gun, so was the Centurion tank. I say that because everyone in the west adopted it - US, Israel etc. We then did go down the wrong road with 120mm rifled and the unreliable chieftain was not a balanced tank but heavy and slow too to carry enough armour to defend the threats of the day, the defense was a British need but not appealing for others. Today the Rhien smoothbore is the best, tomorrw who knows...
@@MrEddieLomax the UK has no domestic MBT developement left after the Vickers sellout. The rebuilding of a modern competitive weapons developement needs expertise, time and money. Right now, it looks like the next gen MBT gun will be the RHM130mm with autoloader
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Yep, at one point we were about to outsource vehicle production to Spain. Whats changed is brexit, there has now been more home production and I'd expect armour to follow. The big problem with armour is it is a dead end, the 120mm is still used today because you need a 65 ton tank to survive and only at range. Something new needs to appear (electric - seriously there was a demo of this years ago). Until then you could get a ch2,m1 or leo2 and you would not be obsolete in 2050.
Something to be considered...Only one CR1 was ever damaged by a road side bomb. Not a single CR1 or 2 has ever been knocked out by enemy fire......
Yeah it was fixed and back in service the next day
How many peer 2 peer tank battles have they both been in?
@@mental9mikey T-64 and similar in the Gulf wars. Up to date enough or would you rather see them completely destroy T-80's in Ukraine? Because they would. Russian tanks are trash.
They also have not been in tank on tank combat ever as far as we are concerned
@@davepritchard283 Russian tanks aren't bad, but their logistics, tactics and top brass are all rubbish, so they throw a load of poorly supported armour in and it gets smoked.
When it comes to kit being replaced in our generation I can think of two British aircraft straight away - The Tornado being replaced by the Typhoon and the Harrier being replaced by the F35.
The Harriers were sold to American Marines.There was no replacement.F35 was years later.Also not many have been bought.Due to high cost.
Vc10 and Tristar replaced by voyager? Herc replaced by a400,
The Harriers were sold to American Marines.50 of them .We still have Tornadoes in Falkland Islands and other places.Typoon is Euro fighter.So agreed to buy so many.Between the nation's that developed it.And we bought F35 and also the joint strike fighter.
Challenger 3 might be like the London Olympics, everyone thought it would be a bit crap! To everyone's surprise it wasn't!! in fact pretty good!!!! In fact they had a Freddy Mercury hologram, so FANTASTIC!!!!!! Sooo I'm expecting an extravagant, hard rocking tank..... with a moustache :) that died 30 years ago :(
It did die 30 years ago but its been on life support ever since.
@@Makeyourselfbig So basically, the Challenger 3 is a zombie tank?
@@RedXlV Pretty much. We can't afford a new one so we upgrade a few old ones and bin the rest.
Fascinating video, thanks for uploading!!!!
Eh, i don't think its as insignificant as you make it out to be. I don't see any tank produced in the near to mid future having the armour to rival some of the ridiculous rounds developed and still being developed for the 120mm. In addition, it's clear Britain isn't really currently in the business of making tank guns and ammunition atm. Adopting a new calibre gun with no idea if any of NATO will join suit is a recipe for disaster, weather that be logistical or even in ammunition available. It's got great optics. It's got a proper computer systems. It's gonna have some kinda APS, and the gun and engine have had small upgrades. Seems like a pretty great tank to me, and it should hold up for a while
i agree with u, this is like a "placeholder" upgrade to not get massively outclassed, but their isnt anything comming after it. so far i know. what the Challenger 3 had needed to be future proven was probably the 130mm gun, new power-pack, APS, RC-weaponstation, front hull redesign or armorpackage etc. but that said, maybe the 130mm + autoloader is not ready yet, not reliable enough or simply just to expensive(what i belive) for the british army.
There's also the fact 130mm rounds are bigger and heavier and it's not multi-part ammo anymore, and yet the tank hull and turret aren't getting any bigger. That demonstrator model with the 130mm on it could only carry about 20 rounds
They're looking at the likely opposition and making a cost-benefit analysis. CR2 will outclass any likely enemy equivalents for the foreseeable.
I do agree with your take that this is basically just 'Chally 2 LEP' rather than 'Challenger 3' - imo that's just marketing/PR. Personally, I tend to see this as being very, very similar to the Italian upgrade program to the C1 Ariete - where 125 of 200 hulls (originally they intended all 200, but this was then cut down) will be upgraded as part of a circa €300 million program in order to extend their useful life for another ten years. This program works towards the goal of replacing the tank force with a new type (of which they intend to procure 257 hulls) in the early 2030s in two ways. The first is from a military perspective, to allow the army to maintain a credible armored force for operations over the next decade+. The second is from an industrial perspective - engaging the land-based defense industry in such a program keeps the industry working and breast the latest developments in technology. This allows the industry to remain competitive and able to deliver a credible future tank when that program arrives - or, rather, in the modern context, it is more correct to say that it means the Italian industrial base can remain competitive in order to secure Italy industrial workshare in a tank procured jointly with other nations, and to have sufficient say in the military characteristics of the tank. As far as tank replacement goes, Italy is actually faced with a major dilemma, as the MGCS program, on paper the ideal future, is supposed to produce a tank about five years later than when Italy wants to start phasing in the new platform, and until recently France and Germany had no interest in letting Italy join (despite numerous requests) early enough to have any influence on the military characteristics of the vehicle or have any major role in industrial workshare. Efforts to find international partners elsewhere have not borne fruit. As it stands now, though, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel as Germany has been increasingly moving towards making the program more open, allowing the UK with observer status and creating a potential avenue for Italy to join the program on an more equal basis via Rheinmetall Italia if the Italians procure the Lynx (which appears likely) to replace Dardo. For Britain, I see this Challenger program as largely the same - upgrading 148 of 227 hulls to allow the British army to maintain a credible armored force for the future (until it can be replaced fully by a future platform), and giving the British land defense industrial base something to work on to keep their capabilities up to par, allowing them to credibly contribute to a future tank procurement effort, which will almost certainly be international (with MGCS looking like the most likely candidate, but only time will tell). This will be important to prevent them from being sidelined by potential partners with established programs (ex, France and Germany, or potentially America), as otherwise they won't be able to have enough influence in the program to ensure their military requirements for the future platform are met, or to secure a sufficient amount of industrial participation. It's not a very exciting portrayal of the 'Challenger 3' upgrade program, but it's a necessary one and a step in the right direction if Britain wants to maintain its domestic capability to design and built tanks (though, by all means, if that is something that is worth the trouble is certainly something that can be debated) - though probably one with a bit too much in the way of enthusiastic PR on the part of the British. Calling it 'Challenger 3' just seems to open the door to mockery. For more background on the Italian situation: www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai2007.pdf
I completely agree with you. CR3 was clearly never intended to be a next generation platform, but to help prepare Britain's defense industry for the next generation platform. I'm not sure if Britain will go for MGCS though, as there may not be an enough time for Britain to influence its requirements to suit their needs.
@@JumpSeeker considering, that Germany and France favor lighter, more mobile MBT with higher firepower and a high technological baselevel, just like Italy, the UK´s needs are very much in the opposite direction and would result in conflict, stalling and likely failure of the program. so i would say, it is better this way, with the UK being an observer with the option to buy, but not to interfere with the program
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 I didn't say that the UK should get involved in the design and development. It's far to late for that now. What I meant was that it's very unlikely for the UK to buy a new MBT that it hasn't had influence over and doesn't suit their requirements.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The UK used to favour protection over mobility. France and Germany always prioritised mobility over protection. EVERYONE now favours protection over mobility.
@@agt155 so then, tell me, why does every developement project favor good firepower, mobility and active protection with a weight reduction over massive armor bricks?
Armour Cast you are wrong. Whilst I concede that APFSDS rounds do not become more accurate due to rifling (they use a full bag charge for increased velocity to gain accuracy), other rounds such as HESH are made significantly more accurate due to rifling. The spin imparted on such a round eradicates tumbling and adds a ‘predictable’ spin to the round. It is the predicability of the spin that provides the gunnery computer with enough information to properly extrapolate from other factors such as distance and wind etc. Rifling makes the gun way more accurate because of this.
Why would you fire a FS round from a rifled barrel? The fins just ruin the effect of the rifling.. Changing to smooth bore standardised the ammunition, which is probably for the good. and probably cheaper due to large quantities being made.
@@robertmonk2346 to impart mathematically predictable spin to the projectile. Rifling means that every round is delivered is precisely the same way, whereas smooth bore guns are much less predictable due to the effects of tumbling. Rifling also means that defects in the round itself will not cause tumbling. Also rifling rotates the rounds quickly so as project the sabot outward to get it out of the way the moment it leave the barrel. You may be wondering how I know this. It’s because I was a Armoured Corps officer in the British Army when Challenger I was introduced. It was my job to know the precise characteristics of the entire gunnery system for Chally I and Chally II. I was also part of the trial team in Bovington when Chally II was being brought into service in the mid 90’s. There is not a single gun in the British Army that is smooth bore these days, other that mortars, which are not classed as guns anyway.
@@gmtime5439 Thanks for the info.
A variable that was not commented upon is the transmission system. Is it possible to dramatically improve the efficiency in this area without modifying the engine output to achieve higher top speeds.?
Could this just be a stopgap so they have time to work on the “future tank”? With a relatively low number being produced and the short lifespan it could just be upgrades to hopefully tie things up and give more time for a better tank. Just a thought.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure we don't have the factories here to make more tanks so we'd have to then pay someone else to make them for us or just buy tanks from another country.
The problem is, how many "future tanks" will Britain need? If the potential production numbers get to small, it's better to buy it from elsewhere or join a project like MGCS.
The Challenger 3 is not being "produced" from sctatch, it's being upgraded on the already existing base of the Challenger 2 which in turn is based on the older Challenger 1 from the 1980's.
Yes this is a stopgap it is not the future tank for the UK, that vehicle won't be retaining the challenger name.
@@andrewaustin6369 It will begin with a C though. That we can be sure of.
Are we forgetting that the challenger 2 is one of the most survivable tanks produced? One such tank being hit by approximately 72 rpg rounds and survived keeping all crew members alive? Challenger 2 is a beast let's not forget that
Being hit by seven, seventy, or seven THOUSAND rounds of RPG's made in the mid 50's with minimal ability to penetrate armor, proves nothing. Yes it survived a number of them while Abrams or Leo 2's were destroyed by a single shaped charge, but that's because those shaped charges were Kornet-M's made in the 2000's with more than triple the armor penetration capacity!
@@ArmorCast Not really mate, here's one example I found with just a quick search of the Wikipedia page, in 2006, an RPG 29 tandem charge warhead penetrated the frontal lower UNDERBELLY of a Challenger 2 in Iraq. Already hit by 10-15 RPGs, the tank was attempting to withdraw. This tandem warhead cost the driver his foot but other than that they were able to make a withdrawal. Now, another easy google is looking up penetration of the RPG-29 tandem charge, adopted in 1991 as the last RPG to be adopted before the fall of the Soviet Union. This can penetrate 750mm of RHA, which is greater than the armour afforded by the Challenger's lower front plate. The Challenger survived its encounter with it in 2007, not because it was a round "made in the mid 50's" but because the tank is a good tank that was designed with crew protection in mind. Bringing up US Abrams tanks is just a strawman since the discussion is about the Challenger 2. This was light research, please do more of it for future videos.
@@ArmorCast The tank in question was also hit by a Milan anti-tank missile. All three tanks are protected by modular armour which gets upgraded from time to time, so it's anybody's guess whose armour is most effective. Being heavier, Challenger can carry more of it.
@@tyreshredder3642 Interestingly, the Trophy system mooted to be fitted as part of the upgrade, would have defeated the RPG-29. ukdefencejournal.org.uk/trophy-active-protection-system-picked-for-challenger-3/
@@gusgone4527 thats some pretty cool armour then
I like the way the rounds are nice bright colours, nice change from all that drab green.
My childhood tank toys were M26 / M46 Pershings while they were still in use in Korea while the Truce was just starting. Many generations of tanks have come and gone since then.
My favourite are the M48 Patton. Because they fell absolutely flat on their face and all their hype was busted during the Battle of Asal Uttar.
Welcome to the early 2000s Britain! 🎉
the challenger 2 was well upgraded within the 2000s and now
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it upgraded well - even for the time. It's too soon to welcome them to the early 2000s. Sadly, we can't really do that until 2030 (assuming everything is delivered on time).
Now America, France and Italy need to catch up
@@Battyj americans already up to par. They've already tested a new variant of the M1A2 that has an improved fire control system, better tracks, more armor and a round that can defeat kontak5 era. They also claim it can defeat relikt era.
@@icetea8946 You have to remember the E.U played a part in Britains slow development. Britaom bh 2035 will be up to standard, now that king bojo is putting British made back on the cards, Ill be interested to see how the 6th generation fighter Tempest comes on.
the time they have upgraded to the challenger 3 will be around 2032 this upgrade only was seen to take it into the mid 2040's i agree with you the time this comes out if it does not have a defensive system it will not be really worth the upgrade as it again will be outdated. and i also would have gone for the auto loader, lets just hope the time challenger 3 comes to a end in 2040s uk government will have the money to give the army a new new tank
The bigger question is how many new tanks. Just 148? We'll be producing that amount in a single year in India.
Maybe the best "upgrade" are the changes designed and produced; it makes future design changes easier to know what, if anything, goes wrong here.
I see this thing as a variant/test platform. The tank could be used to test different APS systems and even new types of blowout racks, maybe new optics, ect. However, it is just a variant made too late. What they needed to do was add an APS, drone link, and a much better power pack. The Black Nite looked like a much better option, being that it already came with a pretty good APS. If that APS was automatically reloadable, the Iron fist would be amazing.
Great video mate. Good point about APS , which is already a big deal and with the proliferation of loitering muntions and armed drones is going to be extremely important. This program feels like a decent value for money option. Rather than spend an absolute fortune on a brand new amazing capability they put some very good upgrades on an already good platform and get some decent without breaking the bank. In British Mil procurement that's a win.
Thing is, for less than half the cost per unit, Britain could be fielding 150+ Leopard 2A6’s, which feature most of the same upgrades with none of the drawbacks of Challenger - better armor, much better mobility, same firepower, lower weight, much better power pack, etc., Challenger 3 would have been a very impressive tank if announced ten years ago and entering combat readiness now. By the time we reach 2030 it’ll once again be seen as a knuckle-dragger I’m afraid
@@ArmorCast better armour is very iffy since all of Durga is classified.
@@ArmorCast Well, buying Leopards would be a blow to British pride, but most importantly, to Britains industry. I can see that they wouldn't want to outsource their MBTs when even the Warrior is set to be replaced by Boxers, this is probably a compromise to keep their MBTs british and strengthen their own Industry. Look at how much Rheinmetall had to outsource to Britain for them to take the contract.
Just today 1/7/2021 the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System has been selected for the Challenger 3 happy days.
Good video, but I did find the opening statements a bit odd. I loved watching the Centurians doing their thing and in a parade the look and sound as they rumbled past was absolutely spectacular, the Centurian not only did it's part but it looked the part. And then it was replaced by the Leopard 1, it was a totally different look and feel and it never seemed to stack up against the Centurian. Then we got the Abrams, its big and powerful and when the crew are in sink with the behemoth they are virtually unstoppable. However when I think of a Tank I still think of the Centurian.
I LOVE your videos ! You're an awesome narrator.
Are you sure about the armor protection, I swear they said they were going to use new composite inserts? As for the name, it kind of is a new tank, they had to change so much internally to get it to use the gun and set it up for safe stowage of new single-piece ammunition it's little more than a Chally 2 cosmetic skin. While generally speaking more HP equals more speed when it comes to diesel with the right transmission they could get more out of the current engine. Though they should have thought about a powerpack swap, maybe that put it over budget or messed with all the changes they had to do to get the new gun in the tank.
Looks like the jet engine power-packed Abrams had it right all along. So easy to change that monster out. Germany had it wrong with complex diesel and transmission like they did with their king tiger of ww2. Of course America has its own king tiger in the Abrams. Still the best even though it is the oldest of all these modern tanks.
@@frankcrawford416 An experienced crew can change the powerpack of the Leopard 2 in about 30 minutes in the field if there's a Bergepanzer Büffel around, which normaly is. The Büffel can even give it's own powerpack to the leopard 2 if necessary because it's exactly the same. How many other vehicles do use the same Powerpack as the M1 again?
@@frankcrawford416 you say that but the next version of Abrams the m1a2d is supposed to get a Diesel engine
Although I agree with your point about this just being a small upgrade, how can you get any information on the armour capability. Isn't that extremely confidential? If its touted as having an equivalent thickness of Xcm of steel (etc.) then surely that is something we would keep secret?
It's basically the same Chassis as the C2, and the turret I'd assume is similar to the Leopard 2 considering its made by a subsidiary of the company who makes leopard 2.
@@seanbailey8545 In my comment, I question the comments on the armour - the chassis is a different & independent entity
@@xdazamx I also addressed the turret and therefore the ERA being similar or even just a straight copy of the Leopard 2. Considering they are manufactured by an off shoot of the Leopard 2 manufacturer.
@@seanbailey8545 Right, but what of the effective thickness/performance of the Dorchester armour found on the C3 over the C2. As in, before ERA/spacers are applied. I'm questioning how one could make a comparison on the armour given that information should be confidential. Is it not? I'm not asking about the ERA nor the actual design. I hope that clarifies what I'm asking... otherwise I may be misunderstanding what you are conveying.
Is it not naive to think the armour capability hasn't been tested and that the secret is well blown these days when we give free media access to so much of our stuff and don't really guard stuff like we did in the cold war. We are even allowing a TV crew to make a documentary inside one of our submarines. Public relations seems to trump security
My main issue with the Challenger 3 programme is that we currently only plan to field 148 of them - the best tank in the world is no good if you don't have enough of them. I think that changes as drastic as an entirely new turret and main armament surely do justify the "Challenger 3' designation - these alterations are at least as significant as those made between the Challenger 1 and 2 generations are they not? As for the Challenger's armour being weaker than some of its contemporary western MBT designs this is the first that I have heard of this criticism - without access to (presumably classified) data in this regard it is difficult for a member of the public to meaningfully comment further on that matter. I suppose that all this 'Theatre Entrance Standard' additional armour added to the vehicle is a tacit admission that protection has become inadequate against modern threats. I agree that if the MBT has a longer term future then reducing weight - by the adoption of active protection technology instead of heavy armour - is highly advantageous. However, it seems to me that there are limits to the amount of armour reduction measures that could be prudently applied to any crewed tank and in the second half of this century replacing that human element with automation may result in a new generation AFV that is cheaper, smaller, lighter and crucially far more expendable that any crewed MBT can possibly be. Future armoured formations may resemble the latest air warfare concepts with a type of human crewed command vehicle controling a number of subordinate 'Hunter-Killer' drones that do the actual fighting. Time will tell.
In this day and age things are getting leap frogged so often its not worth building a lot of something as the next gen will be just around the corner and render all those things you just built obsolete like when We the brits first built the dreadnought battleship it rendered our massive wooden fleet that cost a lot of money obsolete
@@danny1229c waiting for that next leap forward in technology often means you don’t have enough of what works today. It’s a huge risk to take when it’s your national defense that’s on the line.
@@danny1229c I agree. But one idea could be to go for a large fleet with just 2 or 3 types in service at a time. That ensures that at least half your fleet is cutting edge while the other half is not obsolete, just dated. For example, India can make 100-150 tanks per year. Which means that to replace the entire Indian tank fleet, it would take 28-42 years. So its good to have two tank types in service with each 20 years apart in entry and just as one goes out of production, the production for the next one begins. Now you have a perpetually modern tank force.
Ya missed the US Army’s transition from the M60A3 to the M1A1. West Germany 86-87. I was there and went through this program… As an ARMOR Crewman… It Was Outstanding! 19e-19k… Cheers!
I did some rough math and i have to say 142000lbs being pushed by 1200hp isnt all that bad. Most class 8 trucks here in the us have a max gvw of 80000lbs and the standard motor in most modern trucks, a cummins x15 “efficiency series” is “only” a 450hp engine and most trucks with a overweight permit are pulling 120,000lbs with that same motor or at best a performace series rated at 565hp. So 142000 with 1200hp is pretty dang good when you put it in perspective.
Pffft. All that maths for naught. Just compare power to weight ratios of all tanks globally and be done with it. Challenger 3: 18 hp/ton. . Don't know about other tanks of the world, but in India its:- T-72 Ajeya: 19 hp/ton T-90S: 21 hp/ton Arjun Mk1: 24 hp/ton Arjun Mk1A: 22.5 hp/ton FMBT (projected): 30 hp/ton
It has been just 1 year post this content. I did raise the issues against UAV. With the unfolding Ukraine- Russia War, this has become more pressing issue. Challenger 3 or Leo2 all lack ASEA or other APS against top attach ATGMs. Another key thing to notice is, 6 wheel issue. I raised this issue by asking why not 7 wheels. Some explain it as hydropnuematic suspension. K2PL is one of the latest MBT and it is using 7 wheels and hydropnuemetic suspension. The key reason for 7 wheel is for future upgrades. Just like the beautiful Concord having no space fir extra fuel or upgrade, it is becoming a tradition that we do not plan or prepare for future upgrade given this vehicle will be in operation for next 30-40 years. Unfortunately my view re Challenger 3 has not has changed. It lacks vision and lacks the focus on what it is meant to be. Reflecting on Ukraine and Russian War makes it a lot more clear that this is a bad choice. UK should have gone with K2Ex (extended) and targeted EU export market rather than holding onto the legacy. Once again, UK has saved 350 jobs but is risking 35,000 soldiers when they get deployed to theatres.
An English take on the french Char Leclerc XLR, if possible, would be nice (also differences with Challenger 3)
My son trained at Knox, U.S.Army. About everyone has a unit there so everyone is talking and look at each other's gear, KIT. The British all seemed to like the Abrams, ergonomics. Improvements in Ergonomics is a main reason. Single piece ammo is easier, the combat effectiveness will come with training.
I was a gunner and loader in Challenger 2, I'd have loved one piece ammo. Learning the loading system was a ball ache.
@@dicky3340 I met a few Brits when Chieftain was still in service. They said the long engagement ranges were great. Loading it was a joke. They actually preferred the Vickers 105.
It's been reported that there is only going to be 148 challenger 3 tanks in the UK. The question isn't just are challenger 3 any good it's also are there enough of them.
What's the point of having a bunch of them if ww3 is a nuclear war
Uk unlikely in a large tank battle without join support. Navy and air force is key for UK millitary and other moble light infiltry and spiecal forces. 148 MBT all well maintained and working is a lot.
I would like to think that watching “performance” of Soviet/Russian tanks in criminal invasion of Ukraine the myth of “lighter is better” got finally busted. Several tanks stuck in fields, in mud, in “ordinary” farm field drainage canals, which aren’t really that deep… Transport, logistics, is the only true downside when it comes to “obese” NATO tanks. And, maybe, just maybe, shorter range. Transport can be easily addressed, let’s be honest, western trucks and trailers are much more reliable, efficient, even “safer” for public roads, than Russian junk. And, today, we know that Russian hardware was receiving unjustified hype over the years. It’s like comparing sledgehammer with sculpture artist hammers/tools.
Not quite, if roles were reversed we'd be seeing western tanks and trucks destroyed in exactly the same manner. Tanks aren't meant for this type of warfare, they're there to support an infantry advance, not pushing ahead without proper support. Even if it were Abrams and Leopards they would still meet the same destruction if the enemy troops are in possession of sophisticated anti tank weapons! The Russians were just hoping for a lightening quick dash to capture certain objectives, unfortunately for them the Ukrainians had been preparing for such a conflict as long ago as 2014. They've had ample time to stockpile anti tank weaponry and make plans on how to best stop such an invasion.
while I would agree that the Russian equipment was/is overhyped, a huge part of the miserable performance in ukraine is how they were used and the lack of supply compared to ukrainian preparation. If NATO tanks were deployed in the same fashion they'd suffer as much bad luck, as while nato stuff is certainly better maintained and more modern, it'd still get stuck on the mediocre and muddy roads, and it'd still be ambushed by masses of prepared and appropriately equipped militia and reserve forces. If the invasion had been run by NATO and not just using NATO equipment, the equipment wouldn't be lost in such an embarrassing manner not because it's immune to mud or ambushes, but because it would probably be much better planned and more conservative, advancing gradually instead of stockpiling the minimum of supplies and then just sending armored and motorized columns straight down barely secured roads to major urban centers, followed by barely screened logistics convoys.
We haven't seen the half of it, Russia is with holding its best troops and equipment, and you'll always get the odd failing. Russian kit ranges from adequate to excellent, and the fact is they are achieving what they want, at their pace.
@@barrag3463 Morale is a large factor in the ukraine war. many Russian soldiers do not believe in the war, so they are deserting. whats more important is crew training. western crews are FAR better trained than the russians. for example, abrams tank crew are trained to destroy their abrams tank if they are forced to leave it. russians just leave their vehicles to be captured. in iraq the crew of Cojone eh fought for 30 minutes to save their tank from a fire.
@@ppo2424 lol no, their "pace" was for it to take three days
One of the more common upgrades that all these tanks will be going through in the next couple of years it’s fire power it is much easier to extend the cannons range which a byproduct will be protecting the tank then it is to redesign the armor and redesign the tank if the gun can shoot 2 1/2 miles nobody can shoot back
I hear that the reason we upgraded our armored mobile tea brewing facilities(the challengers) was because we required more room for Oreo's, Chocolate digestives and bourbon biscuits. That was the only reason. Money well spent in my opinion. Lets be honest the tanks are secondary to a lad in a pair of boots, but just if you think this is not quite true. We do have a phrase of gun barrel tea. This originated some 110 years ago where in warmer climates the machine guns had water jackets, which boiled when fired enough. So after the battle or threat, we had near boiling water to make tea. This is a fact.
I hope it is ok for our people to use. Late as usual, what a surprise! I hope that down the line we actually design our own tank and not go the easy way and get the German or American tank. We have a great history of producing military vehicles so we don't need to pay others to produce things we are perfectly capable of producing ourselves!!!!!!
1:50 I cry every time
I haven't finished watching the video as of posting this question. What happened to that story about the U.K. giving up its armor? I seem to remember a news story a few months ago about "after the U.K.'s current armored vehicles need to be replaced, they won't be." I think the story was talking about British tanks only, armored fighting vehicles and transports will still be used.
Tanks only really get used to full potential in large battles where you need to break targets quickly without pushing artillery batteries, i.e. desert storm. In pretty much everu other situation you can just use something else with a gun - a plane or an AFV etc. (The MoD has a limited budget and doesnt want money spent on rare occasions) Obviously deleting all tanks wont happen yet, but Britain will probably be the first to switch out the tank for a mainly special forces based military
The armour on the challenger is highly classified so it’s hard to compare it to what is out there.
More likely classified but known by are enemies. We wouldn't be sending them to Ukraine to be reverse engineered if it was that much of a secret in the world of armour. Its probably more likely just too expensive to reproduce on a large scale.
@@michaelmurphy8667 yeah I agree with that, but still stand by the fact it’s hard to compare our armour with that on the Russians.
I'm surprised big heavy "guns on tracks" are still required given knocking out fast disposable drones in volume (glass cannons) would be cheaper?
Drones don't hold ground. Tanks and infantry do.
How many drones do you need to get the drop on modern MBTs with remote weapons stations that are supported by proper SPAAGs?
You just described a missile. The point of tanks is to have a big solid thing going 'hey, here I am, this is mine now.'
Challenger 3 needs an MTU engine, they have 2000+ hp versions
It's not that hard to build 2000+hp tank engines, it's all about decades-long lobbied defence contracts and is justified by "reliability, cost and ease of use".
Its all great having a 2000+ horsepower engine. but what range can you get out of it and how easy is it to repair in the field. How reliable is the engine in adverse conditions. All these factors need to be accounted for before looking at performance. Especially the ease of repair.
@@knucker2730 the mtu in the leopard 2 has had 1500 reliable horsepower 40 + years
@@knucker2730 range is not as important as tactical mobility in most situations. Unless you have a long-reaching tank breakthrough in a global war scenario, supply is always right behind you in strategic terms. In desert storm, almost no armored regiment had uninterrupted pushes of more than 40% of Abrams range. 2000hp might be too much, but Challenger 3 is a heavy tank. With the engine as it is, it literally has THE lowest power/weight ratio of any modern mbt. This underperformance can be justified or explained all day, but it's still an underperformance at the end of it. Not crippling, but preventable.
@@LoisoPondohva In a perfect world with established supply chains yes. However in areas like Iraq this was certainly not the case. Many untis became misplaced and isolated and regular supply chains were slow in coming to allied positions. If the war was not so Asymmetrical the results could have been exacerbated to a far greater extent. Britain especially with its relatively limited equipment in comparison to the US needs to have equipment capable of operating in conditions were regular resupply is scarece.
I believe like any type of warfare, most of the time, it comes down to circumstance and skill. With just a dash of luck.
As to the HESH (HEP is US Army terminology) not working with a smooth-bore gun. This is due to having the HESH round merely be a conventional cylindrical/ogival-nosed FULL-BORE projectile. What if you made the HESH internal part slightly narrower (10-15mm, say) and then thickened the outer so that it remained 120mm, BUT, opposite the concept of a rifled bore, you put twisted groves along the side of the new-model HESH shells from base to the lower nose. Then, when you fire it, some of the blast will go through the grooves and spin the shell. These shells are fired at a much lower muzzle velocity than the APFSDS rounds, of course, so some of the propellant power being diverted would be of no consequence. The shell would not need to be complex in any other way. We are not talking about long-range precision fire against a moving tank for a usual HESH target, now are we?
Could they potentially be looking at implementing Porsches old method for propelling heavy tanks faster than they have any right to go? They replace the standard transmission for massive electric motors. Then uprate the tolerances on the engine itself.
Hybrid engines would be quite interesting. But the future will probably either be adiabatic diesel engines or turbines for now. Also, most armies are trying to reduce the weight and also keep complexity low, so a hybrid engine may be not the best option in most cases. On the other side you could maybe drop the gearbox.
@@Tankliker The idea is not a true hybrid. Until Aluminium air batteries can be practical lithium ion batteries are far to power inefficient for their weight to be used in heavy vehicles. Its a simple replacement for the transmission. Essentially a generator with two motors wired to it. The result is actually simpler than most modern transmission power packs. The issue back in the day was that electric motors were far to fragile under heavy strain and had a habit of destroying themselves. However advances in electrical vehicles has changed the dynamic.
(Theoretically) you could have a 1200 hp engine capable of much greater torque and higher speeds as the engine won't need to run as fast. Then it could do the same in reverse.
Just a modernize Challenger with a smooth bore
Same as Abrams updates over the years
Challenger 2 CLIP was meant to be a challenger with wet ammo, 120mm L/55 smoothbore and no other mods other then the new ranges for the gun and the ammo box. That was about a decade ago...
@@ricksadler797 the Abrams got a citv over 20 years ago and upgraded to a smoothbore gun almost 30 years ago and we're already Fielding variants with active protection systems about the only unique thing about the Challenger 3 is it's 130 and even then we have our own 140 in development (and it's an electrothermochemical gun)
@@spartanx9293your just salty because challenger would absolutely slump the Abrams on the battlefield
@@SJ-kv9gu hahaha u tell me
I started on Cheiftain, then Chally 1, then Scorpion. Left before we got Chally2. I've been in a Scorpion at max speed on a West German road, and have a track split, - We ended up doing a 360 and ended up in a ditch with ground where the sky had been. 60MPH? Bring it on I say!
Battle tanks are hitting their peak vs current adversary systems which makes iterative development relevant until a revolution in design or necessity occurs. Main battle tanks still have plenty to do in modern warfare their role is just shifting and adapting. Plus the Challenger is already a beast!
nah.....
It's interesting to see that modern tanks are basically becoming mini, land battleship. They have CIWS systems, and a main armament, much like a heavy gun cruiser would have. How long before the land-drone craft carrier becomes the dominent force on the battlefield.
That’s what they always were, land battleships. You can probably find people saying this in WWI.
Not quite the same, but there was a thing in the news that the Americans are looking to equip their Abrams with drones that can be used for reconnaissance or to deliver supplies to troops.
At the point that their cost and value becomes too great to risk on the battlefield. It’s getting that way.
The MGCS will suposedly have a fleet of drones, so 2035.
TOG 2? Tank development war first overseen by navy folks hence why the first tanks had side guns and multiple turrets.
A very thorough appraisal and quite depressing to hear. It strikes me all the red tape which is necessary to make these decisions and an undoubtedly limited budget will be the primary culprits for slow delivery of a less than optimal solution. I’m also wondering about the overall strategy for the British armed forces moving forward - how integrated this is and how many elements such as tanks might actually be nearing obsolescence in view of developments in air power, missile technology and other innovations. I guess for the tank, its utility depends on the role and although you touched on that I don’t really understand what is envisaged for Challenger 3 in an era where the US seems to be rolling back on their overseas interventions, terrorism is on the rise around the world and we have renewed Cold War style tension with Russia and China. One also can’t help pondering the implications of the climate crisis; at some point and probably by 2027 even the military will be having to comply with some of the measures needed to address it. This 60 tonne diesel powered Challenger 3 doesn’t exactly look eco-friendly! Great presentation however - thank you :-)
Agreed, except for the point on being eco-friendly. There are 32,000,000 cars in Britain alone. And there are -- what, 230 tanks? It has absolutely no significance if tank engines meet environmental standards or not because their impact is minuscule. You could take the worst Soviet engine that produced more smoke than power, put it in all tanks in the world, and still that wouldn't have any impact on the environment. By the way Russia, which is considered a tank superpower, has about 22,000 tanks if you include the mothballed junk. That's still 1,500 times fewer internal combustion engines than there are cars in the UK!
Wow this comment aged well. Russia really showing the new value of the battle tank in Ukraine...
@@jameseden9380 TBH what they're doing is not very representative of the value of tanks. They're literally doing all they can to show the world how NOT to use tanks. Also, this war is showing how much behind they are in terms of technology. They're a third rate power. If not for their nukes (the vast majority of which isn't working), the US would be able to destroy their forces within a week.
@@johnnyenglish583 I do hope you are right about their nukes - they are on my mind at the moment.
@@jameseden9380 Eh? Its more so showing the value of logistics, intelligence and maintenance. Any machine is next to useless if you don't invest in maintaining it.
I'd say the list of improvements are excellent for the British army today, it reduces the cost of running the tank, makes it more powerful, adds national jobs and beats its opponents. That last point is key, while we are at peace with Germany, US etc the only likely opponents are vastly overmatched, so why upgrade your tank massively today when there is little benefit? Better to build a paper future tank for today cheaply and upgrade the real one.
I feel it's as much about securing the support and funding to create the infrastructure and experience in Britain for a future new tank as it is to create jobs. We don't really have the capability to produce a tank from scratch as it currently stands. This should be a nice step to rebuilding some of the infrastructure needed to create a new domestic design further down the line, whilst testing many new technologies like the new digital systems, and pushing for a revival of our export market with the new turret. Also, they have talked about APS on the @t site. Not sure if stuff on that site is classed as reliable info? @t
yeh as far as I was aware, APS is coming for challenger 3, they just haven't decided what APS it's going to be (although i believe it should be some kind of hard kill system)
Too bad no scary enemy to motivate production of more tanks
@@destroyerarmor2846 lmao
Well you know I bet they said the same thing to keep the shity gun with rifling instead of buying or licensing something foreign, because ofc only hesh can do the things heat and fragmentation rounds can do the same or way way better. They still have not fixed the lower hull but at least there is no ammo rack behind it or is there?
We have the capability but you are right we need to develop and build on what we have, we need to regain our position as the premier place for producing arms especially as putin is becoming more and more aggressive and it appears china and parts of the middle east are siding more with him than anyone else
Great analysis... Really appreciate your honest assessment of Chally 3; Too little too late! I do Hope the MOD watches this video!!!
Challenger 2 was designed to be a platform to be evolved over many decades. Whether that was a good idea or not is a separate discussion. But, having committed to that roadmap Britain is continuing with that evolution, so Challenger 3 could never be the revolution you talk about and hoped to see. Of course, whether Britain will have the financial resources to support any desire to be a tier 1 power is another thing. I do not see any signs to encourage that aspiration. There will have to be a move from financial services to something else (well, many somethings) that the rest of the world will want to buy - and in great quantities. That will have to be supported by a world-class education system, and a strong government will to invest in that drive. I hate to be pessimistic, but I just don't see that happening - rather the opposite.
Yeah, the moronic incompentent 'elites' in Britain are distroying the country.
@@deathtdow And have been for about 60 years.
UK has the financiall resources.
The U.K. has been developing hard and soft kill system icarus I think it’s callled
Could an APS be procured and retrofitted or is it something that needs to be done during a full upgrade cycle for best results?
Can be retrofitted later on
You are very class half full... this is a work in progress and it will evolve.
Still remember the challenger 1 replacing the centurion and chieftain, also had the chance to work with both the MOD and Bovington Tank museum on their own projects. Personally the Abraham's is not on the same level with it armour
I thought the Chieftain had already replaced the Centurion well before the Challenger 1 came along.
The amount of times I've confused this tank family with the Ariete is embarrassing :/
Now how you think this looks Italian designed tank I do not know but embarrassment seems fair.
@@zefflin1451 CR1 and Ariete are very similar in visual appearance especially the mantletless turret.
They have a lot in common.
@@zefflin1451 he doesn't think of the Italians designed it he thinks they both look incredibly similar which to be fair they do
Great video I love these guys, and I love tanks so 100% top rated from me! I've been checking these guys videos since about the beginning of their channel, love them and love the channel
This new equipment looks amazing. So glad the British army are finally investing in the army.