I'm an American Veteran from 2/2 Armored Cavalry Regiment Eagle Troop and I know how good the Challenger is a great Main Battle Tank
@Ivanna_Jerkov
Жыл бұрын
Americans don't win wars. Your opinion is irrelevant.
@heshtankon7212
Жыл бұрын
It is, the A1 M1 is a great bit of kit to.
@Ivanna_Jerkov
Жыл бұрын
@@heshtankon7212 Then why are they afraid to put it up against a competent military?
@waynerobinson7057
Жыл бұрын
@@Ivanna_Jerkov who are they? What they were worried about was escalating the war to their countries. Any tank can be destroyed today. They just need to use it where it is a force multiplier not a coffin.
@waynerobinson7057
Жыл бұрын
@@Ivanna_Jerkov also what competent military are you talking about.
@cyberherbalist
Жыл бұрын
The most click-baity title ever put on a video: "This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Ukraine."
@shadyshinichi2JZ
Жыл бұрын
The owner of this page is illiterate. These tanks aren't even in ukraine yet, and they know it.
@steveguzman6141
Жыл бұрын
With pic of big balls chad tank on roids
@Silent_Steel
Жыл бұрын
Yep.. sadly it works
@russianbrainwashedorcsareb7882
Жыл бұрын
Oh the keyboard warriors knows "more" How many wars have you been in Mr expert?
@psandbergnz
Жыл бұрын
@@Silent_Steel , hence thumbs down.
@Salfordian
Жыл бұрын
The Challenger withstood far more than 7 RPGs "During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 RPG-7s from close range and a MILAN anti-tank guided missile. The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. According to the British army, one Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident"
@timespaice
Жыл бұрын
They ll taste kornet which is far tougher than RPG, Hezbollah destroyed Merkava with that so Challenger 2 isn t even a deal.
@ChullsterOG
Жыл бұрын
@@timespaice haha kornet? that weapon is a pile of shit. Go google Nucking futz Yuri and you'll see how his whole crew survived a kornet hit, in a fucking humvee, not a main battle tank. So I expect the Ukrainian cr2 crews may not even notice something so weak hitting their armour.
@krashd
Жыл бұрын
I do believe that one of the crew members in the crippled Challenger (that had to endure an hour of having Iraqi rockets fired at) broke his toe, it was the only injury from the incident, which I find to be the greatest testament to the Challenger tank. When a Challenger loses it's tracks it just becomes a concrete bunker/pillbox.
@ChullsterOG
Жыл бұрын
@@krashd I'm going to go out on a limb here, I'm not sure, but that sounds like the incident where a tandem warhead rpg bounced off the ground penned the belly armour and blew off a couple of toes of the driver. Though I may be mixing two things up.
@ruzziasht349
Жыл бұрын
@@ChullsterOG the toes of the driver was a different blue on blue event.
@meyrickgriffith-jones3908
Жыл бұрын
I loved loading. The big advantages of split ammunition are as follows. 1 Ease of ammo stowage. 2. It is much easier to handle. You don't lose as much speed leading as you might think, because of the shorter length and lighter components. 3. It assists protection because to load at (near) full depression you don't need so much clearance behind the breech -to turret roof. This means you can have 10deg of depression which has a HUGE effect on visibility. Much much less of the tank is exposed when hull down. Those of us who did the officers Long Armour Course will remember the photos illustrating both protection and concealment. Americans who used 5deg, and the Brits who insisted on 10. The US tanks, to bring the gun on, towered over a crest. You are technically correct when you say the ammunition is in 3 parts - using a vent tube as the initiator (which had some disadvantages in consistency of ignition, now overcome) . But the vent tubes are fed from a magazine by the vent tube (auto)loader. So they have no effect on rate of fire. (Though feed was unreliable in the early Chieftain days. "Still Rammer out" and all the pain of removing the VTL, and extracting a mangled vent tube. Early days in my crew, we left the loader off and loaded by hand. Caused by breech block bounce, and fixed yeas ago) The reason we stayed with HESH was not because we liked it. It was because that was, of the 2 rounds, the one that passed the NATO standard accuracy test. (Which APDS did not at the time) Also in terms of EFCs HESH is 1/10th of that of APDS . So barrel life is much greater. Challenger was, because of its suspension faster x country than Abrams. And a lot less troublesome with fuel resupply. And of course, because of that suspension, so much less demanding on the gun stab kit. And lower, compared with torsion bars, so assisting with both concealment and protection.
@gaptaxi
Жыл бұрын
Ahhh Chieftain, I can still smell my Diesel soaked Coveralls! Certainly the best tank in the World as long as it broke down in a good fire position, that crappy L60 killed the Chieftain.
@roguegargoyle914
Жыл бұрын
Another advantage, other than a spent vent tube there's no large brass shell to get rid of or take up space inside the turret.
@blackpudding1000
Жыл бұрын
As Sqn Sigs NCO I was my Sqn Ldr's loader on Chieftain. I agree with you on all points. Vent tube inefficiency... "Misfire, wait 30 minutes"! I once removed a bag charge with a screwdriver stabbed into the flash pad, after a misfire. It was probably the closest I, and the crew, ever came to leaving this planet.
@meyrickgriffith-jones3908
Жыл бұрын
@@gaptaxi 94, my tank, a mk2 never broke down. When I had done my time at MVEE and went back to the Regt 13/18 H, I took over as Sqn 2I/C. My mk 5 never broke down. At MVEE I ran Chieftain trials, and we had the then new uprated and new linered engine. The one with the very harsh exhaust note and tuned exhaust. It would run forever, but of course the trials tanks were not hangar queens, and that has a lot to do with reliability. I liked driving, and so drove CH for literally several hundred miles, trundling the then new fin ammo. Our ARV are was a Cent with a Conq engine. We also had ATR 2, now in the museum at Bovington. That had a CV12, and latterly an uprated version with twin turbos. Rated at 1500 horse, when you could it get it started. So you got drive a lot and that helped keep the waggons going far better than at RD, where drivers never go such chances.
@SuperPirate100
9 ай бұрын
Thanks for the detailed explanation
@sunrayisdown1690
Жыл бұрын
Same old US bull. In the Gulf War, the M1 Abrams tank lost 4 to the Iraqis. Not one Challenger lost. So, the latter was bad .
@slincolne
Жыл бұрын
Don't lie in the video title - it's cheap.
@stevenrichardson6793
Жыл бұрын
Why do you guys always have to lie about the content of your report! We're not all stupid, you know!
@paidwitness797
Жыл бұрын
The Challengers have already done their primary job - broken the deadlock and enabled Leopards to be sent, more numerous and easier to supply, anything else they achieve is gravy.
@arnoldnordrum4892
Жыл бұрын
I'm sure glad their on NATO's side
@robert100xx
Жыл бұрын
Y'see It's the Brits who step up again. Reviled by Europe because of Brexit, The British shrugged off the snub and sent two full Challenger 2 companies plus spares, backup and crew training to NATO standard. Before this the European slackarses were pissing their pants for fear of upsetting that chinless little shit, pootin. ' We'll send some tanks if you send some tanks' 'Ok, but we're not going first' fukin playground politics. Want Europe saving AGAIN? Call the British.
@Garyandrewalexander
Жыл бұрын
This is the most on point comment yet.
@christaylor4441
3 ай бұрын
@@Garyandrewalexander without a doubt. It annoys me! I thought we are all on the same side.
@tatters2072
Жыл бұрын
Some accurate information surrounded by a lot of BS. The M1 Abrams tank used Chobham armour so are you saying that the M1 was sh!te also? The Chieftain was superior to the T-64 and the T-72 , having a better stabilized gun, then consider that the Challenger V1 is far better than the Chieftain. If anyone doubts what I'm saying, take a moment to look at the results of the Challenger V1 against Iraqi T-72s. Ya, I know the Iraqi tanks weren't the latest and greatest T-72s, but the base flaw of the T-72 is still being shown in Ukraine today. It's a flawed designed that no amount of bandaids can cover. The Challengers cleaned the table. To this day, no Challenger, V1 or V2 has every been killed by enemy fire. The only loss was from a friendly fire incident. I'm sure a few will be lost in Ukraine, but ask yourself this question. If you were in Ukraine, would you want to be sitting in a pop goes the turret T-62, T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 or a Challenger 2?
@trevortrevortsr2
Жыл бұрын
Unfortunatly there are many errors in this post - A Chieftain tank gun could easily outrange and kill a T72 even today
@waynerobinson7057
Жыл бұрын
@@trevortrevortsr2 he never said the chieftain couldn’t. . What he was saying is with upgrades to both platforms the challenger is still better.
@davidpickavance9628
Жыл бұрын
@@trevortrevortsr2 This guy is down playing the Challenger 2, the Americans talk up the Abrams But i suspect they are worried it will fail in Ukraine they have maintenance issues with it, and i read somewhere the newer ones are using a German engine, the engine they have been using is unreliable and a gas guzzler, they keep on saying it's the best tank in the world then bring it on !
@trevortrevortsr2
Жыл бұрын
@@davidpickavance9628 Much will depend on the quality of the crews and how they are used in a combined arms group - I think your right some are nervous - certainly the Lepard A4 armour has been shown wanting - any Russian will want to prioritise their demise - if the Ukrainians are clever they will use the fear factor to their avantage
@OzzieDeWitt
Жыл бұрын
Good points, well made. Obviously an old tankie. The best use of Challenger is "Fire and Maneuver, Fire and Maneuver" and avoid, like the plague, toe to toe slugging matches. Challengers don't hold up well in that situation. I've always felt that tanks are mobile artillery. So, keep a distance. Keep moving. Keep firing and keep out of "urban" situations as much as possible. You're too vulnerable. But, there again, I'm very ( very !!) old school.
@billboring3925
Жыл бұрын
A British challenger two is an accurate tank in the hands of the British. We’ll see how the Ukrainians deal with the tank, but if there’s good as the British, the Russian tanks are in for one hell of a big surprise, specially at distance.💪🏻
@Au60schild
Жыл бұрын
*they're" as in "they are as good.
@soyentak5076
Жыл бұрын
depend on how good they work with the infantry. I wonder what Ukraine will do use them as a unit in vast stretch's of flat country or filter them out (like 2 tanks a unit) to have some tanks that can be use in close range with them like the M4 and the Fireflys of ww2
@chrissmith2114
Жыл бұрын
@@Au60schild Pedant alert !
@markkettlewell7441
Жыл бұрын
The Challenger II gets a lot of stick for it’s rifled bore, but this is also highly useful on a battlefield. First is range and accuracy, second is its use of HESH rounds. This type of round will obliterate an apposing tank making it un repairable as it rips through the hull as it squashes on impact and leaves a huge hole. Remember that the Russian tanks have fully realised rounds which can explode and destroy the target tank from withinOn the other hand, minimally damaging and disabling a tank by concussion with smooth bore rounds ( I.e. taking out the crew ) means that a tank could be repaired theoretically. The trade off is fire rate vs toughness. In normal situations the Challenger II should not be up front and in close range to the enemy. It doesn’t need to be. It outranges the Russian T90s. These are the things the Ukrainian tank crews and commanders will be taught by the British, and I expect the fighting Ukrainians to make full use of their advantage. After all, this is a nation that has stopped Russia for over a year, no small achievement when we consider the asymmetry between the two sides.
@markkettlewell7441
Жыл бұрын
@@soyentak5076 The Challenger ll is a hybrid of a tank and heavy artillery but highly mobile. It should be employed with these things in mind.
@leserickson7057
Жыл бұрын
what a tank!!! Brits make excellent tanks. Thank you for sending them over to the Ukraine .
@Salfordian
Жыл бұрын
We invented them and gave it the name Tank
@leewheeler8308
Жыл бұрын
We lost the ability to make tanks 20 years ago ; now we buy virtually ALL our military equipment from the Germans certainly NONE of it is made in the UK. When the last Challenger is lost in Central Europe, there can never be another.
@JezzBowden
Жыл бұрын
@@leewheeler8308 "Production began in 1993 at two primary sites: Elswick, Tyne and Wear and Barnbow, Leeds, with over 250 subcontractors involved. And the Challenger 3 upgrades will be done in Newcastle. All in the UK, for those unfamiliar with those places "
@peterchessell28
Жыл бұрын
@@leewheeler8308 bullshite
@krashd
Жыл бұрын
@@leewheeler8308 The only thing the Germans will be making is the gun and Rhinemetall already make the best guns used by most of NATO. It is true that Rhinemetall bought BAE Land Systems but the factories are and always will be in the UK, just as BAE Systems make half of the land equipment and weaponry of the US forces, it doesn't mean any of that equipment is British - it is made by Americans on American soil, only the ownership of the company is British.
@darkmatter6714
Жыл бұрын
This tank just won the Iron Spear NATO competition held last week in Estonia. It beat Leopard and the Abrams because it allows both the gunner and the commander to target independently and simultaneously, meaning it has a higher kill rate. So, if it’s susceptible to the Russian tank on firing rate, then the Leopard and the Abrams are going to be even more susceptible.
@williamoloughlin8298
Жыл бұрын
they lost 2 leo's and 10 bradleys last week...but Russia lost 54 tanks
@darkmatter6714
Жыл бұрын
@@williamoloughlin8298 I’m sure they got good mileage out of those leos and bradleys before they got taken out.
@barrygriffiths3592
Жыл бұрын
My vote goes for the Challenger. It will perform well and will mystify its critics.
@raypurchase801
Жыл бұрын
Nice to read comments from people who know their stuff. I know feck all.
@MrKveite1
9 ай бұрын
The bradlay is not a tank tho, it's an armouredscout vehicle with a tiny faast firing pew pew. it's good but not a main battle tank.@@williamoloughlin8298
@nicholasmoore2590
Жыл бұрын
Having seen the performance of Russian equipment from the Middle East to Ukraine, I seriously don't think the Challenger 2 tanks will have much difficulty. The Russian claim that the T90 is the best tank in the world has been proved to be a load of hogwash. In fact, my friends and I, all former servicemen who trained to fight the Soviets, are now wondering what the f**k we were ever worried about! We would have wiped the bloody floor with them! I also think that this is why Putin has backed away from his threats against NATO. NATO could take Russia to pieces.
@gaptaxi
Жыл бұрын
Even Putin said years ago that he´d have to be mad to take on NATO! And that is why he stayed out of the Baltics which would have been easier to invade than the Ukraine, much smaller etc.
@robert100xx
Жыл бұрын
@Daniel evans Another fuking dreaming Ivan swigging too much smirnov.
@Jarlemoore1
Жыл бұрын
@@gaptaxi His plans to invade the Baltic nations was snuffed when NATO let them join as member states in 2004
@flybobbie1449
Жыл бұрын
NATO would always beat Russia, problem is they hold the self destruct nuclear option.
@TonyM540
Жыл бұрын
I wish they would.
@trampertravels
Жыл бұрын
I served with The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars on Chieftain as a fully qualified Crewman (Operator/Loader, Driver and Gunner) and specialised as a Gunner Mechanic. Let us look at the 3 piece ammunition, firstly the igniters are loaded in a magazine, which is attached to the back of the breech in such a position to allow the igniter to slide easily into the breech block on each cycle as part of loading the round and bag charge the loader taps the rammer to check that the igniter is seated properly and then closes the safety guard and checks that his switches are armed. Additionally the loader and commander will have pre-decided what rounds to have in the ready racks, this in turn allows the loader to change where the bag charges are stowed so that he has optimum availability. Now I learned basic gunnery when we still used the 0.50" Ranging Machine Gun on the old 4 dot sight and part of one's training (which is still taught these days) is that the gunner draws a ranging map of the country in front and around the position because being able to fire first and to keep on firing even if the tank is hit and you lose the majority of your gun systems you can still fight. Yes lasers are nice and accurate and they are detectable. Quadrant Fire (QF) is still an ability and pre-ranging your position out to 5,000m or more gives you an awareness of your area of concern for long range fire directed by the Commander. In the Challenger there is duallity of control and many of the gunner's function are taken over by the commander and in many ways gunnery is now done in tandem and is much improved. Looking back to the days of Chieftain we achieved high rates of fire even allowing that in the early days the loader had a 7.62mm GPMG on the left middle of the breech and a 0.50" RMG on the left of the breech and the waste clips from both used to jam and you had to clear them fast and keep loading and keep your feet as you were bounced around as the vehicle was going at speed across the ground; you had to communicate with both the gunner and commander so that you could get to all of your bag charges while the turret was rotating left and right and you had to listen to the driver who was telling you about bumps, holes and changing gear. In all of that insanity we regularly scored over 90%. Also, for the American 'Tankies' we did our own maintenance.
@WilliamEvans-py4gq
8 ай бұрын
Thank you for your service from 🇬🇧
@kiltedgod
7 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for your service and for letting us have this hands on insight to tanking as a Loader. Very much appreciated.
@nellwhite5659
Жыл бұрын
challenger 2 can provide tea. Ukraine loves tea
@garyrock2356
Жыл бұрын
You are absolutely right! This whole video never mentioned the tea making capabilities, and we all know tea is good for moral and keeping you sharp. 😄
@chapman9230
Жыл бұрын
Too right. A mark of civilisation along with umbrellas and tweed jackets.
@mikeoglen6848
Жыл бұрын
Tea-making capabilities makes this Tank Invincible...
@richardvear4413
Жыл бұрын
@@mikeoglen6848 Serious Question here, wasn't the friendly fire loss of a Challenger caused by the crew brewing tea , left unattended , i.e. a real fire while they were being briefed on the eve of kicking the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.
@mikeoglen6848
Жыл бұрын
@@richardvear4413 I doubt that theory holds any water, Rich...
@gilgammesh1
Жыл бұрын
I hope our Ukrainian friends enjoy the built in tea making facilities :)
@douglasmurdoch
Жыл бұрын
😂 tea and medals 🏅 my old man Served not me army air core
@douglasmurdoch
Жыл бұрын
Is there a kettle in the back of the Challenger two the most Important part of the tank
@alanslater3855
Жыл бұрын
@@douglasmurdoch cook food in that boiling vessel too👁
@krashd
Жыл бұрын
@@alanslater3855 "Meals Refused by the Enemy"
@judithbaker5632
7 ай бұрын
stop being a wanker
@markkettlewell7441
Жыл бұрын
The max speed 25mph is speed cross country. On roads it can achieve 40-45mph
@richarddickinson7788
7 ай бұрын
I’ve heard criticism before on the challengers speed, or lack there of, but when you think about it speed really is irrelevant, if you run over an anti tank mine it doesn’t matter if your doing 1 mph or 100 mph, the end of the day your going to be toast, also anti tank rounds have a velocity of 3000 + fps, so then again it doesn’t matter what speed your doing because you ain’t going to out run one. If I was in a tank, and had a choice of a bit slower because of weight from heavy armour or a bit faster from less armour and less survival protection, well I know which one I would choose.
@markkettlewell7441
7 ай бұрын
@@richarddickinson7788 Very true. Also, the Challenger out ranges the Russian tanks and can be thought of as heavily armoured artillery 😀
@kevintravis2078
Жыл бұрын
The Brits have been training Ukrainian NCOs for years, now thousands of infantry are in the UK training. Light reconnaissance tanks are already in the field, I wonder if all this will be combined in one place? From Chieftain onwards British tanks were designed to fight outnumbered swarms of invading Russian armour who were to be the follow up to nuclear artillery. The kit is good, the troops are well trained and motivated. The Russians have none of the above, this has the potential to get brutal.
@TonyM540
Жыл бұрын
Bring it !
@contingency9
Жыл бұрын
Chalanger 2 has never been lost to an enemy either. It has the best armour protection of any MBT in the world.
@cplcabs
Жыл бұрын
Sadly I think it will be in Ukraine. They will be selling it
@jackdripper5675
Жыл бұрын
The Russian 9M133 Kornet ATM goes straight through the side armor of Abrams and Israeli tanks hence the development of systems like the Israeli Trophy APS (active protection system.) Without it the Challenger II will need careful deployment to survive.
@SK-xv3hn
Жыл бұрын
It's never faced a A-10 equipped to carry GPS- and laser-guided bombs, such as the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, Paveway series bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bombs. A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense.
@cplcabs
Жыл бұрын
@@SK-xv3hn it likely has. The US have never been good at identifying the enemy and have sot at friendly forces plenty of times.
@SlappyTheElf
Жыл бұрын
@@cplcabs kind of inevitable sadly, but hopefully it'll make the russians bleed for any success.
@cjmatulka8321
Жыл бұрын
Those Brits, always modesty when assessing their kit. TIA from a 907. Go Ukraine!
@robinbishop468
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Sir, The CH2 will do the job in the hands of our Ukrainian Heros. I,m 69 now - ret RM Commando, do you think its too late for me ? I love a good bundle 😂
@cjmatulka8321
Жыл бұрын
@@robinbishop468 I'm a couple years younger and in poor health planning to go in soon just to see if I can find a gap in the Ukraine lines to fill. Thank God for Brits help in Ukraine. I've, been on eggshells since Georgia Moldovan invasions. That № is an area code by the way, not to be confused with any military designation. Tanks again!
@hb1338
Жыл бұрын
@@robinbishop468 You'll be younger than most of the Russian recruits.
@user-cv8ud8qo9f
Жыл бұрын
Not only is the Challenger a tough tank to kill, but with it's rifled barrel giving it longer range, it'll kill you before it's within the range of your gun. Used intelligently it's going to cause Wagner some serious problems.
@bernardedwards8461
Жыл бұрын
Tanks seldom engage each other at the maximum range of their weapons and often at less than 1000 metres.
@bitsnbobs1969
Жыл бұрын
please look out for Russian turrets entering Earth's atmosphere. soon
@sebbonxxsebbon6824
Жыл бұрын
Russia needs new tank designs and needs to get rid of Putin.
@france4me117
Жыл бұрын
God Bless Europe and Britten for defending those that need to gain the freedom of being a nation of liberty and growth, to say the least.
@katana1960
Жыл бұрын
I always hit the dislike button when the title doesn't match the content.
@michaelmichaels-tw7wd
Жыл бұрын
in iraq not ukraine " This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Iraq" longest range most accurate will win ruzzian tanks are crewed by conscripts Slava Ukraini
@roytompkins6773
Жыл бұрын
I am a veteran centurion gunner and they were brilliant, after watching a video on the challenger 2 I’m really impressed they seem to be better than anything they can come up against, even better than the invention of sliced bread
@WilliamEvans-py4gq
8 ай бұрын
Thank you for your service from 🇬🇧
@martinenglish6641
Жыл бұрын
As a former tank /armor mechanic in the Gulf war, serving in an armored cavalry unit, The Challenger 2 tank is suited for long and moderate-range support against enemy armor. That is to give long-range support to light and medium and even other heavy armor on the front line. They will perform just fine so long as they do not end up in a close-range slugging match on the front line. Fire and move, fire and move strategy will also increase the tank's survivability and usefulness. It seems to me to be a glorified mobile-tracked artillery anti-armor piece. Used as such will be its best strategy to be useful.
@dinsomnia4352
Жыл бұрын
In the plains of the east it will dominate.
@ruzziasht349
Жыл бұрын
You can't even spell Amour - you're not a Brit.
@attaat
Жыл бұрын
🤣
@martinenglish6641
Жыл бұрын
@@dinsomnia4352 Yes it will.
@Withnail1969
Жыл бұрын
@@martinenglish6641 Just like the Tiger did in the same part of the world during World War II. Oh wait, that didn't go too well did it.
@trevortrevortsr2
Жыл бұрын
The Chieftain was well armed and armoured for its time - it was the first to use a 120 tank gun when others were using 105mm - its only downside was mobility it was underpowered with a weak engine - The Challenger 1 was very good off road with a 1200 hp Perkins engine and hydrogas suspeension and Chobam armour - Challenger 2 has hunter killer system much like Abrams and upgraded Dorchester armour - Brits like their Hesh round for all but head on MBT - The Sabo round is slightly less effective than the best smooth bore however it will easily slay most Russian tanks
@LOLOVAL-os3pq
Жыл бұрын
the big defect of the guns with grooved cores, it is their lifespans, approximately 450/500 shootings, the guns with smooth souls have a lifespan higher than 2200 shots and they cost less to manufacture, no need to make grooves (and if some speak of a higher precision of grooved cannons, it is false, smooth-bore cannons fire shells which, as soon as they leave the cannon, deploy fins which ensure rotation and therefore gyro stabilization)! the biggest defect of the Challenger II remains its mobility, without the over armor of 11 tons, it reaches 59 km/h, with 11 tons of over armor, it does not exceed 56 km/h! its biggest asset is when it is equipped with its 11-ton armor, it is practically indestructible against another tank with a conventional shell fire, on the other hand, against a JAVELIN, AKERON MP or NLAW type missile , which strike the roof of the tank, it will be as fragile as a Leopard II, an Abrams or a Leclerc! but hey, against any Russian tank, it will be far superior!! just like other western tanks!
@trevortrevortsr2
Жыл бұрын
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq I've been in one - the lads said its gun is chrome lined on the best steel with a thermal jacket and good for 680 firings before swapping out - i think much depends on the charge they use and round used - I think if the Bridges dont collapse under them they will make great breakthrough tanks
@meyrickgriffith-jones3908
Жыл бұрын
@@LOLOVAL-os3pq You need to start talking about EFC when taking of gun life. This a standard artillery term Equivalent Full Charge. It depends on the type of ammunition used, especially in artillery when they load shell and charge separately, and the charge varies according to range and trajectory. As for speed. Well that depends on the soil and ground pressure. And suspension. You are a lot faster cross country with long travel hydrogas, than with the US torsion bars. And of course, removing a damaged suspension unit is a lot easier with hydrogas than it is with torsion bars, particularly modern double torsion bar systems. And of course, the route you will take in action is always the one of best concealment - into the low ground , which is usually going to be the softest, where ground pressure and the ramping effect under the track becomes important. (and dramatically affects fuel consumption - Abrams note) Additionally, you don't leap into your panzer and roar across country with the commander flaunting his smalls yelling "Yahoo". Fire and manoeuvre in contact, so distances between halts are not that great, because you keep in overwatch range, and a k or 2 of extra speed here and there is no great significance in contact. It is never quite as simple as a few facts and figures. Personally, I would far rather go into action in a Challenger than Abrams. I can hide better, and move more quickly. Less thermal signature,
@Dragonblaster1
Жыл бұрын
Not correct. The first British tank to carry a 120mm gun was the FV214 Conqueror super-heavy tank, which was in service from 1955 to 1966 in West Germany. The Chieftain didn't come out until 1967.
@trevortrevortsr2
Жыл бұрын
@@Dragonblaster1 yes I saw one once - there were so few and not really MBT more super heavy's rather unwieldly
@davebayliss2278
Жыл бұрын
This Monstrous British Tank Destroyed A Battalion Of Russian Tanks In Ukraine ...man you guys are so bent on getting visits to you videos.. you just dish out false headlines like this...shame on you
@whatif4942
Жыл бұрын
Challenger will see and destroy Russian tanks before the Russians even see the Challenger. As for the Russians getting 4 shots off between the Challengers 1st and 2nd, I refer you to my previous point. :)
@contingency9
Жыл бұрын
Wrong. The Challenger 1 has the longest tank on tank kill in history, none have ever been lost in battle unlike the Abrams.
@Locochris1956
Жыл бұрын
A Challenger has never been defeated although one was damaged by friendly fire, the Ukrainians have shown very good adaptability to modern weapons so they will be fine, Challenger 2 is a good tank and will do well but its all bad news for the Russian tanks and has the longest tank on tank kill so I think the best a T72 can do is hit reverse at max speed and get out of range - or die
@erosmyers
Жыл бұрын
all western tanks will turn into scrap metal against russian superior weapons & logistics supply tanks are just another target without air support
@Old-Dog00
10 ай бұрын
It's not Ukrainians operating them.
@roguegargoyle914
Жыл бұрын
Where did you get the 30 seconds to load a Challenger 2 from? A good loader can load a challenger 2's gun in a few seconds. It's far from impossible, or unheard of, to have more than 1 HESH round in the air at a time.
@Garyandrewalexander
Жыл бұрын
Seen it done at B A T U S in Canada
@trampertravels
Жыл бұрын
On a 5,000 metre QF you can get 3 rounds in the air before the first one lands and it is possible to maintain that for the fire mission, usually no more than 12 rounds per tank. Most missions are a round to fire for effect and targetting and then once you are on you fire the required number of rounds per tank into the target area depending upon what the target is and how big it is.
@jeremypearson6852
Жыл бұрын
Whatever the technical pros and cons of the Challenger, let’s all hope and pray that it brings a quicker conclusion to this conflict.
@Withnail1969
Жыл бұрын
Ukrainians will never be able to operate it after a couple of months training
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
Ukr is finished. Its delusional to think they can continue losing by 10 to 1 & still win.
@Max-lw1dw
Жыл бұрын
The headline is false. There is no news that I've heard that confirms that the Challenger tanks have been used at all in Ukraine yet. Even this video didn't make that claim. Why lie about it?
@mikekelly5869
Жыл бұрын
Clicks=cash
@Noreturns
Жыл бұрын
Max it reffered to the tank fighting in Iraq Einstein bahahaha watch the video and pay attention .😮
@walkleywarrior
Жыл бұрын
@@Noreturns read title of video and pay attention……. Einstein
@Iknowonlywhatimtaught
Жыл бұрын
My money is on Challenger 2 against any Russian Tank. Actually I would bet on any Western main battle tank against any Russian modern tank.
@julesmarwell8023
Жыл бұрын
go tell India that.
@Brian-om2hh
Жыл бұрын
Both the Challenger and Abrams were specifically designed, engineered and built to take on Russian armour. So yes, your money is probably well placed.... The first indication of how well this might go was in Iraq, during the Gulf War, when both the Abrams and The Challenger fared exceptionally well against the best Russian tank, the T72. The Russians now have the newer updated T90, but even that has turned out to be vulnerable to Western anti-tank weapons in Ukraine.
@hb1338
Жыл бұрын
@@julesmarwell8023 What India chose is India's problem.
@chazzerbox131
Жыл бұрын
The challenger isn’t made for close contact it makes kills at 5 miles it holds longest tank kill in history at 5.12 miles so you info is a little of on that one
@calibermgcalbermg
Жыл бұрын
You do not know what you're talking about. No tank has a computer-assisted effective range of 5 miles. If you're lucky and can see the target with the limitation of a scope and with the maximum range of a lob shot you might be able to hit something.
@calibermgcalbermg
Жыл бұрын
Are you visually impaired or do you have a problem with comprehension. There is a little bit of a difference between 5100 meters and 5.1 miles.
@warwickchoy176
Жыл бұрын
@@calibermgcalbermg he's confusing kilometres and miles - the challenger record was 4.7km or possibly 5.1km depends on who you believe, but that and scope limitation is old school - the Ukranians are now using drones and software (Kropyva) for targeting to lob multiple high explosive rounds at Russian supposedly as far away as 6 miles - they may need 20 rounds re-targeting each shot as they go but apparently it's working
@chazzerbox131
Жыл бұрын
@@calibermgcalbermg who said it was computer assisted at 5 miles? I didn’t ? I just said it made kill at 5 miles called reading buddy and called using the tank which is what the brits can obvs do very well 😂😂
@colinosborne3877
Жыл бұрын
One of the first tanks to be able to train the gun and fire while on the move. The software was so secret, it wasnt even given to the US and the control unit was set with explosive so that if the tank took a hit, it would be destroyed. This highly secret software was the forerunner of fuzzy logic.
@Withnail1969
Жыл бұрын
interesting, from what i have heard the UK always loses the NATO tank gunnery competitions
@AnD1262
Жыл бұрын
@@Withnail1969 let me guess, you also heard that the F-35 can't dogfight an F-16 and everyone in the military loves the A-10? I'd pretend my top of the line stuff is garbage until I'm actually using it for its job anyways. Also when NATO is doing stuff it's always a good bet its either the US or Germany either wanting to show off or sell you their invention, not to say that I know one is better than the other, I just don't think this is a good metric to judge any tank by (especially when some of the points are earned from "dismounted operations")
@Withnail1969
Жыл бұрын
@@AnD1262 iread this in mainstream Uk newspapers. as i recall the UK stopped participating in NATO gunnery competitions
@AnD1262
Жыл бұрын
@@Withnail1969 putting in "NATO gunnery competitions" into Google only comes up with 2 main ones The first is the "Canadian Army Trophy" (which is probably the one you are talking about) where there is a lot of fun poked at the British Challenger 1 as trash tanks to which they withdraw (1987) then once on the battlefield people judged it as a generation ahead of anything it faced on the battlefield hitting targets at in some cases 4 times the distance the barrel was designed for, but we are talking about a competition that ended in 1991 and the main production of the challenger 2 started 1993. The second competition that comes up is the "Strong Europe Tank Challenge" which the challenger only competed in the last year it was ever run (it didn't come last) you would have to give me a specific competition name and again the gunners themselves are being tested in a showing off environment
@sprinter1832
Жыл бұрын
@@Withnail1969 Then you must be deaf! they just wiped the floor with Abrahms, and the Leopard at the NATO tank trials
@tinytanks
Жыл бұрын
so sweet to see these excellent machines be put to use in the cause of justice.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
what justice?. Learn history of teh area b4 making such an ignorant comment.
@razor123xx
Жыл бұрын
why so the intro picture of a sci-fi tank ??, not exist, it's misleading and then it all seems suspicious and not true...
@sybaseguru
Жыл бұрын
Everyone forgets the 1973 Yom Kippur tank battles on the Golan Heights when 70 Centurions kept 1500 Syrian tanks (T-55 and T-62) contained using their longer range guns to provide a killing ground. There was a 10:1 destruction rate, despite the lack of night sights on the Centurion. The Chally has a deep history of success against Russian armour. Aren't the Rusky's bringing the T55 back into service? Putin must be desperate and severely lacking in brain power.
@HowlinWilf13
Жыл бұрын
I'm looking forward to a meaningful clash between British and Russian tanks, and I'm putting my money on the British armour. Any Russian tank closing to within 2 klicks becomes vulnerable to infantry anti-tank weapons, which negates the close-range concerns (I think a big part of the training of Ukrainian troops that the Brits have been so closely involved in includes extensive 'combined arms' training, so I don't anticipate these Challenger 2s being out in front on their own). Time will tell! Thanks for the video 😁
@Ivanna_Jerkov
Жыл бұрын
You World of Tanks people have no idea what British tanks with zero support will look like after meeting the wall of Russian military destruction in real life.
@WeightlessBallast
Жыл бұрын
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Please elaborate on your 'zero support' claim and give a source for your information. So far the "Russian military destruction" has been the destruction of civilian targets, cities and infrastructure. Russolini will lose this war.
@edwardpoe7323
Жыл бұрын
@@Ivanna_Jerkov go do it then
@RexFeral55
Жыл бұрын
Hopefully British tanks are more reliant than British autos
@HowlinWilf13
Жыл бұрын
@@Ivanna_Jerkov Yeah yeah, that's just misplaced pride talking. Tell us why you support putin's gangster regime. How much longer before you realise he is the enemy of all Russians? 🙄
@redscouse7056
Жыл бұрын
What you say maybe true, but which tank holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill?
@Iknowonlywhatimtaught
Жыл бұрын
Challenger 2 holds the record only because the crew loved long shots. They didn't like driving to the enemy😂😂😂
@Brian-om2hh
Жыл бұрын
it was a Challenger 1, during the Gulf War, which allegedly had the longest range tank-on-tank kill. The Challenger 1 took out an Iraqi T62 at a distance of 4.7kms.....
@JACB006
Жыл бұрын
@@IknowonlywhatimtaughtSound like the crews were using their equipment sensibly to win the battle.
@tacfoley4443
Жыл бұрын
@@Iknowonlywhatimtaught Are you calling us cowards? Back in your box, russian sympathiser.
@paulthemagpie8605
Жыл бұрын
@@Iknowonlywhatimtaught Only an idiot would drive to the enemy when it can easily kill them from distance 🤔
@douglastodd1947
Жыл бұрын
Would somebody tells this balloon to get his facts right before mouthing off. he's doing ma box in .
@GM-fh5jp
Жыл бұрын
A direct hit by the squash head rounds fired from Challenger's rifled barrel will wreck any of the Russian tanks deployed in Ukraine unless it happens to hit an ERA block. That might mitigate it somewhat and allow the tank to survive for another 30 seconds or so. The 2nd hit will be the knockout punch to the jaw. Russian tanks will be in a world of hurt if they take on Challenger in the open fields of Ukraine. Slava Ukraine!
@tacfoley4443
Жыл бұрын
Remember, please, that many of the ERA blocks were found to contain corrugated cardboard.........not known for its explosive properties.
@GM-fh5jp
Жыл бұрын
@@tacfoley4443 LOL really? I must have missed that news :)
@tacfoley4443
Жыл бұрын
It was here on YT last year.....
@GM-fh5jp
Жыл бұрын
@@tacfoley4443 A suitable metaphor for the whole Russian Empire...
@peterchessell28
Жыл бұрын
@@tacfoley4443 got to be true if its on yt
@seniorslaphead8336
Жыл бұрын
The AMX 10rc is a Citroen 2CV with a limp baguette hanging out of the sunroof...
@nige-g
Жыл бұрын
Great analysis 😅😅
@robocop3961
Жыл бұрын
😂😂
@jimf671
Жыл бұрын
I expect Ukrainian tank crews to use Challangers and Leopards in ways that nobody has yet thought of, especially the Russians. 😎
@joecal97
Жыл бұрын
"Challenger one turned out... bad" No it didn't, it didn't perform well at 'Tank Olympics', but when it came around to an actual war (1991) it was rated, by the Russian military analysts who were observing the war, as the best western tank on that Battlefield.
@smokinfree5555
Жыл бұрын
I concur. This video seems to have a lot of details quite wrong. The other that stuck out for me as well as the one you brought out was the top speed of Challenger II being only 25 mph. This is actually it's cross country speed with overall top speed being close to 40 mph (I think).
@joecal97
Жыл бұрын
@@smokinfree5555 exactly. The popular view of the day is that ‘Brit tank bad!’, and a lot of misconceptions and ‘truths’ in these sorts of videos are based around that. In reality British armour just follows a different doctrine than the other NATO nations. Specifically either supporting infantry (hence rifles guns firing HESH) and defending entrenched positions (Fulda gap/British army of the Rhine sort of operations) where as most other NATO nations are more focussed on either speed (Germany and France) or general purpose (America mainly)
@smokinfree5555
Жыл бұрын
@@joecal97 Agreed. I guess we'll have to wait & see how each NATO tank compares to it's contemporaries in Ukrainian hands, but I know which one my money is on. They don't call it "The Beast" for nothing.
@joecal97
Жыл бұрын
@@smokinfree5555 Indeed. They seem to very much like the British equipment they've received so far (camouflage jackets and equipment, the APC/IFVs etc) so I'm sure the tanks will also be to their liking. At this rate though the Russians will be less equipped than the Iraqis were.....
@smokinfree5555
Жыл бұрын
@@joecal97 And that is saying something, especially when you think back as to how both Challenger I & II decimated Soviet supplied Iraqi armour of course.
@jamesedwards7241
Жыл бұрын
Challenger 2 proved to be a handful for the opposition during the gulf war and was able to take hits and still keep fighting even though there were and still are many doubters as to its abilities it did surprise many. Unlike the Leopard and most Russian tanks which are designed from the ground up to be used and maintained by conscript troops and crews, the C2 is a system tank. consisting of the tank itself and the crew and in the hands of a well-trained crew will make short work of most opposition unless it meets them in large numbers where any tank would be overwhelmed eventually. The crews are trained to fight the tank to its best advantage and not rely on blind luck and it is yet to be seen how Ukraine integrates the tank into its service in this war. My money is on the C2 in this respect if used properly it may yet continue to surprise many people.
@scoffmax
Жыл бұрын
The Russians are not the Iraqis
@TonyM540
Жыл бұрын
@@scoffmax True…..the Iraqis were better soldiers.
@Old-Dog00
10 ай бұрын
That was Challenger 1.
@philipdenner8504
Жыл бұрын
Well as i see it, the russian tanks are losing against Ukrainian tractors so the Challenger shouldn't be a problem.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
thats because u see western media BS. try listening to USA colonels who say otherwise
@SlappyTheElf
Жыл бұрын
It does exactly what we made it to do. The rifled barrel is great for hesh rounds, which are considered to be more destructive than heat rounds by the british brass, and the sabot rounds have proven capable of killing everything it needs to. Also it proven to be extremely survivable. Say about the gun again its like the 75mm sherman was preferred over the 76mm as the high explosive performance was better and most of the time they were shooting at targets other than enemy tanks , it could kill the panzer 3 and 4 and how uncommon were the panthers and tigers?
@TonyM540
Жыл бұрын
As long as it kills Russians.
@Cleatorman
Жыл бұрын
The UK has always seen the tank as primarily for infantry support and the destruction of static defensive positions, for this the HESH round is far better than the APDS rounds. Tank on tank engagements tend not to be too common, but even though a hit with a HESH round may not kill a modern main battle tank, a large explosion on its exterior would likely destroy a tanks sensors and render it inoperative. The HESH round does not rely on the speed of the projectile, so a hit at any distance creates the same effect. Really, how useful the two different ideas are has never been tested in this sort of combat and how they are used will be central, but on balance I think I'd feel safer in a Challenger, 70+ tons of Dorchester armour is quite a challenge.
@towmlvb3423
Жыл бұрын
That's a very creative re-write of British armour strategies and tactics. Have you proposed it to the Ministry of Defence? You should also give the Russians a wise word in their ears, because they keep on deploying tanks without any infantry. Or did they already follow your advice on this one? We only take on what we find in front of us. Real-life military activity is not what you see in films... There was nothing glorious for either side at Kursk. The Russian "victory" was pyrrhic...
@Cleatorman
Жыл бұрын
@@towmlvb3423 I don't understand your comment, it doesn't seem in any way related to what I said, the information is all in the public domain including on the UK military sites. I didn't mention any film or Kursk. I don't know if you were attempting to be insulting and maybe struggled because of language difficulties. However, there does seem to be quite a few well-informed comments that should help you out.
@towmlvb3423
Жыл бұрын
@@Cleatorman Je n'ai pas de probleme linguistique, ni en anglais ni en francais, sauf les limitations de ce clavier rigoureusement anglophile. Don't try to wind me up, child. I have no language problems. Pick on someone your own size, I can't reach down far enough to confront you.
@JACB006
Жыл бұрын
I think that the Challenger ll will be much more suited to the Ukrainian army than the Abrahams M1, why? 1) Because it’s actually in Ukraine the M1 won’t even arrive for another year 2) It’s far less complex than the M1 with its turbine engine. If the Ukrainian engineers can’t work out the Challenger, they will have two chances with the M1 …. Slim and F’all !
@chopperaxon6171
Жыл бұрын
I think your second point is moot, but on the first the Ukrainians are great Engineers. They built most of the heavy stuff ( ships, tanks etc) in Soviet years and they still have that ability. Also as we have seen they are great Warriors, Russia is about to get its scruffy rag tag army booted firmly in the balls.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
@@chopperaxon6171 lol, u talk crap, based on western media lies. Ukr army is almost finished. soviets havent even started sendng in their people, its mostly been chechen & wagner, with old weapons. meanwhile USA has almost used up its reserves of ammo. maybe get some unbiased info 4 a change. And i dont even like russia due to its past. read up on history b4 u pick who is good or bad- & its never that simple anyway.
@gordonfrickers5592
Жыл бұрын
Interesting facts about the all British Challenger 2 tank about to be sent to Ukraine. The tank is fitted with not one but two tea making facilities. The 2 in challenger 2 is actually the number of boiling vessels on board. The challenger 3 is gonna have a 3rd one. Fuelled by that much tea, the crew are going to be unstoppable. It's not a tank, it's the world's best protected mobile tea brewing facility. What people don't generally know is that the boiling vessel together with the tea is the "secret sauce" that makes the platform and the crew into real super heroes. That is why they are fitted with two boiling vessels for extra-super-powers. An historical fact, the "secret sauce" is actually a development, an upgrade, of the well known "magic potion" as famously used by Asterix and Obolix. This potion was invented in antiquity by the Britons who at that time inhabited most of the British Isles, (Grand Bretagne) and Brittany, ('Petit Bretagne'). We recommend all Russian infantry see the original potion in use by watching any Asterix and Obolix film. They are further advised to leave the battlefield immediately if there is a Challenger 2 suspected in their vicinity. It is rumoured that The Challenger 3 will not only keep the two boiling vessels, but will also have a small crumpet griddle and a miniature oven for scones. "This tank is awesome! I saw three Scottish manned tanks take on 10 T54/55 out side Basrah, Iraq turn and then demolished a row of houses being used by the enemy. Then just drove off to another hot spot." Challenger 2s don’t miss. A British tank commander said so. He was in Iraq. The problem, he said, was avoiding the enemy tanks turrets flying through the air. Challenger has the longest recorded tank on tank kill at 4.7km. This was technically out of range of the Challenger 1 at the time.
@nickjung7394
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely spot on regarding the BVs
@TonyM540
Жыл бұрын
Love it !
@christaylor4441
Жыл бұрын
as long as we can brew up! priorities and all :)
@mariamanuelalavinas2418
Жыл бұрын
Ohh ! Hello Mr Challenger! I hope you enjoy Ukraine
@csmeinert
Жыл бұрын
Interesting how you use our Chobham armour on your M1 tank. Ever the same, the Brits do the inventing and the yanks take the credit. Radar anyone?!!!
@sybaseguru
Жыл бұрын
Computers?
@csmeinert
Жыл бұрын
@@sybaseguru yup, and computers, and hovercraft, and sonar and on and on!
@davidkennedy7743
Жыл бұрын
And jet engines atomic bombs the list goes on
@hb1338
Жыл бұрын
@@davidkennedy7743 You have ignored one extremely important item which the Americans invented all on their own - the frisbee.
@tacfoley4443
Жыл бұрын
@@hb1338 AND the definitive acme of musical instruments - the Kazoo.
@contingency9
Жыл бұрын
Rubbish! The T90 and earlier models if hit even by an rpg lifts the turret off because of the auto loader system. That is why the most advanced tanks don't use an auto loader. If you do you will lose look at what is happening to the most modern russian tanks in Ukraine their turrets flying off everywhere! I've never seen that with any challenger 1 or 2 or Abrams Leopard etc Revise your info because you are incorrect.😆
@louv4437
Жыл бұрын
They also got 88 Leopard 2’s and 55 Leopard 1’s just recently. Russia is in trouble
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
when in trouble, lol?
@louv4437
Жыл бұрын
@@jonsnow3521 they are losing to Ukraine lol
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
@@louv4437 no they r not. Only the woke western media r saying that. Listen to military sources (not the lying US generals who r paid/bribed with promotions to lie)
@paulrutter5330
Жыл бұрын
Great shame the vid continuously showed one piece rounds being loaded into any library picture available, while talking about three piece . Having served with UK armour in a previous life, I can assure you that the rate of fire is certainly better than two rounds per minute - and with three piece, the projectile is smaller, and easier to handle than shown / the bag charge is lighter, and the wrestling match that you were showing is in no way representative of a UK MBT - not from Chieftain onwards. The bag charge are held in pressurised cooloant surrounded containers, and obviate the turret launch system demonstrated by recent videos of Russian kit. I sincerely hope that these beasties are never needed, but if they are, I am sure they will put up a very convincing show - and probably form a lot further off than most MBTs ;-)
@1701Emperor
Жыл бұрын
The title of this video had literally nothing to do with the content of it...
@john091077
Жыл бұрын
I bet Vlad is Pootin his pants now.
@KipperStudios
Жыл бұрын
Even the T-90 doesn't stand a chance against the Chally-2 if it's a 1v1. Oh sure, the Chally 2 has a lower fire rate... but what does that matter when one shot from the Chally 2 will send the T-90 flying, while the T-90 won't get penetration on the Chally. I'm not saying we won't lose a single Chally, but what I am saying is that it took another Chally with its own special penetration round to take out another Chally, and it's never happened otherwise (in combat). That was friendly fire. That says a lot about both the protection Chally 2 provides, and the destructive power it brings. Ruzzia stand no chance.
@hb1338
Жыл бұрын
The difference in range between the respective guns means that the Challenger will typically have at least 5 shots before the T-90 can respond. The man in the chip shop on Salisbury Plain says that tankies reckon that it should take no more than 2 shots to convert a T-90 into scrap metal.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
yet russia is winning easily. hmmm
@joaosabino2909
Жыл бұрын
the extra distance will be the decisive factor, like it was for the 88 and the Tiger
@buttyboy100
Жыл бұрын
and look what happened to them. Too few of them to make a lasting difference, just as there will be too few Challengers, Leapords and Abrams.
@scottdyke7853
Жыл бұрын
It's 14 tanks not 28. I can see the source of the suggestion of 28 tanks. The Daily Mail - an absolute horror show of a news journal.
@davidcorbett62
Жыл бұрын
A very negative review of the Challenger. The only tank never have been lost to enemy action.. no other MBT can claim that plus the crews have have excellent training by the Royal Armoured Corps!
@joaosabino2909
Жыл бұрын
the extra distance will be the decisive factor in the front line, like it was for the 88 and the Tiger.
@chrisyoung9653
Жыл бұрын
the chally 2 is actually faster to reload with a half decent crew than auto loaders
@bladez-if4vw
Жыл бұрын
I understood that most bridges in the USSR, and thus in the Ukraine were build specifically with light tanks in mind, so that only T72 like tanks could go over them. Than there is the issue that Britain does not want any possibility for a challenger to be captured...
@ianallen8305
9 ай бұрын
Hence the software self destruct.
@richert8
Жыл бұрын
The Ukraine war is to tryout in real situations all military hardware. Everybody is doing this at the expense of the Ukraine people.
@bartweijs
Жыл бұрын
a main battle tank is just that, a main battle tank. It's a heavily armored box with a large gun designed to take heavy fire to the face and survive; as such it is good to breach enemy bunkers, strongpoints and such. in Modern combined arms warfair; a MBT by itself is useless; as infantry can take out tanks fairly easily . So you need to integrate it in a group; and use it best for it's intended purpose. One thing the Challenger 2 does really well is make thing go boom at a distance ... those HESH rounds are like artillery shells hitting. M1 and Leopard 2's don't have that capability. as such, a good commander will know depending on the battle where to put the challengers, where to put the leo's, bradleys, marders and amx10's ... And the Ukraïnians by now are a veteran professional motivated army; the learn really quick.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
i agree with your comment except for last sentence which is wrong. average life span of ukr infantry is 4 hrs on front line.
@bartweijs
Жыл бұрын
@@jonsnow3521 I've read that too. It seems somewhat low; and the foreign fighters lasted months on the fronts. Ukraïne has a much smaller supply of fighting age men; if they die by the 4-hours; wouldn't they have run out by now? This is basically an information war. I refuse to believe numbers from either side without hard proof. I just believe this war and the invasion of Crimea were diplomatic problems, and should have been solved diplomatically. The current war is a diplomatic faillure from both sides.
@SockAccount111
Жыл бұрын
Updated title: this monstruous British FAILURE was destroyed ON FIRST DEPLOYMENT DAY before EVEN MAKING CONTACT with any Russian tank
@andrewplater1782
Жыл бұрын
So glad to hear British tanks are splitting Russian tanks apart.
@Rabmac1UK
Жыл бұрын
I don't appreciate the narrator dissing this wonderful MBT. Not one has been destroyed by enemy fire, and it holds the world recored for a long range tank kill The Armour on the Beast is very probably the best in the World, and it may be that we share this technology with our American Friends. When the Challenger 3 comes out, with the smooth bore gun, it will again become one of the best MBTs in the world, Russia has nothing equivalent. Meantime Slava Ukraine
@jasondalley4607
7 ай бұрын
Having served in the RAC and been a course officer down at the RAC Gunnery School. I have never heard so much drivel and miss quoted stats about Challenger 1&2. This lad has clearly learnt all he knows from “world of tanks”. What a total muppet!
@neilhardy8211
Жыл бұрын
Mixed tank formations by the Ukrainians so that their soviet era ones can deal with short range and the challenger longer range seems the answer to me.
@Corran51
Жыл бұрын
In the latest Nato competition Iron Spear, Challenger 2 won. In that exercise was Leopards, Abrams and various national modifications of russian MBTs
@BoBaH_BoBaHoB
Жыл бұрын
Not a battalion. A tank army. 100% truth.
@ifax1245
Жыл бұрын
Get your facts right... From the official UK government website and I quote verbatim "Training on UK Challenger 2 tanks for Ukrainian soldiers is continuing at pace in the South-West of England after the UK committed to provide 14 vehicles and accompanying ammunition to support Ukraine's defence."
@hb1338
Жыл бұрын
You should do more research. Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine ambassador to the United Kingdom, announced on March 4 that the UK had promised 14 more tanks to Ukraine, in addition to the initial 14. It is very unlikely that this statement is untrue, but in line with current policy, no formal confirmation of the deal will be made until plans have been completed for preparation, training and shipping the equipment.
@ifax1245
Жыл бұрын
@@hb1338 From Uk Defence Journal: "Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, had claimed that the United Kingdom has decided to increase its pledge of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine." "UPDATE - This article has been corrected and amended, we have been officially informed since publication that the UK does not, in fact, intend to double the number of Challenger 2 tanks being sent to Ukraine and that the Ambassador appears to have misspoke."
@1LSWilliam
Жыл бұрын
Obviously, despite their limitations, these Challengers can destroy whatever the Russians throw at them because of their
@bobhinks8546
Жыл бұрын
Challenge 2 Still has never been Destroyed by a Enemy in Battle 😊
@mitchellculberson9336
Жыл бұрын
SLAVA UKRAINI!!!!!!!!
@ianjardine7324
7 ай бұрын
I love how you state that Challenger one was a bad tank with no justification at all. In fact the tank turned out way better than anyone expected exceeding the range accuracy and mobility predictions of both the army and the manufacturer. The tank had some teething issues with automotive and gunnery systems reliability but even with those initial issues it was a quantum leap compared to the Chieftain's it replaced which had reliable but far less advanced turret systems and an absolute pig of an engine. The Challenger one's poor reputation was established during it's disastrous first ever NATO gunnery exercise the Canada cup due to a series of problems with the turret systems the crew didn't have enough experience with to work around due to how little time they had on the tank. The tankers were devastated because they knew both they and the tank massively underperformed.
@fgodonoghue2282
Жыл бұрын
Been hearing about these for a few months now, when are they going to be seen on the battlefield?
@chopperaxon6171
Жыл бұрын
When the ground dries, and the last Russki has been bled in Bakhmut. Soon
@waynerobinson7057
Жыл бұрын
Better than no tank and I think the Ukrainians will use it’s strengths to their advantage.
@gizzync1525
Жыл бұрын
a Challenger got disabled and got hit by well over 40 RPG and 2 missiles. still survived.
@ruzziasht349
Жыл бұрын
the track fell off and was back in action the following day.
@joeobrien4869
Жыл бұрын
Thumbs down for click baiting
@frankcuritana8159
Жыл бұрын
Modern tanks should be equipped with javelin missiles as an extra power to destroy enemies at closer range because it’s proven accuracy blowing up Russian tanks.
@kennethlane3896
Жыл бұрын
I think the tanks will do very well.
@seantapper498
Жыл бұрын
Cannot wait to see the new challenger 3
@kevinsutton2912
Жыл бұрын
It's an old Challenger 2 hull with an upgraded turret and engine. No new tanks will be built.
@robert100xx
Жыл бұрын
NO Challenger 2 Tank or crew has been lost to enemy action. Stick THAT in yer pipe and smoke it Ivan.
@capoeirastronaut
Жыл бұрын
"In every ill turn of fortune the most unhappy sort of misfortune is to have been happy." Was that the quote? Boethius.
@Valtellino
Жыл бұрын
Fake title😂😂😂😂😂
@samgraham9235
Жыл бұрын
If the Challenger 2 is too heavy; what does that make the Abrams?
@stephenmuir5030
Жыл бұрын
Lighter
@juliusseizure3039
Жыл бұрын
If the ukrainian soldiers are trained well on the challenger2 it will overwhelm the Russian tanks and anything else in its sights. Same with the Abrams.
@jonsnow3521
Жыл бұрын
rubbish. the 1.5 tanks ukr gets will achieve nothing. this is war, not video games. lol
@SK-xv3hn
Жыл бұрын
A FGM-148 Javelin a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance. The system takes a top attack flight profile against armored vehicles has already destroyed thousands of tanks since it's inception and not much more is needed against Russian tanks and helicopters beside Stingers. Plenty of armor and MIG-29s are laying around in nearby NATO countries. The Leopard tank is a lot more practical then the Abrams tank. Obviously, both a far superior in Ukrainian hands then anything the Russians or Wagner Group can oppose them with. I flew a Loach in Viet Nam and even today flying low with missiles and M134 Minigun would do pretty good.
@johnfisk811
Жыл бұрын
The Challenger 1 was not a bad tank. It was adequate and easily produced on existing production lines. Why do you refer to the English? There has been no English army since 1707. You are way out of date. It is the British army you are referring to. The Challenger 1 carried the same type of armour as the M1 Abrams when it went into production. The Chieftan itself could destroy both the T64 and T72 in its day. The Challenger1 and 2 just did it better. The Challenger 2 brings the Ukrainian army a whole generation of tank fighting with it’s suite of electronic aids.
@davehopkin9502
Жыл бұрын
Correction - The gun does have a "three part" load, but one of those three is the primer - akin to a 50 Cal round, its fitted in a 10 round magazine, so doesnt have to be loaded every time - also the two (remaining) parts, one is inert (the APFSDS) so can safely be lap loaded whilst a one part round cannot.
@limeytown
Жыл бұрын
British Army - pound for pound the best on the planet
@adriancotterill9812
Жыл бұрын
Hi I think Britain will have to be very wary of any of their challenger tanks being captured by Russians as the UK will have to live with their actions and If I was the UK GOVERNMENT I would be saying to the Ukrainians do not leave any of our Challenger tanks to the Russians to be captured. However I can only see Russia being beaten in this war has I cannot ever see Russia being the force that they once were ever again. As Russia will have to depend on others like China to support them in wars in the future.
@triman500
7 ай бұрын
It was a tank of its time. Everything moves on. What stands out with the British is their toughness under fire including a "brew" when things get tough. I suspect most of this heavy armour is now obsolete as proven in the Ukraine.
Пікірлер: 853