"Don't know if anyone's mentioned it but there's a case of a Challenger 2 getting hit by 70 RPG's near Basra. Tank survived. I think all the optics were destroyed and the crew were a little worse for wear but nobody died and the tank survived the encounter." "don't forget about the in-built BREVILLE kettle with a boiling speed of 100 seconds with impenetrable patterned plastic armor carrying a payload of up to 1 liter of pure British water." Two comments from the original video! But really, which tank would you rather be a crew member of? I know my pick!

@peckelhaze6934

Жыл бұрын

We never lost one Challenger in the Iraq war. They take an enormous amount of punishment and are deadly.

@johnmcaleer7099

Жыл бұрын

Its got to be the challenger 2, that kettle sounds amazing,theirs nothing like a good cup of tea in the middle of a battle😆😆

@Shoomer1988

Жыл бұрын

Challenger 3 is due to come into service in the next few years. Although not a massive re-do it does have some very important improvements but I don't think we will be handing them out anytime soon - we have to keep a few toys back for ourselves.

@Beefy5039

Жыл бұрын

@@peckelhaze6934 2 lost to blue on blue however

@liamwaterworth923

Жыл бұрын

@@Shoomer1988 not to mention that the challenger tanks were built from the ground up in the 80s-90s were as the t-90s are just a tank that has been updated from the 50s-60s cold war era.

The Challenger 2 is by far the superior tank because the crew have tea making facilities on board.

@peteturner3928

Жыл бұрын

If ain't fitted with a BV, I ain't going!

@UKMonkey

Жыл бұрын

Said in part in jest - but it's true. Over 12 months in, and soldiers are having to survive in cold unforgiving environments. The crew that has clear heads, are well and have been eating hot food every day is easily going to beat a crew that's been eating cold beans for the last 6 months; even if they're in a worse tank. The thing is though, the Challenger isn't a worse tank, so it's a rather devastating combination.

@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333

Жыл бұрын

Ahh, the commonly used, lame British cliché.

@robertkirk4387

Жыл бұрын

Not to mention pot noodles and cup a soup, I had an FN-FAL fitted with a toaster oven, never die hungry.🤤

@keithswaddling2370

Жыл бұрын

Tea? That's got to be a bonus.

In Iraq, a Challenger 2 threw a track and got stuck in hostile territory, surrounded by enemy soldiers. The tank took 14 RPG hits plus a hit from a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was not penetrated. The crew were all unharmed, and the vehicle was back in action six hours later. The thing is an absolute beast.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Ha! I love the end when the vehicle going back into action hours later. Talk about an absolute monster of a tank. And it looks great! Would very much like to see one in real life (as a friend, that is)

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

It,s a FUCKIN absolute beast of an MBT, it will spot the T90 or any other armour before they see it!! and that means " hello Darkness my old friend" XD

@FuriousFire898

Жыл бұрын

@@californianreacts There is shed tons around in the UK im British theres 2 in the Bovington Tank museum and there are tanks dotted all over the UK in barracks and in Bovington (place Ukrainians are be trained for Challenger 2 tanks and tank development) ive seen 3 in my life time unmanned.

@hkrsescort

Жыл бұрын

As far as I'm aware this is an inaccurate comparison. The rifled bore requires specific ammunition which is different to the nato standard hence why challenger 3 is getting a smooth bore. The ammunition is a lot more expensive than nato standard

@Werrf1

Жыл бұрын

@@hkrsescort ...nobody mentioned the gun here.

Challenger 2 wasn’t only within this pledge. It was the first to be offered.

The British challenger is proven in combat and proven it can take multiple direct hits and survive. Absolutely a formidable tank (proven). Challenger 3 is on the way.

@andyf4292

Жыл бұрын

and we have good evidence the M1 HAS been penetrated by rpg7

@perfrchandersen4853

Жыл бұрын

This is kind of funny really. Russia can no longer build their tanks, because we have sangioned them, and as this happens, the challenger 3 is being designed. Its kind a overkill.

@andyf4292

Жыл бұрын

@@perfrchandersen4853 im not so sure these sactions are working at all... did you know they have their own chip-fabs, capable of making pc processors?

@TheeWolfiee1

Жыл бұрын

@@andyf4292 processors that take as long as it took them to get to the moon... oh wait..

@andyf4292

Жыл бұрын

@@TheeWolfiee1 1.7ghz.... you wouldnt want to try running modern AAA games on it. but its certainly enough for a SAM or a missile guidance

It's not just the tech , but the quality of the crews / training.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Yes, absolutely! I'm sure the difference is similar to pilots training hours between more Western countries and Russia (and the rest of the world really). Incredibly large difference.

@danielw5850

Жыл бұрын

Also, the logistical support: the endemic corruption in Russia has permeated through the military and I wouldn't be surprised if the T90s are filled with 3rd-rate Chinese counterfeit parts; the purchasing manager now the proud owner of a villa on Cyprus!

@572Btriode

Жыл бұрын

Is absolutely correct, the battlefield management and tank crew capability plays an enormous part.

@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333

Жыл бұрын

14 Challenger 2s to the UAF isn't going to make a difference when Russia has a total inventory size of 12,000 main battle tanks, of which the latest are continuously produced. This is a massive strategic miscalculation by the UK, as the Challenger 2 has classified armor which is now going to end up in the hands of the Russians once they knock one out.

@wessexdruid7598

Жыл бұрын

@@danielw5850 Some of the ERA on killed T-72s has been shown to be made of clay - i.e. the real explosives have been sold off and the tanks fitted with training armour, to go into battle with.

The Challenger 2 armour is truly amazing. For my own safety I would want to be in the Challenger. Besides that they have equipment to make cups of tea while fighting. Who wants to go to war without a cup of tea.

@FuriousFire898

Жыл бұрын

And cook rations at the same time with the same equipment!😊

@chaosshade1804

Жыл бұрын

Us brits need our tea it’s what fuels us ❤

@Dave-hu5hr

Жыл бұрын

Tea. 💪

@darthwiizius

Жыл бұрын

@@chaosshade1804 If we had to we'd go to the four corners of the Earth in the name of a cuppa, again....

@chrishoff402

Жыл бұрын

Yep, if Britain was cut off from the tea supply they would set out to reconquer India.

One of the most important abilities of any tank is the ability to be able to reverse quickly from an engagement. The T-90 can only go 3mph in reverse and is therefore at a disadvantage when it needs to relocate quickly whereas Challenger 2 can reverse over 3 times faster than T-90 so is going to spend less time in trouble when it has to reverse out of trouble. What is also left out about in comparison vids is the T-90 and yes I've been in one are very cramped ever for a 3 man crew and you would not want to be operating for more than a couple of hours in these. While the Challenger 2 has a 4 man crew compared to the T-90 it's a darn site more spacious and able to maintain operations for far longer in comfort, plus have a BV (boiling vessel) so you can have hot meal no prob and also that most important moral raising booster call TEA !!!

@wessexdruid7598

Жыл бұрын

Another key ability is gun depression - because that allows the tank to snipe, while hull down. As stated in the video, the Chally has -10 deg depression (like the Abrams), while the T-90 only manages -4 deg. This is due to the low height of the T-90 turret.

@OniMetsuki

Жыл бұрын

Apparently the Challenger 2 can do 22mph in reverse thanks to it's 2 reverse speeds.

@chrishoff402

Жыл бұрын

The other thing the Israelis found combatting T-72s in Lebanon, because Soviet tanks have everything packed so tightly together inside, a penetrative hit can take out more components and crew. When the T-72 penned a Western tank it might kill or injure one crewman but the tank could still potentially remain in the fight.

@johnhall7679

Жыл бұрын

Italian engine and gearbox?

@chrishoff402

Жыл бұрын

@@johnhall7679 Russian tanks aren't meant to reverse. They are meant to attack in large numbers and swarm kill the enemy without stopping. They don't care if 99% of them are lost, that means plently of scrappers to cobble replacements together and supplement the new ones that arrive from the factory.

If you want to go to war, go in a Leopard or Abrams, if you want to survive, go in a Challenger.

@colonelturmeric558

10 ай бұрын

Just like the churchill tanks, crews loved how much protection they had

@joeswanson5486

9 ай бұрын

So far the leopards seem to be the best

Hi don’t forget that the Challenger has the record for the furthest tank kill shot ever and it’s still extant! Good shot heh

@vestige2540

Жыл бұрын

I read that it set the record at 5100m tank on tank kill (Challenger 1)

@bongodrumzz

Жыл бұрын

@@vestige2540 5,100 metres or 3 miles, which makes the video commentators facts slightly wrong, what else did they get wrong? Oh and one other thing, Ukraine built the T-90 in its factories but they want chally, I wonder why?

@darthwiizius

Жыл бұрын

Chally 2s have over 3000 combat kills to zero combat losses. Makes even the mighty Abrams seem a bit flimsy by comparison.

@stevenclarke5606

Жыл бұрын

The Challenger has never been killed in a tank to tank confrontation

@NCG92

Жыл бұрын

​@@stevenclarke5606 1 has and it was due to friendly fire its the only challenger 2 to even be destroyed and it was destroyed by another challenger 2 in 2003 Basra

The reason there's an extra body in the Chally is simply down to the Brits needing someone to keep the brews going... Oh and theres only one of the 2 has the record for the longest recorded tank kill, in the same way as there's only one of the 2 never been lost to enemy fire, I'll let you guess which is which

@LordElpme

Жыл бұрын

That was the Challenger 1 that had the longest recorded kill

@regfenster

Жыл бұрын

@@LordElpme same gun though

@creepydragonnation

Жыл бұрын

Yea it was the challanger 1, it was a rifled barrol same as the challanger 2 it did a tank kill on a moving target which then after that in the gulf war, proved it's self as one lethal MF.

@Rempai420

Жыл бұрын

@@regfenster Not exactly. The Challenger 1 used the L11A5 and the Challenger 2 uses the L30A1. The L30 was designed to be able to fit into the Challenger 1 but if the Royal scots dragoon's were using a L30 or L11 is not documented (Correct me if I'm wrong) Edit: I just read up that it was the L11 with the L26A1 round, not the upgraded L30.

Higher enemy numbers = a target-rich environment for the Challenger.

@liestricks

Жыл бұрын

hard to find your targets with only one thermal sight lol

@stephenhumphrey7935

Жыл бұрын

​@@liestricks A lot of Russian tanks have no thermal imagers.

@tonyparkerize

Жыл бұрын

Challengers were well out numbered in the Gulf war but destroyed every Iraqi tank that crossed their path

@stephenhumphrey7935

Жыл бұрын

Hello Harbottle.

@robfer5370

Жыл бұрын

@@liestricks Easy to kill tanks with the longest range and most accurate gun, also HESH rounds gonna turn them into scrap metal and they won't even see it coming. 🤣👍

the challenger 2 was designed around its 2 tea urns, its combat capabilities ensure battle is concluded by 3pm - just in time for tea. while it may be slower than a T-90, it can go forward 8x faster than the T-90 can reverse (sadly thats only 3mph for the T-90) expectations in Ukrainian Army hands is that within 4 weeks they will have adapted it to achieve a top speed of 150 mph and a ceiling height of 500 ft, with a submersible version available by early summer

@chullychullster3077

Жыл бұрын

Though extreme, you're probably not far wrong. The intensity of war will make Ukranian crews, maintenance and eventually design and manufacturing of tanks the best in the world.

An important consideration is the training of the crews and their tactics.. Not until if and when they engage will we find out. I was attached to British Cavalry in the 1970's and they were pretty switched on. That was of course on Chieftain.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Yes, absolutely! I'm sure the amount of time British crews (and most Western countries) have training are the highest in the world. I only know the difference between the US fighter piolets and those of Russia for example are massively different, and it's a safe bet for me to assume the British with their military is exactly the same.

I have noticed how the Russian tanks rock back when their main gun is fired. I don't think any of the NATO tanks being supplied do this. The video confirms that the Challenger 2 definitely doesn't. Also as mentioned, the gun stabilisation looks superior

@thephoenix756

Жыл бұрын

The turrets of Russian tanks are much lighter and this could be the reason

@thomasw695

Жыл бұрын

There gun is bigger and there tanks arnt as heavy

@chamberpot969

Жыл бұрын

This is not a disadvantage and as Stalin said; 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'

@mrrossi739

Жыл бұрын

Russians stabilization is equivalent to ours in the '60s.

@thephoenix756

Жыл бұрын

@@mrrossi739 Absolute nonsense; where do you people even get this from?

The British Challenger Tank is the only Tank never to be lost in any Battles, just saying from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧

@UsudUsud-ly9qr

9 ай бұрын

Bruh delete your comment its gonna be stormed soon...tgere video footage appeared if a destroyed challenger

Ah the challenger 2 so good it took another challenger 2 tank to take one out. Also the original challenger tank has the longest tank on tank kill with the challenger 2 tank also having a similar range.

Challenger has to upgrade it's true but it's battle record is superb. I know the Ukrainians who get to take it to battle could not wish for a better tank! Glory to Ukraine!

@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333

Жыл бұрын

Challenger has never had to deal with a comparable enemy tank such as the Russian T-72 or T-90; its combat record is not that impressive. And are there even any Ukrainians left to properly operate these machines? Challenger 2 has classified armor and is now going to end up in the hands of the Russians once they knock one out. This is yet another incredibly stupid strategic move by the UK.

@streaky81

Жыл бұрын

@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 C2 has been hit with modern _western_ anti-tank systems, the idea that Russia has anything it can bring to the front and put in a fight (not that the C2 wouldn't take out a T-90 long before a T-90's crew even knew it was in a tank fight anyway) is absurd. What you need to take these tanks are is very large explosions, on the roof (1000lb hi-ex+), with precision accuracy and Russia at no point in this conflict has been able to arrange that, and it isn't going to be able to start now.

@stephenhumphrey7935

Жыл бұрын

​@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 The Challenger 2 has come face to face with the T72 in Iraq, where it destroyed 300 of them with no losses.

@crabpeople5541

Жыл бұрын

@@streaky81 Western anti-tank systems are wholly capable of destroying a C2, especially considering an RPG penetrated the lower plate of a C2.

@streaky81

Жыл бұрын

@@crabpeople5541 No, that is not true. An RPG caused a reactive armour system panel to explode, which penetrated a C2 (blew the driver's foot off as memory serves). That's why the armour on the C2 was changed to remove that reactive armour system. Have problem, learn cause, correct problem.

No Challenger 2 has ever been destroyed in battle. Victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦

@andrewkirkland1452

Жыл бұрын

Not exactly true. No enemy has destroyed one but I think one was destroyed by another challenger 2 in a blue on blue incident in Iraq.

@deadstreet1675

Жыл бұрын

Trust me that's going to change... Russia will go all out to take out these tanks... will be a major story for them in Russia to embarrass the west....

@albin2232

Жыл бұрын

@@deadstreet1675 They can try...

@deadstreet1675

Жыл бұрын

@Albin 2 I'm sure they will try...

@cacwgm

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewkirkland1452 By a HESH round - but as the hatch was open at the time, and that's where the round went in, it's not known whether it would have penetrated the armour. A MILAN ATGM failed to do so, so the jury's still out on what it would take to destroy a Challenger...

I am an ex 1RTR crewmen and a manual loader was amazing if you have a good crew and loader the gunner and commander work seamlessly plus any maintenance tasks are completed quicker with a crew of 4

@mrrossi739

Жыл бұрын

if i remember right its about 9 seconds to load

I'm lucky enough to live by Salisbury Plain, so get to see challie 2's regularly. They might not have power to weight of T 90 etc, but with the hydrogas suspension, they really can shift over rough terrain at speed.

The T90 may have a higher of road speed on paper but I doubt it can fire accurately at anywhere near that speed using torsion bar suspension which although a good reliable system it is susceptible to damage from shock loading. While the hydrogas suspension fitted to Challenger actually becomes smoother the harder you push it as the nitrogen in the system heats up and expands raising the ground clearance and absorbing shocks more smoothly.

Challenger all the way, and it comes with tea making facility, total class.

The western armies learned to separate the ammunition from the crew (WW2 Sherman M4 was called the Tommy Cookers by Germans and Ronson "lights first time everytime" by the British tank crews because they got hit and it set off the ammunition as it was in the same space as the crew) so the separated the ammo from the crews. There was an incident in Afghanistan where a Challenger took over 70 RPG hits from the Taliban and it survived.

A Challenger 2 has never been lost to enemy fire.

Simple analysis. The Challenger I completely wrecked Iraqi T-72s without receiving a single casualty in return from the T-72s. The T-90 is a tarted up T-72 with the same major flaw - ammo storage. A Chally can take a hit from a T-90 and keep fighting. A T-90 taking a hit goes jack-in-the-box. One Challenger threw a track in Iraq and the Iraqis pummelled it with 70 RPG hits. The crew remained safe, buttoned up inside and when the tank was recovered, it only took six hours of repairs to put it back into service. The Challenger II has multiple armour kits that can be added for urban warfare. The Challenger's gun is better stabilized and the sensors setup allow the commander to be searching for targets while the gunner is busy killing others. On paper the T-90 looks good, but Ukraine has already proved otherwise.

@davidkennedy7743

Жыл бұрын

At last someone has said it the T90 is just a breathed on T72 both crap

@ebperformance8436

10 ай бұрын

Not to mention auto loaders jam, and have to be driven back to a tank depo, they cannot be repaired on the field…a manned loader takes under a minute to repair, the rate of fire on a auto loader is terrible, compared to a manned loader. it’s very Rare, for a manned loader to break down. This is the reason, western tanks haven’t used auto loaders…until the Abram X came along….The Abram x auto loader will be more superior…compared to a T-14, and T-90….the Abram X is a terrifying tank, to fight against.

Personally I would use the Challie 2 as the tank still holds the record of the longest tank on tank kill with the riffled gun and the armour is the best in production ATM. explosive reactive armour and bar armour can also be added to increase survivability. HESH rounds ( High Explosive Squash Head ) are old tech which UK artillery also still use in anti tank rolls. The round is not guided/rocket assisted or fin stabilised. The accuracy comes from the Fire control system and the rotation of the round in flight induced from the riffled barrel.

@Nashy933

Жыл бұрын

longest tank on tank kill was challie 1 in 1991

The specifications are only one aspect of tank effectiveness. With the current fire control systems, it's largely down to who fires first wins. In spite of the lower range of the Challenger main gun, the Challenger holds the record for the longest range tank on tank kill. So crew training will have a major impact on who shoots first, and how accurate the shot actually is. The Challenger also holds another title. The Challenger 2 has never been put out of action by the enemy. Other tanks such as the Abrams have suffered small numbers put out of action by the enemy. A Challenger 2 survived hits from more than 70 anti tank weapons, and was still in fighting condition. In addition, a hit that penetrates the armour of the T80 is likely to destroy the tank and crew because of unprotected ammunition stored above the turret ring. All the main NATO tanks have ammunition that is well protected. On top of the specifications, there is the important issue of reliability. We have seen that Russian tanks suffer massively from poor maintenance and are often abandoned by their crews. So, overall, I would prefer to be in a Challenger since the crew are more likely to survive a hit. Also, the Challenger crews have the ability to achieve a higher rate of first time hits. No contest!

@usernamesreprise4068

Жыл бұрын

The ultimate decider will be are the Ukranians going to be even close to the proficiency and expertise of the British crews, who have trained in and operated them, sometimes for years. can you truly compare stats on equipment use that crews may only have had mere weeks of experience with ?.....it may be a whole different ball game if the vehicles where to be provided with highly trained on type, British crews, but the British public wouldnt stand for that willingly.

@coltsfoot9926

Жыл бұрын

@@usernamesreprise4068 Crew training is likely to have a serious impact on the result. We have already seen this in the Middle East where poorly trained crews led to the destruction of Abrams and Leopard tanks. So, taking that to the Ukraine situation, we already know that the Russians are putting their recruits into battle with the bare minimum of training. We also know that since the Russians annexed the Crimea nine years ago, the Ukrainians have been having their troops trained in the NATO methods, and in important roles, they make sure they are well trained. So the Ukrainians will have had years to practice the methods which means they only need to focus on the technical aspects of the new equipment. The question to be asked isn't about whether they are as good as the British crews, but whether they are good enough to beat the Russians. So, given the superiority of Western tanks over the Russian tanks, I would expect to see the Ukrainians perform much better than the Russians. How much better remains to be seen, and given the mobilisation numbers of the Russians, the superiority of the Ukrainians needs to overcome the fact that the Russians outnumber the Ukrainians. There are so many unknowns that no-one can be certain of the outcome. However, the question in the video asked which tank we would prefer to be in. My answer still stands, because of the overall superiority of the tank, its the Challenger.

@usernamesreprise4068

Жыл бұрын

@@coltsfoot9926 On that I wasnt forming an argument, I am actually in total agreement, my querie was basically will the Ukranians be sharp enough to react instantly to the threat and be as proficient as our crews, as you said he who see's first and fires first is usually the winner. if a part of that nato training was for challenger crews then they have a fighting chance given the overall ratio of russian tank numbers, and as you alluded to, the relative willingness to fight versus the average russian conscripts lack thereof.

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

​@@usernamesreprise4068 If your life, and all of everybody else,s lives "that depend on you" to protect your country..you learn things alot faster than you normally would​!..unless your Russian!!! and you believe, or forced to believe, that your not backwards in any way!!! But when all our allied tanks are (strategically placed), the poor, malnourished, dimwitted, thick as fuck||, Ruskie cannon fodder will have absolutley no clue where the thunder is coming from !!

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

@@coltsfoot9926Tbh there is really only one answer, and im glad you agree XD

The Challenger 2 still holds the record for the longest range kill on an enemy tank and to date not one Challenger 2 has been destroyed by an enemy. Quite simply put the T90 would be disabled before it even sighted the British tank.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Fantastic record to hold, that's for sure! Extremely far distance. Impressive.

@UsudUsud-ly9qr

9 ай бұрын

Bruh now challenger leopards and other western tank being destroyed in great numbers before even seeing an enemy....bruh

@peterrichards7387

9 ай бұрын

@@UsudUsud-ly9qr Not by enemy tanks buddy

@UsudUsud-ly9qr

9 ай бұрын

@@peterrichards7387 yes that's what I said - destroyed before even seeing an enemy

Though the T90 has automatic loading of the main gun which seems a good thing, it is actually the reason for the turrets popping off on russian tanks as shells are exposed. If an incoming enemy round pierces the turret armour at the point it joins the hull then it easily sets off the exposed ammunition within russian tanks, setting that off too. This is a major weakness and why you've seen so many turrets of russian tanks in Ukraine flying into the air after being hit. The challenger 2 might seem old fashioned using manual loading of the main gun but it actually makes the tank safer as the spare rounds of ammunition are not exposed. So if the tank is hit, there's virtually no chance of a chain reaction setting off the tanks own ammunition.

Challenger definitely, Because one thing the video didn't mention is the tanks have their strongest amour facing forward, why does this matter? Because even the best tanks & crews will need to back out of situations they don't like the look of, And the Russian / Soviet tanks have a reverse speed of about 6 mph, While the challenger can reverse at 20 mph approx ( most NATO nations tanks have a much greater speed backwards than the Soviet designs ). Meaning it can back out of a bad situation faster and without having to expose it's slightly weaker side and rear amour. While the Russian crews face the choice of reversing slowly ( easy target to hit ) or turning to try getting out faster, ( But meaning any hit scored on the tank will pretty much finish it... )

A good job to compare the specifications of the tanks if they are trustworthy. Assuming if they are correct then i refer to for example car reviews. The stats for a Alfa is even better then the VW or Japanese cars. But the last two don’t suffer from breaking down. The same is applicable for the T90. Having a tank is fine, but driving and firing is better than having a lot unserviceable in store. You hardly see T90 in combat but mostly the T72. The T90 misses a loader. Disadvantage are : 1 when the loading system doesn’t work the firing will be a challenge. 2. When a track have to be repaired, you miss the most powerful crew member. 3. A lot of the ammunition is stored in the turret, you can see a lot of ammunition explosions when hit and the turret is blown away. In the comments people mentioned that not only the tank has to be good but the crew as well. The training in the Russian army is less then a quarter in comparison with NATO countries. So that statement is so true. And besides the poor training the logistics for the T90 is also bad. A lot of tanks are not well maintained , tracks broken or rotten, no communication equipment, no aiming devices etc etc. more then 75% are not operational, and a lot of them beyond repair. So on paper a good tank, but in the practice a bad one, due to the bad training and the even worse logistic train.

i know an instructor for challenger 2. he's impressed with it, he's not impressed with the idea of putting it in a position where it could be captured

When I was a serving soldier, it was a constant source of frustration in how the British army was constantly being under-funded and whittled down in manpower and resources. I joined in 1990 and I am still in close contact with people serving now and the army is a shadow of what it used to be. Its either fully intentional/criminal or utter incompetence on a constant basis to how the military has been cut back.

Also the amount of rocking a T90 makes when firing compared to the Challenger 2 that doesn't, it just absorbs the recoil and keeps the gunner/commander fixed on targets.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

I can only imagine! Seeing videos of both tanks shoot, I di notice a substantial amount of rocking in the Russian tanks in general compared to the larger, heavier, (and probably build better) Challenger tanks.

@peteturner3928

Жыл бұрын

The guns of the T-64,72,80 or 90 tanks never stay on target, they have to move to a slightly elevated neutral position to allow the autoloader to whack the next round in.

@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333

Жыл бұрын

Spouted by someone that's never operated T-90 tanks and is just regurgitating NATO propaganda.

Ex Challenger 2 Crewmen here. The lack of auto loading system and ability to drop a crew member is more detrimental to a crew than portrayed here. 1. Those autoloaders in the T90 take time, they take longer than the human loader in the challenger would take to toad a road in fact on A long range HESH engagement we were loading these 20kg rounds in 3-4 seconds a piece (with unconventional and unsafe methods you can get two up in the air at the same time) 2. If you slip a track out in the field the crew is expected to change it themselves, each link weighs 70kg and there's over 80 of them on each side you need all the strength you can muster if the reccy mechs aren't close. 3. They stag on the radios on an evening, cook the crews meals, help the commander with navigation, they know the radios/comms inside and out and have sat in every other seat in that tank for multiple years per seat (other than the commanders seat). they are a mentor to the driver and gunner, also a god send to their commanders when taking orders over the net or when it comes to making high pressured decisions. They're the mothers of the tanks. (The best will be able make you a brew on the move). The hunter kill system. points in the crew roles they missed.

My brother was a Royal marine way back in the 70s. he always said that in the event of it all kicking off, their job was to sell their lives as dearly as possible to give time for the politicians to get their shit together. In more recent years he observed that every time "their" stuff met "our" stuff, in the middle east for instance, (notably western supplied Isreal V soviet supplied arab nations,) the western emphasis on costly quality murdered the soviet cheap quantity doctrine. This has been shown all over the world especially in the air. Vietnam, middle east, even Angola, western weapons and doctrine has been superior. What we are seeing is a clash of 2020s forces with larger 1980s forces. The upshot always seems to be that larger, less well equipped forces rapidly become smaller less well equipped forces.

UK has committed to send 14 Challenger 2s to Ukraine. British army has 227 Challenger 2s total, some in Germany and some in Estonia. 148 Challengers are being upgraded to Challenger 3, so there's a limit to how many could be provided even if there was the political will.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the more in depth view on how many will be sent to Ukraine, and how many challengers are being upgraded to Challenger 3. Not too many out there in the first place to give, but they are mighty.

@streaky81

Жыл бұрын

It's been repeatedly stated that the 14 is just phase one. It's not even vaguely obvious that Ukraine will need more though and that they won't cause the Ukrainians more problems than they solve (ditto the Abrams). By my reckoning there's something in the order of about 80 that can go basically immediately without putting anybody out.

@Rabmac1UK

Жыл бұрын

The 14 have now been upgraded to 28. I would not want to go up against 28 Challenger II Tanks in anything built by Russia

@markmite8596

Жыл бұрын

more factories can always be built and most likely will soon.. obviously

@robfer5370

Жыл бұрын

That number has been increased to 28 Challenger 2s, also people be sleeping on how deadly the HESH round is!! The the accuracy and precision of the L30A1 rifled gun combined with the lethality and the extra range of the HESH rounds ( can hit targets miles further than any other tank ) it is going to cause russian armoured vehicles some serious problems. With the energy imparted into the target by the squash head through impulsive loading, the sheer force of it will severely damage parts of any target it hits, and im betting that includes T-90s with all their sights, sensors and reticle.

Actually British Challengers and Russian tanks have faced off in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. No Challengers were ever lost while hundreds of Russian T tanks were destroyed. There are not that many T-90s in Ukraine and even the Ukraine T-72s, artillery and drones killed them. The Challenger killed a T-72 in the longest combat kill in Iraq @ 5 Kms. The Dorchester armour is unique to the Challenger. The first version of Chobham armour was given to the US Army for its Abrams MBT. Dorchester is a big step up in protection. The Russian autoloader system is what has caused the immediate brew up and turret launches in Ukraine when they are hit because the ammunition is in the turret. They saved paying one man while sacrificing three.

One overlooked variable is the quality of the tank crews and tactics.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Yes, absolutely agree! And I can't imagine how much more training hours western countries in general have over Russian crews for example.

One new development in warfare is the top down attack on tanks by drones, ATGMs and artillery. You don't necessarily need to be able to pen the armor. Antitank mines can break a track and it's a sitting duck for mortar and artillery rounds. Also a HE round in the turret rim, it won't pen the armor but it can pop the turret off the chassis.

Cool reaction/video. A bit more detail on the HESH would have been nice in the original video. It's not just some squishy HE shell meant for anti-personnel, it's kinda what was developed to counter the Russian armour and take out the crews. Think the US version is HEP, pretty tricky kit.

@kwlkid85

Жыл бұрын

HESH is outdated nowadays. ERA mostly blocks it.

@johnp8131

Жыл бұрын

@@kwlkid85 You never know? My Instructors told me it was being superceded and HEAT/HEAP was the future. That was in the mid seventies so it probably still has an effective use on older tanks. Of which, we have seen there are currently many!

@rickybuhl3176

Жыл бұрын

@@kwlkid85 It does, when the tanks have it or the military fit it..

@stormblooper

Жыл бұрын

The British kept HESH in part as a munition to support the infantry. Anti tank penetrators don't demolish buildings as well as explosive heads. He's rounds needed a rifled barrel to impart spin and keep accuracy high. They will loose this capability with upgrade to Challenger 3 which will change the gun to 120mm smooth bore which bring supply commonality with Leopard 2 and Abrams.

@robertpatrick3350

Жыл бұрын

Peer level encounters for MBT’s are very rare and C2 has kinetic rounds for those, for everything else HESH is perfect

The Challenger holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill.

Something these comparisons always forget to talk about it crew comfort.

I nearly got run over by a C2 in 1999. They also have incredible brakes.

Tea brewing swung me towards the challenger

The T90 is just a T72 with some bits glued on it. Underneath, it's still basically a 50 year old design. The only thing that has ever destroyed a Challenger II, is another Challenger II (friendly fire). The T90 is no threat to it.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Sure seems like it, very old bones for the T90. Challenger III will be an amazing thing to see coming up!

@aaronadams5885

Жыл бұрын

@@californianreacts Indeed. The problem is that there won't be many of them. Our armed forces are technologically advanced and well trained, but decades of cuts have left it basically impotent. They barely have enough ammunition to last more than a few days. One report says that the majority of rapid response forces are actually reservists, unable to deploy within a reasonable amount of time. It's a disgrace. I love my country and our armed forces, but the way they have been gutted is a national embarrassment.

Which one? The Challenger 3, probably over everything currently out there? However of these older models, we know the Challenger 2 was the safest tank to be in after what happened in Iraq and it has the longest "Kill". The T90 hasn't proved itself too well in the Ukraine, although how many have been deployed, comparatively? So overall, the Challenger2. Personally, as an armourer who used to service and fit various anti-tank weapons to aircraft, I wouldn't like to be in either!

The Challenger 3 tank which is the next, planned generation of Challenger tank will replace the rifled barrel with a smoothbore barrel to give commonality with other NATO members. I think it might mean the end of super awesome cool high explosive Squash-Head rounds, though I suppose with more modern armour on the battlefield, more specialised, fin-stabilised sabot rounds and HEAT rounds might be the more common approach

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Yes! I've seen plans for the Challenger 3, but I want to learn more. Perhaps in a future video I can dive into it more (along with some research of my own). They will be impressive! Especially since the Challenger 2 has been an absolute monster already.

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

aye, the super awesome, super accurate rifled bore squashheeds will probably be retired shortly , but tbh they could still do a job for a few more years, amazing bit of kit!

@arthour051

Жыл бұрын

I think they're still on the fence about the rifled barrle. The main reason for it is that the spin it imparts on a HESH round causes the plastic explosive to spread better due to the spinning motion upon impact and causes the explosive to affect a wider area of armour, instead of bunching up behind the shell impact and not getting the full effect. So in the end it really comes down to whether they decide to keep using HESH rounds or not

@cymro8902

Жыл бұрын

The challenger 2 has had the option for the smoothbore since 2006 with the CLIP upgrade, we just haven't needed to use it

Yes, the Challenger II tank is definitely being supplied by the UK to Ukraine. It was the first declaration ( 15 Jan 23 ) of any country to send tanks and was announced partly to try and clear the political / international log jam affecting our NATO partners.

@HereticDuo

Жыл бұрын

mainly the Germans, they are the procrastinating pests at the moment.

the auto-loading system on the T-90 has a major problem. As most western AT missiles (MLAWs and Javelins) are designed to explode over a tank at it's weaker top armour the turrext is normally penetrated from the top and the shells for the gun which sit in a nice circle under the turret.......will go off resulting in this roman candle effect before the turret blows off

challenger goes at 37mph because of an engine limiter, guess what as soon as a unit get`s a challenger they remove it. giving speeds of up to 50mph

One of the most important functions of a battle tank is to be able to make tea during a battle C2 ticks all the box’s

It works that's the main thing that test it Hinksey was a glass of beer on a leopard 2

A few fun facts for the Challenger 2 1) They hold the longest ranged confirmed tank kill on record 2) While they have seen A LOT of live combat with hostile forces, only 1 has ever been destroyed (and that was friendly fire from another Challenger 2) 3) A single Challenger 2 was known to have taken 70 Soviet made RPG hits (Russia still uses these) in a single battle, crew unharmed and tank still active. This was before they were upgraded to the current Chobham armour. These things are often regarded as practically indestructible. It's successor, the Challenger 3, is slated to enter service in 2027 although this can easily change as is often with military contracts.

The video about the vine on the end of the barrel was made on a T-90M

That was the German Heer (Army) showing the gun stabilisation on the Leopard 2. They put a glass of beer on the end of the barrel.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Yes! That was it, thanks for the correction/reminder. Quite impressive to see how incredibly stable such a machine can be.

@johnmartin7599

Жыл бұрын

@@californianreacts the Japanese self defence forces did as well in 2016 with a wine glass (kzread.info/dash/bejne/h3yVrKOmlcWbobA.html) but the german army were the first (with a stein of beer) in 1986 on the Leopard 1 tank.

For me as a X soldier, I would deffo choose the Charlie 2(Challenger 2) with no hesitation. They have been tested in combat and been with the British Army in 1998 and has since been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq. To date, the only time a tank has been destroyed during operations was by accidental friendly fire from another Challenger 2 in Basra in 2003. Also the Charlie 2 had Dorchester armour. That's better than the Chobham armour that the Charlie 1's have/had. Also a Challenger destroyed an Iraqi tank with an sabot round fired over 2.9 miles away the longest tank-on-tank kill shot recorded until Ukrainian T-64BV killed a Russian tank from 6.5 miles away, but most importantly it has a brew making facilities. Happy days :)

Was it the T90 that had the issue of having its turrets blown off due to ammo storage?

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Sure is! Makes me wonder which/if other tanks would have this same issue with there they store their ammunition.

the one thing this video gets wrong is the challengers off road capability. Challenger is one of those rare tanks that does exceptionally better off road then you would think due to its weight. Its extremely snappy on off road. Another thing not mentioned is reverse speed, challenger 2 has about 20 mph in reverse while t90 has about 3-5 mph. This is why in ukraine retreating tanks are showeding the rear of their tanks becuase they want to get out quick but can only do it by showing their rear to the enemy.

I do believe that the challenger 2 can turn its turret 360 degrees in 9 seconds, that doesn't give the enemy long to react..

Even without the tank, the challenger's crew is powered by Earl Grey Tea. A formidable form of liquor only known by the british

@NathansWargames

Жыл бұрын

Yorkshire Gold. Earl Grey is for Americans

@greenreaper

Жыл бұрын

Earl gray for officers, the lads be drinking Yorkshire tea 😊

@overthewebb

Жыл бұрын

@@greenreaper I'd say Scottish tea, but as someone who grew up in Yorkshire after being born in Scotland, I'll take that mate 😂

I would choose the one with the best trained crew with the highest moral.

Who before this all started would have seen it going on this long

Gun stabilisers exist in the T72 as well : I used it and I hit all the targets in 1982 I was a tank gunner during my military service

@geordiemutt

Жыл бұрын

So in Iraq T72 28 tanks vs 14 challengers, the T72 lost 28-0. Candy from a baby

Challengers have been in several wars and has never lost a single tank, they also hold the current record for longest tank on tank kill. T90 wrecks are all over Ukraine... Challengers have longer weapon range, by a lot! its more accurate, more penetration power, better optics and it has superior armor. This isnt a fight, its an execution.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

They are truly excellent tanks and crews with great records such as the longest kill and not losing a tank in battle. Impressive!

Recent war videos of Russian tanks with their auto loader popping off the turret when hit is something else to consider. The chally has it's ammo safely stored away, with blast panels to protect the crew from any explosion. Personally this fact alone will decide all future tank designs and will probably end the fitting of auto loaders and ammo in any future tanks.

@jonjones3689

Жыл бұрын

Challenger doesn't have blast panels that is the Abrahams and Leopards. The Challenger instead stores the ammo in parts and under water. However this is arguably more safe than blow out panels that can be a weakness so your point stands.

@mjona1754

Жыл бұрын

Auto loaders will be as standard in years to come as tanks become fully automated i would think? What do you say.......?

The Chalenger 2 has the longest kill record of 3.17 miles which was an iraqi T72 during Desert Storm..

As with any military hardware, relative qualities are only part of the story and the men that crew them and their level of training and skill are probably even more significant.

CORRECTION: Russia used to have "tons of tanks". Not any more! Its all about vision capability and gun effective range. The Challenger wins in all areas.

What would I choose T90 or Challenger 2. It would be the challenger 2 every day.

The Abram’s has chobham armour to not sure if it has the next gen of it that the challenger 3 will get but I imagine it will do along the the line the rifled and squash-head rounds are the reason the challenger wasn’t changed in line with nato standard of smooth ore 125mm like the abrams and leopard very versatile round able to take out buildings and vehicles

@theSFCchannel

Жыл бұрын

not quoie: The British SOLD the yanks CHobham version 1 (Burlington) armour which is no where near as a good as Dorchester (version 2). The yanks have been begging to get hold of Dorchester but the MOD refuse to sell it to them.

Putting up a T-90 against a CH2 is like putting a Lada up against a Rolls Royce.

As an engineer I know that all tools are as good as the guy using them. Maybe it’s the same with fighting tools. The skill of those controlling the battles, and of the tank commanders and crew, must have as much significance as the quality of the tanks themselves, which seem to be more or less evenly matched.

says the challenger 2 has a 2 mile range but correct me if im wrong, doesnt it have the record for the furthest tank to tank kill

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

It sure does! I was watching another completely random video and this fact came up in it. During Desert Storm, I believe? (could be incorrect with this)

The HESH rounds are also superior at destroying bunkers, machine gun nests etc even though not quite as effective against another tank at extreme range

It comes down to who's in the tank and how trained they are, and the support that's around the tank, and if the t-90 have egg box's to stop rockets, is all so a factor 😂😂

The tank driving with a glass of beer on the end of the main gun without spilling it drop is the German Leopard.

The Brits were the first to say they were sending modern tanks to Ukraine

Challenger 2 has superb suspension.

Automatic loaders have proven to be a weakness and not a strength. those turrets just pop off when they get hit because of the way the shells aren’t stored into secured bins

The challenger 2 and the Abrams are almost identical in armor. I remember seeing the Abrams had also gotten hit by an anti tank weapon and all they basically had to do was to replace the paint. It looked like a splat on the side of the armor this was not an RPG. This was an anti tank weapon challenger tools challenger tools. Take it and keep on going.

Based on the armour alone I would choose the c2 tank.

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Agree with this statement, I do.

@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333

Жыл бұрын

That classified armour is now going to end up in the hands of the Russians. Stupid, stupid UK.

@Ukbrummie

Жыл бұрын

@@AethelwulfOfNordHymbraLand2333 no they have export versions which don't have classified parts. Research is your friend

Couple of points it didn't mention is the challenger 2 can reverse much quicker than the t-90 which can make a big difference. Also with the t-90's auto loading system it hold's the shells around the base of the turret where as the challenger 2 has them in armoured stowage with blow off caps, the risk to the Russian tanks of 'cook off' is much higher if they get hit in the turret as seen in Ukraine. Personally I don't think the 34 m1 abrams, 32leopards and 14 challey 2's will make that much of a difference unless used very strategically due to the shear number of Russian tanks that could be put against them. Side and rear armour in any tank won't stand up to a 120mm + shell going through it. Hopefully peace talks can be had before it gets much worse

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

strategy is what Great Britain does best!!!

One disadvantage for the Challenger is that rifled gun as of late. Glad they're switching to smoothbore. Also the Challenger isn't compatible with NATO 120 ammo

Only one challenger 2 has been destroyed and that was by another challenger 2 in a friendly fire case

there are none or vary rare tank-to-tank battles anymore, not even in ukraine. What we have seen so far were tank as support of infantry

I think the key difference will be the electronics and optics at the farest range of the guns capacity. while the T90 may have a longer range I bet their accuracy out to 2-3KM will be a hell of a lot worse than the Challenger . Other factors too that we already know teh T90 cooks up a lot easier with their auto loader design... expect more Turrest entering airspace once they atart to meet the NATO armour

The Ch2 were the first Tanks to be pledgedwitch started the rest coming in

one challenger 2 was hit with 11 rpg rounds in basra crew survived no damage to the hull and the tank was recovered and back in service in 24 hours where as the t90 blows up when a drone looks at it harshly

@californianreacts

Жыл бұрын

Impressive! There are so many incredible stories and facts about the Challenger 2, that's for sure!

Remind me that 56 Leopard 2 tanks and 36 Challenger 2 tanks were destroyed in Syria ?

They forgot the tea making facilities in the c2 total game changer

@russcattell955i

Жыл бұрын

Not just tea, hot meals too. A well nourished crew is a happy crew is a motivated / efficient crew.

I also think it should be said that the Challenger 1 used in Iraq held the longest tank kill record at 3 miles not the 2 miles stated for the Challenger 2 in the video.

The small subsidiary screen in the bottom corner of your video is hiding all the information on the tanks. This makes comparisons difficult for viewers as taking in all the info aurally is challenging (no pun intended!).

@cacwgm

Жыл бұрын

Top right would be better, as few videos use that space.

Challenger 3 current - with 120mm smooth bore

The Challenger was designed to take on Russian tanks and hold the line until other Nato tanks could get into the battle, especially the US. Its armour is designed so it can take hits and survive and take out more Russian tanks. The armour - Chobham or Dorchester - is the best in the world and is also fitted to US tanks.

@will.s4611

Жыл бұрын

US has 1st gen chobham not 2nd gen dorchester

9:20 didnt know that Video, but a Leopard with a Maß (1l pint of beer)

The main advantage of the t90's autoloader is that it improves "elevation"-It helps to "elevate" the whole turret... I think about 50 metres is the record "elevation" so far. According to a recent video I watched about Challenger2 over the year's only 2 have taken significant damage- I think both were during the gulf (don't quote me on that) one was damaged quite badly but the driver was still able to drive it 2 miles/km to a base with medical facility, The second is more interesting- it was destroyed outright unfortunately.... By accident unfortunately it was misidentified by another Challenger. Also They have to be hard, They came from the North of England!! near me in Leeds, West Yorkshire and up t'(the) road in Tyne and Wear tooo lyke!

With bearing in mind that the challenger was designed for eastern European warfare, not desert warfare, however it still performed in the desert.

@ianminto5654

Жыл бұрын

your absolutley right there Paul, as was the M1 Abrahms, its their destiny to fight "lesser commy armour" and prevail with hounors!

They didn't mention the T-90s gun depression. I saw one figure of -4 degrees while Challenger 2 has -10 degrees. That means Challenger 2 can max depress its main gun and peek out from behind a low rise, and the only thing the T-90 would see is the gun barrel and a little bit of the front of the turret at a high deflecting angle. The T-90 max depresses main gun and tries to peek out from behind the same low rise, it has to expose most of the tank including the lower chassis armor before it can get the gun low enough to engage the Challenger 2. That might not happen very much in Ukraine. The other factor is crew training. To get the maxiumum combat potential out of a western tank like Challenger 2 or Leopard 2 requires at least 18 months crew training, not just with the tank but in combined arms including other tanks of the same type. The Ukrainians don't have the time. With the western tanks Ukaine might be able to recreate the Charge of the Light Brigade in Crimea, or some localized feat of arms where one Challenger 2 destroys 3 or 4 T-90s, but it won't change the outcome of the war. Probably very direct few tank on tank engagements.