As a Iraq war veteran who did 3 tours. And was a Bradley mechanic and recovery operator. I can tell you first hand that the turret is far from a tanks weakest point. The bottoms of tanks and armored vehicles can often be extremely thin and easily penetrated by mines and IED's. One thing the American media never showed the public is the boneyards that were in Kuwait. These boneyards held ALLOT of tanks and armored vehicles and other vehicles that were destroyed by IEDs and mines. The Hummv Boneyard was by far the biggest and saddest to see. Just god awful. I recovered personally dozens of vehicles struck by IEDs and mines. And seen a Bradley strike an AT mine, as it was escorting my M88a1 at night to another recovery operation. Ukraine is dealing with hell on earth right now for their armored vehicles. I wish them nothing but success.

@itwillbe-itwillnotbe-itis

4 ай бұрын

Not enough men left in pukerain. All women were ordered in paper to go back. Pregnant women are getting notices. Russel Rand covered a journal ist that passed away in a box in pukerain from America. Redacted covered a lot of this

@MrRacing44

4 ай бұрын

Very well written and true . I was a tanker in the 2 AD . and an uncle had time in Korea and 3 go arounds in Vietnam . And lived through losing two tanks to mines . The last one he was the only one left a live .

@Odinsjewl

4 ай бұрын

No weapon system is without vunerabilities. I flew as a Medivac crew member, as medic.....at least you had better protection than we did. 7.62 rounds pearce aluminum like swiss cheese. Pucker factor....gazillion

@raytaylor3077

4 ай бұрын

also EFP's . there is a video on youtube that shows a guy walking around in a equipment graveyard in Iraq and there are acres and acres of destroyed armored vehicles as far as the eye can see. sickening .

@williamwells1862

4 ай бұрын

Interesting. Maybe beefed up. We had the only mechanics that could keep Black Hawks flying years ago. They went down everywhere. Our Mechanics sent to MidEast to keep them running and train others.

We saw the Challengers take hits and walk over mines that wrecked our Abrahams, the UK really has impressive tanks and crews

@wullieg7269

4 ай бұрын

made in LEEDS the wheel size is for good cause

@gunner678

4 ай бұрын

Thank you, absolutely true.

@JubbatheHatt

3 ай бұрын

Catfish its Abrams not Abrahams 😂😂😂

@616CC

4 күн бұрын

Whenever I see comments like this I always, and maybe wrongfully assume that they’re made by: in this case, an Englishman 😂 And that’s coming from an Englishman! The latest Abram’s is a hell of tank, they’ve even added depleted uranium to its armour pack as well as the latest chopham armour so I can’t join any attempt to belittle our American brothers counterpart 🇬🇧 ✊ 🇺🇸 As I say I could easily be wrong so forgive me if I am

@616CC

4 күн бұрын

@@wullieg7269😢 ever since our tank factory in my city of Newcastle closed 😭

There will never be a tank that can’t be destroyed. The very notion is ridiculous. The crew surviving is a good result

@chrissmith2114

4 ай бұрын

A Challenger that shed a track by going down a ditch survived everything that was shot at it for hours and was then recovered with crew safe, the tank was back in service a few hours later, they do not come much tougher than that...

@starlins_son_oofd3898

3 ай бұрын

But they also took the classified armour packages off the tanks before being sent to Ukraine so when ppl try and slate the survivability of this based off the one lost in Ukraine is laughable really but no tank is indestructible just hard to knock out and keeps the crew alive

@JubbatheHatt

3 ай бұрын

They could easily make an indestructable tank but it would weigh too much 🤷🏼‍♂️ like hitlers Maus nothing the allies had apart from a tallboy dropped from a Lancaster b😅mber was destroying it same with today if they made a Maus it would take airpower to kill it

Challenger was never "designed with a thin lower plate because it was designed to fight hull down" Challenger was designed with modular armour, all our modern AFVs are. If memory serves correct: The Chobham armour system consists of two types of armour. Burlington: Permanent and Optional NERA blocks mounted onto the base challenger chassis. Dorchester: Optional ERA blocks mounted on top of the Burlington blocks. What you see in Ukraine is Challenger in its unarmoured "gun tank" configuration. No optional Dorchester or Burlington blocks, lightest configuration and (supposed to) only be used on the training range. What you see in the clips from Basra is TES (Theatre Entry Standard) All latest optional Dorchester and Burlington blocks + Thermal camo + anti IED EW "tea table" But we don't have many, so we didn't give them any. Also it adds 10 tons, combat load adds another 10, it's just too heavy in that config. And it still wouldn't stop mines, drones and top attack munitions. So, yeah, I guess that's why they didn't have any. They should have given them all the side and LFP Dorchester blocks though 😡

@MostlyPennyCat

4 ай бұрын

Challenger 1: Dorchester and Burlington Challenger 2: Dorchester and Burlington Level 2 Challenger 3: ... Epsom and Farnham 😮 So Challenger 3 really is a completely new beastie 😈

@fernandojohnsen7639

3 күн бұрын

@@MostlyPennyCat Challenger 1 Chobham and Steel, And Nera Explosive Romor Upgrade Kit for Side skirts and Lower Front. Challenger 2 Early Variants Incl.2 and 2E. The Later Variants are fittet with Dorchester L2, Siliziumcarbonat, Wolframm, Keramik, Kevler, Steel and DU. Challenger 3 Epsom and Farnham is right. I think we can Agree That this Tank is an Sniper Rifle put into an Bunker

And yet the Challenger 2 record still stands to this day as not one has never been lost to another enemy Tank.

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

Losses would be higher if it ever faced off against any other modern mbt.

@TarnishUK

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999 Just as well that Russian MBTs aren't very modern.

@williamritchie693

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999no. Unlike the other main mbts of other countries tries it takes armour over mostly everything. Challenger 2 in Iraq was literally a mobile fortress. No other tank has this level of armour and with its upgrade armour over years this has only gotten better. It’s gun is unique as well. It’s a rifled gun. Meaning it can fire hesh rounds unlike smoothbore guns. Compared to Leo 2 and other countries it is slower. But it makes up for it. The newer version with 130mm smoothbore gun will be interesting

@Adargi

4 ай бұрын

@@williamritchie693 'was' unique up until whatever the hell 'challenger 3' is suppose to be, a repeat political failure perhaps.

@cameron1999cam

4 ай бұрын

The Italian AMV Ariete has never been lost to another tank

I do wish you producers of the "Dark XXX" video series used researchers and script writers with some technical knowledge on the subject of the video. After all, ANY tank can be disabled by a mine. Once disabled, all tanks are sitting ducks. So losing that tank is no mystery, any more than losing the Leopards and Bradley's that were also in that same battle. The important part is what you left out. Was the crew protected and were they able to evacuate the tank? And this is where western amour excels. Machinery can be replaced. Experienced tank crews are what makes the difference. They cannot be replaced easily, if at all. The Challenger 2 is a good tank. It can take on and defeat it's ex-soviet opponents at ranges that the opposing tanks cannot even respond at. But without a crew, it's just 70 tons of expensive parts.

@cody481

4 ай бұрын

Yeah I loved hearing him talk about "Connecticut armor" I think it's called kinetic

@dc-4ever201

4 ай бұрын

Yeah tracks have always and will always be the weak spot on armoured vehicles.

@glennjanot8128

4 ай бұрын

That's why in World War 2, in Africa, both sides targeted tank crews that got out of their vehicles. When asked, one British commander replied with "It takes two weeks to make a tank, it takes 18 years to make a tank crew"

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

First of all Soviet style tanks far out range NATO tanks due to them being able to fire atgms out of their guns with ranges of up to 12kms. Secondly that challenger was likely not immobilised by a mine as it was not the first vehicle to go down that specific road. The 14-16 destroyed vehicles close by were all taken out by either artillery or atgms. Not a single other vehicle hit a mine. The reason why I don't think the crew survived is that the turret popped, the entire commanders station, including the hatch, optics and surrounding structures, got ripped out of the roof of the tank. There was no fire exiting the driver's hatch as it was closed. The initial impact seemed to have hit the right front of the tank between the first and second road wheel. Fuel, ammunition and the crew compartment are located right behind that spot. Open hatches might have prevented a turret pop. No crew interviews, hospital reports or anything else were ever published. The russian atgm crew held an interview describing their challenger ambush.

@glennjanot8128

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999 "First of all Soviet style tanks far out range NATO tanks due to them being able to fire atgms out of their guns with ranges of up to 12kms. " Strange that they don't do that, is it? Most tank losses the Ukrainians suffer come from drones Could it be that the Russians lied about their tanks' capabilities?

The tank that was hit was not within reach of recovery units as the Ukraine does not have enough of these... If a Trojan was with this unit that tank would have been dragged away. Also it lacked the Street Fighter upgrades that UK tanks operate with which would have stopped the drone attack or made the damage less severe... I believe from reports it was the top down attack from a drone that finished the tank off, not the mine. Crew safe, lessons learnt.

@MostlyPennyCat

4 ай бұрын

It wasn't a drone it was an ATGM, Kornet I believe. There's no track that can survive a Kornet hit at the moment, they're just too big. Big like the TOW missile is big, just brute strength.

@Oxley016

4 ай бұрын

Well the tanks Ukraine were given were just the most basic minimal armoured versions. They didn't have the TES/streetfighter upgrades that add the famous Chobham and Dorchester armour packages that made the tank so famous in Iraq etc.

One of the better ideas for the challenger is the top armour, it's a lot thicker than an tank of it's era, and was designed that way. Makes a change for the MOD to have a bit of fore thought!

No tank is invulnerable

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

Don’t tell that to the uselessly created husks of meat of today’s world. They buy into any feel good story without having an actual functioning brain

@kommandokodiak6025

4 ай бұрын

it was already blown up in ukraine and they havent been deployed since because the UK GOV and MOD threw a fit about their tank getting blown up before it could even make it to the frontline..

@blacklisted4885

4 ай бұрын

@@kommandokodiak6025 I'm sure they are still deployed. They don't have the luxury of moth balling them 😂

@blacklisted4885

4 ай бұрын

@@kommandokodiak6025 yh yh and Russia has lost many of it's top newest tanks, thousands of vehicles, so what

@kommandokodiak6025

4 ай бұрын

@@blacklisted4885 Deployed as in a combat zone, they have them way in the rear to film propaganda videos to imply they are out in the field when theyre just on some vehicle course or proving ground. Thats what they did for months before they were ever deployed and theyve been doing the same with the abrams since they got them

The T90 tanker maybe hasn't seen the footage of one of his tanks getting a shoeing by a pair of Bradleys. Ok, the crew survived, but the tank was disabled, by a pair of IFVs. They come head-to-head with a Chally and the outcome may not even be that favourable. I'm reminded of the Valley of Tears from the Yom Kippur. Where the Syrian T55 and T62 tanks didn't have the range of the Israeli Centurions, the latter picking them off like flies before they could get close enough to engage. Agreed, the Israelis did eventually take high losses, but only after they were essentially swarmed. The Syrians in contrast took huge losses. Ultimately they were defeated by a smaller force with superior technology. It's a war, both sides have a say and no system is invulnerable. It's inevitable that the Western amour sent to Ukraine will suffer losses. The trained crew survived, get another tank. I'd be interested to know if there is any kill ratio data. Not sure if there has been any real tank on tank combat. It seems that most are destroyed by AT gunners or immobilised by mines and EIDs then picked apart by drones after that. But, a win is a win.

19K M1 M1A1, separated after the first desert war. On the boarder and the gap we dug in just as described. No MBT is armored equally all around. As you noted they are rather vulnerable with softer bellies. Others spots besides the glacis is the rear body, turret top, body sides and tracks. The heaviest armor is the front deck, turret front and sides. This is why the Javelin attacks the way it does.

Given that the Ukrainians were not permitted the theatre armour packs, the mostly naked challenger did well by preserving its crew. As for the T90m commander maybe the Russian armour would like to attempt mobile warfare instead of hiding with the rest of the Russian forces. Should the T90m meet any of the 3 western mbts it will end quickly and badly for the Russians.

@MC-ht8ud

4 ай бұрын

😆🤣 Uh huh Let me guess Ukraine is winning?

@T_81535

4 ай бұрын

​@@MC-ht8udhe's simply pointing out the superior armor of the west over the Russian made trash heaps

@stevefairbanks835

4 ай бұрын

Russian tanks can’t withstand a Bradley let alone any NATO MBT

@stevefairbanks835

4 ай бұрын

@@MC-ht8udso you think Russia is?😂😂😂😂

@alsanchez5038

4 ай бұрын

Discussion like this should end with a 4 week frontline internship.

The lower front hull gets addon armour. Always had it too. It was sent straight into urban combat too.

I'm a vet and very proud of the Chally but "the most modern and sophisticated targeting system in the world" is a bit of a reach. This was true 30 years ago and with updates the TOGS is still good certainly better than the obsolete three generation old available for civilian purchase systems the Russians are fielding. But with the newer digital battlefield management systems fitted to the latest Abrams, Leopard and LeClerk is in a different league massively reducing crew work load while improving situational awareness the two biggest factors in a tank's success in battle.

@Potatoshaneko

4 ай бұрын

To be fair the Challenger 2 had several upgrade packages which included sights and fire control system. So it may still hold some validity to say it's one of the best. Especially when you consider how poor the likes of the T-90M is in comparison.

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

​@@Potatoshanekowhat makes the t-90m so poor? 😅

@wockawocka5293

3 ай бұрын

@Masterafro999 - Mostly what makes the T-90 so terrible is the Russian design, engineering and build. The Russian training, use and crews adds to what a massive POS the T-90 is. Technically speaking. LOL

@ianjardine7324

3 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999 the problem with all Russian tank designs is that they were designed under Soviet thinking which considered the crews expendable. Because of this the base design is deliberately crude to allow cheap mass production. This has a number of effects when they try to modernize crew ergonomics were never great and stuffing more advanced systems into an already cramped space only exacerbates the problem. Their torsion bar suspension systems are well designed cheap and reliable however it is impossible to add much more weight without completely redesigning the hull this severely limits the options for appliqué armour and explosive reactive armour packs without running into major maintenance issues. The shota missile defence system which uses two large infrared spot lights to blind incoming missiles was a good idea however any modern ATGM which does use infrared tracking does so as a secondary guidance system rendering the system obsolete. With modern tanks using advanced digital hunter killer target management systems to track multiple targets and laser targeting systems ensuring first round hits of over 90% all backed up with precision artillery , guided smart bombs and anti tank missile's from ground support aircraft the old Soviet tactics of waves of armour overwhelming more advanced enemies would be a blood bath which I don't think even Russians would accept any more. All Russian tank designs were built to enable these tactics and are simply too small and too old to be made into a more survivable capable platform.

@Masterafro999

3 ай бұрын

@@ianjardine7324 I don't think that the Soviets deliberately thought to screw their crews. It's supposed to be an easy to operate and manufactured tank for a conscript army. The armour has been upgraded numerous times in the past decades. Their suspension might become a problem in the future but I personally haven't given that any thought so far. Shtora became obsolete when atgms got upgraded to only follow their own encoded IR signals. It might have gotten modernized but the russians didn't bother afaik. I don't know of any nato atgms that IR light as a secondary source of guidance. The missiles of the krizanthema might. Close to all current gen mbts have a 90% first hit chance. At least in theory. Combat stats might differ. The same precision artillery, guided bombs, etc will be used against NATO or any western equipment. So both sides will suffer massive losses if it ever comes down to it. The old Soviet tank rushed are a thing of the past. Haven't seen those in a while. Any larger formations of troops get spotted by drones before they make it anywhere close to their intended targets. Edit: what really sets NATO mbts and russian ones apart, imho, is not the armour, survivability or fire power. It's the digital battlefield management systems and the wars they fight in. Soviet tanks have the reputation that they have due to the losses they suffered in the bazillion wars they fought in under various flags. Same can be seen with NATO equipment in the hands of middle eastern nations, turkey and so on. Their losses to lesser foes are what Soviet mbts had to endure as well. The actual tanks themselves are all pretty close together performance wise. They can all penetrate each other at the same ranges. Mostly.

Such tanks as Challenger, Abrams and Leopard are only good in the hands of well-trained soldiers, and the Ukrainian soldiers only have a crash course

@THE-X-Force

3 ай бұрын

This is true, and it's true for any weapons system. But for main battle tanks especially .. there needs to combined-arms tactics employed, with intel, IFV's, mine-sweepers, air assets, and infantry all working together. This piece-meal approach is not the way.

Been rumoured for over a year now that Ukraine will receive 200+ Challenger 1s from Jordan plus supporting Engineering vehicles.

@MC-ht8ud

4 ай бұрын

Ukraine is kaput.

@HubertofLiege

4 ай бұрын

@@MC-ht8udnot if they are continually supplied with western equipment. It will be a test to see whether the west or Russia can handle the economic stress of the war. Russia had an initial advantage in size and strength but that has diminished greatly and their ability to replace losses is seriously deteriorated.

@MC-ht8ud

4 ай бұрын

@@HubertofLiege There is this thing called "manpower" Ukraine has almost none left, now Ukraine is sending untrained women to the front. Giving more equipment won't matter when there is no one left to run it. It's over.

@HubertofLiege

4 ай бұрын

@@MC-ht8ud untrained women is the next propaganda from Russia. We’re two years in and the line hasn’t changed much.

@allymac18

4 ай бұрын

@@MC-ht8udso your saying that russian army is that bad it still can’t beat a diminished army full of women 2 years into a war? , yeah that’s not burn you thought it was….😂😂🤡

As A Canadian Army guy in 1992, I had the pleasure of seeing the Challenger AND the Chieftain side by side. During an international Ex. 🇨🇦Army Veteran

@JK-dv3qe

4 ай бұрын

did you get a medal for that

@robandcheryls

4 ай бұрын

@@JK-dv3qe lol, we don’t get medals for training.

@tatters2072

3 ай бұрын

@@JK-dv3qe You're mistaking him for an American. They get participation medals just for showing up, sometimes only for an hour or two. Commonwealth soldiers have to actually earn theirs.

Awesome tank. Hopefully it’s has added EW attributes. In this 21c everything seems to be developing quickly .

It's a shame this channel is no longer impartial.

@hiteshadhikari

4 ай бұрын

When was it?

@westtexas806

4 ай бұрын

Military industrial complex

@lutramage6252

4 ай бұрын

There's a difference between impartiality and turning a blind eye to aggression - nobody should be impartial when a large, nuclear power state invades a peaceful, smaller neighbour for no other reason than naked ambition and brutality.

@hiteshadhikari

4 ай бұрын

@@lutramage6252 when will the channels question american aggression on numerous countries? Btw how many wars is US involved in?

@hiteshadhikari

4 ай бұрын

@@lutramage6252 peaceful smaller state, buddy u need to read Ukranian history 😂

So , tank hits mine , tank immobilised, stationary tank gets hit while immobilised , crew bail out and survive. Now let's have a think about how many Russian tanks that have had their turrets popped like champagne corks since this awful conflict began and remember that the survival chances in these vehicles as incredibly bad .

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

The Russians would have lost the same amount of challenger tanks if their tanks were swapped with challengers. Their survivability is negligible.

@michaelleslie2913

4 ай бұрын

Sorry old chap but I in all honesty I can't agree. Russia has a well documented history of using it troops as Canon fodder.

@04:18 is this ditch occurrence by any chance same as Operation Room described couple days ago to save one ditch Challenger2 under heavy enemy fire.

The main point to the difference between a Chall 2 and a T-90 is the crew survived in the Chall 2. They are far less likely to survive in a T-series tanks. UA has lost Leo 2's. But the crews survived. Tanks can be replaced experienced crews are harder to replace as russia is finding out.

@magnem1043

4 ай бұрын

Actually both tanks and crews are hard to replace for the Ukrainians. Because they lack unlimited manpower and tank production

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

I'm sure that all leopard and that challenger crews survived completely unharmed due to their magical NATO armour. That challenger crew likely died as we have not seen any crew interviews, hospital reports or anything else regarding their well being. That ammunition is stored in much worse spots than in the t-series tanks. The initial hit managed to blow a hole into the hull between the first and second road wheel. Ammunition, fuel and the crew compartment are right behind that thin bit of steel.

@originalkk882

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999 Try harder Russian troll.

@realitybites243

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999Why would they interview a crew who lost their tank ! Considering your payed to spout pro Russian propaganda, you should realise that telling everyone about an equipment loss is not a good idea. Why don’t we see interviews of Russian crews of destroyed Russian tanks ? Because they’re still in them 💀

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

@@realitybites243 how is what I wrote considered as propaganda. Throwing words like that around nonchalantly causes it to lose its meaning. What I meant is that certain crews in western equipment get interviewed after combat. If the challenger crew survived unharmed they would have definitely interviewed them to prove western superiority as their crews survived. Such interviews are quite common. Russian crews survive as well. It's just that the videos of them surviving aren't as popular around the western internet as on the eastern side. That should be called propaganda as that's what it is.

I have huge respect for you for making a video of this Tank and its engineering marvel.

A fantastic video about the Challenger 2!

The Challenger 2 was NOT lost it was disabled, if you look at the images again (not the Russian one they kept showing) of the burning Challenger 2 it is fully in tact so yes it was disabled but not lost the burning is from the external fuel tanks the Ukrainians put on the back of the tank and a tank expert said the tank could be back out in a week or less

@kizzyp2735

4 ай бұрын

I very much doubt it can be returned to service . The footage clearly shows the turret dislodged. Any fire /explosion powerful enough shift maybe 20 tons of turret even slightly is going to have wrecked the interior beyond repair.

@dave311281

4 ай бұрын

In the video of the burning tank, the turret is already dislodged, it was well destroyed by that point. The amination has already detonated. But the main thing is the crew survived, but no way they would have if they where in it when the Kornet hit it.

@dave311281

4 ай бұрын

@@kizzyp2735 yup it was well destroyed at this point, just like any tank would be been hit by a kornet anti tank. In the pictures u can see the turret has shifted forward at least 2-3 feet, easy to see as the challenger turret should over hang at the rear and not the front, in the pictures its now the opposite way round. If a blast can lift a 23ton turret just think what its done to internal modules....

@bjornSE

4 ай бұрын

@@kizzyp2735 The pressure of a regular car tire pushing against it is probably more than enough to dislodge it (1m^2 * 2.5 bar is 25 ton). The pressure needed to send it flying like the T72:s is 10 to 100 times higher.

@qasimmir7117

4 ай бұрын

Mate, it’s toast. That tank ‘expert’ was talking out of his arse. It is still worth recovering for ballistic analysis.

In one of my old Regts, I was part of the garrison unit familiarisation team where we would show new garrison members what, as an Engineer unit were, our capabilities. Tankers were always of the opinion that they were invulnerable in their nice little tanks, that was until they watched our demonstrations and videos🤣

The new one is to be called "It'll be a Challenge to get the funding"

@Kakarot64.

4 ай бұрын

Or more optimistically for the budget "Challenger Free"

can safely say if it was a british force then the tank would not have been abandoned as there would have been support straight away, plus Dark Tech get your facts right before going to print as it was not destroyed by a Kornet .

The UK supplied 12 x C2 Tanks not 14, the damaged one was recovered and repaired. UKR forces avoid exposing C2's in low benefit actions but seemingly deploy them in high benefit lower risk environments for max effect. The C2, like all tanks of this genre is designed for speed, manoeuvrability, fire power and crew protection but with great emphasis on the latter which, combined with the fire control systems and gun range make them significantly more lethal than Russia tanks but definitely not invulnerable.

@kizzyp2735

4 ай бұрын

Where is the information on it being repaired ??

@dave311281

4 ай бұрын

Repaired???, it was a total loss, there was nothing left to repair lol, specially in middle Ukraine. if this happened outside the challenger 2 factory they would not have tried to repair it lol

@zanniromero9109

4 ай бұрын

Repaired?😂😂😂🤣

@alanmoss3603

4 ай бұрын

Just Google stuff before you post it! 14 Challengers were sent to Ukraine and one was lost and not repaired!

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

Where are these range advantage myths coming from? Soviet tanks can fire atgms to out range NATO mbts by a long shot. And the challenger is probably the slowest, least mobile MBT in the world right now. It lacks ammunition to deal with infantry making it less lethal than any of its russian counterparts.

Deep respect for the inbuilt tea kettle.

feedback of its efficacy for upgradeds and orders

Unquestionably the best tank on the planet.

Great video

got a question for a tanker, could pushing a car or two while controlled by the tanks movements, like a dolly but pushing, would that work for clearing mines? yes you gotta have a heavy load, it slows you down yeah yeah, i`m talking in an active zone and you don`t got a minesweeper, if so ill design it and send it to darpa, since they love my stuff.. look at the variable lift surface aircraft, drone was revealed, which in the future will have "shutters" for lack of a aeronautical term which will increase fuel eff. and payload cap., not to mention it still has flaps and stuff for low alt/speed, and that compressed air control system for hyper/high hypersonic flight, also if anyone here works for dapra. just ask, im bored.

Great tank

The Chally 2 is a beast of a tank.

A lot of people on this thread have never read 1984.................................

Any tank will get messed up by triple mines, 150mm artillery, atgm, and kamikaze drones(homing rpg/artillery shells). When the battlefield is very visible from above.

My favourite tank and at the end of this vid as said the Challenger 2s story is not fininshed with it also continuing with the new Challenger 3 tank with photos of the new prototype coming out the other day.

The only way to produce a tank that is indestructible is to make it stationary. Stationary objects are able to be out flanked.

0:24 Why are you showing a CV90 in a video about the Challenger2? People might think that's what they look like, and the CV90 is a IFV/ Light tank

It's not just a sniper rifle... It's a sniper rifle that fires 4 kilogrammes of Composition B... 😈😈😈 (CompB = RDX + TNT)

11min 44secs... Thats a picture of the Challenger 2 from Iraq that was destroyed by Friendly fire. Hesh round hit the commanders open hatch.

@ohgosh5892

4 ай бұрын

the idea of friendly fire. 😂😂😂

@maxsteele20

4 ай бұрын

Yep I know that is no such thing as "Friendly"... :( @@ohgosh5892

No tank is indestructible if hit with the right weapon

I FEEL LIKE ANYONE NAMED BEN SHOULD ONLY EVER BE ABLE TO BE NUMBER 2, AND IDEALLY NOT RANKED AT ALL 😂😂😂

01:45 "chemical energy projectiles" LOL 😂

@Mark_Bickerton

4 ай бұрын

He said kenetic and chemical energy projectiles. Kenetic projectiles punch through armour using their mass and velocity, chemical energy projectiles, use shaped charges formed by the chemical explosion of the warhead to punch through the armour. I'm not sure what you found so funny, was there somthing else he said there that I missed?

@firestorm517

4 ай бұрын

@corporacionmonstruo6057 You're clearly clueless

As far as I'm aware though we're going to be upgrading a lot of those Mk2's to Mk3's rather than building Mk3's from scratch so I'm not sure there will be a surplus of old Mk2's to donate.

@peterstubbs5934

4 ай бұрын

There will be because not all Mk2`s are being upgraded to Mk3. I think the number that will be upgraded is 185.

@kevinburt44

4 ай бұрын

We have no way of building brand new Challys, all the jigs and tools etc were ordered destroyed by the government of the day. As usual. Totally stupid decision.

@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming

4 ай бұрын

The MOD has asked BAE to now confirm the design for also building Challenger 3 from scratch. BAE Telford (GKN) confirmed on the 24th January 24 that the new design can be built new. If any of the current issues are right, I wouldn’t be surprised if an additional order was placed for 400 new tanks.

Did you mention challenger in falklands ? 🤔

The Challenger 2 is quite a tank, it just exists in numbers that make it an afterthought at best. The Leopard 2 and M1A1 have an order of magnitude more operating units. It definitely kicks the T-14s ass, though.

@kjererrrt2381

18 күн бұрын

the t-14 is generations ahead lol

L30A1 WONDER WHO THAT IS

As always Chally 2, the only sniper rifle

I'm biased but I think out of the 3 NATO main battle tanks, the Challenger 2 is better suited to the Ukrainian theatre of war than either the Leopard 2 or Abrahams, which are both excellent tanks with their own strengths.

Giving Ukraine 14 out of 400 tanks -- and not equiped with the extra armour... Whom else is the UK preparing to fight, that she kept 386 tanks to herself?

@fastair8546

4 ай бұрын

most of the tanks are in storage and not battle ready. UK only has like 80 or something that are active.

@wombatsgalore

4 ай бұрын

@@fastair8546, in the two years they could've readied the rest. Indeed, they WOULD'VE readied them in TWO WEEKS, if it was UK herself, that was threatened :( It is silly -- the only threat, however remote, to UK is Russia. Ukraine is fighting them right now -- so give Ukrainians EVERYTHING you've got present to diminish that treat. (While your factories are renewing your arsenals.) The collective West is astoundingly short-sighted in this regard -- and UK is, actually, better than most :(

It wasn’t exclusively British didn’t the omanis have some? Or was that the chally 1

How did that Leclerc creep in at the start?

Tanks are for war so therefore they get destroyed but I guarantee that crew most likely survived unlike alot of t series tanks that turn their crews into bologna mist

I would like to add.. that the tank that got stuck was also struck by 7 rpgs and NONE penatrated.

It’s INSANE!!! Absolutely & utterly INSANE!!! It’s MORE INSANE than all other INSANELY accurate tank gun! INSANE INSANITY it is!!!

@wullieg7269

4 ай бұрын

Barr n Stroud

@shalashaska615

4 ай бұрын

I hear you. KZread video titles and thumbnails are just insanely ridiculous now.

Well unless it can shoot down drones and supersonic missiles then it doesn't matter what gun it has.

The Challenger III is to be ready by the end of this year, or early '25. Not 27.

Eu sei que monuções HESH são consideradas obsoletas contra MBT's, mas um BTR-70/80/82/90 aquentaria ser acertado por um projetil de 120mm HESH a 8km?

@jaydenlobbezoo1971

4 ай бұрын

No, it is still a lot of HE. While not being able to knock out a MBT it whould possibly be a logistical KO do to the amount of structure damage and severely comprise armor. Or mobility. It is ultimately a early multi purpose maybe MPAT level.

@LCE1313

4 ай бұрын

@@jaydenlobbezoo1971 Obrigado pela sua resposta e aproveitando sua atenção, se um projetil de 120mm HESH acertar a torre de um T-72/80/90 ele conseguiria cega-lo como ocorreu com o Bradley? ?

about time we put our battlefield 4 experience to good use

Sunak is Adam from Hazbin Hotel .

AT 4.22 its Ambrams tank

A challenger was damaged in Southern Iraq by another challenger in friendly fire, seems like the only enemy a Challenger has is another Challenger

Sniper tank? Is the message that the rifled 120mm in the UK tank is better and more presise than the 120mm smoth bore US/DE gun or the 125mm vice versa RUS guns?

@nickjames4561

4 ай бұрын

More on a par but if you understand the terms used the main gun does have both high accuracy and high precision, that means the rounds hit what you aim them at and will keep hitting extremely close to each other. So even if there were say reactive armour the first round is going to remove it and the second round (loader qualification time is 5S) will be precise enough to hit the same place. The rifling is just for the HESH rounds, great for demolishing buildings and making big holes in bunkers so for urban fighting quite handy. HESH also is it will also wipe out a huge block of reactive armour not a good thing to happen if you happen to be in almost any of the T series tanks.

Is there actually combat footage of a Challenger? besides the one that got blown up..

@patrickh3242

4 ай бұрын

NO since then the ukrainians never use it again, they also has abrams but didnt use it.... i think the uk and USA forbid them to use them so often

@tomatimahl

4 ай бұрын

@@patrickh3242 what the hell are you on about?

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

​@@tomatimahlthe UK and US both forced conditions onto the Ukrainian operators stating that these tanks are not permitted in frontline service as that would be the wrong sort of motivation the tax payers were not meant to see. Their burning tanks that is. They threatened to reduce the amount of aid Ukraine would receive if it was to lose those tanks.

@Statueshop297

4 ай бұрын

@@Masterafro999ok where is your source for that information then? Ukraine doesn’t have all its forces on the front line at all times. Rotation, reserves and the fact of only small numbers of challengers being in Ukraine leave the chances of being filmed slim.

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

@@Statueshop297 if the russians are able to film himars far behind the front lines they could certainly film some 30 or so tanks. This whole debate is almost a year old. NATO was arguing about their mbts being used in certain ways to make their losses either less visible or less likely to happen. They planned on stationing the tanks in the deep rear to catch any Russian breakthroughs in pre built positions most favourable for NATO tanks. Look it up. I can't find much of it anymore.

besides the one lost, are they even used in combat? Haven't seen any footage

@laughsinbritish2501

4 ай бұрын

Operational security. The CH2 is one of their most important assets, they put their best people in them, not the kind who give their position & other important details out on tiktok. The fact you're not seeing footage of them means their crews are doing their jobs correctly.

@dirty_doxer6868

4 ай бұрын

@@laughsinbritish2501 Would think they put their "most important assets" at this point of the map, where they wanna break through. As it happened with Leo2a6 and Bradleys. The UK documentary even stated that most of the Ukrainians who got trained for the Challenger have never seen a tank from the inside before. So, best people is kind of a stretch.

@Masterafro999

4 ай бұрын

​@@laughsinbritish2501that's a one sided analysis. The Russians would have, without a doubt, posted any and all challenger 2 sightings online. They are being used in the far rear incase Russia breaks through

Those aren't even close to chain guns at 2:45, big guy. The only thing they have in common is being 7.62 firearms.

@darrenjones3681

4 ай бұрын

Nope but the coaxial gun next to the main is a chain gun as is on later CVRT Scimitar ect they did retro fit more updated commander and loader hatch guns I think though she got the wrong picture and shown a FN GPMG

@michaelhowell2326

4 ай бұрын

@@darrenjones3681 the new Challenger has a 25 mm coax?

@darrenjones3681

4 ай бұрын

And where are the promised M1s ?

@michaelhowell2326

4 ай бұрын

@@darrenjones3681 they've already arrived in Ukraine.

@michaelhowell2326

4 ай бұрын

@@darrenjones3681 and how is that a reasonable response to either the original comment or my question? Are you that butt hurt?

This Game Changer will definitely be the game changer this time 100%

@Christoph1888

4 ай бұрын

😂 definitely an overused term

@user-tt6il2up4o

4 ай бұрын

Next year we will see game changer number 200

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

This 🤡 is just like the rest. Best course of action is to unsub from any and all of his channels

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

Do yourself a favor.. unsub from any and all of his channels

I’m just curious why the challenger lost only 1 tank to friendly fire in Iraq. Yet it’s the SAME story with the Abram’s only loosing 1 tank to friendly fire in Iraq..Sounds to familiar

@cordellej

4 ай бұрын

the comamder of the lost tank had his hatch open and was partially out the hatch . that was against SOP. it is also something the iraqis were doing at the time , the tank that fired on him saw the hatch open with the commander outside threw thermal and was at a distance ( i think in a dust storm or some smoke ) and mistook the shape of the tank . the tank was hit with a HESH round ( a quiet good shot i might at ) directly on the open hatch . getting a K-kill on the charlie 2 ... sadly it was friendly fire

@amacca2085

4 ай бұрын

@@cordellejAmericans

@corporacionmonstruo6057

4 ай бұрын

It's total Bulls**t ,that's why.

@cordellej

4 ай бұрын

@@amacca2085 what dumb shit reply was that ?

I think we knew why they were not seen much on YT. British way of war; you don't get the chance to know what just hit you or where it came from.

Many Ukrainians I know have expressed gratitude towards Britain, especially BoJo and Sunak. As a Brit who spent much of 2014 working in media in Donets’k, I feel ashamed by the betrayal that led to Russia claiming a large amount of the Donbas region and Crimea. On the 5th of December 1994, the British and US governments signed an agreement with Ukraine and Russia that if either side invaded Ukrainian territory, the other side would protect Ukraine’s sovereignty. This agreement came with the caveat that Ukraine would hand all its nuclear arsenal back to Russia, a promise they kept. 19.5 years later and we see Russia invade as they have done with Chechnya and Georgia, and we betrayed that promise, telling Ukraine to cede that territory to Russia without coming to their aid at all. 8 years later the full invasion of Ukraine begins and once again we refuse to keep the promise, merely sending soon to be and already decommissioned weapons, whilst at the same time forcing Ukraine into agreeing that they won’t fire into Russia, including Crimea. First the promise made is broken, then we hamstrung them with limits. I know that there are people who will claim that NATO had said ‘not one inch’ further east, but that’s simply not a part of the agreement. Gorbachev himself debunked that claim and he should know given that he signed the deal at the fall of Soviet control of Eastern Europe. The issue about not keeping that promise to Ukraine is far reaching. If the UK and US try to restrict any other country from having nuclear weapons with a promise to fight for them, any country will see this and think they’ll be betrayed and so have a better chance with nuclear weapons and other WMD’s. I know I am slightly biased in my opinion of this due to things I witnessed in 2014 and due to friendships formed with several Ukrainians, but I was raised to always keep my word and to honour all promises made. This is why I am ashamed of the lack of action on the part of the British and American governments.

@redceltnet

3 ай бұрын

What is especially egregious is that the pact to protect Ukraine's sovereignty by the UK and USA is forgotten about or unmentioned in US media. Some GOP politicians (especially) need a reminder that a country's promises are meant to be honoured. Else their word will never be trusted again in the future.

IDK 3-4 years ago when i accidentally discovered this channel YES, but now ! and last year or two i have a feeling that there are no more secrets, that all there is left are commercials* for the masses.. Shame what seemed to be nice, sometimes with very detailed and specific infos, i knew..! but i did not know it, that kind of channel.. be it history or some future military tech projects.. A niche channel indeed it was (even with x100 audio speed xD) what i want to say.. and now* it is not..

How many do they have ?? maybe one lol

recap, never use a device how it's not mend to be used. if it is a sniper you don't go charging with it but dig it in and use it as a sniper. Same goes for a wrench that not fit the bolt, you will end up with bloody fingers

People should quit acting like they found the weakspot on the Challenger 2 already ! They why to take them out or their weakspots is somthing they have in common with every tank there is ! Thats because haveing been designed in the cold war there were no such a threat as drone or top attack ammo ! The most threat came from the front which meant that most of the armor would be concentrated there leaveing less for sides , rear and roof /bottom ! All tanks from that eara are vunerable to modern threats including Leopard 2/Abrams / Leclerc/ Ariete / K 2 Black panther and Merkava !

@hiteshadhikari

4 ай бұрын

U mean every tank has potential weakness? Shocker I wonder why t72/90 being destroyed was so big but this is today , common knowledge that weapons have weaknesses

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

Our whole western supply is a weak spot, full of arrogance, incompetence and overconfidence.

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

Did you forget the Afghanistan 🇦🇫 debacle? Oh yeah, you probably did. Just to save face and play pretend another day

@christianjunghanel6724

4 ай бұрын

@@hiteshadhikari You are right ! But it is presented like it is ! Thats what disturps me ! Cause there are more than enough people out there who don t have exactly that common knowledge! They are the people targeted when there is talk that somehow a tank like the Challenger as a weakness and giving them the idea that it is the only one with that flaw! They in turn do put pressure on the british goverment because they didn t know any better ! All designed to weaken ukraine support!

@Kakarot64.

4 ай бұрын

​@@hiteshadhikari Because the Russians are the aggressors, they're the party that has lost the largest number of Tanks and their Tanks have a habit of going up like a spectacular fireworks display vaporising the crew inside and providing a spectacle for KZread clicks.

Big RED arrows are fucking pointless !

First wave...over burn...a lot... Second wave... other story.... Last wave... other story..

funny how both challengers 2s that were destroyed in combat both in ukraine and iraq had their turret pop off just like russian tanks

@ImWoolly

4 ай бұрын

Most tanks don't have blowout panels the challenger 3 will probably have them.

@joric5864

4 ай бұрын

@@ImWoolly yeah chally 2 has ammo in bins thats supposed to direct explosions up but they dont work too well evidently

KoRnet not komet. Sorry. Grammar Nazi I am. Still love every single one of your channels

The tank is fine .. but for main battle tanks especially .. there needs to be combined-arms tactics employed .. with intel, IFV's, mine-sweepers, air assets, artillery, and infantry all working together. This piece-meal approach is not the way.

They just left the bv on for too long 😕

0:44 pretty sure those are japanese tanks, not challengers

But it come standard with ejecting turret like the Russian ones all Russian tanks have cosmonauts crewing them

Did not exclusively serve with the British, Gordan also uses them!!!

@nemesis2264

4 ай бұрын

Well I can't comment as to what tanks Gordan has but I know Jordan does not have the Challenger 2. They do have the Al-Hussein which is a modified Challenger 1 and the Khalid that is essentially the Chieftain.

@peterstubbs5934

4 ай бұрын

Gordan who? ;)

@Goatfer

4 ай бұрын

​@@peterstubbs5934 Comissioner Gordan. He's cracking down on Gothams insane crime problem.

@struancooper3327

4 ай бұрын

Sorry mistype/auto correct Jordan

@thewomble1509

4 ай бұрын

OMAN uses the C2. Jordan bought c1's when they were taken out of UK service.

I generally like this style of info video, but what pisses me off about them is the poor clip management, and by that I mean not following the story with the correct video clip to what's being said. In one part, for example, they were talking about the Ukrainian tankers and clearly showing British grunts on Copehill Down with a chally in Berlin paint colours. Another part it was talking about interviews with Ukrainian tankers and showing a badged RTR tanker. The 'continuity' is atrocious.

@amacca2085

4 ай бұрын

Boring

@joncawte6150

4 ай бұрын

ooh nooo, was I, soooooo sorry, ....dick@@amacca2085

think you will find that its british tank

While film of drones seem to be picking up most of the likes and the clicks it seems to me that many of the tanks and other vehicles destroyed by drones are already abandoned and static after having hit a mine and the drones are acting as scavanger's to tidy up the battlefield and stop any recovery of the vehicles. While other vehicles also stopped by mines are finished off by artillery or as per the lost Ukrainian Challenger a ATGM. Fact that Russian Infantry now seem to be riding on top of APC to get further away from mines rather than inside the vehicle would also tend to indicate that its mines which most worry a lot of troops when they try and advance. As for the best way for the Ukraine to use the Challenger its probably not as a breakthrough tank, at over 70 tons with all the extras added its just too big and heavy for Ukrainian bridges and bridging equipment for starters. But it was designed to block Russian breakthroughs - so if the Russians ever get through the mine fields and other forward defences the Challenger could be really handy in the natural evironment of the British Army and its tanks - the last ditch.

It's ok

Losing one tank is nothing. Bait, switch nonsense…

I've always thought the Challenger 2 looked the part, the extra large turret shape makes it look better than all the others including the very nice looking Leopard, but looks mean absolutely nothing for a tank, and with todays modern anti tank weapons no tank is immune, its all about how many attempts will it take to destroy a tank, Russian tanks have been on average 1 hit 1 kill, but their main problem is the crew hardly ever survives, I think this is the biggest difference between Western tanks, they put extra thought into trying to save the crew, training a tank crew isn't a problem if you only lose the odd tank, but looking at Russian loses they don't seem to care how well trained the crew is, if you look at how poor the new tank crews are performing and the daft but deadly mistakes they make, it's a waste of time trying to use a tank now for Russia, with old models, new inexperienced crews with zero battle plan Russia has almost made the tank obsolete.

I honestly believe that the tankisgoing the way of the good ol Battleship 😢

@peterstubbs5934

4 ай бұрын

Theyve been saying that for 40 years mate.

@Kakarot64.

4 ай бұрын

​@@peterstubbs5934 It's like when the Airforce tried claiming their bomber dropped nuclear bombs rendered Navies obsolete so the US Navy had its funding cut severely only for the Korean War to occur and people suddenly realised they actually needed the Navy to do jobs that the Airforce and nuclear bombs can't. Or that time people claimed missiles rendered guns obsolete so a Fighter Jet without a cannon was brought into service and it ran into trouble when it was realised the Cannon was still a necessary bit of kit for some situations.

Apart from the breathless overdramatic narration, the comments seem to suggest that the production was very poorly researched. You really need to do much better than this to be credible.

*Ghost of London* is here guys

@MC-ht8ud

4 ай бұрын

lol

Tanks are full of weak spots, the main difference is the challenger 2 isn’t a jack in the box tank unlike all of the Russian stuff. One hit anywhere and it sheds weight by ejecting it’s turret.

It's not Ukranian..... It's British!

@Kakarot64.

4 ай бұрын

Britain isn't even British anymore with the rate our politicians are inviting in the third world, why not allow our Tanks to be culturally appropriated as well make it a matching set of diversity 😑

Ask the Russian's how important crew survival is....

@SFbayArea94121

4 ай бұрын

They’re asking the Ukranians that, having to draft women into the military when there is no more manpower left 🤣🤣🤣

@exsappermadman25055

4 ай бұрын

@@SFbayArea94121 Like Russia did in Stallingrad?....

@HubertofLiege

4 ай бұрын

Nobody to ask

Although it was killed but it was not in a tank versis tank because the Russian tanks are death traps for there crews unlike the challenger where there tankers live to fight another day!

Challenger 2 turned out to burn just as well as any other western tank (that have only gone up against goat herders for the last 40 years). The UK ministry of defence also asked the ukies to 'Please don't put the Challenger II on the frontline. It might get damaged, you see? The last one looked like a dog's dinner after being hit by a mine. So please don't use our tanks in actual combat, you total spanners! Cheerio, thank you!' (said in posh British accent)

@joebloggs430

3 ай бұрын

Yeah wait till they come up against a T-70-BOOM ! Why do Russian tanks self-destruct when hit ? Is it to prevnet them from falling into enemy hands ? Why would their enemies want tanks that kill their own crews when attacked ?