BRITISH New MOST POWERFUL TANK Shocked The World!

[@strangeknight3751]

Best tank in the world 🇬🇧 won the NATO war games, has the longest confirmed kill, only one destroyed by enemy fire, one survived 70 soviet RPG hits and has tea making facilities, need I say more 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@ferry602]

Of course, in Nato 'games' 🤣🤣🤣

[@chrissmith2114]

RuZZia went better than making tea, all RuZZian tanks have a built in barbecue....

[@johnhughes8016]

Dont forget the ATGM hit as well. Back into service 6 hrs later....

[@lunthang7453]

​@@chrissmith2114challenger hiding in store room and you call the best tank 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@chrissmith2114]

@@lunthang7453 Most RuZZian tanks now live in a scrap heap in Ukraine...

[@chrissmith2114]

The RuZZian tanks are better than Challenger in some respects, the Challenger has tea making facility, but the RuZZian tanks have a barbecue, and the turret can be easily removed to make a sunroof...

[@andrewkerr3836]

🤣👍

[@QuotidianStupidity]

Hmmm tea or bbq, now that is a toughie

[@stevehessle1959]

Mmmm. Fried Ruskies marinated in potato vodka, a bit burnt around the edges 😂

[@davidchapman7904]

Yes, we have seen how easy the turret can me removed in Ukraine and not for a sunroof! Certainly a human BBQ though

[@chrissmith2114]

@@davidchapman7904 I thought those clever RuZZian designers had fitted a self-ejecting turret to allow the crew to escape quicker, but the main flaw was that the crew gets killed before the turret leaves the tank - Oh well, back to the drawing board.

[@chrissmith2114]

Whether something is the 'best tank' can only be proved in battle, not from the spec sheet of the tank... Challenger 2 still hold the record for a tank not to be destroyed by enemy action.

[@Griffmister]

Tanks are so close in spec these days. Boils down to crew. Brits by far the best.

[@scottjoseph9821]

Because jts british built and a british tank the best 🎉

[@LordEmperorHyperion]

Sure they are 😂 Send them to the Ukrainian front and let's test it!😂

[@mark4371]

The only reason that it has not been destroyed in Ukraine is that it is in hiding from the battlefield After the Leopard massacre this trash can on tracks would have been next

[@chrissmith2114]

@@LordEmperorHyperion I see RuZZia lost another T-90 today - to a an anti-tank mine, probably a RuZZian mine that they didn't know was there, RuZZia is so careless where they smoke and spread their mines.

[@TheMazza595]

It’s not only about having amongst one of the best tanks, it’s about having well trained and highly skilled crews. That’s what makes the latest Challengers so good.

[@allansmith3837]

Tell that to the Russians with their drones hold my beer

[@TheMazza595]

@@allansmith3837 Don’t make stupid comparisons with a Challenger in the hands of a British crew and fighting as part combined arms force. You need to stop drinking so much beer it’s not a good look. We’re all sober enough to know that if an Alligator finds one without air support it’ll be shredded

[@allansmith3837]

@@TheMazza595 not Alligators you need to worry about its drones and Coronets that's what has taken out most off the armor but keep telling yourself the British are the best and I speak as one.

[@ppo2424]

@@allansmith3837 We are,fact

[@allansmith3837]

@@ppo2424 no we are not the British armed forces are a shadow off their former self Just like everything else in substanard Britain police NHS Schools University's even that Yanks made a statement about it what the said and I quote The UK is no longer a first rate Military power .

[@alistairbolden6340]

What really matters in any tank is the crew.

[@markstorm6190]

SIMPLY THE BEST ARMY IN WORLD WITH THE BEST BATTLE TANKS 👍🏻🇬🇧

[@lordlucan3706]

Fun fact.....British squaddies are only fit for cannon fodder.

[@Clone-tt6lg]

"Best in the world"?Even the MOD admits the army has become an ineffective fighting force.

[@markmaher4548]

Pity there's too damn few of my former colleagues. In 2010 we could field three full armoured divs, now we can barely scrape 1 together. Who says the Tories are the party of defence?

[@samkennett3313]

@@Clone-tt6lg we have the best soldiers Royal Marines sas sbs? Size is size we Don’t need to have a big anythjng we never have in peace time if there was a war we’d be rolling out weapons Like no tomorrow we have the best trained everything and your forgetting the thing that wins wars my friend TACTICS we know how to fight and win wars cos we been doing it for centruys ww3 happend that woudlent change what best trained miltary service does china have? And we’ve all seen the shit show from the Russians 😂 size means fuck all would like to see any country deal with full might of the uk military and intelligence service from our type 45s submarines royal marines sas sbs mi5 raf pilots everyone knows British forces are the best America just has the money there tactics are shocking just look at there unsucsefull wars throughout history British tactics and training is unmatched

[@craigstoner2632]

​@@Clone-tt6lgexactly. Only the best admit fault or flaws 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@hex2bin]

Several of these new tanks will never be produced. More like proof of concept.

[@bobwilliams6752]

Why is Germany looking at equipping 3 different tanks? Won’t this cause many logistics problems?

[@francescxavierbulto9848]

No the Chally 3 is totally built in the U.K. by Rheinmetall / BAE Land Systems. It is only going to be a stop gap hence why so few. It is rumoured that the U.K. will join the Rheinmetall Panther programme which will become the MBT of Europe.

[@dickdastardly5534]

@@francescxavierbulto9848As long as they don’t let General Dynamics get their hands on its build after the Ajax embarssement.

[@robmckrill3134]

Not really Ukraine will get the old ones

[@Brian-om2hh]

"Shocked the World" might be stretching it a bit. I doubt the tribes deep in the Amazon jungle give a Donald Duck about the Challenger tank.

[@sprinter1832]

@Brian-om2hh that was a Mickey Mouse comment!

[@porkpie9999]

Challenger 3 all day. its a beast...

[@rallyauto34]

The best scrap for Ukrainian gypsies

[@alenkerr8533]

One of the best tank's out there and has some of the best trained crew

[@muratyazici8854]

Altay is being loaded..Will be game changer..

[@donaldclifford5763]

The Abrams looks the best

[@galesams4205]

Being on a tank M48 in vietnam the main gun was only as good as the GUNNER. Was just like fireing a very big rifle, bur in jungle always fired the shot-gun round. 69th armor Pleiku south vietnam.

[@markdouglas5310]

All of these tanks have their limitations and are yet to be oroven in battle conditions. The tracks will always be the weak point - blow a track and the tank goes nowhere.

[@colinelliott5629]

By the same token, the quality of recovery and repair is also significant.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

Challengers and Abrahams are both battle tested and the latest variants are just improved versions of those seen in combat. Leopards have seen combat but only earlier versions, which have suffered losses (due to poor command decisions, more than anything else).

[@markmaher4548]

M-kill, everything becomes a pill-box with an m-kill.

[@neddyseagoon9601]

But that's when the ability to hit a peer, over two miles away, comes in handy.

[@kokomo9764]

No one is shocked. Proof is in combat, not press releases.

[@chrislong3938]

No shit! Ask the Ruskies...!

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

Hmm You mean like was proven in Iraq. You mean that battle proven. Longest tank kill. Only tank EVER to survive over 50 RPG hits and survive- drive back to base and return to the battle feild in less than four hours. You mean that right?

[@1951woodygeo]

Thought this was about the new Challenger3 not even mentioned yet

[@nickellison2785]

It’s called Clickbait my man

[@Colin623]

Yes it was mentioned, go to 9.00 into the video, but yes it's a little misleading headline !

[@dondouglass6415]

4 miles is not 8km.... 5 miles is 8km... Who researches and writes these scripts!!!?

[@Thurgosh_OG]

US Americans apparently.

[@PsyCygnet]

All Challengers are just awesome no nonsense killing machines!

[@ilf5788]

Abrams X is not a real tank. Its a concept, an example of what could be achieved if the US shut down a few schools and increased medicine tax.

[@mirkotorca1950]

British weapons proved itself troughout the history and still get the top

[@s.tranger1074]

Crap!

[@chriztownley9335]

Best armour in world ..FACT

[@bobhinks8546]

Like 🇬🇧 Challenger 2 Never been Destroyed by a Enemy in Battle 😊

[@awatt]

But was destroyed by another Challenger. Challenger undefeated in war

[@bobhinks8546]

@@awatt blue on blue doesn't count haha

[@awatt]

@@bobhinks8546 True.

[@sprinter1832]

@@awatt Apparently it was destroyed by an American Abrams tank!! go figure!

[@awatt]

@@sprinter1832 Abrahams can't touch it. It was a Challenger. Get your facts right. Only a Challenger could defeat a Challenger.

[@matmotor7572]

Wait till it gets to the frontline in a real war situation, then we can assess how good it is

[@robinmuirhead2617]

Well We Invented the Tank it's No surprise we have the best Tank Tech in 2024

[@ianmcculloch9876]

The Challenger tank is near enough the ultimate tank , cannot wait for Challenger III to come out .

[@Thurgosh_OG]

The Chally2 did win the latest MBT competition.

[@jamesmorgan4426]

Don't call it the " Chally " please FFS !!! It's a Challenger MBT .

[@TheGrowler55]

Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧👍

[@allansmith3837]

If its built in Britain its shite tanks are just a big target on the battlefield remember leopards were a wonder weapon how did that turn out. New tank built in Britain be like the aircraft carriers leaking like a siv and the ferry fiasco Built in Britain means nothing now.

[@rebelrebel7722]

why have you got your enemies flag in your post, you are not British, you are either English Scottish Irish or Welsh 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇮🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿👍

[@bikechainmic]

Trols and Orcs can only dream of having a tank like this... All ruzzia fields is BBQs with "Hope" cage " orc grills atop them !

[@cypherborg81]

russian is like yea right. hold my beer

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

And then Russia is like ohh shti what have I done. Another 1000 of our orc carriers gone.

[@koppel1100]

Looks great about the Panther

[@kanglee8722]

Not German but South Korean “Black Panther”.

[@pag1413]

My Grandfather had a series of tanks during WW2 which were forever breaking down! I didn't know any of this which put me off owning my own tank. Which is dam annoying when you are a Waffen SS officer!

[@williamhardes8081]

fair enough all these new sensor and vision systems etc make the tank more situational aware and more lethal. all of theses tanks also have excellent turret mounted secondary armament systems. but what happens when a round from a 30 mm bushmaster or similar blows these fancy new toys of the top of the turret?

[@GodTrustful]

I like the Ava Marathon told you stuff it got an electric engine in it and😊😊😊😊😊

[@keithad6485]

Does anyone known why Brits persisted with rifled 120mm main armament when other countries went the smooth bore route?

[@silvazoldyck366]

What actuslly shocking is that the UK has told Ukraine not to use the Challenger 2 in battle because it wouldn't be good PR for their citizens to see their vaunted tanks burning on the Ukrainian steppes. Besides that, the UK only has 40 working examples of the Challenger 2 and has lost the capability to produce replacement barrels for them due to shutting down their heavy industries in line with woke climate policies. That being the case, i don't expect this tank to be any serious threat to anyone.

[@davidstevenson9052]

We’ll I can definitely say u are not exactly accurate and ur comment is full of lies challenger 2 is been proven in battle to be good especially face up to Russian t models and the well I jade never actually been stoped or blown up destroyed in battle the ones that were sort of knocked out were took beck repaired in hours and back out one challenger with stood 19 rpg strikes on it and still won the battle and drove away so yeah plus it’s got a water boiler so we can have our cuppa tea ! Plus some heat in cold days ! So yeah challenger and s the best tank even Abrams and leopard don’t compare to it we’re number one tank in the world we’re the best better then the rest KEEP CALM CHALLENGER 2 THERE

[@hotstepper887]

@@davidstevenson9052 Being English, I'm asking you what you think you're talking about? And why are you telling someone else they're lying, when everything you've said only proves you understand nothing at all about this conflict in Ukraine? "@davidstevenson9052 6 hours ago ur comment is full of lies challenger 2 is been proven in battle to be good especially face up to Russian t models" Firstly, it must be said, to read any so-called Brit as uneducated as you, whose unable to even type a coherent sentence, let alone spell such simple English words really is embarrassing, secondly, do tell us all about these tank battles you must believe the Challenger has been involved in, and against the Russians, where, when? Was the last deployment not against Iraq? And was it not the Iraqi Republican Guard’s T-72M tanks we feared most of all, so, each British tank was provided with twelve L26A1 “Jericho” depleted uranium (DU) shells specifically for use against T72Ms?, but was it not the case that none were encountered as the division had been withdrawn long beforehand? Basically, you're an uneducated loser, an excuse for a Brit, and really should have been born an American, as you simply have nothing British about you, and you've had the same standard of education as every American, zero in other words. This is what I say to all of them, you should learn it also.... I'm English, and this just has to be said, because it really is just so embarrassing reading these Americans today. I really don't believe we've ever seen, or read, so many people as clueless as you Americans, who we read talking about these military technologies, like your own aircraft, or any of your own military for that matter? For example, why do we read you all endlessly claiming the F-22, is some great aircraft, and of course, so much better than the "Russian rubbish"? What's that all about? And why is it, that whenever you're asked what any of you have ever actually seen the F-22 do, that would allow you to form and hold that opinion?, that none of you can answer that, as you've never seen the F-22 do a single thing in all the years you've had it, nothing at all, right? So, all you actually prove is, that you're all just basing your own bias opinions on a whole lot of nothing, right? So, again, what is it all about? All you do, is you just talk endless propaganda claims, and claims you can't ever back up with a single fact?. You all prove how little you know or even understand, because none of you have ever asked yourselves the most obvious, and the most important questions (we must always, not only ask, but more importantly, understand, before we ever try analysing anything from anywhere else). Questions like, how can the F-22 (or F-35) stealth fighters detect, track, or target any other stealth aircraft from BVR? None of you have ever asked that one question? Really, just how dumb is that? And even worse is, If you had just asked yourselves that one question?, you'd immediately then know that the reality is nothing at all like you all think? Analysing the USA's real military abilities today?, is a horror story. They've been out thought, out built, and technically beaten hands down, by both Russia, and not to forget China, who are banging out modern hi-tech, high quality military hardware in all areas of their military today. We know very little, but what they've allowed us to see, there's not really anything I could single out and start to criticize. Answer this? What does the USA lead the world in today, concerning anything military? The answer is absolutely nothing! Fighter Jets? = Russia own the sky. Both the F-22 and F-35 are blind to all other stealth aircraft from BVR, (as they don't have/lack any Long wave radar), It seems that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there were no other stealth aircraft to think about as a threat. And as for their use of AWACS for their own stealth fighters detection and targetting? Impossible today. Stealth alone, defeats high-frequency (short wave), radar, by absorption and deflection. But it does NOT defeat low-frequency (long wave), radar. To detect, track, and target other stealth aircraft from BVR, you must have long-wave radar, (but it must also be enhanced), to remove all background clutter for targeting purposes. Clearly, neither the APG-77 radar, used in the F-22, or the APG-81 radar, used in the F-35, can detect any other stealth aircraft from BVR as they lack any long wave radar, an obvious fact, the US Air force will be fully aware of. Only it seems the reality is, that when the F-35 radars were being designed 13 years ago, there weren't any other stealth aircraft to think about as a potential threat! So, how can anyone possibly see these US stealth aircraft, as any sort of real threat to either Russia or China?, (who both have these US stealth aircraft technically beaten today)? They can detect, track, and target the US stealth jets from BVR, yet the US stealth jets can't even detect them from BVR? Result = A pretty obvious one. Russia have designed, and they've developed, the first L-Band fighter radar we've ever seen. They've embedded L-band AESA radars into the leading edges of the wings. And this L-band AESA radar "data" gets processed in real time (through extremely powerful Russian computers), being significantly enhanced, removing all background clutter, meaning it can detect, track, and engage enemy stealth aircraft from BVR. This new Russian technology, along with its very impressive range parameters, and it's jamming ability (over very large areas) make this aircraft deadly to all other aircraft types. Russia's new (2band) radar, covers all frequencies across all channels, used for tracking, targeting, and also for jamming (over large areas). It's part of Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES) on board the SU-57. We must also understand that Russia tested this new radar suit in the SU-35's, so they also have the option of fitting this radar into the SU-35's. Seeing the SU-35 at no disadvantage against either the F-22/35. As although the SU-35 can be detected, tracked, and targeted from BVR by the US stealth fighters, the SU-35 equipped with this new radar is just as able to detect, track, and target the US stealth fighters from BVR. Seeing the all-important Russian advantage in BVR missile range, plus the excellent manoeuvring, neither the F-22/F-35 have, as more than critical, (if you're going to avoid simply being blown out of the sky). This Russian 5th generation radar design, has a very clear, and very real potential to provide genuine shared multifunction apertures, with applications including... Search, track, and destroy, missile mid-course guidance, against low signature aircraft, identification of friend or foe with secondary surveillance radar. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. Passive angle tracking and geolocation of hostile (i.e. Western) IFF and SSR transponders at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of JTIDS-MIDS-Link-16 emitters. High-powered active jamming of satellite navigation receivers over large areas. High-powered active jamming of L-band AEWC-AWACS and surface based search radars at long ranges. High-powered active jamming of guided munition command data links over large areas. (Effectively, and completely, neutralising the USA's use of AWACS for their detection). The real facts are, that this Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA radar, is an extremely important strategic development, and it's a technology which once fully matured and deployed in useful numbers, will render narrowband stealth designs like the F-22 & F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and many, UAVs, as highly vulnerable to all flanker variants equipped with such radars.

[@hotstepper887]

FACT = A Russian SU-57, flying well behind the front lines in Russian airspace, detected a Ukrainian SU-27, in Ukrainian airspace heading toward Kiev, about 300 kms away. The SU-57 tracked then fired a Russian, very long range Vympel R-37 (NATO "Axehead") hypersonic air-to-air BVR missile at the Ukrainian SU-27, from a range of well over 250 km's away, blowing it out of the sky, and smashing the previous BVR missile kill range world record, to smithereens FACT = The USA has had the F-22 in service for 19 years, and incredibly, it finally made its first air-to-air kill in 2023, when it shot down a Chinese weather balloon. LMFAO.

[@hotstepper887]

Typical US propaganda, usually consists of silly falsehoods, and fake misinformation claims, or just twisted truths, like the F-15, is said to be unbeaten in A2A combat. It's true (ish), only when we look at every aircraft shot down by an F-15?, we find that none had any offensive capabilities, and most had little if anything defensive, many without even a basic radar, meaning, you'd be absolutely stunned if the F-15 didn't shoot every one of them down. So it really is, once again, and as always, just a very silly, and meaningless remedial propaganda claim. There's another aircraft that's also unbeaten in A2A combat, and has faced off against aircraft just as capable as itself. The British Sea Harrier is the only aircraft unbeaten in A2A combat, that has faced off against worthy, viable opposition. And that really is a huge factor, that's worth knowing, unlike the F-15 propaganda claim, that you'd be shocked if it hadn't managed. You should all be questioning why the US made it illegal to sell the F-22?. The US government seemingly wants it believed, it's because it's so good, they don't want anyone else to have it?. Yet, that actually makes no sense at all, none, not even a little sense?, as the facts are, they've no idea what's around the corner in modern military technologies, and with the speed we're seeing new military tactical hardware being designed, developed, and created today, it could well have made great sense to sell the F-22 at some stage. (If it actually works). If it worked, they'd have been able to recoup many of the resources spent on the aircraft, if not the resources in their entirety, even a profit. Only there's another, and much more likely, reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22? And that's, if it is, just as I suspect, a "lemon", that was intended to be their leading front line strike aircraft that's failed, (and because of the cost/expense, they can't just write it off), so the USA have then only used the F-22 for propaganda purposes? (what better way of preventing anyone else from finding out that it actually doesn't work, and really is a lemon, than making it illegal to sell)? Logically, that's the only possible reason the USA made it illegal to sell the F-22. It can only be because it's a failed aircraft that was intended to be their leading front line 5th generation strike aircraft.19 years the US have had the F-22, (and they've been in wars the entire time), yet they've never used it, not once! And even more interestingly and telling was, just after Russia arrived in Syria in 2015, the USA removed every one of their F-22's from right across the Middle East, Iraq, Tukey, UAE and Jordan. Absolutely no doubt about it, I guarantee we'll never see the F-22 involved in any sort of real war scenario, or even involved in any major sortie, because it's basically junk. They've even trashed all the infrastructure they had in place to build more of them.

[@hotstepper887]

I incredibly do read British today claiming the F-35 is some great aircraft?? LOL. We also see the USA still unable to produce and build a VTOL capable fighter aircraft? Yet, they are trying to lie about this? The F-35B was claimed by the USA, to be able to do what the Harrier could do, while also being supersonic, stealthy, with modern avionics systems, etc, this is what we were told, and it's why we designed our "new obsolete carrier" without ramps. Only one of the biggest technical headaches the British always had when building the Harrier, was the VTOL, - transferring from ''lift'' (downward nozzles) to forward flight (rear-facing nozzles) and flying away. Apparently to achieve it took the British a hell of a lot of technical work, (three - four months at a time, over 3 years). Look up all the variants they made?, but they never gave up, and they finally figured it out. I said long before we ever saw the F-35B, it wouldn't be VTOL capable, even with the Rolls-Royce lift engines, (because the USA has tried many times before, and failed each time), only ever managing to produce the British Sea Harrier, able to do so. Every US airframe (and there have been many), have all failed. I'll show you what I mean, as otherwise so many of you get confused, LOL At 7 mins 50 seconds, you'll watch a Harrier perform a proper VTOL. Copy and paste “2013 MCAS Yuma Air Show - AV8B Harrier Demo” into KZbin search. Watch it from lift off, (to more importantly), flying away from the lift-off, and you'll see the transfer of nozzles take place. You'll not find any footage of the F-35B doing this. Yet we do see Lockheed Martin trying to suggest it is VTOL capable?, when it, so clearly, is not. Copy and Paste “First F-35B Vertical Takeoff Test” into KZbin search. You'll only see it lift off, hover, then return straight back down. You'll never see it fly away from the lift-off. Believe me, if it could, we'd see it doing so in every piece of footage we have on the F-35B - like we still see on all the footage of the Harrier doing so. But you'll never find any footage anywhere of the F-35B doing that. Oh, and please, anyone that wants to try and show me the F-35 fly into a hover, and fly away from that hover (as a way of proof it can VTOL)? Please don't, because that has nothing at all to do with a VTOL. To hover, and fly from a hover doesn't require the transfer of the nozzles, as hover, is achieved while remaining with forward flight (rear facing nozzles) with pitch and yaw, to find your centre of gravity to control the hover (CPU controlled today). No transfer of nozzles is required to fly from a hover. You'll then start to read these Americans all begin to claim it's not necessary? LOL, (while forgetting, they're to be carrier-based aircraft), meaning any slight damage to the deck or ramp, and they can't get any jets airborne?. Defeating the entire purpose of having the aircraft in the first place! You can't ever lose an entire carrier in battle, for only minor damage?, whatever next?. So, why do we see the USA doing this? It's obviously because the US is still a country that's never managed to produce & build a VTOL fighter aircraft. Britain did so in the late 50s, Russia did so in the late 60s, the USA has tried and failed numerous times, so it seems this time, they're going to try to lie about it LOL. That country is a travesty, man! It shows us that Lockheed are not unknown to produce propaganda aircraft, as the F-22 is the same... Failed, so today, only being used for propaganda purposes!

[@johnround8311]

Why aren`t the challengers out there on the front lines making tea and having crumpets?

[@i_druth]

It isn't about the tank, its about how well the crew are both trained & skilled. Its all down to the crew at the end of the day :)

[@ajstyles5704]

Who cares man?? They all are the best tank in the world, who gives a shit? Who? Seriously.. have you seen NATO budget? To repair these shit tanks requires experts that are trained for it and the cost, OMG, with EU economy? US economy? Yes sure the inflation has been reduced a little bit with Biden delaying the debt ceiling to 2025, but it's still there and US are doing their best to not be selling everything they own, with Germany(EU biggest economy) already in recession, the price/cost to make them are ridiculous, the price to repair them are even more ridiculous, the price if anything malfunctions, double ridiculous, and then there's also the maintenance budget which already made this tank, f**King useless in a war, maybe for last defence.

[@markmaher4548]

And the numbers bud, quantity has a quality all of it's own.

[@tomasdawe9379]

I would say crew and doctrine, poor doctrine leads to high attrition

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

Can you still brew a cup of tea in the Challenger 3?

[@awatt]

Yes.

[@mellebrown363]

They all burn the same they wouldn't stand up to a tactical nuke

[@liamtimms777]

French tanks only go in reverse, fact

[@richard9045]

Italian tanks have a better record in that regard!

[@G.S.T.K]

Might be the best but we certainly won’t have enough of them,,,I know Britain has always had a small professional peace time armed forces but our military has been cut to the fucking bone to the point where it’s actually negligible imo

[@pnamarnath6431]

Fit for video games only . If sent to the front line it would be a sitting duck

[@keithad6485]

How can you tell if video of an AFV was taken close to the front line? No crew visible! If vid of AFV shows body of turret crewman or head of driver, definitely not near FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) where the dreaded en are lurking! Seeing that Crew Commander with most of his body exposed at the turret reminded me of this unforgiving fact of life.

[@steveroberts728]

Th tank didn’t “shock” the world; it may have impressed or even surprised but it didn’t “shock”.

[@jimsound7888]

I'm so shocked ar all this shocking news that yes, I'm shockingly shocked

[@Thurgosh_OG]

I'm British and it's a good tank but these YT titles are just stupid.

[@robertvalence7899]

Two things about Challenger. 1. It's a pain in the ass to maintain - the tank-body and the turret are 2 separate units. One part is metric unit based whilst the other part is imperial (feet.inches). 2. Otherwise it's a good tank. Unfortunately the Brits haven't bought it as they've reduced the army to its smallest ever. Can they put up one armoured division?

[@stevehorner8302]

True we should have 1000 plus tanks. I would have around 3500

[@dc-4ever201]

The tanks themselves aren't expensive it's crew and training that's expensive and costs the bigger part of a defence budget.

[@neddyseagoon9601]

Currently going for about 150 Challenger 3s. But I bet our current knowledge of and even deployment of anti tank and drones will make crewed tanks (with high survivability to encourage aggression), as we know them, pretty redundant, soon.

[@jon-ei8iz]

Challenger 2/3 best ...but also the brittish tank crew are the oldest and best tank regiment on the planet ....fact

[@jjrider6758]

The German-made Rheinmetall L55A1 smoothbore 120mm gun that is to be the main armament of Challenger 3 is NOT more accurate than the BAE-RO L30A1 rifled 120mm main armament installed in the current Challenger 2 - In fact the L30A1 (in a Challenger 1 ) holds the world record for furthest confirmed 'in-combat' tank-to-tank kill at 4700 metres (2.9 miles) - This was achieved by a British tank crew in Iraq without any assistance from outside systems and was a single, direct fire shot using an Armour-piercing round and the vehicle's own aiming systems (not an indirect fire shot, aimed with drone assistance using 19 high-explosive rounds before a hit was achieved, as was the case for the claimed - but unconfirmed - Ukrainian tank-kill of 10,600 metres - roughly 6.4 to 6.5 miles - using the 125mm gun of a Soviet designed/Ukrainian built T64BV tank..) However there are three ammunition-related reasons why the Rheinmetall L55A1 has been selected for Challenger 3.. Firstly, the ammunition for the L30A1 is loaded in two parts (projectile followed by the propellant charge) whereas the ammunition for the L55A1 is a single shell which is easier and faster to load and easier to store in the vehicle.. Secondly, the L55A1 has a greater choice of shell types available.. And thirdly, the L30A1 is only used in Challenger 2, the rest of NATO tanks using the L55A1 (or a derivative of it..) - So, the L55A1 was actually chosen for Challenger 3 due to it's easier loading/storage capabilities, wider shell-type choice and to harmonise NATO's Main Battle Tank ammunition, NOT for reasons of 'increased accuracy', as claimed in this video.

[@edkrach8891]

I wouldn't settle for anything less than a .50 cal MG on the roof.

[@markmaher4548]

That's assuming you can stick your head out of the top hatch without it getting blown off

[@alanwilliams5936]

Yeah & we are going to have two of them so watch out. UK

[@redoxjames2506]

Shocked the world, did it? I'm not watching any of these videos unless it shocks the entire UNIVERSE!

[@gezalesko3813]

No one was shocked enough to buy it...

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

What makes any MTB effective is its crew. Withou them an MTB is just a piece of metal with a gun and engine that goes nowhere.

[@johnomeara1316]

How many are there ,hopefully at least 250

[@jamesboardman7048]

Unless they can come up with a better method to clear mine Fields. I dont think we will get to see the full effect of the tanks capabilities.

[@Vikingman2024]

Tons given are long tons, not short tons that are used by US and Canada.

[@darlof8938]

Puts the German leopard to shame 🇬🇧🇬🇧

[@robwilton9539]

Us Brits have decent tanks now thanks to the Churchill, Chieftain and Centurion being so woefully unreliable. However, the ultimate strength of tanks comes from having overwhelming numbers of them and so Britain will never have that. Our Ministry of Defence will always only get 40% of what it needs to be effective. The same can be said of Germany but at least they have started to think again with a war on their doorstep. The way forward with tanks is, like ships and aircraft, to have multiple firing points. Tanks with three or four main guns along with AI targeting and battlefield awareness electronics is the future.

[@1951woodygeo]

This is exactly what the Challenger 3 will have they will be able to contact each other and coordinate attacks electronically and will now be able to use any NATO shell too big improvement on the challenger 2. But you are right about numbers we need plenty of them.

[@robwilton9539]

@@1951woodygeo I believe the Challenger 2 has (is being) been retro fitted to bring the battlefield awareness capability up to a decent standard already and shares this system with the Leopard. The gun has (is being) been upgraded to the Rheinmetal smooth bore too. The Ukrainians have the old pre-mod version. No tank yet has multiple main guns though. Think 12" guns on an old battleship. We could develop a rapid fire tank that could also sustain fire for three or four times longer without overheating the barrels. Targeting and firing on three targets almost simultaneously would be a real game changer. That said though, tanks will always be vulnerable against attack helicopters so, in my opinion, are only useful once air superiority is established. I don't suppose it will be too long until we see the mass return of motorbikes to the battlefield but this time the riders will be armed with hand held surface to air systems in support of tanks.

[@nickellison2785]

Chieftain had issues, but centurion wasn’t particularly notable as being unreliable.

[@robwilton9539]

@@nickellison2785 I am not sure REME would agree with you Nick. It did however, serve for a long enough time to get the issues ironed out over numerous mods.

[@sup3rbird]

Why do they still need crews; surely we are past that stage?

[@DAVIDGREGORYKERR]

I thought that the Indian Army was going to have a battle tank with an Railgun using electricity at 6,000KV @900A to fire projectiles at MACH5

[@alistairbolden6340]

Lol The Indian army would be lucky to buy challanger 1s. They are still buying crap from the USSR, they have mostly T72s.

[@chrissmith2114]

The existing rifled barrel of the Challenger 2 is the most accurate tank gun ( has the record for longest tank / tank kill, 4000 metres ), smoothbore guns are not so accurate but can fire HEAT rounds, where the rotation of the shell from a rifled barrel spoils the impact. UK is ruining a great tank gun by fitting in with NATO standard, the rifled barrel is better for firing high accuracy high explosive rounds for infantry support... HESH ( high explosive squash head ) are better fired from a rifled barrel.

[@fellowstembo2362]

Take them to the battlefront in Ukraine if you want to prove them powerful. Mr Challenger and Mr Leopard are in trouble already.

[@chrissmith2114]

​@@fellowstembo2362 RuZZia has lost over 3000 tanks so far, in fact it has lost over 50% of its serviceable tanks... Let me know when 3000 leopards, Abrams or Challenger have been lost...

[@magicmaybach]

​@@fellowstembo2362Lmao, Russian bits think knocking out a handful of Leo's, (2 of which were repairable) is some sort of major victory! 🤡s... Doesn't really compare to the 2000 plus Russian trash cans disguised as tanks that they've lost eh? Battle of attrition not looking good for Putin, lol, when you going to collect your T34s from the museums and field them???😂

[@nickellison2785]

Man that’s completely wrong, the reason the Challenger 2 has a rifled gun is so that it can fire HESH, it’s APFSDS that can only be fired from smoothbore guns

[@nickellison2785]

@@chrissmith2114 there have been several Leopards lost already, and I’m sure that there will be some Challengers and Abrams lost when they arrive. Whilst the western MBTs are generally considered slightly superior, the design of most of the Russian tanks is by no means bad, it’s much more the lack of training and tactics that contribute to the losses.

[@charlieyerrell9146]

Has the Indian tank got a kettle for making tea . Answers from any Indian tankie.

[@pukinsarvi.studio]

How about Merkava 5? I think Leopard 2A8 and it seems to have a Finnish sticker also in so It might be our tank in the future too.

[@markkierznowski6121]

Tank so good the British miltary have refused to allow it to fight.

[@RUX70N]

The Challenger tanks in Ukraine are fitted with reactive armour and the new Chameleon reactive camouflage. That's why none of them have been seen or destroyed in Ukraine.

[@TheMazza595]

I don’t think so… The challengers sent to Ukraine so far have be stripped of the most up to date modifications same as the Abram’s. This is in case Russia get their hands on one and reverse engineer it to find it weaknesses.

[@nickellison2785]

They haven’t even entered combat there yet

[@ShamanKish]

They don't even need armor being in Ukraine 😁

[@gregorypayne6749]

The UK is an island and the army is the least important of the services. The BEF when constituted in war will be well-equipped and trained. We are not a continental power with the need to deploy a large army since the UK mainland needs to be defended by a strong navy and a well-equipped airforce, that is where the bulk of UK defence spending needs to be directed.

[@homelandfighters8541]

Ukraine need this

[@chrisoaten291]

A tank mine will still take its tracks .A drone can still call in artillery .Its roof is still light .

[@nicholasmoore2590]

A lot of vehicles here being fitted with autoloaders. Maybe they should look at the amount of scrap metal in Ukraine which used to be Russian tanks fitted with autoloaders before finalising the decision on that one.

[@colinspencer2205]

Should no longer be referred to as Tanks. They are now seen as mobile targets. Definitely not for front line action.

[@andrewmckay2118]

Yea and I bet there's approximately 1 of these and no factory to produce them

[@urantia487]

I think its a falsity to say the best tank in todays battle field. There is nothing that cannot be destroy nowadays.

[@infobeam1902]

Lots of tanks have different purposes so they can't all be the best a everything.

[@QuotidianStupidity]

Max Veratappen is the best F1 driver, but you can still stop him with a bullet to the knee. Does that mean he’s not the best?

[@chipsthedog1]

Do they make unmanned tanks? Tank drones if you like, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard

[@MrCarlnaylor]

The US military are currently testing unmanned tanks

[@chipsthedog1]

@@MrCarlnaylor thank you. It totally makes sense

[@archiebald4717]

Does it have tea making facilities?

[@kurtismitchelll7546]

every british tank since ww2 has been equipped with a built-in boiling vessel 💪💪

[@archiebald4717]

@@kurtismitchelll7546 Thank goodness for that.

[@Damonpuss]

Tanks remind me of Daleks.

[@ianrichardson3968]

So basically then..they're all pretty much similar tanks. Heavily armoured...but they can go how fast? So what do we mean by "heavily armoured"? One survived 70 RPG hits...when was this and how powerful or not were the RPG rounds then? Before we decide these things are invulnerable should we not take a look at the threats that can be used against them? All the different anti-tank projectiles that can be used against them and how these tanks would fare then. And future ones of course. So armour. How is all these tanks armour built, using what materials and other methods of building tank armour? Can they defend themselves from all angles of attack successfully? What happens when they're parked with no one on board? What happens if they come up against a lighter faster tank with a good gun? Maybe more than one? When they are hit by projectiles from other weapons and not just tanks and anti-tank weapons? Why is everyone fixated on tanks? Are all these things in response to someone else's new tank? Does that mean the ones they had before are no longer any good? Useful things tanks, but they ain't the be all and end all. In a war zone in this day and age can the enemy see them even before they are in range of any enemy positions? How do they fare against other anti-tank measures such as ditches too wide to cross? Anti-tank mines of one sort or another? Old style dragons teeth or concrete blocks even? Or as suggested opposite someone drops a grenade down your barrel? Or your enemy has a lot more tanks than you have...then what? Personally speaking you would not get me in a ruddy tank for all the tea in the thing. Or coffee as I do not like tea..horrible stuff. Looks to me like a cooker on tracks. And apparently no one buys challenger 2..? As Chris says...the best tank can only prove itself in battle. But that depends on what is thrown at it. And terrain where a lighter tank might be the best tank. And weaponry your enemy have or do not have. Same goes for every weapon really. Still, we do love a good war don't we. Brings out the best in the propaganda industry.

[@karlkuttup]

ermm and what happens to them if 3 or more drones attack at the same time as a frontal attack of none friendly tanks ,can they handle a hit up the arse and on the top near the engine bay ,i doubt it

[@agaskew]

The most powerful tank is an old Sherman with Brad Pitt in it - took out a Tiger and about a bazillion enemy

[@dazd240]

On paper it may be the best tank, but it is not indestructible is it. Only time will tell when it gets to be in a real war situation!

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

Oh you mean like Iraq where not a single on was lost to enemy fire, took over 50 RPG hits, multiple ATGM's countless handgrenade hits survived, drove back to base and was back out within half a day. The only recorded destruction of s C/1-2 was inflicted by the brits themselves. Even then it took TWO direct hits from less than one hundred feet from another of the Brits MTB's to finaly succum.

[@stephenbrown9998]

First round hit with a rifled barrel not smooth bore

[@samc3068]

leopard 2 already been knocked out by russia consistently... the myths of these tanks finally coming into fruition

[@neddyseagoon9601]

Loads of those leps are in Poland under repair. Forbes media reported that they can confirm three destroyed beyond use.

[@alking4153]

What do they have 12.

[@rebelrebel7722]

why do we need tanks in ENGLAND 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 ?

[@jamesmeyers3135]

Usa needs to upgrade its gun to 155mm

[@luttlur7385]

Send it to Bakhmut and see how long it takes for Russia to turn it into scrap metal 😂😂😂😂

[@timfallon8226]

The world is not shocked.

[@Reklawization]

I guess you are the world 😂

[@AlBundy310]

Yeah yeah... Just like they said the Leopard is the best...

[@jimdemetri8168]

Is that why the British told the Ukrainians not to put the 14 they gave on the front line. I suppose they don't want to see them burn like the leopards

[@Thurgosh_OG]

Challys are a support and defense tank. For offense you want more mobility, which means less protection. And of course, competent commanders who don't blunder into mine fields.

[@DCGreenZone]

Blocked for "shocks"

[@meglomania2001]

By the time it becomes available it will be obsolete

[@pickeledminister317]

Is that why they told Ukraine to keep them away from the front lines?.

[@Colin623]

And your sauce for this enlightening information ?

[@evitoonbundit2453]

And how many exactly has Britain available? Guess not even 50.

[@bleaksnatcher]

It's quality not quantity that counts one hand built quality unit could take out numerous mass produced units.

[@watsondove849]

157

[@johnhughes8016]

As of the defence report last week, approx a sqn’s worth at the moment...all the rest are not set for combat ....

[@evitoonbundit2453]

@@johnhughes8016 Thanks for confirming my suspicion. The British military have been down scaled dramatically over the past decades, but it looks that the political class is still blind for the consequences of their own decisions.

[@watsondove849]

Too much money has been spent on the navy and airforce

[@alexdlabso1805]

Every modern tank can kill and be killed. Technology only adds small advantages. Everything comes down to the skill of the crew. For example, the T-72 isn't a terrible tank. Thousands have been killed because their crews are poorly trained.

[@nickellison2785]

That’s exactly right

[@fellowstembo2362]

If you want them to be graded as most powerful, take them Ukraine. Ask Mr Leopard 2A what has happened to his siblings.

[@uruguayarms]

Los tanques llevados a ucrania van sin nada, no tienen ni protección reactiva son tanques de los 80/90 , Polonia y Ucrania apenas logaron ponerle a algunos protección reactiva los cuadraditos esos, pero si un Drone o misil te golpea desde arriba no te vale de nada el techo apenas tiene 20 mm o 30. Es diferente cuándo mandan un tanque completamente equipado y moderno con todo tipo de protecciones, activa y reactiva, pero esos los guardan para conflictos directos no los gastan para que cualquiera los tire a los lobos.

[@robmckrill3134]

Faired better than it's cousins the T something that pop's it's tops 😅

[@okbutthenagain.9402]

There doing alot better than the 4000 Orc MTB's etc that are now scrap for the Ukraines metal industry.

[@paddlesmcbean2366]

All very nice. Let’s see how they go in the Ukraine.

[@mange2]

I don't know why armies still use tanks. They're easy to find and easy to destroy. I wouldn't be a tank operator for all the money in the world.

[@nickellison2785]

They provide armoured fire support for infantry, and unless the enemy have powerful artillery or tanks of their own, a tank is difficult to destroy, and it’s not at all simple even if you do have the aforementioned kit.

[@petemcphee2]

Ffs America... Stop using imperial measurement. The entire world is metric

[@trevortrevortsr2]

most have way too many shell traps

[@gabiballetje]

4 miles is 8 km ? No, it's not even 6.5 km !? So either their freedom units to logical units calculators are off or it's more than 4 miles, 8km is 4.9 miles. Almost 25% more too.

[@dcsmax]

They all burn the same......ask the alligator.....

[@awatt]

Challenger eat alligator for breakfast....with tea

[@tony18662]

I take the tank that wins the battle to be next European NATO tank. The one that wins will be the standard tank in Nordic nations that plans to purchase 1500 new tanks alone. But its much more that it needs to fulfill and that is logistics that's why Abraham X is such good contender with its new hybrid electrical engine. and also the logistical repair factory that's proposed to be built in Sweden because they have the logistical capacity and strategic location .