Challenger 2 MBT Tank Promotional Video

[@jonjon9047]

I shot much of this footage on Binden Heath in ‘94. I went on to produce and direct the CR2 training videos for VDS.

[@martinforrester7208]

This CR2 is P1 (production 1) first off the line, the crew were all RTR apart from the driver who was 4/7 RDG and it was actually filmed in 1995,

[@markbradshaw3509]

During the first Gulf war only the Challenger one tank was used, I was fortunate to serve in the Queens Own Hussars and drive and gun a challenger for several years

[@Santiagocardona2000]

Woah that’s dope I want to drive a challenger when I’m older any advice?

[@joekabira3986]

What a beautiful tank :)

[@Gracz87]

@Primordial Vengeance It's a tank! Not gangsta vehicle! :P

[@1chish]

And then make it as vulnerable as the Abrams to refuelling logistics? Nothing wrong with the Perkins V12. Simple, rugged and reliable and you can nail it back together in the field unlike a GAs turbine. Both great MBTs just different ways of doing the same job. And dare I mention the Abrams wears Chobham 1 armour donated by the Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 has Chobham 2 armour.

[@liverfaliure]

im very honored to read this comment as i not only am British and have engineering qualifications but my engineering teacher at school designed the gear box on this tank.

[@liamdudeeee]

I love the chassis design for the Challenger II and the German Leopard 2. The US Abrams just looks like a box.

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

The front hull design of the Challenger 2 (and 1) is rubbish. The large lower glacis does not feature any composite (dorchester) armor. They rectified this flaw by adding a heavy composite module in front of the lower glacis with their latest Challenger 2 , the TES "Megatron". The "beak" of the front hull of the Abrams does feature composite armor. The Abrams upper glacis is thin but heavily inclined.

[@Retrosicotte]

Firstname Lastname [citation needed] on "no composite."

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Retrosicotte According to Robert Griffin's Book Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II: "The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimized to fight hull-down"

[@Retrosicotte]

Firstname Lastname That's the Challenger ONE. Challenger 2 is a completely different tank, even if the hulls look similar, less than 5% of parts are the same between them.

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

Retrosicotte The Challenger 1 and 2 share the same hull design

[@aguywhodoesntexist]

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

[@Dean0266]

This video is (at the earliest) from 1996 as the vehicle has an in-service reg ie: -- KK -- . In 1990 I was posted to the UK's Armoured trials and development unit (ATDU) At that time there were only 9 prototype CR2 built and all by hand , all had an --SP-- (the SP standing for special project ) Reg

[@thewomble1509]

Nice comments Dean, I bet you saw some very interesting things!

[@ScienceChap]

@slandercat - Fully-Stabilised means it is Gyro-Stabilised. It uses a Gyroscope to measure vehicle's movement, and then adjusts the Gun's position relative to the platform. All modern tanks use basically the same system. C2 uses electric motors rather than Hydraulics to traverse the turret and elevate the gun, because it's safer than having yigh pressure hydraulics on board, but the principle remains the same.

[@TomWGraphics]

The best tank in the world, as proven in the Iraq 2003 invasion, hit over 10 times by RPGs and Milan Anti-tank missile.

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

No it is not the best tank in the world. There are some tanks that can be considered top tier but the challenger is not it. It is rather a second tier vehicle for 3 obvious reasons: 1) sub par two piece ammunition + rifled gun 2) weak front hull protection. 3) Overburdened 1200 HP engine.

[@TomWGraphics]

Firstname Lastname hold on a minute........ -challenger 2 main gun is rifled, increases range and accuracy over smoothbore -challenger 1 holds record for longest tank killshot thanks to its rifled main gun -having a rifled gun gives the challenger the bonus of firing HESH, it can out range with more lethality any non-rocket rocket assited round fired by the majority of smoothbore main guns -challenger 2 is the fastest off road tank due to its hydropneumatic suspension. it's nitrogen springing medium is approx six times more flexible than conventional steel providing a far superior comfortable ride stable platform giving the challenger a higher 1st hit rate for whilst firing on the move -the challenger is the only mbt not to lose crewmen to IEDs -the challenger hasn't lost a single crewmen, only to friendly fire from another challenger in basra, iraq. -the challengers arm our aka dorchester is still to be defeated

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

TomWGraphics 1) Yes the L30A1 rifled gun is pretty accurate, but accuracy will not help much if the tank can not defeated the target reliably with mediocre performing ammunition. 2) That 5100 m killshot against an t-62 was done by interpolation and not by the ballistic computer, since the ballistic computer on the Challenger 1 is limited to max distance of no more 5000 m at most. The challenger 1 and the t-62 were both stationary. 3) How do you know that the Challenger 2 tank is the fastest offroad? What Challenger are talking about the uparmored Challenger 2 variants that weigh 65 and 75 tons ?. The 1500 HP Leclerc also features a hydropneumatic suspension but unlike the Challenger 2 it weights 57,6 tons at most compared to the un-uparmored 1200 HP Challenger 2s 62,5 tons. 4) Challenger crewmen have been injured on 2 known occasions. Once with an IED and another time by a RPG 29 into tthe front hull aspect. 5) Dorchester armor does not cover the entire vehicle even with the uparmored variant. The drivers periscope will remain a weakspot even with the "street fighter - Megatron" upgrade.

[@TomWGraphics]

from what i can gather you haven't countered nothing towards my argument, nothing to disprove or even anything to challenge that something is better. 1.) mediocre performing ammunition? what on earth are you talking about? if you're going to slate something, give a good reasoning. 2.) yea? and? my point still stands. 3.) i won't lie, there's no real way of proving but it is widely debated to be the fastest and best performing offroad mbt among many tank experts. 4.) yes and my point still stands, no crewmen in a challenger have been killed. 5.) yes and my point still stands, yet to be defeated.

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

TomWGraphics 1) The length of the CHARM 3 is significantly shorter than top-of-the-line long rod penetrator rounds such as DM 53/DM 63 and M829A3. That was one of the major reasons behind the the Challenger lethality improvement program. (CLIP) 2)-5) ok....

[@carbuneG]

that my son.. is a fking tank!!!

[@RogueSpearofTRA]

@gladifly I'm a proud Scot, and I love tanks, but my memory is that the Chobham armour project was joint work between the British and US militaries. We came up with the ideas, worked with them to build it, and then let them stick it on the Abrams to see if it worked. When it did we armoured up the Challenger I, and then improved it to the Dorchester armour we use now on the Challenger II. Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a couple months since I looked it up

[@jonjon9047]

The Scottish commander was called Tam. The loader was Tim. Tam was SDGs and Tim 2RTR.

[@KingEddo8]

*sees an M1 Abrams* That's not a Tank! *shows Challenger II* Now that's a tank!

[@rossmum]

Every video I've seen of the Chally is so well edited, it's as if these giant armoured monsters just roam the English countryside of their own volition looking for things to go and trash. It's like Tiger Terror all over again. If we swapped our M1A1s for Challies, I'd transfer to the RAAC in a heartbeat.

[@Melanth89]

The fundamental flaws you mentioned in the Leo2 were related to the commander's sight being recessed into the turret structure, as well as the gun mantlet on earlier marks. It was felt that those areas were weak spots.

[@thewomble1509]

As someone said in a previous comment on both the Leo 1 and 2 armour was sacrificed for speed and mobility although off road a leo 2 is no more mobile than any other MBT. Here is a little fact for the Leo fan club: When the Leo 1 was handed over to the bundeswehr in the sixties, many high ranking German officers voiced concerns that they had been given the wrong type of tank for a battle against the Warsaw pact forces. They knew that armour should have been given higher priority as all the tank v tank battles would have been fought in retreat and protection and the ability to take a hit was more important than a high top speed and thin armour. In essence the British got it right with the chieftain but then gave it a poor, underdeveloped engine. With a good v8 or v12 diesel the chieftain would have got the export sales that went to the Leo1.

[@01Laffey]

Its actually an M1A1 Abrams that was hit by a shaped charge IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad.

[@LICwannabe2]

Well i'm sold! Damn fine tank there.

[@TomHartill]

@TomHartill ... ammo was used and the crew operating the tank were trained with different tanks.

[@t43562]

@TrrOtaku I think it's the armor more than the range. It's very well protected and that makes it heavier.

[@redreaper-xe6so]

@tankman966 It's actually around 20mm, where the top glacis is around 80mm @ ~6 degrees. It's because they buggered the design of the viewing area, hoping that the shape would make it highly improbable for a round to hit it.

[@Sonnypjim09]

@gladifly It actually took more. The M1 Abrams of all types use generation 1 Chobhom armour, which Britain designed in the 60's, the Abrams has added depleted uranium armour to compensate for the lack of armour thickness that is was built with standard. The Challenger 2 however has Chobhom 2 armour, also known as Dorchester, from what I know and have gleaned over time is apparently 30% denser/more resistant. While being only a fraction heavier. Now add the extra armour and ERA we use too. ;)

[@LaVictoireEstLaVie]

According to Robert Griffin's Book Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank Vol. II: "The ROMOR reactive armor upgrade added to the challenger's lower front plate consisted of a carrier fixed to the toe plate of the tank, into which ERA blocks were fitted. This was the only part of the frontal armour not fitted with Chobham armour, with rolled homogenous steel armour only 70 mm thick, for the Challenger's armour layout had been optimized to fight hull-down"

[@Melanth89]

@TopGearOnGaming Queen's Royal Lancers. They were a tank regiment until 2005, and then they were re-organised into a reccie regiment.

[@n0truescotsman]

on the contrary, the Chally 2 is immensely hard to kill and is no slower than others.

[@gladifly]

@redreaper2020 it was developed at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey, hence the reason they call it chobham armour.

[@n0truescotsman]

The Centurion was designed in 1943, first fielded in 1945 and is STILL in service around the world with countless upgrades and variants. Hardly a "shit" tank. It is one of the finest designs ever conceived. Definitely one of the first Main Battle Tanks.

[@donny2560]

I drove a Cent 1973, we had them on the OP's when supporting tank regiments, the older tankies loved them, lol

[@redreaper-xe6so]

@gladifly uh, Abrams tanks have, in some cases, taken over 70 hits and driven off the field of battle. You forget that the technology in the Challenger 2 is in the Abrams, and vice versa. There's a pact stating that technology is to be shared 100% freely between the two countries.

[@redreaper-xe6so]

@gladifly yes, and guess who helped with the engineering? Not to mention that, in case you forgot, modern chobham is 5x more effective and made of completely different materials than the original.

[@SoulSnatching]

Wan to have a go with the Challenger 2? Get SB Pro PE, its included as playable tank (interior is missing at the moment though) in the latest version.

[@redreaper-xe6so]

@gladifly It was co-designed and is still manufactured at Lima. I've physically toured the plant--my dad worked there as a programmer.

[@03056932]

the engine is fine 1200hp is fine. it can still achieve excellent cross country speeds and challenger drivers have reported higher speeds than what the common figure claims (37mph vs 45mph real world)

[@DannyPullon]

thats fine mate you unlike most people on here have some true knowledge on the kit n i agree with you theres nothing better then a CV12 engine she sounds amazing

[@ManSloth]

@quickzilver333 Yes the Challenger were fielded in smaller numbers and they were there for less time, but it does not change the fact that a Challenge survived fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs.

[@MrXray2011]

Are you talking about the Challenger that was shot up by RPGs? The crew were not injured... they started firing back, with high explosive rounds at a group of people wearing rags, firing ancient missiles at a modern tank.

[@Ariana321]

More like 70+ ton really, lol. And yeah, there is nothing at all economical about that engine. The fact that they keep it, rather than transferring to a diesel is a testament to the overwhelming idiocy of our armor designers. And the crews and engineers generally hate the things. Any other tank in NATO generally takes between 15-30 minutes daily maintenance. The Abrams requires 6-8 hours. Not to mention that infantry can't even take cover behind the tank without being outright incinerated.

[@rossmum]

Minor correction: it uses outdated British armour. The Challenger 2 has second-gen Chobham, I don't believe they've let the Americans have any yet as it is still classified. Oh, and plenty of tanks can survive 70 hits. RPG-7s aren't exactly the be-all, end-all tank-killers they once were.

[@tankman966]

@redreaper2020 The "dip in the middle" is for the driver to see where he's going, and it's no thinner there than the rest of the glacis plate

[@trevortrevortsr2]

This is a well spooky bit of kit that could really spoil your day

[@BMTHmosher]

you do realize that the abrams armour is the same armour that was used on the the challenger 1, chobham. challeneger 2 has the 2nd generation cobham armour called Dorchester.

[@TrangleC]

@infernalzen Tank guns and artillary are not the same. There are good reasons why pretty much all tank guns are smooth bore today. The two main reasons are: 1.) HEAT (and Sabbot) rounds reduce their effectiveness when they spin, because the spin dissipates the penetrating gas beam. 2.) Smoothbore guns provide a higher mussle velocity, because rifling slows a round down on its way through the barrel. More to follow... (God, i hate this character limit.)

[@aspiringdrummer17]

The Challenger was apparently using incorrect ammo that was mistakenly sent over so it faired pretty well considering. Plus the RPG hit the underside of the tank, a hit that would disable any and all operational tanks in a similar manner.....

[@quickzilver333]

@MrLOLTRAKTOR Are you talking about the Challenger I or II? The Challenger II share the same Armor as the M1A2 Abrams. US is developing the M1A3 Abrams. I don't know if the Brits are developing any new Challenger.

[@redreaper-xe6so]

@gladifly a tank can, yes. And actually, the armor is developed jointly.

[@quickzilver333]

@CountPushkin1 The Abrams service in the second Gulf war is longer than any other coalition forces. It was there fighting from the begging till the end. It had encountered more attacks by RPGs and ATGM than any Challenger II. Most of the damage and destroyed Abrams are from IEDs and Mines.

[@Melanth89]

@binaway I don't think the UK would want to lose its tank building reputation regardless. The MoD has blown more money on much stupider and smaller projects than a replacement MBT, even assuming that an order for new MBTs would be just replacing the units currently in service and not expanding on numbers. CR2s are in service until 2030, so a lot could happen in that time. It's likely the CR2 will be the last MBT in service with the UK. Supplying tanks is too much hassle for our logistics.

[@MrCapKorzeniowski]

@skemjames In fact the Danish Leopard 2 tank platoon in Helmand has just come under British command - so now you have the change to fight with the leopard

[@alikos88]

is it true BAE wont make anymore of the Challangers? read it somewhere

[@RevanRA]

Very nice finish and handling. I'm American and I always thought the Challenger 2, next to our Abrams, as well as Germany's Leopard 2, looked rather sexy (yes, I called tanks sexy). Now for the important question. Are there cup holders? In any case, I'm glad you guys are our allies. Respect.

[@georgesabitbol2137]

"Layer Armor 2" But where does this name comes ? ROMOR-A explosive reactive armor was only bolted on the lower part on the front hull and later replaced by a Dorchester composite block after an RPG-29 incident. Heavy ballistic side-skirts are in Burlington

[@TankNutJohn89]

@WickyWiggstaz: Well.. the T-80UM2 has 1160mm RHA against KE-Ammo, and 1710mm RHA against CE-Ammo. The T-84M does have over 1000mm RHA against KE-Ammo too.

[@Melanth89]

I heard that HESH was preferred because it was a very solid general purpose round; good fragmentation on the shell, good anti-structure preformance, and packing enough punch to push spall through most conventional liners. There's also something to be said for acciracy of spin vs fin stabilised rounds at terminal ranges. IMO if they keep the FCS and optics current, the CR2 could live on in its current form for many years yet. The biggest problem with it is logistical.

[@philonetic]

I'm not sure if it was different ammo, a variation of the gun, or if the tank may have been lacking some part of its targeting system. The Challenger can perform much better than it did in the trials, Chally still holds longest tank to tank kill with a static round under combat.

[@TrangleC]

@infernalzen Like i said, a tank is no self propelled howrizer. When a tank fires a HE round, then over relatively short distances in direct line of sight mode, not in ballistic arcs, like artillery. Rifling or no rifling makes practically no difference here, especially when you fire at big targets like houses, which are the most likely targets for HE rounds. (By the way, i meant "muzzle" not "mussle" in my previous comment.)

[@richierich1470]

hi fletch just what i read in the daily mail a couple of months ago !!! found it strange myself,cheers

[@Melanth89]

There's also the issue of stabilising the fin round against the rotational force of the rifling. I know that the Brits use a fairly complicated bearing jacket to achieve this on their CHARM3 rounds as well as three piece ammunition (KEP/HESH, combustible vent tube, charge bag/stick) which pushes the price up pretty high and makes it slower to load. I think most other countries use one or two piece ammunition, cheaper and sacrificing some safety against ammunition cookoffs for speed of reloading.

[@TankNutJohn89]

@bax7172: The Challenger 2 which was knocked out by a RPG-29 was hitted at the lower hull in the front. The Leopard 2A5/6 have 620mm RHA at this point, the M1A2 has 650mm. Do you know how much RHA the RPG-29 can penetrate? 750mm. That was enough for the Challenger 2, and would be enough for the other two Tanks. Every Tank is vulnerable against RPG's.

[@wills19882]

The M1 Abrams uses an older version of the same armour used on the Challenger 2 and it was developed by the British

[@Melanth89]

@Elitepoosniff I've heard that 10 is managable by some crews, but considering that it can lob a shell over 8km rate of fire isn't that important.

[@Panzergruppe22]

wow the music is well suited for this video :o

[@DowntheJunction]

@xblCaboose don't you think that would have been factored in by an experienced design team? this tank was built on from a long pedigree reaching back to the Centurion

[@skemjames]

@trident3b 410 challanger 2s are british 60 are OMAN we also have Challanger 1s I don't know if we use them but they have the same armour as Abrams

[@quickzilver333]

@TomHartill LOL! you seem to miss the point. The competition is about the tanks and it's "CREW". The US Abrams crew exceeded all task during the competition. They were the underdog against the Challenger II and Leo II but they prevailed just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Abrams and Challenger II has similar doctrines applied when building it's Armor. Why do you think the M1 A2 Abrams weighs 70tons? It's Amror is the main focus of the built just like the Challenger II.

[@TankNutJohn89]

@bax7172: there were over 2000 Abrams Tanks in Desert Storm, and Britain got about 250 Challenger 2, do you notice something?

[@Melanth89]

HESH are significantly cheaper than KE rounds. The original plan was to replace the rifled gun with a smoothbore one, however re-configuring the CR2s ammunition storage to handle single-piece ammunition would have been too expensive.

[@TomHartill]

@quickzilver333 ...cont... fightability when on the move and when traveling over rough terrain. Also you do realise that the CR2 is built to a secific doctrine which favours protection over all other aspects? - to remove this aspect in a fair comparison is ridiculous.

[@afvnut75]

Quite possibly the most gorgeous tank ever made ! Anyone know where you could get one ? lol

[@Keltibarian]

@gladifly Doesn't Abrams use last generation Chobham, while Challenger uses the newer version?

[@Rast581]

The Challanger 2 is a REAL Deathbringer Leo2 and Challanger 2 are both Great tanks greetings from Germany

[@Analog32]

Great video..Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world !!

[@georgesabitbol2137]

This is indeed achieved with the thermal channel but nothing proves that this have been made during night since a thermal sight had day/night capabilities. Note the range of the target displayed at the bottom of the screen : only 690 meters, the gun mustn't even be raised at that range.

[@liverfaliure]

not sure but i know he worked at the David Brown factory in a town called Huddersfield that is not too far from where I live.

[@henrywardell6785]

THANKYOU.CHALLENGER2-ULTIMATEWARRIOR.

[@TankNutJohn89]

@WickyWiggstaz: It doesn't? It's official Data from Manufacturer Uralwagonsavod. And Wrong again, the T-84 doesn't use ERA as Standart, it's without ERA, T-84U is with Kontakt-5, the T-84M with Nosch-2.

[@redreaper-xe6so]

well yeah, more have been deployed. Actually the challenger's turret is thicker than the Abrams, but its lower hull is much weaker. You'd think they'd uparmor that big flat block of composite.

[@originalwaggy]

@infernalzen So what you are saying is that nothing has improved in regards to fire control systems since I was a Chieftain crew commander?

[@BarmyVarn10]

If i ever get to command a platoon of these my life will be complete!

[@manchesterfellow]

You don't understand. First of all, Chobham weighs a lot, you can't outfit a full vehicle with it and maintain mobility. The section of a Challenger that was slightly comprimised had more ERA protection that the Abrams that were completely wiped out by the same weapon. There have been hundreds of Abrams in Combat (not all the same type BTW) - there were hundreds of Challenger 2's in combat - but there were more Abrams. That means that the same Challenger vehicle had to face combat MORE than M1

[@rex3453]

@KiwiTomCrawford Military leaders are going to extend the A-10 up to 2023 IIRC.

[@Necrophite78]

Nice, but I miss the description of the main gun...

[@richierich1470]

went on site which went into more detail about about the greek tank trials and it was a very good video of dave the tank nut talking he heard adout the ammo!!! its a good listen worth a look just put in greek tank trials 2000 then dave tank nut.

[@MercianUK]

I'm pretty certain that the main concern is the safety of the crew rather than mildly warmer summers (what a disaster that would be). I'm sure you're right though, how silly are those blokes in the chally 2 going to feel when you're stuck, marooned in your prius in 2cm of water when the sea level rises.

[@silverflashwillo123]

I don’t care about cr3, for the guys that served on cr2 this is still the best promo video out there, best job I ever had!!!

[@georgesabitbol2137]

During the battle of Khafji, T-55s Enigma survived impacts from several MILAN anti-tank missiles before being dispatched by a Coalition Forced helicopter. Iraqis have used the two earliest model of MILAN missile which perforates only 600 millimeters of steel.

[@MetalGearArmA]

anyway did you watch "Anatomy of an Abrams" you will find there is old snapshot where they are talking about the Abrams and then they showed off an IPM1 standing a direct hit from TOW-2 BGM-71A/B which has a penetration of 430mm steel meanwhile the M1A2 SEP has depleted uranium with composite and the depleted uranium i heard that it can resist 600mm like let's say a hit from M829A1 at 4,000m power of "460mm" hit the DU it'll survive

[@bellator11]

@infernalzen Considering that the Rheinmetall smoothbore gun is just as accurate I don't see any merit in that assumption. One gun relies on rifling to impart spin on the projectile whilst the other relies on fin stabilization.

[@TaZ101SAGA]

Beautiful tank, where can I buy one? :P

[@tommyzDad]

Silly question, but is fuel fed directly into the tank from those external fuel tanks at the rear?

[@aspiringdrummer17]

Yeah you're right, I didn't actually realise that the tank itself wasn't disabled. However the fact that the crew were injured, some rather seriously, would affect its fighting capability although a hit to the underside of any tank would have the same outcome so his point is pretty irrelevant.

[@MsDjessa]

The feeling in this video was nice, reminded me of some old, epic war movie. Propably the music that did it.

[@TheKifinas]

@CountPushkin1 you have to put somebody in first . At least from manufacturer experience or the success of previous tanks of the manufacturer company ..

[@TrangleC]

The second part of my reply: On the short ranges tank guns fire (compared to artillery) spin doesn't make much of a difference, precision wise. When an artillery shell is in the air for a long time, subjected to wind, the little extra stabilization the spin provides is usefull, not so much on a tank round. Here speed is more important because it translates to penetration power.

[@Melanth89]

If the accuracy is as good as you claim, then you won't have a trouble providing sources for that. As far as I know the CR2's L30A1 gun is the most accurate available- able to hit targets with HESH up to 8km reliably and conduct harassing fire out to 12km. Effective range with fin rounds is limited to 4.5km, though still respectably accurate in good wind conditions. Eith external fuel tanks it has an operational range of 500km or more depending on terrain which is far from bad.

[@TankNutJohn89]

@1MagicAndMayhem1: First of all, not a single M1A2 was destroyed, the SEP & TUSK have Mine Protection % improved Armor ( Reactive Armor Tails [ XM32]on the Side & Turret. The M1A2 SEP was ranked as first Place in the Forecast International Ranking, the Challenger 2 just 5th. In the Canadian Army Trophy, the Challenger Team was behind Leopard 2 & M1 Abrams, because the FCS ( Fire Control System ) isn't advanced as Leclerc, Abrams & Leopard.

[@FLAME4564]

soo does this Tank still use its secret Smoke Screen Weapon? because to me thats something Other tanks should have :3.

[@thewomble1509]

yes, it can vanish in a cloud of it's own engine smoke.

[@jonjon9047]

I shot some of this on betacam sp and svhs on the driver training area and binden Heath in Dorset summer 94.

[@TankNutJohn89]

@bax7172: There isn't any "Goodness" in Weapons. It's more effective against other Tanks. Every Tank is vulnerable against RPG's. The M1A2 is one of the most armored Tanks after Challenger 2. The RPG-29 is a much harder Enemy, it knocked out a Challenger 2 too.

[@skemjames]

@MrCapKorzeniowski Challanger 2 and leopard are the ebst tanks in the world, we won't find out which is best because I doubt any future wars will be Germany vs Britain

[@beaggyboy]

Sir,dunno if what U actually meant here was the standard Honeywell (previously Lycoming) AGT-1500 or the latest LV100-5 edition turbines,but all gas turbines are known to be very thirsty fuel guzzlers & only the very rich nations,suc as the US or the Arabs can accommodate using those.While by no means denouncing it out-right,turbines have their plus-areas of providing almost instantaneous acceleration & sustained torques,all owing to its continuous free-flow firing,as opposed to reciprocating