Is Challenger 2 really good for Ukraine?

Challenger 2 tanks are said to start arriving in Ukraine by the end of March, and since the time for their arrival is getting very close, I thought it would be nice to take a look at those tanks and what they actually bring to the table.
Patreon: / redeffect

[@mitchdaytonam3]

Fun Chally 2 fact: the Hull is all inch pattern bolts, the Turret is all metric… so they have to carry two separate tool kits.

[@Rod_Knee]

Holy smokes, what a pain in the butt that must be.

[@21babydew]

Good news is inch tools work on metric bolts in most cases and the other way around a 13 will work on a 1/2inch bolt. A 19 will work on a 3/4 due to production tolerances many times a half inch wrench is near identical to a half inch and so on.

[@shanerooney7288]

Interesting fact about the ASLAV. Some bolts were inch, some were metric, some were neither, and some used Hex keys.

[@JRiddledickDangerfield]

Only a few extra tools , a extra kit is not needed. 5/16=8mm, 11/16=17mm, 3/4=19mm , 13/16=21mm ,15/16=24mm for example function well interchangeable

[@Rod_Knee]

@@shanerooney7288 Same with the NZLAV 3 - I think Hull and Turret Imperial / Metric (or vice versa - I cannot be certain of which).

[@ieditedmyname289]

Hello from the future. The first Challenger is down.

[@jackburton9035]

The Challenger 2’s being sent might have the TIPS upgrade which upgraded the thermal sight to gen 2. Commanders have access to the remote weapon station which has a thermal sight. They use that as a panoramic sight.

[@sandgrownun66]

Brit Gen 1 vs Ruzz Gen 2. Is there going to be any difference? At least all the C 2's have it fiitted.

[@agt155]

The upgrade was to 3rd gen Thales Catherine MP TI.

[@v4skunk739]

@@sandgrownun66 Brit gen1 is also close in spec to gen2. I think gen2 has better screen resolution.

[@Statueshop297]

I would hope the tanks are going with full armour pack and remote gun with sensors. The brits won’t be sending them dumbed down. Full fat all the way

[@skillbopster]

@@Statueshop297 LOL yes they will. Britain is notorious for cutting defence programs and not upgrading the whole fleet.

[@HunterLord458]

The point of Challenger going to Ukraine was to get the ball rolling for the rest of NATO to stop flaking and send in MBTs. This is why the UK is talking about sending its Eurofighters, not because the token amount will make a massive difference, but to break the ice and make way for the F-16 or Gripen.

[@PAllen74]

Was looking for this comment. People are missing the point entirely when they say Ukraine would be better off with more Leopards or Abrams.

[@L.J.Kommer]

Unleash the F-16 horde. The Falcons are hungry.

[@franticsledder]

Will they supply pilots too? We're edging closer and closer to a major conflict.

[@L.J.Kommer]

Flying Tigers 2: Falcon Boogaloo

[@shaddaboop7998]

I'm not sure why the Gripen hasn't been mentioned more. It's literally made for countries like Ukraine, and conflicts much like the one Ukraine is in. It's light, cheap, logistically undemanding and can take off from roads and even fields. On top of all of that Ukraine actually nearly produced them under license prior to 2014, so they seem to like it.

[@shaddaboop7998]

You neglected to mention how the projectile charges in the hull are stored. They're kept in protective bins which, unless directly hit, will prevent the ammunition from exploding. The reason the friendly fire CR2 turret-popped is because the commander's hatch was open and the charge bins were not closed: the HESH round sent hot fragments off the hatch and directly inside the bins. This is a problem with any ammunition protection system, including on the Abrams. It won't work unless it's sealed off at the moment of impact. HESH may be an inferior anti-personnel round in some respects but, as I've said many times, _it is the most potent ranged demolition method a tank can possess_ . I cannot stress this enough. You cannot bring down an entire building in one shot with a fragmentation round or even HEAT, but you can with HESH. Considering that the Russians are now focusing on building networks of concrete bunkers and that the most intense fighting is urban, I can imagine HESH being extremely useful. You also didn't mention that HESH will crumple a BMP or BTR like an empty drinks can, which is the most common armoured opponent Ukrainian tanks will face. Yes, programmable ammunition is more versatile, but you can make a hundred HESH rounds for the price of one programmable HE shell - and cost is a major factor for Ukraine. The main advantage of the Challenger 2's thermals is that they outrange almost all Russian ones by a considerable margin in their effective range and resolution. So it's not as simple as "they have thermals too so we lost our advantage", though I do think the upgraded thermals and panoramic commander's sight in the Challenger 3 will be very welcome upgrades. Compared to Russian tanks it also has realistic long range fire-on-the-move capability because of the excellent hydropneumatic suspension. It's highly unlikely that the TES upgraded CR2's will be sent to Ukraine. Excessive weight for Ukraine's terrain and infrastructure, and cost to the British Army are probably the main factors here. But as you said there's nothing really stopping the Ukrainians from slapping some locally sourced ERA and slat armour on their CR2s, and I assume they may well do this as these tanks will be especially valuable.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

Bingo, excellent remark.

[@tombatomcz]

This comment deserves pin and heart.

[@crazygmanssimstuff]

In terms of range for thermals one of the biggest differences of 1st vs 2nd vs 3rd generation is the resolution. So the Sosna-U on the T-72B3 has a much clearer resolution and can thus ID tanks at further ranges then the Challenger 2 thermals.

[@UK_Sgt_7094]

from the info i have seen on Forces News they are sending the TES upgraded CR2's with the add on small Bar armour at the rear quarter areas and full ECM

[@tomk3732]

HESH is obsolete. No one in NATO and pretty much anywhere in the world uses HESH. Exception is India whom has similar tank to Challenger 2 - Arjun. Challenger 2 tank is inferior to upgraded T-72 in almost any way possible.

[@davidfuller581]

It's worth noting that the blue on blue where that particular Challenger II was destroyed was about as unlucky a hit as possible. The turret hatch was open, and it hit the hatch - or maybe the poor bastard hanging out of it. That triggered the base fuze on the HESH round and it pretty much did what it was designed to do.

[@nic03elic]

One already destroyed, recorded by Ukranian Soldiers...

[@pabcu2507]

Is the storage compartment filled with tea?

[@fungalcoffee]

More than likely

[@gerfand]

I'm pretty sure theres a Tea machine or dispenser inside the tank because crews were getting killed outside of it in WW2

[@dwaneanderson8039]

Well, they do actually carry a tea kettle and tea (seriously), but it takes up very little space.

[@Av-vd3wk]

There’s actually TWO tea makers inside. Not kidding.

[@philltatham4732]

Yes there are two BV's (boiling vessels), gotta have a brew !!

[@faliray4889]

Im a Russian tank fan, not a British tank fan. That being said, I think the Challenger looks bad ass. What a cool looking tank.

[@dipacalypse1092]

lucky, the look of a tank is the most important aspect

[@andrigeogiou8420]

Well We really have the very same ..opinion..! agreed on everything you said ..!

[@trololoev]

I think most of the tanks are badass looking

[@MrCemicalX]

I've read that the britihs army very much liked the HESH rounds for their anti-structure capabilities as well. This would further add to your analysis of them being used for support and it's still a very effective round against light armored vehicles like BMP's who'd be sitting ducks if caught in the open or burried in an entrenched position.

[@kalewintermute28]

Regardless of what tank you have, 14 of them are pretty inconsequential. What makes a difference is large quantities used well in combined arms operations. The real benefit of the challenger 2's were that they broke the hesitation from the West about sending tanks at all.

[@shanerooney7288]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[@MCDrB-wq8ed]

Yep. The UK have sent them a troops worth of tanks, not even a squadron or regiment. In the grand scheme of things it's not even a dent. And to make matters worse apparently they are not even the latest versions. But there again the West are sending Leopard 2A4s which are also pretty pans. They performed terribly for the Turks in Syria. I think peopple need to temper their expectations a lot.

[@crazygmanssimstuff]

​@M.C. Dr B Yep..simple fact is the Leo 2s Challenger 2s and Abrams Ukraine has been offered are either going to be equivalent in capability or only marginally better then the best that the Ukrainians already have in regards to the upgraded T-64s and T-84s and capture T-80BVM T-90 and T-72B3 tanks. The main advantage of them is that they are tanks that Ukraine doesn't need to produce itself, or capture in order to replace losses with. As with the vast majority of wars, tank loses are frequently quite high, and these 3 models aren't magic. Their past success has been largely due to the correct use of combined arms and leveraging superior Air Power Logistics, and percision artillery, so that the deck was stacked in their favor in pretty much every engagement. In Ukraine neither side has the dominance in those areas that the US, and it's allies enjoyed in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. They are useful..definitely, but make no mistake there are going to be destroyed Abrams Leopard 2s and Challenger 2 tanks littering the fields of Ukraine. The main hope is that Ukraine can be smart in using them and implement tactics so that the number of enemy tank corpses that share the battle field are disproportionatly higher.

[@546268]

Indeed, in fact the logistical load to support 14 tanks is disproportionate and the lack of ammunition compatibility is a real pain. However, Germany wouldn’t have got their head out of their arse otherwise. It’s notable though that Germany is selling Ukraine 88 obsolete leopard 1s (selling, not giving) and the leopard 2s I have seen are not the latest variant, indeed some are very early models and equally obsolete.

[@noaoah3662]

@@MCDrB-wq8ed The issue with referring to the Turkish situation is that that problem is something that holds for all tanks. The Turks terribly misused their tanks. I am sure Russian tanks would perform better if the Russians used them properly, same for if the Turks used them properly.

[@iatsd]

Cannister. Very rarely issued, but it does exist and we trained with it. I would have to wonder how many the UK has available in store though. It would make sense to give ALL of it to Ukraine so that the major load out becomes HESH and cannister, with up to a dozen fin rounds as backup. HESH and cannister cover all possible use cases that HE-Frag covers. On the armour front, no Challnger 2 has Chobham. It's Dorchester all the way, baby. It will be interesting to see if the Challengers supplied to UA have the updated 3rd Gen TI sight that some Challengers have under the Temporary Improvement Programme. But none of that matters: 14 tanks is irrelevant in and of themselves. The ONLY importance they have is in breaking the dam for deliveries of real numbers of other tanks.

[@connorquerin]

Good point! Hopefully they're shipped with TES too.

[@Bigdangleebles]

Gotta love the canister rounds. Would be perfect in UA clearing hedge rows and trenches from half a mile away. Am I correct in thinking up to 800 M is best.

[@jplater9191]

It’s a bit silly looking at a single weapon. It’s the combination of all parts in a weapon system plus the logistics around all the parts that determine the impact.

[@slickninjadude9165]

I saw something a while ago saying that the HESH rounds proved to be quite effective in the middle east against infantry, especially infantry trying to hid behind walls and other obstacles. I guess we will find out again how true that is.

[@sandgrownun66]

HESH is a potent ammunition. That's one reason the UK held onto it. It's very effective against a range of hard targets.

[@hammer1349]

Given the nature of HESH rounds, they are pretty much perfect for dealing with infantry in dense and urban terrain. Basically a demolition charge you can shoot

[@arikauraniemi9383]

T-72b3 carries 45 rounds of ammunition for the main gun. Question is, how many of those are you willing to sacrifice to have as hi-ex if you are possibly facing a mechanised force including MBTs? In NATO formations MBTs mainly take care of enemy MBTs, and IFVs and infantry take care of the rest. If ukrainians are going to use the Challenger 2s stupidly like it's been the trend for using tanks in this war for both sides, then they will not do any difference. But for russians, having a hi-ex fragmentation round is no advantage whatsoever unless they are using their tanks as SPA which is stupid

[@hammer1349]

@Ari Kauraniemi main difference is HESH is a remarkably universal round. Suitable for both soft and hard targets, from infantry in the open and light armour to infantry in fortified positions and heavier assets like tanks. The HESH round, as far as I know, was developed intentionally to deal with the heavy sloping on Russian tanks that would have likely deflected other rounds at the time

[@robertkalinic335]

Nobody will even notice or care if it is 120mm hesh or he since their effect is practically identical and both make big holes in buildings. Hesh is so irrelevant that it is ignored by every major military, except for uk but they are weird.

[@Joseph-eh4rs]

Challenger 2 is a beast of tank. One survived 70 RPG hits in Basra Iraq. One lost to IED and another to friendly. Ukraine should use Challenger 2 as vengard unit with T-72s and IFV behind against infantry.

[@user-YTDerpyDDerp]

The British are probably going to send tea along with the tank.

[@basharalassad1073]

maybe some coffins since the tank will melt into the black soil

[@AtheAetheling]

Feel like you were overly harsh in your assesment. You didn't really mention any of the tank's good points or glossed over them. As for the ammo storage, it's extremely well protected. The friendly fire incident you mentioned happened because a HESH round was used (showing its effectiveness on one of the best armoured tanks in the world) and a hatch was left open.

[@qasimmir7117]

Definitely some inaccuracies mentioned here. He assumes that the tanks are deployed with an exposed front plate and thinks there’s no side armour.

[@MrEsphoenix]

It will be interesting to see how they will be used. If they follow the doctrine they where designed for they will be used for suport and holding ground, not front line pushing. Britains typical docrtine is to push in and take ground with infantry and light forces suported at range by challengers, then when ground is taken, the challengers can move in, dig in and support any further pushes. Using them purely defensivly or to support other MBT's would be their best use, but I guess that's up to Ukraine and the British government.

[@paulnunya3429]

We have seen in this war that it's more about training than about mass quantities of equipment. Any tank with good crew training and group utilization will benefit Ukraine immensely. All these tanks were meant to fight side by side with each other in Europe in the event Russia started getting froggy. Looks like that day has come, and soon they will be fighting side by side, just like they were intended to do.

[@WordBearer48]

"Getting froggy"? No. These are the tanks of imperialist powers that were intended to fight together in the case that a country, like Russia, asserted its independence and didnt just roll over and become dismembered and turned into a western liberal puppet. Exactly what Russia is doing now. NATO isnt reactive or defensive like you are trying to make them out to be. NATO started this by trying to put a puppet state on Russia's doorstep. Now they are sending weapons to their proxy. This is offensive action, nothing to do with "getting froggy".

[@bonaanayaga]

Hope you know that this is not the Iraq desert. The challenger will have serious issues

[@paulnunya3429]

@@bonaanayaga These tanks were originally designed for battle in Europe, not the desert.

[@ArmouredOnion]

it would be great if you made a video on the future challenger 3, its a very big improvement so it would be interesting to see what you would say.

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3zWXnSNZ7KBq5I

[@Bitt3rh0lz]

Id say that HESH is probably pretty devastating against infantry. Both HESH and HE need to hit in pretty close proximity. A HESH charge is still a hunking bunch of high explosive. That blast alone can tear people to shreds or severely injure them in near proximity

[@ArtypNk]

Nope. Hesh works fine against vehicles and does absolute wonders against heavy cover, like buildings. But against infantry it's absolute ass. It just mostly pancakes into the dirt and creates a harmless little puffff. You'd have to literally be right next to it to be damaged by it.

[@sandgrownun66]

@@ArtypNk "Absolute ass". Is that some type of Muricanism?

[@ArtypNk]

@@sandgrownun66 I thought ass was fairly universal, and absolute ass would be a fairly universal concept. But considering it is a UK tank, maybe I should use more of a UK language. So, bruw, yea, picture a wasteman, ye, and you go to stab him cause you're a London hood, but you got a knife made of tinfoil, it don't stab. So you can't even mug em and buy a roti from the local chipi. Using them hesh rounds against infantry in the field is like using a tinfoil knife on a wasteman.

[@Bitt3rh0lz]

@@ArtypNk I wouldnt count 4.2kg of plastic high explosive going off anywhere near you as "a little puff of smoke". The overpressure of tbat is pretty much just as lethal as a normal HE shell. Both of which are normally impact fused. The onl difference in the HE is that it has a signficantly thicker shell and thus a greater amount of shrapnell that extends its effect radius a bit. But fired into soft and loose ground both are about equally effective.

[@kanestalin7246]

​@@ArtypNk now that impression made me laugh

[@Red-238]

Hey RedEffect can you do a video about different generations of thermal sights and the future of them

[@CloneDAnon]

This is the reason i do not longer sub to RedEffect. You have lost your objectivity. Instead of always focusing on just "the reverse speed" and / or thermals, maybe you should consider also other factors that can make or break a tank in various situations? Like just some off the top of my heead big negatives for NATO tanks in Ukraine are: They are large tanks, thus easier targets, they are heavy and not all bridges will carry them, harder to potentially evacuate or field repair or get easier stuck in mud. They will have nightmare of logistics and repair. Plus unless manned by NATO crews and repairmen, their performance will be sub-par due to lack of time in vehicle training, tactics and cohesion. Not to mention them being knocked out is MUCH more costly than a T64 being knocked out. Plus, the Russians might even capture some. Biggest killers of tanks in Ukraine are artillery and mines, with suicide drones being probably the 3rd largest cause of destruction. Nothing in these tanks helps them any more than a Russian tank in these situations. Like you said, some of these tanks might be lacking that crucial HE-FRAG capabilities. There have not been any tank battles of significance in this war during last year, i hardly doubt this will change. Oh and lastly, the Russians have attack helis, drones and air superiority, which also makes the lives of these tanks much harder. Stop already drinking the Ukraine + NATO propaganda koolaid and get back to objectivity and reality.

[@Darkpara1]

Very good tank. But they don't exist in large enough numbers to make much of a difference. It was a gesture by the UK to get the ball rolling internationally.

[@michaelarsaadyatma]

Maybe but what i heard in every challenger 2 tank or every british vehicle theres always a big box of tea and a boiling device which is a great advantage in the cold temperature

[@karlhofmann1446]

Being able to heat your MRE and have warm water in which to wash is also a huge morale boost..

[@546268]

It’s actually not mainly for making tea, that’s just a British joke. It’s so you can reheat your rations without leaving the protection of the tank. In the real world things like crew comfort matter!

[@jamesmandahl444]

The dorchester armor is made of samurai blades interwoven with diamond nanotubes which is then backed by amorphous plates of neutron degenerate matter. Thr chally is the greatest weapon devised by man. You can even heat up water in it. No joke. Russians, be afraid. The 150 mm long apfsds rounds will be tearing thru your front plates with amazing accuracy provided by the most up to date rifled barrels. Take that Putler

[@johnharrison6745]

Reminiscent of the 'Stalin i um', 'Poo tin i um', and Plot Armor that protects all Russian tanks. 😏

[@shanerooney7288]

They use APFSDS with fire-and-forget technology !!

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

challenger 2 has super secret active protection system that can instantaneously detect incoming anti tank weaponry through quatom tunneling powered by the antimatter engine allowing the tnak to project a microblackhole directly in the path of said anti tank weaponry and absorb it.

[@jamesmandahl444]

@Phantom4545 45 indeed, homie. Indeed. How could we even compete? If we dont rearm with RIFLED barrels shooting hesh rounds, we better just pack up and leave. And dont forget to repeat the boiling water meme

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

Nearly 70 tons 💀

[@TheStrategos]

Please consider commenting on the fire control systems too..accuracy on the move etc..

[@kuanishkenzhebaev8195]

Переводчик яндекс перевёл название снаряда как ГАШИШ

[@foilhat1138]

ahem, 2 boilers for making tea. God save the King

[@samueluribarry5640]

Hey man thx for being impartial and being honest keep up the good work 👍

[@FrontSideBus]

If a projectile has enough energy to penetrate the hull armour of a tank and the armoured charge bins... then the crew is pretty much toast anyway regardless. Even if the ammo was stored behind blow out panels in the bustle, it's goodnight Gracie to anybody inside! Just have a look at some videos showing what happens behind an armoured plate when it is defeated by a fin round! I really hope these tanks are fitted with OES armour packs or at the very least GW1 era TES!

[@robertlackey7212]

I keep thinking that what Ukraine could really use are older Merkavas as armored personnel carriers , the Russians are knocking out APC's like their armor doesn't even exist.

[@richardwilcock2942]

Given the low number of Challenger tanks going to Ukraine it will depend how they are deployed to use the best points of the tank. Ukraine appears to be very good at innovating and with well trained crews who knows.

[@fonzmeal6165]

Ive wondered the same. My guess, they split the Abrams, Challenger, and Leos up to different fronts, Challenger (with just 14 total) set up with some Marders could go on a front they just want to defend and not push. While using faster Leos and Abrams and Bradleys on an offensive.

[@Jalip07]

@@fonzmeal6165 Due to the logistic and fuel issues of both the Challengers and the Abrams, I have wondered about their roles as basically Bouncers, protecting key areas like large cities where they themselves are protected by Artillery and Anti-Air, forcing the Russians to face them head on, or going around a more impractical route. Leo1s, 2, Strykers, Marders, Bradleys and AMX-10 RC are all quite fast and flexible vehicles, which has been one of Ukraines best successful tactics against the Russian inflexible way of fighting. Despite Leo1s being "weaker" than most Russian tanks in terms of gun and armour, I am still curious about how their speed and low fuel need will do alongside the Leo2s and the other faster vehicles.

[@Schopenhauer667]

5:23 At the beggining of the war in 2014 Ukraine suffered losses due to old tank ammunition. I doubt the english are so careless with ammo, but if as you said its stored since production and no longer produced, this could be the case.

[@EmperorEdu]

I cant stop but thinking about the strain on logistics with all the different tanks, ammo, tracks, tools, etc

[@TheInfamousMrFox]

(1)Export Challies are fitted with a gen 3 thermal, the AGEM MVS 580-day/thermal sight. For both gunner AND commander. (2) LFP protection isn't just steel as of Streetfighter upgrade. It's got additional armour, and ERA. (3) The ammo is securely stored in armoured compartments, with wet storage, far, far advanced of the orc-roasters uncased 2 stage carousel. The Chally 2 lost didn't "denotate" as you claimed, or throw it's turret, it burnt off. You've literally shown a picture of it with the turret still on.

[@rkadi6540]

The turret misplaced too far from where it supposed to be

[@rogue__agent5884]

You must be blind if you think that turret is still on the tank

[@TheInfamousMrFox]

@@rogue__agent5884 Uh what? It's literally in the picture. The turrret is sat on top of the tank. Are you brain damaged?

[@Average_fv_4005_enjoyer]

1:09 Challenger 2 did get 2nd or 3rd gen thermals for commander and gunner on top of improved hull armour in the 2016 TES upgrade. Otherwise, I think this was very accurate

[@definitelyfrank9341]

That's kinda irrelevant considering UK likely won't be sending their best Challenger 2s which still have decades of life left in them.

[@Average_fv_4005_enjoyer]

@@definitelyfrank9341 I mean they could still at Least give them similar upgrades that they got in iraq

[@holdencross5904]

Don’t forget the morale boosting tea machine.

[@phil20_20]

Good News: they'll have bridges! Challenger II is soon to be surplus, just like the Bradley and the M4 5.56mm carbine.

[@nobbytang]

Since the Cold War British tanks have been designed to be used defensively…it can perform a aggressive mission but primarily it’s been developed to cope with Warsaw pacts huge tank attack ….

[@BATMAN-yf1yi]

Hey RedEffect make a video ( according to you ) on best upgrade for T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90 according to modern standard.

[@thecharioteer-defenceachar3078]

Red! Red! A new video on Twitter shows a T-90 with ERA on the back of the turret and T-80 like ERA on the side skirts! Pls cover

[@MrSkyl1ne]

The challenger isn't great against infantry, but that's not how it should be used. It's extremely good against any kind of vehicle, especially russian tanks and IFVs. You use IFVs to deal with the infantry. It's more likely for a challenger to come across a bunch of BMPs and completely obliterate them before they even see the challenger than it is for a challenger to go head to head with an upgraded T72 or T80. Maybe the thermals are only gen1, but it's probably better than the russian gen2 stuff from what I've seen. Besides all that, challenger 2 is (a lot) more accurate than any russian tank.

[@robertlackey7212]

It's even more likely Russian intelligence has a good idea of where they are , and a drone will spot them and artillery will destroy them before they even see the Russians.

[@vanjagretic5718]

Source: your ass

[@shimadwan8251]

you just described another King Tiger Tank

[@billwhoever2830]

Or maybe the BMPs will be followed by a t90m which has both comander and gunner thermal. The t90m will see the chalenger2 and put a little hole in it, making it pop like a fire cracker. Im not sure where you get the accuracy part from, this factor will highly depend on which russian tank you refer to, there are t90s in Ukraine and there might even be t14s as soon as the chalenger2s arive. A rifled barrel doesnt mean more accurate when firing APFSDS. The smoothbores also fire ATGMs which are guided to the target, further extending the effective range. Even the chalenger 3 will move to smoothbores, further proving that the rifled barrel is not an actual advantage. Russian tanks and atgms can totaly kill the chalenger 2, its not some kind of invinsible beast that punishes all BMPs in the area

[@sturmgeschutze3070]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@billwhoever2830Alright let’s pick this apart. First: you Russians need to stop with your made up scenarios! Second: The challenger’s move to smoothbore is a matter of NATO commonality. It makes it easier for the UK to operate challengers in combination with NATO. What makes the gun more effective is the turret redesign - contrary to popular believe, L27A1 is counter-rifled, and does not lose penetration due to the rifling. The limitation for the sabot length is the ammunition stowage - the shells literally cannot be any longer, hence the challenger 3 requiring a turret redesign to store single piece shells for the rheinmetall L/55. Third: T-90Ms are few and far between, and hardly combat proven. Those seen in combat are often killed within days, and the RuAF is pretty much too scared to send them into combat anymore (don’t blame them). Fourth: If you want me to say this in your language, allow me to adjust this to a made up story, except more plausible. Don’t worry, I explain your mistake at the end. A Russian convoy, probably consisting of eight BMPs and three T-72s - let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say they’re B3s - is moving along a road. The T-72s lead, with the BMPs behind. An ambush is initiated by a laser guided mortar shell, which hits the leading T-72 and disables it. The crew bails. Taking advantage of the Russian crews’ panic, the challenger opens fire, hitting another T-72 in the side, destroying it. The chances of a panicked T-72 crew finding a challenger in 5 seconds are slim, and the challenger re-engages, destroying the third. And then what? Eight BMPs against a challenger? Unlikely. The point I’m making here is that combat is never in your favour. The likelihood of a T-90M being in the same place as a challenger is slim, around 10 of each are even in the country. In the event they engage, the challenger crew wouldn’t engage the BMP first, but the tank - as any crew does. And this doesn’t take into account the panic factor, the humans involved. No crew will instantly react to a vehicle blowing up in front of them - there’s a period of “what the hell is going on” before they manage to engage the threat. That’s what makes ambushes so effective. The truth of the matter is the scenario I described above could happen either way, as seen with the leopards, and expecting a tank to perform well in a scenario where every factor is against them is like breaking someone’s legs and telling them to stand up. Look at the wider image. The tanks are only part of it.

[@robertpatrick3350]

Strange comment about the blow out panels, it appears that insufficient research has been undertake to support the comments made for example the creator says no panels in the turret is an issue then goes on to state that as its only the warhead in the turret then it’s not an issue. The creator should also look at the propellant charge and storage in more detail. Also the cook off event was due to a sustained fire and not a chain reaction.

[@4evaavfc]

It isn't the fastest or most modern, but what a beast.

[@JukeboxOddities]

In short: yes gud Longer version: yes but they need like a fuckton more

[@johndennissolis4661]

I want to see how it blows to pieces haha

[@marcusfranconium3392]

Exact the same reason why the leopard 1A5 is still a damn good tank in ukrain as it has uptodate thermals and it only need to provide fire support and well hunt when the russians are sleeping.

[@sguploads9601]

yap russian is done bc they dont have termal sights. Oh no they have it even on the drones! Marcus you need new idea!

[@punish01]

@@sguploads9601 russians are still done, no idea how they will salvage this clusterf*ck of an invasion

[@zipz8423]

I think the Leo 1 will be quite vulnerable due to its inferior armour.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

Its going to be a suprise when Russia discover this tank has hunter killer command targeting

[@fred3965]

Lets remember how old the challenger 2 is and comparing it to upgraded tanks from other nato countries is counter intutitive, the challenger 3 will address many issues and hopefully serve its purpose very well.

[@jamesgornall5731]

Its a lot of logistics for a few tanks

[@jacobschnberg5382]

Yes , they are good ! First they lead the way for tanks from the other countries . If UK didnt give those challengers this would still have been a discussion

[@Tonixxy]

There is 500k bounty already in place for every destroyed tank. It will be gone in 2 weeks

[@SRB.4S]

Excellent video and excellent analysis! The problem with Challenger two is the front part of the tank under the turret, which also penetrates a 30 mm bullet?! Maintenance is also questionable, how will they solve the problem in the event of a failure of the engine or the tank's opto-electronics?! Because he can do that in Britain?! Another problem is ammunition for a 120mm cannon with a rifle barrel?! How much do the British have at their disposal to give the Ukrainians?! The next problem is the weight of the tank itself, which is over 70 tons, and for the Ukrainian infrastructure, which is not designed for this kind of tank and this kind of weight... But let's even put that aside! And we already see that Ukraine is knee-deep in mud! A huge and heavy tank like the Challenger 2, how will it manage in knee-deep mud in the Ukrainian plain, without shelter?! Or since it has 70t and is not a very passable tank for such mud, who will pull it out when it gets stuck, since Ukraine is mostly a plain country, a beast of 70t without cover is stuck Challenger 2 in the plain, where the opponent has a total advantage in aviation, artillery, in the number of army kamikazes with drones, ATGM systems, tank units and the number of tanks...?! I'm not sure that he will do well in such situations, maybe I'm wrong?! Also, when the analysis of Challenger 2 for Ukraine was done by Chris Cappy, he quoted the British general of the tank unit, that he was not really happy with sending 14 Challenger 2 to Ukraine because that is a third of the British operational Challenger 2 tanks?! So not even 100 pieces are operational, out of 227 in the UK, in peace?! Which means that the UK designed its army for small missions, not for a large-scale war like the one in Ukraine! It is an army for peacekeeping missions and low-intensity conflicts, and even in such conflicts it participates with the whole of NATO, or in a coalition of several country, which would attack a smaller country of the third world. In total dominance both in the air and on the ground, where the Challenger 2 tanks would just walk into the already completely destroyed country, which was previously razed to the ground by the Air Force! And in those situations, they would eventually have a skirmish with some remaining rebel group of poorly armed people... Those were the missions in which Challenger 2 participated until now. This is a real war in Ukraine, where Challenger 2 is on the opposite side. a side that has no military, air or any other dominance, on the contrary! How will the poor Ukrainians keep them operational during the war?! We all agree that so far the Challenger 2 has performed exceptionally well in all military operations in which it has participated. These are the facts, not one was lost in battle! Although in the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he did not participate in any combat at all! Also, during the aggression against Yugoslavia/Serbia in 1999, he did not take into account in any fight either! There is also another big problem, that not a single Challenger 2 has actually participated in any serious military conflict or war! These were mostly peacekeeping missions, and a few against terrorist acts, against totally inferior and weak rebel groups, poorly armed with bad tactics, bad military equipment... When the coalition in which the UK participated with its Challenger 2 tanks, in completely controlled conditions, in complete military superiority in relation to the opponent, from the air and on the ground of its military forces. In Ukraine, the situation is diametrically opposite, a huge military conflict, a real war, with the total superiority of the opponent, who has a serious army, has serious ATGMs, thousands of top-of-the-line systems, kamikaze drones, aviation, strong armored units... All the way to well-modernized tanks T-72B3M, which we now see have been further improved, so there is the T-80BVM and the new T-90 M / Proryv 2,3... We will see how the Challenger 2 will prove in a real war and a real military conflict against a serious opponent. and not against weakly armed groups, rebels and terrorists... This is, therefore, the first real serious conflict in which Challenger 2 will participate, so we'll see how much it's really worth!

[@Phillm84]

Didn't manage to read your whole essay on the subject. Challenger 1 smashed soviet armour in the first Gulf war. Challenger 2 smashed it again in the second Gulf war. I think Challenger 2 is gunna smash it again in Ukraine hahhahahahhah

[@546268]

Challenger is battle proven. They have survived multiple hits in both Iraq and Afghanistan, including from T72s

[@SRB.4S]

@@546268Challenger 2 is a proven tank, but not in a real war, with a worthy opponent, its equal or even better to be honest. I know that the Challenger 2 destroyed several old T-55 tanks and was hit by some rebels with an RPG7... But I don't know that it was hit by a T-72 tank, I don't know about that event. But if you say it could be that he was like that. But that is no less important, you are well aware of what kind of army the Arabs have, and what kind of tanks they use and what variants they use, T-72 tanks were exported to Iraq and Afghanistan. T-72M, the worst version of this tank for export, produced in Poland, with seriously degraded armor protection and opto-electronics, which even the Iraqis produced without a license, the T-72, the so-called "Lion of Babylon"?! Also, the Iraqis bought old Soviet ammunition for their tanks, penetration of everything, a maximum of 300mm of homogeneous steel! Which is very little! So it was neither a serious war, nor were they serious tanks! Neither the Iraqi and Afghan army can be compared to the Russian one, nor can the tanks they use be compared to, let's say, the Russian T-72 B3M or the T-80BVM, or the new T-90M/Proryv 3... Let's not even talk about the ammunition. for tanks, or kamikaze drones, ATGM systems, artillery, aviation... The difference is incomparable! Also, that's not even the point of the story. In the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, in controlled conditions, total domination, Western coalition, NATO forces in that conflict, in total supremacy in the air and forces on the ground, where the opposing side was leveled with the ground, aviation ... And then they a destroyed country, whose army was practically destroyed, only the Challenger 2 tanks that had sporadic skirmishes with the remaining smaller Islamist groups with RPG-7 or T-55 tanks, in one of the patrols in Afghanistan or Iraq?! It can hardly even be called a war, it is not a real war! When several countries attack a totally inferior opponent in every sense! We will only see what Challenger 2 is like in a real military conflict against a serious army in Ukraine, until then we still don't know! But as I mentioned above, I honestly don't think it will be a good time.

[@SRB.4S]

@@Phillm84 You don't even have to read the essay, it's not necessary. It is an important point. Which armor did Challenger 2 break?! On T-55 tanks?! Older than Challenger 2, about 50 years?! Do you consider that a success?! Even if he destroyed a T-72, for example, which I don't know?! You should also know, which T-72 tanks and what kind of ammunition did IRAQ have for them?! T-72M tanks imported from Poland, export degraded version of this tank, with ammunition penetration up to 300mm?! To make matters worse, the T-72M version, although a bad tank, was the best Iraqi tank at the time, but it was not the backbone of the Iraqi army, but the T-62 and T-55 tanks?! Which are on average 40-50 years older than Challenger 2! In a completely controlled environment, in the complete superiority of collision forces, in the air and on the ground, where the aviation has finished most of the work, and Challenger 2 walked into the destroyed country and had sporadic encounters with Islamist groups, armed with RPG-7 and with some T-55 tank?! If you consider it a success and a real war? ! Here in Ukraine, the Challenger 2 will experience a real war for the first time, but this time, the opposing side controls everything and has dominance in the air, and armored forces, ATGM systems, there are also kamikaze drones, artillery, and tanks, there are hundreds if not thousands modernized T-72B3M and T-80BVM, as well as the new T-90M/Proryv 2,3, with new ammunition... So we will see how it will turn out, a huge tank, a huge target, weighing from 70 to 75 tons, against a serious army, in a total plain without cover, already knee-deep in mud, a completely wiped out area... Good luck with that!

[@546268]

@@SRB.4S iraq and Afghanistan were real wars. Different maybe, but real wars. Thousands of dead are testimony to that. The Russians have shown a lack of ability even against tanks from the soviet era. Also bear in mind NATO always knew they were going up against a military with vastly greater numerical superiority, so their tanks were specifically designed to have battlefield resilience and crew survivability whilst the USSR simply relied on sheer weight of numbers and cheap easily replaceable equipment. Unfortunately russia continues to follow the same doctrine whilst also demonstrating a considerable lack of capability in manouverist warfare or the use of integrated military forces. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I will be prepared to eat my words if it all goes horribly wrong but I hope for Ukraines sake you’re wrong.

[@firefox5926]

1:44 also im sure if they have an issue that the will just jack some 2nd or 3rd gen themal of somthign else and duct tape it on if they have to

[@gamingrex2930]

you kind of underrate the uses for HESH but good analysis otherwise

[@Bob10009]

The ammo IS protected. Saying that not having anti personnel fragmentation ammunition is a problem is showing a lack of understanding of western combined arms warfare. Tanks don’t target personnel, the 1,000 IFV and APCs that are heading to Ukraine will. The Hesh round also gives the ability to outrange many soviet era tanks hence the Challenger 1 scoring the longest ever tank kill. Hesh is also a better option for dealing with lighter armoured vehicles which will be blown to smithereens rather than having a hole punched in one side and out the other with fin stabilised discarding sabot rounds. It also works well on fortified positions and buildings.

[@rogue__agent5884]

Using IFV n APC is beyond stupid auto canon are bad for targeting defensive positions / bunkers even using ATGM is a bad idea considering how expensive they are That’s why HE-FRAG are used they are better for dealing with bunker and infantry HESH are awful for destroying modern tanks most use APFSDS Challenger 1 scored that using APFSDS against outdated T-55/T-72M1

[@Bob10009]

@@rogue__agent5884 you’re basically repeating what I said 🤷🏼‍♂️😂

[@jon1801]

It is a political statement. A few Challengers will not make any impression at all. The most effective tank given to Ukraine so far is the Polish T72 with their upgrades. It is simple, and apart from the Polish engine, parts commonality means easy repair. And if it becomes a slugging match? Russia still has thousands of older tanks in reserve. Sheer weight of numbers can always prevail.

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

Not when they lose 130 in just a few assaults on Vuhledar. Ukraine has the Artillery accuracy advantage, and will easily be able to snipe Russian tanks with surgical precision.

[@Beneficiis]

I guess it would've been the best to restart PT-91 production... but the production line is long dead so it's not viable, although it's still a position in Bumar's catalogue. PT-91 Ex (similar to tanks exported to Malaysia) was basically a new tank with new armor inserts, same Erawa blocks as PT-91, commander independent thermal with remote weapon station, new stabilisation, engine as powerpack, though same old autoloader and only slightly improved gun (I think it was Slovakian 125mm) and a new FCS with autotracker. Would it be best? No. But it would fit conditions better. If delivered in numbers with relatively modern ammunition it would've given best cost - effect. I guess West could maybe buy Malaysian tanks back, would give Ukraine rough equivalent to T-72B3M.

[@rogue__agent5884]

As for T-72 Czech Republic might have some Georgia morocco Slovakia Poland also got some T-72

[@Beneficiis]

@@rogue__agent5884 It's not about just giving T-72, but more about T-72 variant/derivative advanced enough to be practical in Ukrainian circumstances. Just T-72M/T-72A/T-72B doesn't cut it, these are like coffins in Ukraine.

[@rogue__agent5884]

@@Beneficiis T-72M is a downgraded T-72A ( T-72A/M are obsolete ) T-72B is the better variant for good base armor The rest is just updates they add like thermal / ERA / etc

[@Beneficiis]

@@rogue__agent5884 T-72 M /M1 is functional equivalent to T-72 A . Except it was produced for export when T-72B was already in Service in Soviet Union, as "Monkey model". T-72B isn't exactly fit for modern conflict either, as none of T-seriers tanks (including T90) have base armor strong enough to stop modern NATO APFSDS ammunition from penetrating frontal armor in strongest spot - vaues range from as little as 300 RHA on T-72A to ~600 RHA in newest iterations like T-90, when modern ammunition penetrates ~800RHA from 2000 meters. So they purely rely on ERA to reduce power of incoming fire. It's not just matter of "additions". T-72M with modern thermals and FCS added is worth more on battlefield from T-72B in it's oryginal form (it had no thermals to begain with). If you look at it then these additions can largely determine the overall usefulness of tank itself. On modern battlefiled tanks without thermals are sitting ducks waiting to be slaughtered, no matter the model.

[@rogue__agent5884]

@@Beneficiis T-72B has the best base armor better than T-72A/M/M1 T-80B/BV T-72B doesn’t rely on only the base armor it’s a combination of the explosive reactive armor and the base armor T-72M1 doesn’t have thermal it’s simply got added to it you can add thermals to T72B and get same results if not better overall results because T-72B is better than T-72M1

[@juggler2008]

The reverse speed of the T72 has become something of a running gag.

[@basharalassad1073]

mostly by people praising nato weapons which of all types got destroyed and dismantled in russian labs

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

​@@basharalassad1073 No. By people with common sense. Now go and fight isis or one of the other billion groups in your civil war.

[@basharalassad1073]

@@kieferkarpfen6897 overweight anime profile picture praising weapons that never saw combat isnt common sense neither is the weapons in ukraine cause russia dismantled them in their labs for research also goldfish should think a bit cause in ukraine theres the famous soil where ukrainian and russian tanks and colums got abandoned. now imagine nato tank which is 30 tons heavier than any soviet tank in that terrain

[@kieferkarpfen6897]

@@basharalassad1073 Starving asaad larper the challanger fought in irak and destroyed saddams tank fleet. I know isis blew up all your schools but its right next to you.

[@ciilqabeduubi3953]

@@kieferkarpfen6897 yeah against babylon tanks and bunch of t-54 and 62s😆

[@Cormano980]

The muddy months are coming, it rains like hell till June and these behemoths will have a very hard time navigating there

[@ieuanhunt552]

The best thing about the Challenger 2 is the standard Issue boiling vessel in every vehicle. Yeah Ukraine has experience maintaining post Soviet tanks and there are thousands of them. And the Abrams has that dumb jet engine and all those fancy optics. But do not underestimate the moral boost of being able to have a nice cuppa while waiting to ambush some BTRs

[@dark666king]

Abrams engine wont be a problem for Ukraine, since they already operated for decades something worse... The T80 and it's dreadful gas turbine engine. Give them credit where it's due.

[@conradmilligan]

Love your vids redeffect, but I think you did challenger 2 a bit dirty on this one.

[@quadg5296]

Advantages of HESH. longer range than APFSDS more accurate than APFSDS and HE Frag/HEAT from smoothbore guns. the rifled barrel is still a snipers weapon. a lot more explosive filler than HE frag or HEAT lethal to occupants of buildings made from reinforced concrete or brick. because its a large shaped charge. shaped by impact and rotation. you dont need to hit the window or penetrate, you just need to hit the middle of a wall. And concrete and rebar spall fills the interior. luckily ukraine has an abundance of soviet reinforced concrete and brick for its enemies to hide behind. The latest US mobile gun system stryker has HESH and a rifled barrel. because in the assault gun role HESH is still king. the gun in the challenger is the big brother to the gun in the MGS stryker.

[@Sammy-forgetaboutit-Tony]

its a tank hunter, you keep it at the rear and call them in to spot and snipe enemy tanks...It's the tank equivalet of a sniper rifle crossed with a artillery cannon...

[@octowuss1888]

Blow out panels vs tea maker? You decide!

[@moldypizza__]

cupa tea from the HE shell canister

[@deaks25]

I think this was largely a fair assessment. Though we Brits don't like to admit it, Challenger II is the weakest of the three native Western tanks pledged. But it does come with proven combat experience; the British army has operated by Challenger I and II in multiple combat environments and so NATO knows how to use it effectively within an effective combined arms doctrine, something far more important than the paper stats. I gather it (and Abrams and Leopard II) are far more livable vehicles for the crew, meaning the crew will be combat effective for longer period. And it's most significant contribution is being the penny-drop moment. It was the first to take the step forward, without that we may still be debating whether MBTs should be sent... Or that's just more British-copium on my part ...

[@03056932]

I read a lot of opinion with no reasoning. c2 has survived more suvcessive hits on the same hull and survived. a massive 17 rpg hits. yet the Abrams suffered large losses on Iraq from the same fire. leopard has been lost many times in the last decade. c2 has the longest tank on tank kill. just raw data leaves your argument wanting.

[@Phillm84]

We Brits lol. Where are you from? hahhahahahh

[@deaks25]

@@Phillm84 That's not really any of your business and I'm not sure what your point is, but I am British so I'm perfectly entitled to say that, thanks.

[@deaks25]

Fair challenge, so I will explain my reasoning. What I will say is that I do not think C2 is bad. It’s a modern, capable, combat-proven Western MBT. It will be match for anything Russia has to throw at it. I was quite specific in saying that C2 is the weakest of the three NATO MBTs pledged (Abrams, L2, C2). My reasoning for C2 being the weakest of the 3 NATO MBTs pledged has fairly little to do with the capability of the tank itself but is primarily logistical and ammunition. C2 shares no major components with any other MBT, so it will need a dedicated logistics train for the powerpack, suspension, barrel maintenance, some internal systems and the tracks. And of course, it will need its own ammo logistics. Abrams and L2 (As well as Leclerc and C1) fire the same ammo, and the Soviet-era MBTs can all fire the same ammo (Aside from the very newest shells), so C2 is kind of out on its own with almost no logistical cross-over with any other tank. There is a second factor to that; numbers and scales of economy. One of the reasons Ukraine was keen on L2 is there are a very large number of them. And the US has more Abrams than it knows what to do with. If, for example, Spain sends a giant warehouse-worth of spares such as torsion bars, or tracks or even power-packs, any L2 can turn up and use it. And mechanics trained by Germany can work on any L2, because they are all the same basic machine. For C2, spares can only come from the UK and the mechanics can only be trained in the UK and that training only applies to C2. Again, that presents a significant challenge. Now, there is a fair counter argument to that; C2 works perfectly fine within NATO. And that is a perfectly valid point. One of NATO’s USPs is the ability to take a group of different nations with different vehicles, languages etc and making a highly effective whole, and C2 is a part of that. So are those logistical challenges impossible to overcome? No, obviously not, and Ukraine has proven very adept at quickly adapting to a mash of different equipment. It would probably be fair to say that the logistic problem for C2 is over-exaggerated, but it does exist. The fact that the UK government has included bridge-layers and ARVs with the 14 C2 MBTs shows an awareness of how to support C2 properly. The other challenge is ammo. The APFSDS ammo is not as good as the one for Abrams/L2, there’s no denying that and so in MBT-vs-MBT engagements C2 is not the best. Again, it’s not going to be bad at all, it’s been proven C2 can take on T-72s with no problem at all. And again, the counter is that MBT-vs-MBT is not that common. By all accounts, the most likely engagements will be against IFVs, which it could be argued that C2 HESH will be extremely effective against, so it may be that C2 is highly effective. And as you point out, C2 is very effective at long range, it’s apparently very accurate at max range, and MBTs have been used in indirect fire roles, so again C2 may turn out to be a very, very effective vehicle. In fairness, C2 does have several soft-factors in its favour; one you touch on is the survivability. C2 is not invincible, and anyone who thinks NATO MBTs won’t suffer losses is probably being unrealistic. However, C2 has been proven to be highly survivable. I’ve also heard it complimented for its liveability. C2 is a big tank, but is apparently quite spacious, and it’s well known that Soviet tanks are cramped. It means C2 crews suffer less exhaustion, and for the jokes about it, the boiling vessel does allow crews to rest and eat without dismounting, meaning they can react and respond much faster, and there’s a good reason why the US has adopted a similar unit for Abrams; it makes a difference to keeping crews combat effective. Again, it shows C2 is not useless at all. And because the British Army has had both C1 and C2, which are the same basic platforms, it means they can teach Ukrainian tankers to use C2 in the most tactically effective way. C2’s combat experience is also not in question; C1 and C2 have both been in action in almost every possible theatre, including Eastern Europe in Bosnia and Serbia/Kosovo conflicts. I also think it will prove perfectly capable of defeating anything Russia has. And as I say, C2 may prove extremely effective, and that it might be worth securing factory facilities to begin refreshing C2s in storage, because it would give the UK the ability to send a much larger contingent without impacting tanks earmarked for C3-upgrade or ‘ready’ status vehicles. Plus a factory working on building parts and deep maintenance cycles will help the logistical challenge; ie more parts and potentially replacement vehicle But I still think that the logistics challenges and sheer number availability means that I would stand by my specific statement that out of L2, C2, and Abrams, C2 is the weaker but absolutely not because C2 is an ineffective MBT.

[@03056932]

@@deaks25 thanks for a thoughtful reply. when framed in that way, building in the lack of compatibility with our components and support you mentioned, your belief makes more sense. good tank, hindered overall package.

[@matthewwagner47]

My opinion no, to heavy to cross most bridges. They need completely different ammo and support vehicles an personal. My opinion,waste of resources and lives.

[@mattbowden4996]

Whilst I'm not going to quibble over the bulk of this, your comment on the turret armour of the Challenger 2 is way off base. Dorchester armour is only "not really" Chobham armour because it is a improved type of composite armour compared to the original Chobham armour used on the Challenger 1 and earlier models of the M1 Abrams. Alternatively, if you are using the the Chobham armour term to describe composite armour generically, then you are flat out wrong as Dorchester armour is very definitely a type of Chobham armour and arguably the very best type available...

[@basharalassad1073]

IN SHORT Challanger is just as bad as leopard abrams is superior than both but all nato tanks will be absorbed by ukrains black soil like the russian and ukrainian colums that crossed thru ukraine. All Nato tanks are bigger than soviet ones meaning easier to spot and hit. while driving on mud that can sink any moments. +not to mention they cant use any ukrainian bridges and abrams will sink faster cause its over 70 tons of steels

[@midamulti-tool]

I think everyone in Britain knows that real reason these are being sent to Ukraine is so the politicians have an excuse to downsize the already pitiful tank fleet

[@Meyohe]

Not downsize, upsize if anything.. This is the whole reason why the west is extending this war, to send ''old'' arms to Ukraine so taxpayers pay for new arms. Good time to be an arms manufacturer.

[@Average_fv_4005_enjoyer]

As a Brit, this is all to true:(

[@kwlkid85]

Nonsense, Britain already planned to downsize it's tank force years ago. ~150 C2 were never going to get upgraded to C3. The reason the UK had tanks was to defend mainland Europe from the Soviets/Russia but that threat clearly no longer exists.

[@uonboxing5070]

The ammo is stored in 2 bits which is by far the safest way to store ammo, also the armour (Dorchester) is the best in the world, the challenger 2 is in a completely different league to the Russian tanks and the challenger 3 will be one of the best if not the best tank in the world.

[@basharalassad1073]

2 piece armor is horrible. charges will explode and catch fire bigger profile means easier to spot and the war is a drone reconasaincee, the weight of any nato tank will be their doom soviet tanks struggle on mud in ukraine. guess what will happen to the 30 ton heavier nato tank also no bridge are passable just cause they meant for soviet arms

[@Magill2571]

@@basharalassad1073 I guess we will see how good Russian tanks and tank doctrine is against western tanks and western battle doctrine.

[@mystictomato9466]

Nah Challenger 2s are trash. A T-80BVM or T-90M will easily come out on top against C2. New Russian tanks are on a completely different level to Chally 2. C2s are the heaviest nato tank with some of the worst armor. Its hull is huge and has paper thin armor and no significant protection for its ammo. The only thing the Challenger 2s are going to be for the Russians is target practice.

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

@@mystictomato9466 even t72b3 outmatches the chally 2 in nearly all ways

[@mystictomato9466]

@@Phantom-bh5ru Agreed. And most Russian tanks today are the mentioned 3. Even outside of that, Russia has an enormous advantage in artillery and air support, nato tanks are going to have a very bad time over there, especially with almost non-existent logistics that ukraine will have for them. 60+ ton tanks will need huge amounts of support and logistics just to be able to operate normally on Ukrainian terrain. At least Leopard 2A5s are good so they will maybe fair better but Challenger 2s are infinitely worse than leo 2A5s so I don’t have high hopes for them.

[@bartunthegreat2999]

Just wondering how deeply will they sink on mud. That thing is at least 20 tons heavier than T-64.

[@nerd1000ify]

It has more track area though. A quick google suggests that the Challenger 2 ground pressure is 14.3 psi, vs T-72A 12.7 psi. So it should sink in more, but not like 50% more.

[@bartunthegreat2999]

@@nerd1000ify that's good data. 20 tons more is still 20 tons more though, maybe it doesn't sink more but it makes recovery a lot harder.

[@nerd1000ify]

@Bartun the Great yeah they'll need heavier recovery equipment, or maybe more of it, e.g. using several recovery vehicles together for one tank. The other worry is of course bridges, as they do have a maximum weight capacity.

[@johnyricco1220]

The ground pressure is also quite high. They will have to be careful around muddy fields.

[@sandgrownun66]

Its the same for all MBT's. There was some recent video of Ruzzian tanks having to be pulled out of the mud, by a large excavator.

[@johnyricco1220]

@@sandgrownun66 All tanks can get stuck in mud. But not all tanks are the same in mud.

[@sandgrownun66]

@@johnyricco1220 The Ruzzian tanks get stuck, and they're lighter than Western tanks. So what are you trying to say, if anything?

[@johnyricco1220]

@@sandgrownun66 Understand the difference between weight and ground pressure.

[@sandgrownun66]

@@johnyricco1220 Understand that all tanks can get stuck in mud.

[@anobody7467]

Another thing we should mention is the brits stated a domino effect by doing this, encouraging more countries to give tanks.

[@basharalassad1073]

we should send ukrainian patriots who dance in euroe and arent fighting instead,

[@anobody7467]

@Bashar Al Assad yeah just remember Putin is getting cucked by a guy who wore a skin tight leather suit and danced 🕺 😉

[@basharalassad1073]

@@anobody7467 idontknow what weird fantasies u got about putin. its legit incredible that all u ukraine simps are the same

[@basharalassad1073]

@@anobody7467 also any clown can get president when corruption and money is popular like astrovich said former advicer of the regime 30 years of independence and failure ever since

[@hotbit7327]

Hmm, Poland sent about 300 tanks, T72s, PT91s, and 14 Leopards, UK sent zero tanks so far. And how many are planned to be sent? 12 or so? So what domino effect?

[@G31M1]

Why is the Abrams blow up panel better than the Leo one?

[@goddepersonno3782]

it's important to mention that the British Prime Minister impulsively promised Zelensky Challenger 2 MBTs without actually stopping to consult his MoD or military specialists. It's not really an informed decision, and there is a lot to consider beyond just the specifications of the vehicle Chally 2 is a lot more maintenance hungry than the Russian tanks, and has had a history of engine problems and unreliability. And of course there's a high chance the Prime Minister would have no idea what the British rifled 120 ammunition situation looks like, so who knows if it's possible (not to mention the harsher logistics of transporting things from the UK compared to nearby 120mm smoothbore nations like Poland there is however one advantage of the Challenger 2 that makes it an invaluable potential asset for the Ukrainian military. And that is its one of a kind Boiling Vessel for a multitude of hot beverages. Truly a war winning system if ever there was one

[@a.t6066]

I think you are greatly underestimating the quality of nato technology compared to eastern technology. Just look at t-64bv gun stabilizer compared to western stabilizers. Or suspension system of t-90m compared any western tanks. The different is very stark. T-90m is a very old tank development and it still falls behind in many fields.

[@dprov1877]

have you drove a T-90M or are you a war thunder player?

[@general796]

LOL you are talking utter nonsense without a sense of logic. The modern T-90M (2016) is superior in literally EVERY aspect to the old Challenger 2 (1998) And even the upgraded T-72B3M and T-80BVM are at least on the same level with the Challenger 2 in most aspectes

[@a.t6066]

@General t-90m has been revealed since 2011 and they still have not fixed many problems. Most importantly his transmission reverse is lacking and stabilization system can only provide accurate fire to 35 kph on stable ground. From 2012 show model, he is almost completely unchanged. But that is not to talk down on quality. T-90m is a good tank but only still not to the quality of old nato tank is some systems like above.

[@thephoenix756]

​@@a.t6066 The T-90M has 2 axis stabilisation; it also has an auto-tracker; and 2nd generation thermals. The T-90M is superior to the Challenger 2

[@rogue__agent5884]

@@thephoenix756 T-90M has thermals for both gunner and commander And a remote MG

[@MrNicholas89]

Unless UK immediate switch 120mm smoothbore barrels on the challenger 2, even with the so called 1000 / 5000 ammo rounds for the 120 rifled rounds will be soon used up

[@qasimmir7117]

Well they might as be used for something. With only 12-14 of our tanks being deployed, I’m not sure it’s an issue for Ukraine. If they run out, just replace the Ukrainian Challenger 2 tanks with Leopard 2s.

[@MrNicholas89]

@@qasimmir7117 Then why UK bother send it in the first place if Challenger 2 has problems on the gun barrel. Should have send the Warrior IFV instead. The Challenger 2 is still a lose cause as previously the UK M.O.D tried the upgrades and even the new Challenger 3 but still... they forked up due to UK parliament government's incompetent in both domestic issues and the so-called inflation, darn UK is forked anger.

[@WCRL-BiAS]

I love how you said inferior when you mentioned the T72-B3, Because you know it isn't so you air quoted it haha

[@y0Milan]

T72B3 is fodder, hundreds lost already

[@WCRL-BiAS]

@@y0Milan Now really, tank battles are all about who sees who first. None of these tanks have anything that truly separates them

[@y0Milan]

@@WCRL-BiAS Except protection, armament, crew ergonomics, optics, sensor fusion, etc etc. The abysmal performance of Russian armour so far in the war proves this. Provably almost 1800 Russian tanks lost.

[@WCRL-BiAS]

@@y0Milan No tanks survive javelins… there have been VERY few tank battles in Ukraine. Their armament all the way from TAP-NA to mango to 3BM60, 46 are very capable rounds against any NATO tank. The crews are the problem, They aren’t trained. The point is the tanks themselves have more than enough to kill and perform on the same level as our most modern non export variants. The T-90M, b3, BVM, armata all are not inferior, rather misused

[@WCRL-BiAS]

@@y0Milan Protection don’t mean shit except for very few parts of that tank when getting shot by 120 or 125mm APFSDS

[@OxideUser]

Before the invasion Ukraine had about 850 tanks and 1500 BTR's and BMP's. So how could few foreigners tanks help?

[@tetispinkman9135]

​@@ThisFeatureKindaSucks all of them is 450+ lost tanks? With confirmed 500+ captured russian tanks? Oryx will help you

[@tetispinkman9135]

There is no few. Ukraine already gets 71+ leopard, + 31 abrams and 14 challengers, with some countries claiming they will send more in future. And if we count leopard 1 and polish pt91. It will be a great force

[@Elver_Galarga816]

Churchillinum 💪🇬🇧

[@Feffdc]

Drunk metal

[@huffinanpuffin5584]

One thing this war is showing is that the Ukrainians learn and adapt quicker than the Russians. I am pretty sure they will use the challenger 2 M1 and leopard in combined operations. Nothing is invulnerable. But used correctly, these tanks will make a big difference.

[@gareth204]

Tell me you know nothing about Challenger 2 without telling me you know nothing about Challenger 2

[@firefox5926]

2:47 im just waiting for them to bring back the old shrapnel sheels from ww1 you know with the carrier sheel with all the little lead balls that get shoot out the end .. replace that timed fuze with a proxy fuse and that with will plaster a prtty big area

[@janpiorko3809]

western tanks are good for Ukraine not because they are inherently better than soviet ones, but because the west can actually produce and resupply them. Before breaking of the western tank taboo, the only tanks that could be given to Ukraine were few and old T 72 from countries like Czech Republic or Bulgaria.

[@the_burger]

Only if our red lines werent just empty words...

[@h.a8681]

I agree, however I would also quite safely say an Abrams is superior to basically everything Russia has.

[@Spectre4490]

Yes, but the amount of equipment entering Ukraine is not so large that it would defeat the Russian Federation and precisely such that the war would continue for many years

[@kthec1298]

a tank can be so good as its crew, you can give the most modern abrams to some soldiers who only trained in the t series tanks and they will probably fuck up, when they get into battle it is a big plus if you have muscle memory for your equipment, in a panic situation this can mean life or death and dont know if the time is enough the west is putting into the training of the ukranins

[@kthec1298]

@@h.a8681 doubt that an abrams can do anything against artillery that is raining on it or some cruise missle

[@quanghuynguyenang8455]

If terrain probem occurs to these machines... There will be no choices but demand asian made MBTs to the field... For their light weight advantages

[@ukuskota4106]

You forgot to tell about a teapot.

[@silkaverage]

yep, The BVE that all British armoured vehicles are fitted with :)

[@LtKillerSAS]

it is import to note I think that the reason that only 14 chally 2 are going to Ukraine is partly because of ammunition. It is reckoned that the UK only has enough ammunition for their chally 2's for about 1 to 2 months of heavy fighting Like we are seeing in Ukraine. So yes there is a good amount of ammunition around but they are limiting the tanks supplied to try and make that last.

[@rkadi6540]

Ah make sense now

[@thomasf.9869]

Challenger 2 is one of those tanks that is not-so-good on paper but really good in practice. It performed poorly in war games, but very well in actual wars.

[@-lone5378]

This aged very badly.

[@thomasf.9869]

@@-lone5378 Wrong. The crew survived.

[@-lone5378]

@@thomasf.9869 im talking about the tank, it got destroyed before reaching the frontline 😭 guess the challenger 2 got challenged by the mighty shovel 🤷

[@thomasf.9869]

@@-lone5378 If you read the report it was immobilised by an anti-tank mine, and then hit with a Lancet. The crew got out unharmed and alive.

[@-lone5378]

@@thomasf.9869 no it was destroyed by an atgm, but either way, it didn't reach crimea ! Not even close !

[@Limescale12]

I remember when I first watched one of your videos years ago and thought this was another of the many (especially at the time) biased channels that just lent its purpose to all the pointless, bickering arguments about who's got the best stuff. Only because I could tell that the narrator was competent, I continued to watch more videos and I realized I was completely wrong in assuming what I initially had. Unlike the many aforementioned other channels, this one actually has dedicated and informative content that I can tell has been produced with pride, with every video. I really like that the information is as up to date as possible even with all of the rapidly changing details due to global events. This particular video is a good example of how the opinion of the narration, aside from the provided facts, is tempered and even cautionary - I watch this and am reminded that although our western technology is downright amazing, there exist plenty of weaknesses and vulnerabilities and the image of Challenger 2 turrets going airborne is one that's perfectly within the realm of possibility. Thanks for good content and the occasional reality check 👍👍

[@Walterwaltraud]

The obviously best plan of action is to upgrade 140 Challenger 2s to 120mm smoothbore immediately, transfer all the available ammo parallely whilst the new ammo is phased in as well, then when the stocks of the 120mm rifled such as HESH get lower and lower, phase in 120mm smoothbore on Challenger 2s in UA as well. At least THAT will be standardized then. And please get them every single 100mm and 105 mm tank on the planet while we are at it. They can standardize units - and any mix of units is better than no tanks. Check out how many 100mm tanks are in Romania plus rather peaceful, poor 3rd world countries, and 105 mm in Portugal, Morocco, the Middle East, Greece and Turkey. If you are not in danger, you can get better but fewer and modern tanks as a country. And if you are under threat, well, invest. Yes, I mean you, Greece and Turkey. I wish Biden would have told both countries to react reciprocally and hand over matching sets of 1 bataillion each (UA: 31 tanks) to Ukraine to keep their balance in check. Not sure it would have worked, but the numbers are staggering.

[@meddy833]

High Explosive Squash Head. Russian tanks are not designed to be howitzers. Because of the smaller profile the tank hasn't room inside to elevate as high as a NATO tank. We in NATO just do not mainly do it because of our doctrine treats it as an afterthought.

[@annestyk]

I rewatched your video, and i can see what your saying, these western tanks have been hyped to all hell in media, as a kind of propaganda campaign to encourage western citizens to support giving these tanks to Ukraine. which is just how popular will is manafested in media-centric democracies, it is what it is right? But i think you may be underestimating the intangibles when you say the Challenger 2 is a good tank, but not really a game changer. For mounting an offensive, the challenger, and leopard 2 both have superior stabilizers and battlefield awareness to soviet designs. They provide integration with the Bradleys, and m777s. What the west does better than any other fighting force is integration, and combined arms. The challenger 2 will bring an accurate gun, and a combat aware crew, to any part of the battlefield. Thats superior to even a t-80, or t-90, in terms of putting fire on target through collaborative effort.

[@lordofdunvegan6924]

Well said. Training and supply are important components that are severely lacking in the Russian military. So many young Russian men are dying because of the failure of their own government to train and supply them due to the greed and incompetence of Putin and his cronies.

[@terrancedactielle5460]

If it's a question of no tank or a tank in a fight, I would take the tank option every time..... .

[@jasonowen446]

The Challenger 2 like the Leopard 2 and M1 has one major advantage over any Russian Tank, and that is how they are deployed on the Battlefield. Comparing the capability of a tank really is insignificant when you look at the Tactics western armies use compared to Russian tactics. Western Tanks are designed on how they fit into a modern warfare doctrine, so they are a part of a much capable battlegroup. Russia as we have seen have almost no real modern Doctrine on how to use their tanks effectively on the battlefield. This is why Ukraine are been trained on western doctrine, to allow them to use the equipment provided to the best of their potential.

[@RickonAndShaggydog]

HESH is far superior to fragmentation rounds against infantry in fortifications and buildings.

[@kaloyanradkov8962]

We have seen so many tank battles at night videos... i am sure this thermal would make 0.000001% difference.