American Reacts Britain's New Tank is Legitimately Insane

👉Original Video: • Britain's New Tank is ...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoff...
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through KZbin videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[@pem...]

The tea thing is real, no joke. The clarity and moral boosting benefits from a cuppa is empire building stuff

[@iKvetch558]

I could be wrong, but isn't it also a thing that British MREs require hot water? Either to "heat in bag" instead of using an FRH, or because they are freeze dried, I am not sure...but I am almost positive I heard that the boiling vessel is as much about food as it is about hot tea. Like I said...I could be misremembering that.

[@almostded2818]

Yeah you can do MREs with it but brewing tea has always been tank doctrine no matter the war

[@timhannah4]

BVs by far the most important piece of kit on British Vehicles.......also can be 'Modified' as a Toaster 🤭

[@iKvetch558]

@@timhannah4 Nice detail...had not heard that fact before. 💯

[@charlieyerrell9146]

A boiling vessel is not new.even the saladin armoured car had a boiling vessel, I used it ìn lybya in 1958 and onwards. You cannot drive through the desert without a large mug of tea.

[@LordRogerPovey]

The grooves are called Rifling

[@A.Steptoe]

But is it easier and more accurate to put the rotation portion on the projectile ( and more efficinet ) . Thus the smooth bore.....plus all the other techno bits and peices there are....yeah...makes sense :) 🖖

[@preston7608]

​@@A.Steptoesmooth boar usually is laser guided aswell

[@paulwillard9687]

The U.K. has the best special operations forces in world trained to the toughest standards

[@nicksykes4575]

The cages on Russian tanks were put on to try and counter the drones. The tubes on the front of turret are smoke screen dischargers, rifled barrels used to be more accurate, but there's very little difference now. A challenger1 in the first Gulf War still holds the distance record for a tank on tank kill, (4.7km or 2.91miles) The ammunition you were looking at is called a Sabot round, once it leaves the barrel, the blue parts of it fall away leaving the thin dart like centre, made of very dense depleted uranium, capable of penetrating around 700mm of armour. One of my jobs as a truck driver was delivering new Rolls Royce later Perkins CV12 engines and gearboxes to the BAE tank factories in Leeds and Newcastle-upon-Tyne as well as reconditioned ones to the army's main workshops at Bovington Dorset, next door to the Tank Museum. Last time I was in the factory where they're upgrading the Challenger3 I was delivering Challenger2 jigs from storage, maybe they're going to use them to produce new armoured panels for the Challie3.

[@williamdodds1394]

The british forces are a joke theve 56 operational tanks stop believing nonsense add broken ships and a few jets .

[@mattgoulden4779]

Fin stabalised discarding sabot round.

[@richardconnelly7141]

means nothing in real battles against equal adviserys,germans had best biggest tanks and were defeated,britain is still nothing and wouldny last long in a world war even with best tanks which doesnt make sense as they are an island

[@nicksykes4575]

Telford, Shropshire. Half a mile from COD Donnington, where that lump of cannon metal for the Victoria Cross is stored.

[@davewellings6281]

Also just around the corner from the worlds greatest shopping centre...... Opps my bad. But it does have a bubble frog...so...

[@EndertheWeek]

The medal maker, Hancocks of London, also have some metal. The Jeremy Clarkson documentary on VCs (iirc) went there to see it.

[@nicksykes4575]

@@EndertheWeek Hancocks have the finished product, I'm referring to the raw material.

[@EndertheWeek]

@@nicksykes4575 So am I, Hancocks have some raw material to make the medals - they showed it in the JC doc.

[@nicksykes4575]

@@EndertheWeek Go back and watch it again, the only thing Hancocks had were 7 unawarded medals. Send me the timestamp in JCs documentary that shows an un-medal shaped lump of bronze in Hancocks possession.

[@nicholascarrington4202]

The Vessel, Boiling, Electric, is indeed a godsend. Having done traffic control, when an RMP, at a bridge in Bosnia, during a nasty cold winter's night and stood at my end of the bridge, I can state with certainty that the ability to make tea in the middle of the night, when it is god knows how many degrees below zero! Thank you, Sappers!

[@chrisbacon3071]

9:37 it’s not ERA (explosive reactive armour) its composite screens. 19:02 these are what we call in the business “cope cages” they were designed (hastily together) cages to protect against ATGMs like Javelin and TOW ATGMs respectively, these cages however never had any effect or chance because both ATGMs I listed have tandem head explosives (one penetration after the initial penetration). 19:37 That cope cage is actually functional interns of stopping FPV drones, also side note: no that is not wood that is metal paint sand colour. 21:01 this claim is factually wrong in every way, it was a triple stacked mine that took of the Challengers track the crew then scuttled the tank using Molotov cocktails leading to the ammunition cook off after that then the ruzzians stated shooting at it.

[@zagartolagonda]

1. in the 80s, when the last generation of tanks were designed, the rifled gun allowed British tanks to outperform smooth bore guns at extreme range, and there was no equivalent to the British HESH (high explosive squad head) in terms of effective range, because of the spin imparted on the round by the rifling. However, technological advancements in tank rounds have completely negated this advantage. It’s also much easier to work with allies, if you have a common logistics chain for ammunition. 2. The round you enquired about was a practice APFSDS (armour piecing fin stabilised discarding sabot). The shape allows the air to catch the petals (case) as the round leaves the barrel, causing them to fall away, so the penetrator (large dart, made of depleted uranium or tungsten on ‘live ‘ rounds) is the only thing that goes down range. 3. When you looked at the challenger 2 and 3 next to each other, the challenger 3 was ‘straight out of the factory’, whereas the challenger 2 was an early 2000s theatre fit, for Iraq (extra armour and skirts to prevent dust being kicked up) 4. The interesting ‘cages’ on tanks in Ukraine is to prevent suicide drones and drones dropping munitions from impacting the turret. The ‘cages’ or ‘bar armour’ on British and American vehicles is designed to detonate or catch an RPG warhead, before it impacts the armour. 5. When talking about the top speed of a tank, the road speed is pretty irrelevant next to its cross country capability, which leads us back to the hydrogas vs torsion bar suspension question. Not only is hydrogas better in terms of gun stability whilst moving cross country, it allows the tank to move at greater speeds over rougher terrain, when compared to torsion bar suspension. 6. He said Britain were the first to use tanks in 1916, and have used them in every conflict since. That is not true; we didn’t take them to Afghanistan. 7. The tubes, in clusters of 5, on the front of the turret are smoke grenade dischargers. They are be fired together or as a left or right cluster, creating a smoke screen that prevents visual and IR detection for a short period of time.

[@leeowen4989]

I don't think we sent any armour at all to the Falklands?

[@chrishewitt8538]

Shropshire, literally 5 mins down the road from me and it's pronounced Tel fud not Tel foord!

[@johnord684]

Telford is a town in Shropshire

[@DAC767]

Providing the antitank threat is managed, the presence of an MBT (main battle tank) to ground troops is scary. Whilst in Kuwait looking after Challenger 1s i remember seeing an M1 Abrahams and thought it looked like a toy in comparison. Challenger was always slower, less agile and with a slower rate of fire, but was/still is tough and hit hard. 70 tons of armour is not a deterrent to be underestimated.

[@malsm8892]

Telford is also close to Ironbridge in Shropshire home of the lronbridge museum one of the industrial revolution start up.

[@JJ-of1ir]

Great to see the Challenger III

[@Jessy-cs1jz]

If Britain Wanted a 10,000 tanks then we would build 10,000 tanks .....

[@brunol-p_g8800]

Not really, it’s just a tank modernised to the standards of others’ tanks of the 1980s-1990s.

[@ndboulton]

NATO tanks are built with a focus on protecting the crew, whereas russian tanks are focused on cheap output. It's more difficult to train an effective tank crew than pay for a new tank. russia basically has untrained crews running their tank divisions which is why they are so easy to defeat. Ukraine's tank crews are being trained by NATO members and they not only protect their hardware much better, they are much more effective on the battlefield.

[@barbarahayden5602]

We are such a small country that any invasion would, I believe, come from the skies. Herr whatshisname found planes to be more destructive as he couldn't cross a few miles with a ground force army, owing to the weather.

[@ashodgkin]

You want to hear the worst ever attempt at a British accent? No one on the planet ever made a bigger dog’s breakfast of it than Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

[@DWillis7]

The rifled gun was only really kept so they could keep using a round called HESH (High Explosive Squash Head). The range is massive on that round as it doesn’t need any velocity to penetrate. It squashes onto the target and then detonates after. We went to smoothbore, not only because it means we can use NATO standard ammo, but because APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot) rounds need to not spin. The current APFSDS rounds that the UK use have a bit of a rail on them to allow that to follow the rifles in the barrel and not have the round spin. You don’t want the dart of an APFSDS the spin because it reduces penetration of armour as the spin, once the round impacts, disperses its energy over a broader area allowing for less penetration. The current best APFSDS ammo is designed for smoothbore guns too. The drone issue can be solved, it just takes time to adapt. You can fit tanks with point defence such as 20/30mm guns and APS too. These things just take time though. Tanks will always have a place, it’s just how they’re used. They need to be used in combined arms manoeuvres because each element protects each other from all threats. Cage or bar armour is designed to detonate the primary warhead, reducing the likelihood of the round being able to penetrate at all. Tank speeds are generally not disclosed properly. At least with Challenger 2. Crews have said it’s quite a bit faster than the public number suggests. There’s definitely not enough Challenger 3s being made. We need another 100 at least on top of the 148. We need to not be cutting troop numbers either. We need 120,000 personnel at least.

[@s1gs4g]

Good breakdown, man! What's your warthunder? Lol

[@dang1086]

Triggers brush. If ya know ya know.

[@alanleys]

🙂No Connor... your accent attempt I'd look at again. The start was indeed diabolical, but the words / cadence/ last sentence? WOW!!! I almost forgot you were American right in front of me. Your relaxed facial expression during, rather than than the kinda sugared up general American one, sold it freakily well. And it wasn't the stereotypical London accent either. 👏

[@TheOrlandoTrustfull]

Watch "Britain's most peculiar pervert - The Purple Aki Story" if you want to know about actual UK culture.

[@OllyO-gt8pg]

the caged tanks were built to disperse the energy of the drone attack

[@Shoomer1988]

Rifled barrels are more accurate but slow down the velocity of the round slightly. Smoothbore tends to be cheaper (for both the cannon and ammunition) and enables a wider choice of rounds. So it's case of pros and cons. But newer advances in ammunition have negated most of the accuracy problems with smoothbore, so it's the sensible choice these days. Britain was one of the last rifle-barrel holdouts.

[@HenriHattar]

The penetration of steel is over 2 and a half FEET ! That's a big hit.

[@Alan_Watkin]

Shropshire not Cheshire, uhhh... by my house-ish!

[@thomas_oak2943]

Poland can shower money at it's land forces, but the UK spends a fortune on its navy. Aircraft carriers don't come cheap

[@lofatmat]

Neither does hotels full of UK haters

[@Hyster1aMcR]

Doesn't matter how insane our new tanks are when we only have around 75 thousand active service men and women. We've gone from a global power that was feared and respected to a larping laughing stock. Its no wonder our government is looking to bring in national service and to be honest we need it.

[@lofatmat]

Govt and EU membership dictated it!

[@Janie_Morrison]

I like the tank that you make cups of tea in so cute

[@tobysharples111]

19:30 iirc the reason they have mesh fitted is to protect from weapons like RPGs. Not sure if you know how they work, but basically the delivery mechanism needs a hard impact to detonate, and it sends a piercing metal bolt into the target to deliver the blast. mesh reduces the force at point of impact, either deflecting the projectile or reducing the piercing effect prior to the blast. weapons like RPG 7s are used a lot by non-state military groups so theyre common enough to warrant fittings like these on vehicles

[@RonaldShakespeare-tk7jx]

The water heater is fantastic once the water has been boiled and the teabags have been used the water heater will fire the used teabags at the enemy.

[@lindsayheyes925]

Psychological warfare - Printed on every tea-bag: "You could have surrendered and defected. You'd've been drinking tea with us and sharing our banter by now. Give up now, mate, or we'll send our regards with all due respect."

[@roberttaylor5841]

Telford, Shropshire

[@chrissmith8773]

The cages are supposed to detonate the incoming round before it reaches the main armour. Any shaped charges that generate a hot jet of molten copper won’t penetrate the armour as deeply.

[@Thomashorsman]

he did not just say Tell-Ford hahaha

[@stevenwarne69]

you've got to love the yanks 😅

[@daniellewis4226]

Telford is in Shropshire just below and to the west of Cheshire.

[@linnettsamuel5026]

Is the Left Hand shop still in the old police station? Used to take our child to stock up on rulers/pens /folders etc. At the start of school year. She even got a tee shirt with: 'Only Left Handed people are in their Right mind.'

[@iKvetch558]

Connor...the best way to protect tanks and other armored vehicles from drones is to have a layered defense. The first line of that defense is electronic warfare...your tanks need to have coverage from units that can detect and track drone control signals, and jam the ones that are threats. After that, there are many cheap and effective short range surface to air systems that are being deployed...take a look at the VAMPIRE system...that stands for Vehicle-Agnostic Modular Palletized Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) Rocket Equipment...and it is a modular system to mount laser guided rockets with a high tech sensor system on any vehicle, including Toyota pickup trucks. You gotta love the military and their acronyms. 😂 There are also anti-drone drone systems, so your idea of having those on a tank is one that is already being looked at all over the world. And I could be wrong, but I think it is also a thing that British MREs require hot water? Either to "heat in bag" instead of using an FRH, or because they are freeze dried, I am not sure...but I am almost positive I heard that the boiling vessel is as much about food as it is about hot tea. Like I said...I could be misremembering that. Also...the only way to believe that chart showing what percentage of total global defense spending those countries account for 26:52 is if you actually believe what China and Russia CLAIM they spend on military stuff. If so, I would like to offer you some prime real estate I own in the Galapagos Islands...or maybe you'd be interested in this bridge I own in Brooklyn. ROFLMAO

[@MoofyYT]

On top of this, NATO also announced their review of strategic warfare to take all this in to account and I'm sure, if not already will be a large part of wargames in the future. But the key difference in western style strategy compared to what we see in Ukraine currently, is battlefield control where communications across each platform are working together constantly.

[@norfolkronin6307]

Parrabellum. That's the groove in a barrel. Your apaches have had mental software with the radar. UK design? The cloaking radar, not the software. Prioritising all of your enemy in a 30 mile radius very quickly. But war's moving so quick in other areas with AI. Remember America lives in a rarified area of not having a close enemy within walking distance!😃Bless

[@fossy4321]

I believe British tankies prefer the rifled gun as it is so accurate, ( many years ago they produced a chieftain with a smooth bore gun to evaluate it, after evaluation it sat in a shed as no crew wanted to use it ) The rifled barrel still holds the record tank on tank kill at over 5,000 meters. But as all other NATO tanks use the cheaper smooth bore gun and ammunition this makes its rifled shells very expensive, and to rationalize the ammunition between allies makes sense. But would you buy an ancient smooth bore gun or a proper modern rifled firearm ?

[@mikefoster6018]

The smoothbore also allows the most high-tech fin stabilised rounds to be fired, which the rifled ones don't. Plus rifled barrels wear out faster.

[@fossy4321]

@@mikefoster6018 The rifled barrel has always used fin stabilised rounds it's a Std round for the Challenger. I don't know where this myth came from. Also it can fire 500 Full charge loads before replacement, How many rounds do you think a tank is going to fire in a war situation. And in practice firing due to the two part ammunition they reduce the charge which increases the barrels life dramatically.

[@mikefoster6018]

@@fossy4321 I said it allows firing of "the most high-tech fin stabilised rounds", not that it couldn't fire fin stabilised rounds before. And you can read that at places like the MoD /Army sites. Journals such as the UK Defence Journal also site the smoothbore gun's superior performance. I'm a fan of rifled guns, especially for delivering squash heads etc. But the new smoothbore should have more bite.

[@scottduggan2146]

Sorry but i have to unsubscribe,sorry Conner.

[@rupertmurdock6783]

You need people, not drones, to occupy land. So you still need heavily armored units to break through the defense line. By the way, a laser and a signal jammer are now used against drones. And you can answer the questions about additional armor yourself when you look at how HEAT ammunition works, which is used in anti-vehicle weapons.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

As for the stuff about "our fellow European neighbours" it very much depends on how spineless our government (probably Starmer's loathsome Woke Cult Labour mob, so positively invertebrate) will be when the repugnant EU central institution makes its punt at subverting and supplanting NATO's European Pillar. Frankly, imho our land force contribution should be limited 100% to reinforcement of the Scandinavian northern flank and trad. military British effort otherwise made exclusively by air and sea. So RAF and RN re-expansion should be our no1 priority.

[@wessexdruid7598]

These aren't new tanks. They're NEW TURRETS. We need to up our numbers as well, but we don't have the manufacturers any more. PS - recent Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs are also fitted with BVs (boiing vessels). Presumably NOT for tea, though.

[@SirZanZa]

the British Army is a small highly advanced highly trained force, as you said island nation and Nuclear power, we do not need a gigantic land based army, we have a large well armed technologically advanced Navy. while smaller than China it is significantly more advanced. for it's size the UK is extremely powerful but there is no way we are competing with the worlds largest economy or the sheer numbers a country with 1.4bn population can achieve. we are pretty much impossible to invade at this point though i do wish we could double the size of the navy and airforce. another 12 frigates 6 destroyers and 6-10 nuclear subs would be ideal

[@TACTICAL_REAVER]

We are being invaded haha 50 men of fighting age one rubber dingy at a time

[@petermclelland278]

Rheimetall (Panzer) have just stuck a Leopard gun turret on an old Challenger chassis - bingo - new tank? Cheap & productive. Good old 'Fritz'

[@HenriHattar]

The grooved barrel is BETTER, but the drawbacks are explained in this HOWEVER a lot of this is also cost and political pressure for cross country NATO manufacturing, thus giving access to more shells etc.,

[@MrWestos]

As an English man I love that you got the water boiler 🫖 Enjoy your attitude dude, stay curious!

[@streaky81]

No, the main battle tank is a completely worthless piece of technology as currently understood, 100%. That's why the C3 isn't, really, it's a heavily armoured command and data fusion platform that just happens to also include a big gun. Anybody who has seen what's going on in Ukraine and says "you know what we really need? Tanks." really isn't paying attention or knows nothing about combat at the bigger picture level - or if they do they're probably army and don't spend much time looking up. Your MBT isn't going to survive a 2000lb warhead, and the fact you think you're immune to it says that you don't know a lot. That's been true since at least 1990 - but we've been able to get away with it, but the reality is that tank forces as currently constituted are a complete waste of time, money and people's lives. BUT - per C3 - you might be able to do something that looks like a tank and quacks like a tank, but isn't really a tank. The answer isn't cheaper tanks, the answer is more expensive tanks and full-spectrum battlespace dominance (if you want the marketing guff) that essentially means aviation takes out all the threats - by which point you may as well be in APCs, not tanks. Also to answer your later point: that's why we have nuclear weapons?

[@charlesfrancis6894]

There are only two nuclear powers in Europe and they are the U.K. and France if one includes the U.K. as European . This is what gives Russia a dilemma though for Russia to use battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe America would need to be out of the N.A.T.O. picture then hope that U.K. and France would not want to go nuclear with battlefield nuclear weapons to match what Russia had done then putting the ball back in the Russian court as to consider all out nuclear attacks on both countries knowing that all three countries would be ash . All of which would appear very unlikely as Russia has not and is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine who gave up its nuclear weapons when America Britain and Russia gave Ukraine guarantees of its security which was clearly not the kind of security protection N.A.T.O. gives . Point being that however evil nuclear weapons are M.A.D. has worked so far. The obvious other point being that if one gives up nuclear weapons unilaterally one is open to conventional attack though the theory of N.A.T.O. would prevent an attack on a N.A.T.O. country with conventional weapons [most of Europe] Ukraine NOT being a member of N.A.T.O. was a viable target for Putin. M.A.D. would appear to have prevented a third world war so far, Putin will not attack a N.A.T.O. country and even with America withdrawing from N.A.T.O. Putin would have his forces slaughtered by Europe's conventional forces . Putin could attack non N.A.T.O. ex Soviet satellite countries not in N.A.T.O. but would have to be satisfied with that. Should Trump be President again he would be unlikely to withdraw from N.A.T.O. ....Only time will tell on that one.

[@letsdebate839]

Rifling is more accurate however the modern NATO rounds didn't work with it so it's better for overall supply with not that much difference in accuracy

[@philshorten3221]

In terms of Tank Numbers the point made that Britain is a small Island is key. If an enemy tried to invade Britain, we have to ask, how many Tanks or other armoured vehicles are going to appear on the beaches for British Tanks to engage? Not very many, so Tanks aren't going to be Britain's main defence. Fighting elsewhere in the world, again it makes no sense for Britain to ship large numbers of Tanks over seas when those other countries have invested in their own Tank forces. Furthermore Britain doesn't have the huge logistics that a country like the USA has, so large numbers of British Tanks are pointless. Leveraging intelligence gathering, information warfare and special operations however is an area where Britain has always EXCELLED (007😂). So it's important for NATO to take full advantage of each members individual assets and as much as possible skew that members military emphasis for the benefit of the NATO as a whole.

[@TonySpike]

Fireing drones from a tank isnt exactly a new thing, ....some kinds of armour over the years (i say this because i dont think any modern ones do ...the gun is more powerful) have come equipped with guided missiles (like the TOW for example) a TOW is (in its most basic terms) is kind of a radio controlled anti tank missile (actually i think its wire guided so dont quote me) I know its not exacly the same idea but the point is you can mount a missile rack to a tank, (and i think even fire them from the barrel in some cases) ...a drone rack isnt a stretch (Note: i am just generalising their, i say Armour because some that have might not nessecarilly be classed as Tanks, and it might not nessecarilly be specifically a BGM-71 TOW ATGM .....i am sure somone will say otherwise, their is always that 1 tank nerd 😂)

[@Neur0nauT]

Two words. SABOT rounds. A majority of people think that modern tanks fire big shells, or "giant bullets" But the real story is what MBTs fire in war are mostly Kinetic Penetrator Rounds. Shells that contain shaped munitions that pierce dense amour, then detonate inside the target. which easily masticates the internals of an armoured vehicle. Including the occupants. Tanks defunction if their are no humans to operate it. They have been par-broiled while turned to paste inside. No survivors. Sabots are that powerful... that with the intense thermobaric pressure created... then invariably ignite the ammunition inside the main guns magazine after eliminating the occupants, and thus... completely destroying the threat with high probability. Smoothbore canons provide the high velocity pressures required to fire the these long ordinance packages in order to pierce the most modern composite armours. Truth is..All tanks are susceptible of the Canon on the top of them. If one is noticed first...it will lose the showdown, as will the people inside. No country has better tanks than SABOT ordinance. It's a false sense of security for all armies. Tanks are the last bastion of Attrition in the modern warzone. It doesn't matter if you are the best Tank driver ever known...if you get hit first with a SABOT munition.....or a man portable ATM. You're done for.

[@raidensergi2378]

6:54 Is strange why is an American so surprise about British tanks when UK produce as Max as few hundred tanks while US produce thousands of them. USA is a giant at military industry. Please Mcjibbin, be more confident in US military industry is the best of the world.

[@neil930]

Main battle tanks often sport large, welded "cope cages" to stop exploding drones from taking them out.

[@coltsfoot9926]

Regarding the last question about focus okn defence spending, the US heads the world in virtually everything to do with military research and spending, so it makes sense to be the NATO arsenal. The next best research leaders are the UK, so it makes sense to give them a large chunk of military research projects. Especially as was pointed out in the video, the UK is an island and extremely difficult to invade. If it comes to the point where the UK is facing invasion, then the rest of European NATO members will probably have given up already, so, with limited budgets, the UK couldn't stand alone. The best way of defeating an invasion is with Navy and airforce, hence the UK is focusing on those two services for the bulk of the remaining spend. I hope the theory never gets tested!

[@RobertLewis-el9ub]

Modern combat relies on 'Joint Warfare' concepts (fusion of ground/air/maritime). A tank would not operate effectively if local air superiority was not achieved (i.e. Ukraine - neither side is able to achieve air superiority). Western air power will be a key factor in the success of any ground operations.

[@kymvalleygardensdesign5350]

We used to have Vickers which originally designed and built the Challenger. However, our useless government let that company close, so we now depend on Germany which has actually invested in industry. Besides what use is 120 tanks?

[@Ditchy69]

While tea is a stereotypical reason for the hot water in tanks, it was more so we didnt have to get out to feed etc. Its used for light washing, as mention food and rations, sterilization (if needed). If its quiet, there would often be a dedicated 'brew' bitch, (usually the newest and /or the lowest rank) who would make the tea/coffee, put the rations on etc for the rest of the crew. It seems like common sense to have this feature. Also, we have some history with bureaucratic crap and mismanagement - look up the Ajax project. One of the most costly and best examples of clueless people with money. 4 Billion quid so far, and was supposed to be much less!

[@Bob10009]

Why will Britain only have 148 MBTs ? Because we have nuclear submarines, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, advanced cyber and space force, a capable air force etc….

[@peterwicks9851]

Rifleing i think is the word your looking for, the smooth bore rounds will be stabilised for accuracy, also be able to use NATO ammunition. Yet in the Gulf war the longest tank kill was with a Challenger 2 with a rifled barrel!

[@glastonbury4304]

The rifled bore was more accurate however the smooth bore is cheaper and NATO use smooth bore so the NATO standard means we can share ammunition much like Beta Max was better than VHS, but VHS was cheaper and common...so it makes sense we now choose smooth bore so we can share ammo....

[@dang1086]

Just watch some KZbin videos on Ukraine conflict going on right now. Its has now evolved from mesh to Russian mad max turtle tank modifications.

[@Lone_GamerUK]

Sorry this guy in video cannot pronounce anything right and constantly shows old UK stereotypes from 60 years ago - my god 😞

[@Tony-c7z9t]

Connor just a correction to the vids narrative, it us not Tell-ford, it is pronounced Telfud, a small town in Shropshire, well to be precise a new town built in the 1970s.

[@daniellewis4226]

A rifled barrel is more accurate there's no doubt. Look down the barrel of any gun, unloaded of course. You'll see they're all rifled for accuracy and range. Especially on rifles. The smooth bore barrel is more compatible with nato rounds.

[@Ayns.L14A]

Hi Connor, yes the rifling on the old gun imparted spin on the projectile making it more accurate , that is an APFSDS round (Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) its that shape because when it is fired the outer shell peels off leaving the central depleted uranium rod to hit the target , the new cannon is smooth bored as the rest of Nato uses smooth bore ammunition, they are MBSGD's Multi Barrelled Smoke Grenade Dischargers, the plates on the side are composite armour not explosive armour, The BV is the most important part of the vehicle without the BV the crew doesn't work. The cope cages are designed to stop drones hitting the tank .When it comes to Tank numbers one thing that wasn't mentioned was where to put them, it was different when i was serving, we had 72,000 troops based in Germany plus 58,000 in the UK, with the drawdown of BFG (British Forces Germany) and removal of troops from Germany we had to cut back on not only tanks but troops as well simply because there was nowhere to put them..

[@dwightk.schrute8696]

They key point is that kinetic penetrators MUST NOT spin, that's why the whole idea of shooting APFSDS out of a rifled barrel is just non sense. As soon as the projectile hits the armor the spin is going to cause it to wobble along the penetrating axis, which causes the projectile to spend majority of it's energy on creating a wide hole instead of a deep hole.

[@Ayns.L14A]

@@dwightk.schrute8696 that's why they are called fin stabilised, the initial spin enables the petals of the APSFDS to break apart, once enclosure break apart the fins then stabilise the round..this video explains kzbin.info/www/bejne/maC6e3ecmMmFbJI

[@neiljackson3031]

It would seem that you have got your facts muddled from reading too many books! When firing a fin round (APFSDS or APFSDSDU) from the rifled barrel the fins on round stabilise it in flight. There is no chance of wobble as you call it. The round is travelling at 1600 metres per second. When the Depleted Uranium hits its intended target it creates a nice small hole in the turret travelling through the turret and out the other side and sucking the turret crew with it. Having served on Challenger 1&2 and used them in anger I can attest to their capabilities.

[@dwightk.schrute8696]

@@neiljackson3031 Were you responding to me?

[@Ayns.L14A]

@@dwightk.schrute8696 well he wasn't talking to me ....HUSSAR!!

[@andrewgoodenough1809]

Survivability will count ,if they get the new laser working small enough drones will not be a problem ,the challenger has recently got the longest recorded kill shot , the incorporated electronics make it so deadly at a distance ,and not counting the tank lost due to crew error no challenger has been lost in combat anywhere.

[@HopefulBrit]

Didn't one get captured in Ukraine and then displayed/paraded alongside an American tank in a Russian parade?

[@andrewgoodenough1809]

@@HopefulBrit see my comments on crew error one was destroyed when the ammo cooked because they left it open and all jumped out ,but one hasn't been lost on active duty with a knowledgeable crew , not really the crews fault they did only have a short time to train in it

[@HopefulBrit]

@@andrewgoodenough1809 - That's a fair distinction. Do you know if there are any remotely operated ground vehicles or tanks in action? Like the UAVs and water-based equipment that we hear about.

[@andrewgoodenough1809]

@@HopefulBrit sorry typing in the field auto correct kicked in

[@scottwardell]

I couldn't do it I had to go find the original video. I couldn't take the constant stopping and stupid questions 🤦‍♂️ just the way he does it is really annoying.

[@David-g7k9e]

You must understand that Briton is an Island so much of our defence budgets are spent on Naval part of NATO logistics.

[@anthonywilson4873]

The Boiling vessel heats food and can make tea. It keeps the crew alert and fed in cold conditions. As the turret is electronically controlled we have a quite donkey generator running . No main motor running hull down in the cold, warm food and warm drinks nice.

[@gavin1506]

Tanks are needed. Drones are just a new tool. Be prepared for next generation tech (Only way to say it), making tanks a nerve centre on the forward battlefield.

[@calumknight9178]

The commentator on the vid is a moron when he was talking about the hydro gas suspension system. It doesn't add to the maintenance its easier than torsion bar which is an absolute fecking nightmare in comparison to the hydro gas units on challenger. Torsion bar suspension requires the whole bar to be removed if it needs replacing (so wheel removed, torsion bar pulled out that runs the width of the hull etc), the hydro gas suspension system is a self contained unit bolted onto the outside of the hull....unbolt it and get the replacement from logistics, bolt that one on then send the faulty one back to factory and let trained engineers fix the faulty one (its a lesson brits learned from ww2 shermans, followed on by centurion and chieftans horstman suspension. They were the same all self contained on the outside of the hull).

[@Fury9er]

Moden smoothbore ammunition is often fin-stabilised so don't need to spin to be stable. I don't know if any ntank rounds use a shaped charge warhead, but their effeciveness is reduced if they spin.

[@jcreedy20]

Rifling causes spin on bullets and the central fugal force of the bullet spinning keeps it from tumbling and therefore make it stay true in flight and it scrubs off less energy in flight as it stays in its most aerodynamic position. But with much larger rounds it matters less if it's spinning or not as it's a lot heavier and external for es tend to effect it less in flight, where as a small hand gun bullet or riffle bullet would be affected by wind etc as it has low mass compared with a massive chunky shell. As there are no grooves/rifling in the barrel rounds can be fired at higher pressure as the air doesn't escape around the bullet via the rifling grooves.

[@Mvrky0]

Quality over quantity comes to mind when watching this

[@paulbromley6687]

Is it drone proof, because one thing we all know from what has been happening in Ukraine is that maybe tanks just can’t win against drones.

[@Jeni10]

The word “insane” is overused and misused. It can only apply to a person with serious brain damage or severe personality disorders that cause actions that are dangerous to themselves and others. It cannot apply to an object since objects don’t have a brain.

[@MR-Prince-1985]

England has now Dragon Fire and fires a lazor beem and can take drones out. No problem. React to Dragon Fire

[@MR-Prince-1985]

I know mate, challenger 2 has a rifle barrel and and has the longest tank kill because of the acracy, challenger 3 has a smooth bore now so all NATO tanks have the same ammo.

[@stephenfloat1260]

The United Kingdom maybe in trouble with their flag with the red Cross on ( friendly fire ) it also tonga. 😂

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

Its a good tank with one problem, its an upgrade of the old hulls. It would have been better to build new from scrach so we could send the old tanks into storage or Ukraine.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

The UK is an Island - its Navy and Airforce have to be the priority

[@stephendukes6582]

Its down to one thing only money: the government has been cutting the armed forces so much over the years it is no longer sustainable and they cannot attract any new people because there is no interest. Who would take a job that will only last 2 or 5 years?

[@JanKowalski-bm9rv]

You can react to this explanation of different types of tank rounds - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHe4mmmDfb2Eq7s - yes, it is from a video game but it is accurate.

[@simonn5651]

the anti drone thing you talk about is what will be happening with the new laser they are designing , once it's perfected and efficient enough you could have them on anything , any vehicle ....auto tracking too and thus it can independently target drones and such at any range while the tank its self is in an entirely different engagement.

[@StephMcAlea]

No idea why music was playing during the video. .

[@GeekBatman]

Have a look at the trophy system. If they can make that effective against drones, if they aren't already, bingo.

[@GeekBatman]

I should have waited for the whole video 😂

[@Mvrky0]

Hey your English accent isn't too bad honestly

[@jaysnipz5524]

I know so this video was made a month ago and was said they want to scale down soldiers, but in recent news they’ve said the opposite that the armed forces need bulking.

[@boottroop1]

Tanks don’t need rifling to be accurate. New ammo is guided.

[@eddsummat2191]

Think next time you do a review on tanks you do some basic research first, challenger is the last tank to move to smooth bore, and look at what a apfsds is ull see y rounds are that shape

[@anthonywilson4873]

Anti tank warheads have two stages, the first is designed to destroy the reactive armour on the outside and the second charge bores through the armour. The Cope Cages are designed to initiate the warhead and disrupt the operation.

[@timholder6825]

Smoothbores can fire missiles and 'smart' projectoles as well.

[@alexanderevanska4274]

Rifliing, why most rifles are called rifles. Simple.

[@cousinjack2841]

Dear old Challenger II still managed to win Iron Spear 2023

[@club8040]

damn right its no joke, gives us 50% more power ;-)

[@stevenwarne69]

1:09 it does but the main reason it was changed is due to the fact everyone else in NATO uses smooth bore so it made sense to change it for simpler logistics for ammo in case a war broke out

[@stuartjohnellis]

you could invest in 8000 tanks and then some unheard of tec could render them irrelevant .

[@tonycapri2608]

Surely by now, we can have an automatic drone doing spotting and drone protection of drone on drone defence.

[@robertpatrick3350]

The comment about the suspension system is incorrect… the Korean K2 uses a derivative