The Secret Behind Challenger 3's Testing in Germany

[@martinfrench5527]

"DU provides essential health risks, especially for crews of tanks hit by DU rounds." That has got to be one of the most ridiculous lines I have ever heard in a military documentary

[@secret5070]

😂 yeah because you wouldn’t want to die 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ericgrace9995]

I dropped down to make this exact comment. I am both shaking my head at its stupidity while laughing.

[@Michael_Brock]

There are also massive cost implications. DU is essentially a worthless byproduct of Uranium fuel for power stations and A booms, that weapons manufacturers can obtain for zero or low cost. Tungsten is very expensive and china mines 85% of it, 68 thousand tons with Russia a distant second at 3 thousand 600 tons.

The problem with DU rounds is, that these toxic substances stay around after the war is over.

[@MercuryCircuit]

@@secret5070 I'm glad it wasn't just me thinking that rofl :)

[@blxtothis]

Who would have thought that a tank commander killing the crew of an enemy tank would be worried about their kidneys?

[@eddgrs9193]

It's an AI generated video with random information about random tank stuff. The whole part of the Depleted Uranium rounds are just bits of non-related articles put together by the AI , to make it seem like a legit article. It would take an essay to debunk each of those bits, but since you ask about the kidneys, that's from an article about US Abrams crews that were hit by friendly fire from other Abrams tanks. Anyway, modern tungsten rounds are actually more powerful than DU rounds, since tungsten penetrators can handle higher speeds before they become brittle, like the DU penetrators.

[@hummingbird9149]

They're testing in Germany because Rheinmetall are the developer of the new turret and gun system, and it's pretty normal to test your own product at your own facilities ;)

[@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е]

почему в Украине испытания не проводя ?

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е If you look carefully, they are.

[@klausberfelde-je2ye]

​@@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е You need more or less a laboratory environment, where you can measure everything out... afterwards, I guess Ukraine could be a challenging environment to practice. But equipped with state-of-the-art technology, you ever have to face the possibility, that it can be captured by Russia. Having this said, it´s a decision you have to take. How much know how are you willing to offer to your enemy, in case of being captured. Opening them the ability for reverse engineering.

[@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е]

@@klausberfelde-je2ye воевать тоже в лабоатории планирует? реверс инженеринг? зачем? что там может быть секретного чего нет в России? термоядерный двигатель? :-) для музея сгодится.

[@svenvanwier7196]

@@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е Just like the T-14 has not been seen in Ukraine, or new Abrahams. Its mostly the munition they want to keep from Russia but I am not sure. As for testing, they require labs, they want to measure everything into the NM i guess.

[@theowlfromduolingo7982]

I actually saw two Challenger 3 tanks on trucks on the German Autobahn yesterday.

[@RyanBrown-nx8dw]

I bet u feel proud

[@Masterafro999]

​​@@RyanBrown-nx8dw I would.😂 Not many people have actually seen them with their own eyes...have you?

[@RyanBrown-nx8dw]

@@Masterafro999 seen those other challenger and Abrams tanks get turned into banderite dust with shovel power u think ur shitty upgraded tank is gonna make a difference 🤣

[@RyanBrown-nx8dw]

@@Masterafro999 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@RyanBrown-nx8dw]

@@Masterafro999 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@peterdrought9334]

Thought the whole point of smooth bore guns was greater muzzle velocity for kinetic energy rounds, but at the expense of range. Challenger 2 used rifled guns to enable the use of HESH ammunition , which works in a different way and doesn’t require the same velocity?

[@stunick1573]

It is. Smooth bore beats rifled prove over the years. His comment about the rifled 125mm being better is a lie. Plus American's have the depleted uranium rounds is Britain want's them. This guy is way off with his biased opinions.

[@td6460]

The HESH round works principally not by penetrating armor, but by causing a pressure shock inside the hull, called spalling, which in older generation Soviet armor would essentially turn the affected crew into a smoothie. That is not the case with more modern hull designs which incorporate special lining to prevent those tiny fragments from forming.

[@wacojones8062]

@@td6460 If HESH hits a clean surface the spalling inside is huge. If it hits grating and similar blocks it can tear tracks apart, damage air intakes and filters. I Trained 19D scouts in the TOW system at Fort Knox there was a plate of Class A armor 4 inches thick that had been hit with a 75mm Recoilless rifle HEP projectile the spall was 2 inches thick the size of a very large serving platter for a large, cooked turkey. HESH/HEP is best used against lighter vehicles or the engine areas on modern tanks.

[@andrewtadd4373]

The C3 has been testing at ranges of 5000m, 2k beyond C2 and other current NATO tanks

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@andrewtadd4373 Leopard 2A6 has the same effective combat range since 2006 (up to 6000m with KE rounds). Challenger 2 gets Leopard 2´s gun etc.

[@doc__holiday6022]

The Challenger 3's has the cannon from the Leopard 2a7, so it is being tested in Germany

[@jonny2954]

And sights and electronics and armor... Rheinmetall Challenger 3 lol.

[@LarsPW]

Everybody seems to use the same cannon, US have the same in their Abrams.

[@williamzk9083]

@@jonny2954 The composite Armour is British developed. Britain shared the technology with the USA and Germany.

[@ataxpayer723]

The video clearly mentions that the UK test ranges are not certified for testing the specialized amo, hence the testing in Germany.

[@williamzk9083]

@@ataxpayer723 with that certification it may be that any measurements are in accurate. They may also be safety issues.

[@markhuckercelticcrossbows7887]

that old chieftain tank chassis, still working well :)

[@markdavies9636]

The Uk still has over 250 challenger 2 in storage to use DP rounds

[@johnrussell3961]

Al down to Tory cuts.

[@Biketunerfy]

The new higher pressure gun and higher pressure APFSDS round is hypersonic which is what Challanger 3 is using. 1800 meters a second which is mach 5.24 that’s hypersonic. That’s going to do a lot of damage and be very difficult to stop even with composite and or spaced armour.

[@davemccrillis1470]

@@Biketunerfy Interesting statement. The only thing I could find is that they changed the main gun to a smooth bore to make ammo universal across nato tanks. At 60 tons it’s not going to be an all terrain option anyway.

[@Biketunerfy]

@ yes it can use tyre standard pressure NATO ammo or the newer higher pressure ammo.

[@davemccrillis1470]

@ Will they withstand a lancet strike ?

[@Biketunerfy]

@@davemccrillis1470 The British took much if the secret armour and secret equipment off the challenger 2s they gave to Ukraine but I doubt any tank could survive a hit to roof of the tank as that is not very thick so regardless I still don’t think challenger 3 would survive a hit from one unless they are fitted with an active protection system which they do have.

[@davemccrillis1470]

@ I still don’t think I want to be in a tank on today’s battlefield

[@gerlachsieders4578]

it is tested in Germany because the turret is build by Rheinmetall....the 120mm smoothbore gun is build by Rheinmetall too, thus blurring the differences between all NATO tanks, aka they are all on par with NATO-standards....

[@toecutter6968]

The turret is built by Pearson engineering in the UK.

[@jonny2954]

​@@toecutter6968 Yes, built. It was however designed by Rheinmetall.

[@derdude9654]

Leo2A8UK😂

[@larryperera8724]

NATO standards are not very effective against Russia 🇷🇺

[@jonny2954]

@@larryperera8724 PZH 2000 and HIMARS 🗿

[@KrameNaj]

This tank looks actually nice looking 👌 who agrees?

[@jonathanjacob5453]

All NATO’s stuff looks nice. It’s part of the marketing strategy.

[@KrameNaj]

@@jonathanjacob5453 I like the design of it, I more like the T-90m Looks more cooler 👍👍

[@RyanBrown-nx8dw]

​@@KrameNaj😂😂😂😂😂

[@KrameNaj]

@@RyanBrown-nx8dw 😁

[@frankleespeaking9519]

Yes. I was in us army, and always thought British tanks were the best looking

[@FlorinSutu]

The Challenger 3 is a Challenger 2 with fresh lipstick and new eyelashes.

[@fernandojohnsen7639]

Bro speak nonsense. He looks the Same but 80% difference

[@badwolf66]

A T-90M is but a T-72BU.

[@fernandojohnsen7639]

@@badwolf66 yeah theese days this is possible.

[@ianmiles7916]

🙄

[@garethrowlands]

And new eyes and a new gun.

[@Blandy086]

Wait, what? The L/55A1 is compatible with NATO ammo AND US-specific DU ammo also, like the M829A4. So Challenger 3 does not lose access to DU... Germany and other NATO countries haven't bothered with DU ammunition as the L/55 paired with DM63/KE-W A4/DM73 outperforms the latest generation DU rounds. The L27A1 APFSDS is the latest development of DU ammunition for the Challenger 2, it boasts a muzzle velocity of 1,650m/s. DM53 has a muzzle velocity of 1,670m/s, DM63 has a muzzle velocity of 1,720m/s, KE-WA4 has a muzzle velocity of 1670m/s (L/44 cannon, would be higher from L/55) and DM73 has a muzzle velocity of 1,780m/s... So there is absolutely no negative impact at all in any capacity by switching to the smoothbore L/55. I would highly suggest more research before making broad claims like "... by switching to the smoothbore gun, the Challenger 3 loses DU rounds..." [paraphrased]. The benefit of a smooth-bore gun is that the Challenger 3 is not limited in ammunition supplies in a conflict zone as it can borrow from other NATO countries. It also swaps out the old 2-piece ammunition for single-piece ammunition, giving it faster reload times and allowing for easier ammo storage in the vehicle. Maintenance and barrel cleaning/servicing is quicker and easier as the crew does not have to scrub out the rifling in the barrel. Final point... DU provides health risks to crews of tanks hit by DU rounds? What, like death? Seems to be a side effect of shooting a tank with any AP ammunition...

[@tommyenglish-zap]

The U.S Army's M1 Abrahams has the 120mm smoothbore and can fire the depleted uranium round so not sure whether you've got your facts quite right? in other words this round is already a standardized NATO Round! 🤔

[@jackpowell9276]

My understanding was C2 used and loved HESH rounds an in asymetic warfare such as iraq these were fantastic and gave the challenger a real edge as DU sabots for peer tank penetration just weren't needed much. HESH rounds work best from a rifled barrel and there isn't a smoothbore equivalent.

[@tommyenglish-zap]

@@jackpowell9276 I do agree High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) the mainstay of British Army Ammunition for decades and a highly effective 2 part ammunition, is the casualty in this switch from rifled to smoothbore not (DU) Depleted Uranium SABOT as it is already a standardized NATO 120mm smoothbore round. I'm not sure about Germany's stance on DU as they're a little bit more Politically Correct not wishing to anger the Green lobby on this type of issue, and therefore have most likely "well I know", decided to develop the Kenictic Tungsten SABOT round. Remember the UK will have to invest in buying a whole new arsenal/stockpile of ammunition costing Millions of Dollars or Euros for the new smoothbore 1 part round and this is why they're carrying out trials in Germany under Rheinmetall bequest regarding the Tungsten round. Just remember Uranium is actually a harder substance than Tungsten in the periodic table. So really this whole story is about what ammunition to buy in bulk nothing more. I also believe that the remaining 100 or so Challenger 2s which are destined to go into deep storage as a safeguard for any future hostility will have the ability to draw on the already substantial stockpile of the perfectly serviceable 120mm rifled round. Once this rifled ammunition is consumed on the battlefield there would be an opportunity to upgrade these Tanks to MK3 standard or an MK4 even, having the option to leapfrog as and when technology evolves thus maximising your options into the future. Similar upgrade programs like the extended life program on the CVRT family and the radical Scimitar MK1 to the later MK2 programs have been successful adaptations. Another example is the venerable 1960s Cold War era FV432 APC/AFV being upgraded and put back into service in Iraq and Afghanistan which proved to be another successful upgrade program turning the AFV chassis into the Bull Dog. This is my educated take on this whole interlinked story... 🤔

[@andrewtadd4373]

​@jackpowell9276 i believe the new smart rounds will fill the void left by hesh. They can be programmed for contact, delayed, and airburst detonation

The internal ballistics is standardised, not the rounds itself. So every user country can design or buy their own rounds. These rounds can be fired from every gun but the fire control system has to know the external ballistics of the round.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@tommyenglish-zap Depleted Uranium is NOT harder than Toungsten Carbide. It is quite alot softer

[@johncrook7705]

Looks like tanks need a rethink with drones having the upper hand without expensive and heavy protection for these beasts.

[@rumblin_cynth_rampo374]

I hope it can get out the factory doors. Unlike a Chally 1 I was asked to escort in 1989 from ROF Leeds to Bovvy. Doors open big rumbly tank pokes its nose out, loud sounds of mechanical un happiness. Sorry folks gearbox is buggered.

[@Withnail1969]

Too heavy for the parts installed

[@gaptaxi]

Challenger 1 was basically Chieftan with better turret armour, Challenger 2 is radically different, different engine and gearbox entirely, the L60 should never have been fitted to any tank, it is a constand rev marine or generator engine, one of the best, but when you add a gearbox that moves like a fiddlers elbow?

[@Mk1Male]

@@gaptaxi Chally 1 was nothing like a Chieftain. What are you smoking.

[@ashleygoggs5679]

im sorry but the change in cannon does not in the slightest mean that challenger 3 loses its ability to use DU rounds. america uses DU with the licenced cannons i.e. its the same cannon. Someone really didnt do proper research espeically when you said challenegr 1 was named chobham.

[@Dan-qg1bq]

The comments about Rheinmetall being in Germany is the reason it was tested there are wrong. The gun and turret are made by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land in Telford, UK. It was sent to Germany to the NATO tank ranges because they are longer than the UK's and are standard, allowing a meaningful comparison between the CR2 and upgraded CR3.

[@christianjunghanel6724]

If really Britain wants a DU round for their Challenger 3 L55 guns , they can have them ! Just ask the US they have some for their Abrams which has the older L44 gun ! Still you can fire ammo from the L44 on the L55 versions as well !

[@Bob-bo8ik]

They have their own.

[@mickthehead587]

No mention of the engine??

[@andrewsarantakes639]

Germany does not use DU ammunition, thus they went to L55 gun to increase penetration of non-DU rounds. America still retains the L44 gun because it uses DU ammunition. So if UK chooses to do so it can purchase American made M829 series DU rounds.

[@jonny2954]

Nah. Common myth made up by Abrams fanboys. DU was only better in the 80s when tungsten alloys weren't as advanced, and even then only against semi-infinite steel targets. Tungsten alloys perform equal, in some cases even better than DU against modern NERA arrays because of lower ductility. The US tested the L55 designated as M256E1 and found it to perform superior with tungsten and DU alloy penetrators. Problem was the Abrams stabiliser had issues with the heavier barrel and required a complete refit, which was deemed too expensive. In fact the US wanted to get rid of the M256 since the 90s, just look at the XM360E1. Wouldn't make sense to develop a new higher pressure tank gun if the current one is sufficient, huh? TL;DR: Abrams has erection problems with the longer barrel, so they had to stick with the short one. Meanwhile the Germans are ahead not one, but two generations with the L55A1 (L44

[@levilastun829]

I read that a DU APFSDS round has its maximum penetration potential at a velocity of around 1500 to 1600 m/s. While a Tungsten alloy APFSDS round has its maximum potential at more than 1800 m/s. In addition using lower muzzle velocity rounds could have a slightly higher barrel life, in comparison to a higher velocity round.

[@jonny2954]

@@levilastun829 No. DU rounds still increase penetration above 1600 m/s, just not to the degree they scale penetration up to 1600 m/s. A given projectile of the same weight and dimensions traveling at higher velocity will always have more kinetic energy and kinetic energy is directly related to penetration, regardless of material. Also performance at 1600 m/s is hardly an argument for a 1600 m/s muzzle velocity because when the projectile enters an enemy tank at 2000 meters it's actually closer to 1500 m/s (1480 m/s to be exact). Also higher velocity means less time traveled and flatter trajectory, meaning higher accuracy and hit probability. So ye, absolutely no reason to not go for higher velocity. Just Abrooms fanboys making things up to excuse the Army not upgunning the Abrams because expensive.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@jonny2954 You are just a wealth of disinformation The L55 was not adopted as the US found by reworking the propellant of the M829, they could get the same performance without the need for expensive refit Secondly the XM360 was still highly experimental in the 90s and its Electrothermal-chemical (ETC) was not considered mature enough for use but most importantly it needs an autoloader which the Abrams didnt have

[@jonny2954]

@@verdebusterAP No, you just blindly gobbled up the BS the fanboys made up in defense of the Abrams. If the L44 could've matched the L55 with just a new propellant the Germans would've done the same. They're not stupid. It's _their_ gun tube after all. The M829A3 introduction was literally delayed in 2003 following a _too hot_ propellant mix. L44A1 and L55A1 exist because L44 and L55 are at their pressure limit now. Other Abrooms myths: "M256 ackchyually has higher chamber pressure than the L44" No. Same gun tube. Recoil mechanism and mout is different, that's it. "M256/L44 ackchyually have higher chamber pressure than the L55 because it's shorter" Also no. Design requirement of the L55 was literally that it can sustain the same or higher chamber pressure than the L44 for ammunition commonality. "Germans only switched to the L55 because they have to offset performance of non-DU ammunition" This is the funniest one. DU apparently is the only material that has adiabatic shear, however the Americans _themselves_ created self sharpening tungsten alloys at the US Army Research Laboratory in the early 90s. Whoops. DM63 fired from a L55 doesen't just match a M829A3 fired from a L44. It _outperforms_ it. So either the Germans accidentally overshot the target of matching DU ammo, or they actually had a real reason to make sure they can penetrate modern Russian armor (perhaps look at a map and realize most Abrams tanks are in fact on the continent called "America" and most German tanks are less than 1000 km from the Russian border, makes sense eh?) Germans got a gun now that's both higher pressure and longer than the M256 and Abrooms fanboys still think it's only to offset the lack of DU penetrators. No. The Germans just have assessed Russian armor capabilities differently than the US and put more emphasis and per-vehicle funding on their armored corps. It's a little obvious once you see a Bradley parked next to a Puma in joint exercises. Also you are confusing the XM360 with the XM360E1. The XM360E1 was specifically designed for the Abrams. While the XM360 was developed to match the performance of the M256 on a lighter vehicle, the XM360E1 was ment to exceed the performance of the M256 on a heavy vehicle.

[@mattyrecaro]

The only reason for the change to the barrel is for compatibility of NATO rounds, that's it. End of. C2 had a rifled barrel with DU capability that was proven very effective, and the NATO Ammo couldn't be used. Stop the marketing of the new barrel and just say what it is. Harmonizing the NATO ammo requirements. Its not an upgrade its a compromise of combined warfare. DU rounds are far superior at penetration and are obviously detrimental to health as that is the intent. Like any tank round. We are playing in a NATO sandpit and have to play by the NATO Rules.

[@BurningSovereign]

Switching to NATO ammo is a logistical and economic win for sure. But the l55a1 is a direct upgrade to the l30a1 of yesteryear. We're getting our cake AND eating it with this one.

[@knight7691]

The us uses DU rounds with the same smooth bore gun, it would be really easy to make DU rounds for the new gun in the UK as production of DU rounds is already happening there, the only speed bump i see is the change from 2 piece ammo to 1 piece, why go to such lengths to R&D a new round which would no doubt be somewhat expensive when DU is better and you're already using and making them????

[@모닝커피_XD]

The Challenger 3 is a beautiful Main Battle Tank~♥

[@Revolutionisnear1110]

No different to 2 lol.

[@williamzk9083]

@@Revolutionisnear1110better armour, seperate commander and gunner sights. Better optoelectronics, greatly improved APS new gun

[@Revolutionisnear1110]

@@williamzk9083 ok can it stop a plane and what the plane uses ? NO . WE HAVE ZERO HELP HERE ..

[@DaveHaze]

outdated like battleships in CV's era. Its the era of drones!

[@williamzk9083]

@@DaveHaze Challenger III has APS. It can probably be tuned to deal with drones as well as missiles. Anti drone systems are coming,

[@brunonikodemski2420]

Tungsten will never replace DU rounds, because it is thermodynamically inert. DU on the other hand emblazes and any spall ignites everything around it. For practical purposes it replicates a WP round, but able to penetrate heavy armor at the same time. The radiation exposure is a myth. You are going to kill them anyway, why do you care? At Fort Carson when this became an online scare screed, the US Army had to go find BU training rounds from artillery (much larger), and could not do so. The local Granite rocks had so much more radiation, that it completely masked any traces of the DU. That was a major embarrassment to the local Wokie and Enviro groups. Some actually cried, and went back to live amongst the granite radiating rocks, where they came from.

[@jonny2954]

Thermoreactive after armor effects of DU are negligible compared to the main effects which is shrapnel from the penetrator and spall from the armor. Crew is long dead at the time the heat has expanded enough to do any harm.

[@brunonikodemski2420]

@@jonny2954 You are probably correct for a vehicle where the crew is directly exposed, such as in an early LAV without spall curtains, or some of the earlier lightweight Russian tanks. If the round penetrates, it usually knocks the crew senseless, and typically it takes them several-to-many seconds-to-minutes to try to get out. Usually, only the driver gets out (or rear occupants). KZbin has videos of this effect. When we did this testing, the clothing and any combustibles are ignited (albeit slowly in a manner of seconds), but if this progresses into the autoloaders or ammo storage, then the vehicle will be destroyed as anything major ignites. Russian tank designs are especially prone to this, due to the ammo storage. Ammo storage in these is inferior, and almost any heat round, and now a simple overhead drone, can defeat such tanks easily. TOWs are especially effective at this, but only at short range. Drone TOWs will soon be developed for modern warfare. Watch that space. Actually it already exists, but only for larger platforms. Drones next.

[@nagmashot]

crap claim... most 120mm user do NOT use DU rounds DU rounds are only used by nations theat dont give a fuck about inventory and crew health because the only real reason to use dU over tungsten is costs... DU is cheap tungsten is expansive the different in perfromance is next to not existing

[@brunonikodemski2420]

@@nagmashot There is ZERO risk to the crew from a DU round, and usually they cannot even set it off with a hammer. They are electrically fired. The difference is performance is astonishingly greater. You've obviously never been exposed to one. It is correct that DU is usually not fired in smoothbore barrels, since it is hard to get round rotation in those. However, the newer Saboted carriers do get their accuracy up, by using a passive fin structure built into the carrier. this unfortunately also reduces their range as opposed to a105 variant. If you are concerned about health, be aware that the EM environment inside a tank is huge, especially if the doors are open. We measured upwards of 200+volts-per-meter field strengths at over a meter inside. This is enough to cook your brain, if you stood near to it, for a few hundred hours. And that is actually happening.

[@nagmashot]

@@brunonikodemski2420 no one Talks about Crew dummy… the Risk is for anyone else after the battle radioactive dust on the battlefield that cause cancer if you inhale it

[@Paul-if1jq]

Surely that gap under the barral is a weakness?

[@ancientbriton8262]

That “NEW “ Rhinemetal smooth bore gun was first tested and developed during NATO FMBT - Future Main Battle Tank trials during 1976, that’s right Nineteen Seventy six. The current L30 Rifled gun fitted to challenger 2 including the development of the DU armour penetrating rounds were developed under the CHARM program during the 1990,s , there was a testing ground for DU firings in Southwest Scotland, but closed and is no longer available to UK forces for DU firings, the move to the smooth bore gun is more about money than technical ability, also you can wave good bye to HESH,,high explosive squash head rounds, cheap and effective on older armoured vehicles

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

well that "newer" L30A1 rifled gun is in fact just a modernisation of the L11a5 rifled gun from 1958. So yes the smoothbore is absolutely more modern and newer. Challenger 3 gets the L/55a1 wich was introduced in 2014

[@ancientbriton8262]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yep developed from the L11 gun fitted to chieftain and challenger 1 that held the world record for many years as the direct fire distance hit during the first gulf war, my point is we have given up on development of our home grown gun systems like the L7, L11 and L30, that have been at least a match if not better than other nations systems

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@ancientbriton8262 the UK´s guns have been lagging years to decades behind the curve since the mid 70´s. for close to 50 years the UK neglected to get on the train for modern gun developements. that ship has sailed. Say thanks to Maggie Thatcher for the decisions to buy the same gun again or just slghtly upgrading it, instead of licensing the Rh120. Now you HAVE to buy german. The UK was close to 10 years behind in adopting APFSDS rounds in the 80´s, other partners moved to APFSDS in the mid 70´s. The L11 and L30 guns have on average 25-40% worse performence than the Rh120 L/44 and L/55s

[@DBond-bv2oi]

They tested the new German Rheinmetall Gun L55a1 (Same on Leopard 2 a7+ and a8) on the latest Version of a Russian T-72b3 and the Pin penetrated the complete Tank ..througFront Armor, Engine Block and Back Armor. Very impresive. The old britisch gun was a good one...very accurate but the new one is signifikant better and Brings the Challenger much more firepower. Another Big Advantage... You dont have to use for loading a 3 Part ammunition like in the past on Challenger 2. Now you have only 1!!! Much better, much faster.

[@chigeryelam4061]

DU rounds cause health issues ..."especially for tank crews hit by DU rounds". No kidding.

[@PhilipBolton-fx1cj]

The commentators remarks about DU were rubbish. Even if it were true that DU is absorbed into the kidneys, that would be the last of my worries if in an FAV hit by a D U round.

[@eddgrs9193]

It's an AI generated video, with out of context bits taken from articles it found on the web.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

It needs 1650 hp not 1200

[@jaymorris3468]

Challenger 2 and 3 is upgradeable to 1500 plus but the challenger 2 engine at the lower horsepower (1200 plus) has more torque by quite a bit than the later Abrams which has over 1500hp, its about torque not hp.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

*mild upgrade. £1.2 billion for 150 tanks and 600 jobs. That is £2m per job created. quite expensive. C3 at 75 ton is not going to get airlifted anytime soon nor cross all bridges.

[@martinrose2833]

It's HESH that has been given up

[@eddgrs9193]

Both HESH and DU rounds are being replaced by better, modern rounds. It's a huge upgrade for the Challenger.

[@jang1809]

Can the challenger 3 mbt protect itself from incoming rockets, missiles, javelins, Carl Gustav's & reaper's hellfire? Does it have a counter protective measure?

[@spaceageGecko]

APS systems are being trialed on it.

[@paulkendall6069]

The USA M1 Aberhams uses same smooth bore gun (as does german lepard 2), M1 uses nato ammo and depleted uranium shells in iraq so uk should also still have depleted uranium option what I would question is will it have range and more importantly accreasey at range old rifled gun had. New smooth bore gun should last longer so is cheaper. What C2 needed was improved protection and droan versions that can draw fire away from crewed version. I wonder if USA is working on a stealth tank?

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

They need something like a 1600HP engine for adequate electrical power and a laser defense system on a crows or mk46 mount with a backup GAU19B or Dillon Aero 503D as part of a Trophy hybrid APS. They say DU rounds are 20% more penetration? but tungsten is a harder material. Maybe 20% more lethal post penetration due to pyrophoric effects? Someone please educate me. Does DU obtain higher velocities to achieve those numbers?

[@kevinhunkin6364]

Already sorted with the engine

[@JarViKK_gaming]

DU has self sharpening properties as it spalds on impact with another hard material, so that may be why.

[@eddgrs9193]

@@JarViKK_gaming It's like saying that a 7.62mm round has 20% better penetration. And calling it a day. The questions then are : 1. Which 7.62mm ? 7.62x39mm or 7.62x51mm ? 2. 20% better penetration than what ? Same with DU vs tungsten. Take this example : DU rounds from an L44 Abrams gun have better penetration than tungsten rounds from an L44 Leopard 2 gun. And call it a day. But, to be fair, you have to mention that the L44 gun in the Abrams has a higher pressure than the L44 in a Leopard 2. So the Abrams round has higher energy. But newer Leopard 2A6 models have the L55 gun, with more propellant and longer penetrators, so they have more energy. Newer still Leopard 2 models and the Challenger 3 have the L55/A1 gun with both high speed AND high pressure, so they have even more speed and energy. The problem with DU rounds is that they become too brittle after a certain speed, that's where tungsten shines. But tungsten is more expensive.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@eddgrs9193 I mean pound for pound same gun same pressure, same rod length. Does DU also get better velocity as it's not as heavy as tungsten. I know it get the sharpening and pyrotic effect.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@kevinhunkin6364 They need to investigate a pair of 800 hp Koenigsegg hybrid electric motors, they take up 39kg's and a cubic foot of hull space each. If they were coupled with a German or American power pack they would have a 3100 hp monster.

[@itsthemetho]

You would assume the UK would just use US DU rounds. With the exception of length, the barrel is the same. The recoil system is different, between US and German guns. They would only need to qualify the targeting parameters.

[@gerlachsieders4578]

yes its the 120mm smoothbore barrel by Rheinmetall

[@morgensternc]

In comparison, the US ammunition is outdated. The L55 is not only longer, it works with higher preasures as well. So the penetration capability is +30% compared to the L44. In addition, the newest german ammo is very safe, it does not blow up if hit. But in this aspect, Challenger had / has the best protection of stored ammo of all NATO tanks.

[@Masterafro999]

​​@@morgensternc has/had?! No. In what world?! How is the challengers ammunition placement safer than any old t-series tank?! It isn't. It's worse in fact. The CR2 has ammunition and charges all over the hull. It has no blowout panels and will throw its turret if anything explosive is hit. The CR3 will suffer the same fate with the exception of German insensitive powder loads. The US Abrams is currently the only MBT that stores all of its ammunition in the turret bustle...

[@Celeon999A]

I do not get why this is called Challenger 3. It is the very same tank fitted with a new gun. If anything, this is Challenger 2.5 or Challenger 2 Evo or something but its clearly not a generation leap.

[@davec5153]

It is, its only retained the hull shell, everything else is new and updated.

[@Disbelief-]

New gun, better ammo, new sights,commander thermals, hunter-killer capabilities, new electronics, new armour, new fire control system and if I recall correctly some kind of battle management system. This is definitely a generational leap. Also if I recall correctly there was an emphasis on modularity in the design process to make upgrade packages easier to add.

[@jonny2954]

Marketing stunt.

[@jonny2954]

@@Disbelief- Compared to the Leopard 2A4 the Leopard 2A7 also has new sights, hunter-killer capability, new electronics, new armour, new fire control system. Doesen't make it a Leopard 3.

[@levilastun829]

It has a completely different turret, which has a bustle ammo rack which is fitted with blowout panels. In addition the fire control system is much better.

[@peebeedee6757]

There's no secret here. British tanks and their crews have always undergone testing of ammunition types and tank upgrades in Germany. Fairly constantly during the days of BAOR and also since the retraction of those forces back into the UK. Germany has much large ranges and a more varied landscape for testing and trainimg purposes.

[@nightwing.3378]

Well it's a good looking tank, but british army should get 500 tanks instead of 148 aswell as 1250 Boxer and 750 Ajax Ifv 80 M142 HIMARS and 120 Boxer RCH - 155 mm to be a Top tier fighting force.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

The Challenger 3 gets trialed and tested in germany, because the design team and parent company sits in germany and the UK does not have a relevant capability in that regard. The UK will only put together the delivered upgrade components in its Rheinmetall owned factory. The Challenger 2s DU Ammunition severely laggs behind NATO non DU Ammuniton like DM63 from germany. DM63 has about 25% higher penetration than the british L27a1 DU round.

[@BlobBoi]

When the fuck are they gonna fix the hull and power to weight ratio?

[@thewomble1509]

Do you know what Torque is/does?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

no it got worse. engine, transmission etc all remains the same, weight increases to close to 80t

[@phillipchapman169]

So we are dropping depleted uranium (DU) armour piercing rounds for ammunition with less penetrating power (at least until they’ve figured how to increase the kinetic energy of tungsten rounds) because we are worried about the health of crews hit by DU rounds? So unless we have an incident of friendly fire, why are we worried about the health of a potential enemy aggressor? The argument against DU may be in a Parliamentary Report, but the reasoning doesn’t add up. Therefore, I wonder what the real reason is? It’s not about shortage of DU as apparently: “At the other end of the fuel cycle, when the uranium is taken out of reactors and reprocessed at Sellafield in Cumbria for every kilogram of plutonium produced there are 100 kilograms of spent uranium. There are at least 20,000 tonnes of DU in store at Sellafield alone.12 Jan 2001” Hmmm!?🤔

[@gaptaxi]

Its not about the crews, it is about civilians living in the battle areas years later! Never watched Judge Deed(?) ?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the RH120 L/44 gun has 25% higher performence and penetration firing DM53 toungsten carbide APFDSDS than the Challenger 2s rifled gun firiing L27a1 apfsds. The L/55 firing DM73 has more than 40% higher performence than the L27a1 DU APFSDS of Challenger 2. Its an massive upgrade to the outdated 120mm rifled gun, that has been one of the major downsides of Challenger 2 and Challenger 1.

[@chrissmith2114]

looks like the challenger 3 gun has been downgraded to suit NATO ammunition. The Challenger 2 rifled barrel has long been known for its accuracy, with Ukraine tank crews boasting about 'their sniper tank', looks like a race to the bottom in the quest for 'standardization'..

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

thats a stupid british myth. To anyone who knows a little bit about tank gunnery, it is very clear that rifled guns are inferior to smoothbores. why? because the rifling makes the gas seal less tight, increases friction and requires a more complex sabot for APFSDS rounds, to neutralise the rifling, as rifling does work against APFSDS rounds not for them. The L30a1 120mm L/55 rifled of challenger 2 has 2km less effective range, 25% lower average penetration capability with comparable ammunition, lower barrel life and requires a more complex sabot than the RH120 L/55a1 smoothbore gun that Challenger 3 now gets.

[@chrissmith2114]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The evolution of the military gun, centuries of inaccurate smoothbore guns, then rifling was introduced to make a step change in accuracy. How many sniper rifles have smooth bores, or even standard military combat rifles. The Ukrainian tankers refer to their Challenger 2 as 'sniper tanks' - never heard them refer to Abrams or Leopards in that way.... Would not be the first time standards have been lowered in the name of 'standardisation'...

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

​@@chrissmith2114 well you are mixing up a few things here ad are stuck in the early 1970s. Nothing to be ashamed of. Yes you are correct that the most muzzle loaded guns were smooth bores (muskets, naval/field guns of the 17th century etc). Rifling was also known at minimum in the 14th century, as we got hunting rifles with rifling of that era. Then around the late 18th early 19th century, european guns got rifling (in the napoleonic wars) and the first breech loading artillery pieces were issued regularly. At the same time conical shaped projectiles were introduced. both benefittet range and accuracy tremendously. so far you are absolutely right. up to the 50´s guns primarily used full bore projectiles like APCBC (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) or full bore HE-Frag Ammunition. (with a few exceptions of early APDS - armor piercing discarading sabot subcaliber rounds) The Full Bore AP and HE rounds have a low Length-Diameter Ratio, meaning the Projectile is often just 3-5 times its Diameters long, and are conical shaped. So a 75mm APCBC PzGr.39 for PzKpfW. IV has a projectile diameter(caliber) of 75mm, and a projectile length of 300mm (Lenght/Diameter Ratio is 4:1) These projectiles required the rifling for spin stabilisation. In the later stages of WW2 APDS ammunition started being used by all sides. This is effectively a APCBC projectile with about 40-50% of the size of the regular one for the gun caliber. These were fitted into so called bottom sealed sabots, that carried the projectile through the barrel and discarded after leaving the barrel. These projectile styles (APDS) were used by NATO until about 1978, by the UK until 1985. APDS stilll requires rifling for stabilisation but due to the smaller projectile mass and size, the projectile has greater muzzle velocity and effective range than a full bore projectile. NATO used the L11a5 120mm rifled and L7 105mm rifled guns for this. In 1962 the sovjet union introduced T-62 with a smootbore gun and a novel projectile type. The 115mm U-5TS/2A20 smoothbore gun and the BM-4 APFSDS-T round. APFSDS - Armor Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot. This was kind of the biggest revolution in gun and ammunition technology since the introduction of conical projectiles and riflling. APFSDS Ammunition have a high Length-Diameter Ratio. Meaning the projectile is ALOT longer than thick. 15-30 times longer than its thickness in most cases. So you got a long slender dart with fins at the end, like an arrow from a bow. These projectiles retained ALOT more energy on range than APDS and could reliably hit and penetrate targets on about double to triple the range of APDS. As example: L15A4 APDS for the Chieftan or Challenger 1 has an effective range of about 900m vs heavy armored targets (lke a T-72), while a DM23 APFSDS form Leopard 2 has 1800+m effective range vs the same target. (both projectiles were used in the early 80´s) The tricky thing is, that physics is a bitch. While the shorter full bore and sub caliber projectiles that were used untl then really benefitted from the riflinigs spinning to achieve stability and precision, the dart like APFSDS rounds got the opposite effect. When spun by rifling the darts started to rotate around their center of mass. meaning the tip and rear started to wobble outwards, bringing the dart into a hard tumble, wiich basicly neutralised its energy in less than 500m. To counteract this, the L7 105mm guns APFSDS, and the 120mm L11A5/L30A1´s APFSDS rounds have a more complex sabot, that neutralises the rifling. The Rifling does have no positive effect on these projectiles, on the contrary, it has a very detrimental effect. That Challenger 2 gets called a sniper tank is a result of british mystification of their tanks. In fact, even in the 80´s both M1A1 and Leopard 2A4 had vastly greater effective ranges and precision with their 120mm smoothbores than Challenger 1 or later Challenger 2. Leopard 2A6 has close to double the effective range of Challenger 2(close to 6000m) and can hit a 1m² target on that distance with 98% first hit propability. Challenger 2 caps out at around 3500m. Challenger 2 is no sniper tank. And the L30a1 rifled gun is a significantly worse gun than the L/55a1 that Challenger 3 gets now. With DM73 APFSDS the L/55a1 achieves 40-45% higher penetration than the L30a1 with its best ammuninion (L27A1) and can hit and penetrate modern tanks like T-90M´s on up to 6000m, while the L30a1 will struggle with a T-90 on 3200m or even 2000m. its absolutely ok to be not that hardcore into tank guns etc. but please dont spread stupid myths like "rifling is better than smoothbore". There is a reason why no developed nation is using rifled guns anymore. And its not NATO Standardisation.

[@chrissmith2114]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 India chose the rifled barrel for their main tank the Arjun, which was chosen because a rifled barrel can fire more types of ammunition than a smoothbore. Tank on tank battles are very rare and take place at quite short ranges. The best way to deal with enemy tanks is ATGM, which is why Bradley was responsible for more tank kills in Iraq wars with its TOW missiles, and even its 25mm chaingun can disable tanks. MBT have been basically made almost obsolete by drone and ATGM, and MBT these days mainly for bragging rights.. And the jury is in any case still out on smooth vs rifled barrel. In WW2 most tanks got used for bunker busting and such purposes - not tank on tank, because both sides had purpose made tank destroyer guns.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@chrissmith2114 is india a developed nation or a developing nation? The rifled gun was chosen for Arjun, because a rifled gun is easier and cheaper to produce with less technical requirements than a smoothbore. And no, MBTs are not obsolete, they are stll extremely valid. And also no, MBT vs MBT duels happen regularly in ukraine, we got witness accounts for that, but on the ranges these duels often happen its hard to film. There have been accounts of Leopard 2s engaging russian T-72´s on 5000m on a regular basis. *And btw the 120mm Smoothbore has HE-Frag rounds mit programmable fuze for anti fortifcation and soft targets. These outperform HESH for these purposes, as HESH was initially an anti-tank round and lacks fragmentation. And while we are at it, there is significantly less ammuniton choice availible for riifled than for smootbore guns. The L30A1 has APFSDS, Ilum, Smoke and HESH. The L/55a1 got APFSDS, HEAT-Frag-FS (Multipurpose), HE-Frag Programmable, Smoke, Canister (120mm shotgun), gun launched ATGM and a few more.

[@SBK_Sound]

Here comes another "Game Changer" 🤣

[@StoatLoxley]

Because firing tank shell doesnt comply with Net Zero?

[@tomisac7444]

recoil is subtle

[@jericsaladino5246]

No need for DU rounds..rapid firing guns with sensors are much important with advanced detection systems especially for drone attacks

[@williamdodds1394]

knowing the brits a gpmg mount thats your drone lot.

[@storyanaksekolah2]

they built it to fight dessert farmers 😂

[@williamdodds1394]

@@storyanaksekolah2 You do talk aload of nonsense its a top rate tank the uk needs a new tank so does nato kf51 is a start.

[@storyanaksekolah2]

@@williamdodds1394 you should learn how to writing first 😂

[@williamdodds1394]

@@storyanaksekolah2 Learn how to writing first ? no such sentence you should learn how to communicate it might get home after a break down.

[@daveewing9159]

How many, roughly, will the UK have after all said and done: 100?

[@NATOenthusiast]

143 I think it was…

[@DMulabiTalejan]

Thanks but you did not explain the new Rheinmetal ammunition which i understand is revolutionary. Would be nice to get an expose on this

[@allaboutkalergi5012]

The Challenger 3 is a resto-mod on an old Challenger 2 chassis. The gun is a smooth bore German weapon not as accurate as the gun it replaces, which can now no longer be built in the UK.

[@jonny2954]

Except the German gun is just as accurate because the APFSDS fired from the rifled gun is literally *not* spin stabilised. The round has slip obturation rings that _cancel out the rotation_ because it is fin stabilised. On APFSDS rounds the rifling just adds unnecessary loss of energy due to the friction. Only HESH is spin stabilised.

[@allaboutkalergi5012]

@@jonny2954 Which one holds the record for the longest range tank kill? 🤔

[@jonny2954]

@@allaboutkalergi5012 Record holder is a Ukrainian T-64BV Drone assisted (Kropyva system) non line of sight kill at 10,600 m with 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun. Longest conventional ranged MBT is the Quatari Leopard 2A7Q, only Leopard 2 variant to have a weather station equipped to reliably hit targets with KE out to 5000 m with 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun.

[@allaboutkalergi5012]

@@jonny2954 The fact remains that the giant Vickers factory in Leeds that built the Challenger series has been flattened with a housing estate built over the top, as has the foundry that built the previous world's best tank gun. The country that invented the tank can no longer design and build a new one. England and the UK totter about the world stage like a helpless toddler, under the protection of her master, the USA.

[@jonny2954]

@@allaboutkalergi5012A tank gun that was adopted by literallay noone else and the UK MoD wanted to get rid of for more than a decade is far from the worlds best. It has the same accuracy and much lower operating pressure than the Rhm 120 mm.

[@robertdonnell8114]

Was this written by AI? It certainly was not written by a native English speaker.

[@hackbrettschorsch6855]

The US is using DU rounds with the exactly same L55 smoothbore barrel

[@jonny2954]

The US Abrams still retains the two generations older L44. Their stabiliser can't handle the heavier L55.

[@hackbrettschorsch6855]

@@jonny2954 Thx, I always thought they used the same gun as the Germans.

[@jonny2954]

@@hackbrettschorsch6855 Same gun as the Leopard 2A4 and A5. 2A6 and later use L55, 2A7V and A8 use L55A1.

[@hackbrettschorsch6855]

@@jonny2954 I figured as much. Just thought they also switched when the A6 was upgraded to L55.

[@agile-heliuk1801]

They have DU rounds for this gun already. Whole point being UK will be using the same Ammo and gun as the US and Germany. Meaning lower logistics for ammo supplies. Bur also spares, repairs and maintenance. There are modern rounds developed or in development that can match or out do DU rounds. Much cheaper, and much safer ( unless your getting hit with it)

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

there are already DU and non DU rounds n service for the 120mm for close to 20 years that match or outperform the british DU rounds. German DM63, in service since 2001, 25% higher performence than L26 and L27 DU rounds. US M829A3, the same.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

Testing in Germany is logical given the UK provides the chassis but the gun and turret are German. German testing grounds are very similar to East European prospective battle areas.

[@bigd5090]

What's the point of having Salisbury Plain if we're going to send prototypes to Germany!

[@davdave3470]

Didn't the Brirish close their "Tank Factory" test facility a few years ago following defense cuts? Anyway they would need to build and stock pile thousands of them if they are to ever take on the Russians.

[@josue_kay]

Or run to the US for help, right after picking a fight with Russia. 😂

[@gaptaxi]

It is the USA that starts Wars and then asks the Brits for help, then floods the EU and the UK with THEIR Refugees! @@josue_kay

[@user-iz6zm7jn4b]

Великобритания разучилась делать танки, несмотря на то, что когда-то давно (в Первую Мировую Войну) была в этом первой. Это очень странно.

[@kenc4104]

What about drones? What about mines?

[@errorsofmodernism7331]

Is this a paid advertisement?

[@davidb1565]

Losing D.U. rounds has nothing to do with the switch to a smoothbore gun. That's all health and environment related. Smoothbore are in fact better for firing discarding sabot ammunition, like the current D.U. rounds. The round the Challenger can no longer use is the H.E.S.H or high explosive squash head round. That needs rifling to spin it for stable flight (accuracy). Sabot rounds like D.U. use fins for stabilisation, spin even works against this to some degree. British Army wanted to retain H.E.S.H for Challenger 2. As it's useful against light armour and soft targets behind cover. D.U rounds are only really useful against heavy armour.

[@verdebusterAP]

Incorrect Depleted uranium is vastly superior to Tungsten however the companies that make depleted uranium are virtually non-existent now. Orbital ATK which makes the US made M829 series was brought by Northrup who announced in 2023 that they would no longer make depleted uranium rounds. Simply put, no one is making depleted uranium rounds any more as far as Western countries go.Long before Ukraine, the appearance of T-14 already questioned the existening capabilities 120mm ammunition that the time The US made the M829A4 in 2016 however as stated before, no one in the EU was making DU rounds and the UK' CHARM-3 hadnt upgraded since 1999 so there was doubts about its effectiveness as well the ability of tungsten to penetrate newer Russian armor The 130mm solves all problems , First Sabo rounds have 50 percent more kinetic energy which easily allow 130mm rounds to punch through any Russian armor The most important fact is that HEAT round in 130mm carries larger warhead which also equally as dangerous if not worse

[@davidb1565]

@@verdebusterAP Who's incorrect about what?

[@jonny2954]

@@verdebusterAP It's not vastly superior. It used to perform better than tungsten alloys in the 80s but only against semi-infinite steel targets. Against modern composite armor arrays tungsten alloys perform better because opf lower ductility.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@jonny2954 Incorrect Depleted uranium principal advantages over tungsten is it naturally self sharpening and pyrophoric While Tungsten has near similar density , its lacks DU natural abilities Thats why the US uses DU liners in the Abrams Composite armor can blunt Tungsten rod rounds however DU rounds are much harder since their self sharpening allows them to retain their form DU is pyrophoric so even if the rod is stop, the metal will burn at a high temp which is bad for tanks for several reason You can line Tungsten with zirconium powder for incendiary effect but it burns at 3000-4000 F while DU burns at over 10,000 F Yes modern alloys are better than previous generations but they still lag behind DU

[@jonny2954]

@@verdebusterAP Read my comment. Self-sharpening, that's why it performed better on semi-infinite steel targets early on. Modern NERA arrays don't care, the lower ductility of tungsten alloys help them perform better in that case. APFSDS after armor effects rely on penetrator fragmentation and spall. While both kinds of penetrators get very hot they're simply too small (especially after going through armor) to heat up anything around them to havy any effect. According to the US Army Research Laboratory, there is no difference in perforation of steel targets between DU and modern tungsten penetrators. The Americans say it _themselves_ dude. You kinda dense.

[@sladehelicoptersgaming3148]

Gonna need some anti drone systems asap

[@Ghosy01]

Why not buy leopard 3 instead of making another expensive tank . Nato needs to standardise equipment not have every single country come up with a mbt

[@niweshlekhak9646]

4 different countries making MBT creates competition, competition makes each other better.

[@Ghosy01]

@@niweshlekhak9646 except no one buys challengers.

[@niweshlekhak9646]

@@Ghosy01 Denmark has Challengers.

[@emilsinclair4190]

​@@niweshlekhak9646I think they have the leo

[@thatonelocalauthority2809]

Because every NATO nations has different needs, and no tank on earth is built to all those needs, especially across two continents. An example would be that, Italy has heavily mountainous terrain, and leopards would struggle in said terrain, hence why Italy place a focus on light tanks, as they are much faster and lighter. The UK is an island nation that’s also hilly, and so they need a tank purpose built for them. It’s also a matter of nationally security. Having your tanks come from another nation means that your security is literally in their control. And Britain is one of the world’s major powers lol, one of the highest GDPs, they will make their own vehicles. Sure this has a German gun, but so does the Abrams so.

[@likourgos13]

the yellow reflective jacket , the great british institution

[@aleksandarbabic766]

It's Challenger 2 with couple upgrades.. Keep old faulty and bring couple new. There will be very few.... Because UK don't have $$$$$ to convert more.

[@josue_kay]

You need to get straight to testing in Ukraine before you get your hopes too high.

[@geofreyssenteza591]

It was immediately destroyed the moment it rolled on the battlefield in Ukraine. Performs so better in western media but on the Frontline it only compares to a Soviet T60 in battle realities

[@nomenestomen3452]

@@geofreyssenteza591 The T-60 was a WW2 light tank you expert

[@verdebusterAP]

Just a thought you want to test your weapon in every possible clime and place so I wouldnt be surprised if ended up in Alaska for Cold weather testing

[@ataxpayer723]

The video clearly mentions that the UK test ranges are not certified for testing the specialized amo, hence the testing in Germany.

[@picaso1509]

New game changer! New game changer.

[@Marshmallow603]

new game changer same challenger

[@graemekeeley4497]

Why not test it in a real battle scenario like in Ukraine After all, Britain supplied Ukraine with several Challenger two tanks Russian Kornet missile with tandem charged warheads quickly defeated the tank’s unprotected sections The result was Ukraine withdrew Abrams tanks from the front line action amid Russian barrage of drone attacks which left no ground safe for Tanks ... along with the British Challenger 2 and German-made Leopard 2 tanks The Challenger was not popular with Ukranian Tank Crews, the tank’s 1,200-horsepower engine is under-powered for a 71-ton vehicle. Challenger 2s often get bogged down in Ukraine’s soft soil and needed towing by other Challengers or engineering vehicles. Ukraine never got add-on armor on the sides of the hull and the lower frontal plate left the tanks vulnerable and the extra three tons of weight would make Ukrainian Challenger 2s even less mobile on soft ground The Russias took advantage of the weakness by deploying drones handheld anti-tank weapons, and heavier munitions that blasted right through the unprotected sections Challenger 2s amounted to an error in Ukraine’s order of battle. They barely are worth the effort to maintain and arm them. Oh, and to tow them when they get stuck. Upping the model designation number with a few modifications will not change that in Ukraine against Russia

[@niweshlekhak9646]

Compared to Russian tanks Challenger are worth to keep.

[@nomenestomen3452]

Yeah smart idea. Let's just send the newest tech to Ukraine so the Russian can reverse engineer it or look for weak spots when they get their hands on one of them... and they would. Remember that most tanks are knocked out by simple mines. The weakspot of every tank are the tracks. A simple $200 drone will then finish the job as shown in the Ukraine a hundred of times.

[@farthammer7126]

Zero active protection ..... why

[@johnallen7807]

And only 148 of them which won't be delivered until 2030 i.e about the length of the entire WW2!

[@Kenny-z4z7o]

I really think big gun 4 and 3 man tanks are no longer needed, I think the future of armoured warfare should be a lighter more manoeuvrable two man armoured vehicle with exceptional situation all awareness achieved with artificial intelligence to help the commander fight the vehicle which should have a 40mm auto cannon with built in defences against ATGMs and drones throughout frequency, jammers, and active protection measures With two men it would be possible to give them more armour protection than what could be achieved in larger heavier vehicles as a two man armoured capsule possibly situated at the rear of the vehicle due to current technologies with cameras and such

[@diannegooding8733]

There is no reason to drop the DU ammo.

[@JJ_LL]

The Challenger II 105mm used Depleted Uranium???? I thought America was the only nation to manufacture Depleted Uranium. We use the 120mm gun........... so how is Britain losing Depleted Uranium? None of that made sense.

[@ObjectiveAnalysis]

No details on why they needed to get enhanced permission to use in the UK? 🤔

[@davec5153]

Cheaper to do it in Germany as its their gun.

[@hummingbird9149]

because there is none... they're testing in Germany because Rheinmetall are the developer of the new turret and gun system. Pretty normal to test your own product at your own facilities ;)

[@DepakoteMeister]

Ranges have to be MOD cleared as suitable for up to a certain level of weapon power (e.g. a range might only be cleared for up to .50 BMG), probable that some of Chally 3 ammunition exceeds current range limits.

[@docsnider8926]

Still underpowered, should have switched to MTU motor.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

I heard they had a 1600hp version.

[@thatonelocalauthority2809]

They’re gonna supercharge the engine to get about 1600 HP out of it.

[@NotALot-xm6gz]

And Germany has thousands of square miles of tank manoeuvring and firing ranges where the NIMBY neighbours don’t start ringing the police after 2 shots.

[@nathanknight8022]

The challenger is no longer a sniper tank

[@blackchallis]

I play War thunder to get all my up to date top secrete tank and plane information :p

[@kingcuz.]

This script has to be AI written

[@nagmashot]

so much crap claims the different in penetration performance between DU and Tungston is 2% not 20% The only real reason to use DU over tungsten is money... DU is simple much cheaper

[@goodik4885]

Germany-💪

[@hawadeemuhtar2754]

🤣🤣

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

Losers lost 2 world wars😂😂

[@Dingdangdoo]

The secret is that its just a challenger 2.

[@FinsburyPhil]

It's a German gun in a German designed turret built by a German company - of course it will be tested in Germany.

[@DEADGAME1805]

Russia has 155mm Artillery Tanks. With High Explosive Guided Munitions.

[@scottmorley7738]

I assume you are referring to the 152mm gun on the T-14. Considering Russia has less than 10 of them, I doubt anyone gives them a second thought. There's a reason Russia has lost more T-55's in Ukraine than T-14's. The T-55 actually works and doesn't break down on parade grounds unlike the T-14. And remember, the T-55 is 76 years old.

[@bennewnham4497]

The experience in Ukraine has caused all Western militaries to reevaluate tank design to defend against the drone threat.

[@douglasprewer7913]

Why don't we just outsource all of our defence procurement, Russia to provide our tanks, Italy to provide our submarines, whoops sorry surface Navy, France to provide the fastest armoured cars able to drive in reverse with an automatic white flag waving device. The list is endless !!

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

because thatcher and the others fucked your defense industry so hard, that you now have to buy/license german, french and spanish products

[@TiSIWO]

5:15 min out of a total of 8:00 to actually start stating the differences btw the Ch2 & the CH3!!!!

[@JOzzie-u8z]

I love this secret testing but there built by another country and tested in another country so wheres the secrecy

[@QAYWSXEDCCXYDSAEWQ]

A question for those in the know, surely if you're in this tank, any tank and its gets hit; even if you ok, you're deaf? and a deaf soldier, tank commander? not good? I really think we need to focus on drone tech these days, machines fighting machines.

[@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е]

есть поговорка "генералы живут прошлыми войнами" и ни кто не знает как будут воевать в следующей войне. наделаете кучу дронов, а противник уже что то придумал как их все уничтожить нажатием одной кнопки, импульс какой электромагнитный супермощный и т.д. чем дальше воевать будете?

[@QAYWSXEDCCXYDSAEWQ]

@@МихаилПрохоров-ь2е Unfortunately your EMP device will also disable all the electronics in your tank too; so it is of limited use really.

[@Neur0nauT]

DU rounds are just a way to get rid of said DU on the battlefield and not have to deal with the repercussions afterwards. Next-next generation tanks will likely host fusion-powered electromagnetic rail guns (EMRGs) which will make conventional explosive rounds look like cotton buds. Maybe not in my generation, but certainly within the next. One shot will be able to vaporise a target, and it's absolutely terrifying what will come to pass. Not to mention the DEWs that will be used to incapacitate the tank crews if they don't get tagged by an EMRG first. Future combat will be a quick death to say the least.

[@MaxwellMoore-d1u]

We are one of Germanys main Allies, Britain's Tanks are most Likely to be used in Germany or European countries anyway. If they meet a Foe on British soil somethings gone seriously wrong. Plus the Fact the Gun is German.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the whole upgrade is german

[@MaxwellMoore-d1u]

@zhufortheimpaler4041 It,ll be good then, apart from telling porkies about the emissions. Do Tanks have Mot

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@MaxwellMoore-d1u it brings Challenger 2 to a technological standard of Leopard 2A7V from 2017

[@MaxwellMoore-d1u]

@zhufortheimpaler4041 well I only see that has a good thing do we get into a Pissing contest who is better German or Britain or do we stand together against the Bad guys ?.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@MaxwellMoore-d1u oh sure germany and UK are allies. But reality is, that since the early 80´s the Uk fell behind in MBT and AFV technology and developement, behind every other core NATO partner, wich resulted in caving in sales, wich resulted in the death of the domestic british AFV industry in the early 2000s. Right now, Rheinmetall is rebuilding all of that from basicly 0 in the UK. The cost of the Tories (conservative party UK) economic and procurement politics since the late 70´s till today, wich now forces the UK to buy/license german products in that regard, instead of having domestic solutions.

[@minimax9452]

The british are always late - for decades they are bragging the smoothbore is better. It will tanke years until the "new" tanks will be delivered. Now they change to NATO-Standard set by Rheinmetall. But Rheinmetall and KNDS already have developed a 130mm and 140mm canon for the next Tank. A tragic.

[@bradolsen8629]

What is DU ammunition?

[@magnem1043]

Depleted uranium, basically nuclear waste product which is harder then normal metal

[@johngillespie9459]

Hard yes, but denser than almost all other metals, except perhaps some man made elements they can whip up in cyclotrons. Cross sectional density is vital to armor penetration.

[@bradolsen8629]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate that.

[@MuralidharanKrishnamurth-rc2mn]

A New Weapon System based on Theoretical predictions always seem to be The Silver Bullet. Only on The Battlefield will it's True Performance come to light. Till then, it remains A Paper Tiger.

[@ansmexia]

Just like the Russian Armata!

[@TimBrianTufuga]

Ok, I get it, after the performance of the Challenger 2 at the Ukrainian war, in 2023-24, you're so over the Challenger 2, right?

[@gb1178]

Velocity over range. It is a shame that we spent so much money on a tank that will need to have many new upgrades over the next 5 years. Europe will come together as an arms industry and start making the best the world has to offer. It's just a shame that it has been on account of the war in Ukraine.

[@TachyonDriver]

"Ukraine has made it clear; a bigger jump is needed. " ER.. HELLO.. this is a British tank and nothing to do with you, Zelensky. Just bugger off.

[@bradolsen8629]

Why didn’t they come to the United States for these tests? Strange very strange.

[@BewareOfTheKraut]

Have a look at a map.

[@DB5652-v3r]

not very sharp one this fella 😂😂

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

because the Challenger 3 upgrade is made by Rheinmetall Landsysteme, a german company, with german tech and was designed by Rheinmetall Germany. (gun, ammuniton, new turret etc are all Rheinmetall) Take an educated guess why it is tested in germany.

[@joependleton6293]

Maybe some form of autonomous vehicle could send D.U. rounds on your command! By using A crew less vehicle? You escape the radiation! That's more battle savvy*