Vickers Mk 7 - Leopard 2 hybrid: Tank Design & Development

Today’s video will begin to look at the Vickers Mk 7 tank, a private venture by Vickers aimed at the export market during the 1980s.
A hybrid vehicle consisting of the Leopard 2 hull by Krauss Maffei and the Vickers Universal turret, the Mk 7 is one of the very few vehicles to ever earn an outstanding rating from its testers
This video covers the backgrounds, tests, and trials and brings out new photos of the tank
#futuretankstudies #tank #experimental #fredsmum #vickers #KraussMaffei #Leoaprd2 #mk7 #concept #1980 #armour #mk4 #mbt #MBT-95 #ATDU #Egypt #warthunder

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I see the inter-war era anti-tank rock was later miniaturised with post-war technology.

[@CallmeKenneth-tb1zb]

The British talent for shooting ourselves in the foot never ceases to amaze.

[@jari2018]

when wrong people dp right things its no right people do wrong things its a no , and wrong people do wrong things its a no so in uk right people must do right things equals yes , eg... i smell class stupidity and other

[@barriewright2857]

Arrogant stupidity, that's always been the bain of the people in power in the UK . It's not the first time they have sold us out. they people who run the country are disconnected from the rest of the UK'S population. That's why they say stupid things and come up with brain dead policy's.

[@rogerwhiteway971]

Hey Canada is good at that too.

[@thewomble1509]

This is balls. The Turret on C2 was a further development/improvement of the Universal Turret fitted to the 7/2. The Leo hull was not used due to ready round storage next to the driver, poor armour protection and a very basic NBC system mounted in the hull that was inferior to the system used in C1 ( which was improved on C2). Sources for all these facts can be found in the Haynes Challenger 2 manual.

[@thewomble1509]

As does the talent for not fact checking other people's vids, just assuming they are correct.

[@johnalogue9832]

Sounds like they could practically dig up the drawings now, add a few modern components/features and still come out ahead of most MBTs in 2023.

[@danielallen839]

Better amo improved thermals and fire control system maby even active protection and you would have a hell of a tank maby even an arrow head for the turret if it can cope with the weight

[@davidcleckner3900]

Small world I was the gunner on the Mk7 down ATDU & in Egypt it was one outstanding tank

[@armouredarchives8867]

seems to be the overall ATDU verdict in the report, normaly there is something to gripe about, but nothing at all.

[@jasonbarnes2568]

What's interesting is that the hydropneumatic suspension of Challenger (both 1 and 2) is generally held to be superior cross-country to the Leopard 2's torsion bar suspension - yet when it came to mobility the Vickers Mk 7 was out-performing the Challenger.

[@v4skunk739]

Weight.

[@RedXlV]

Because the Challengers are so heavy and also have an underpowered engine trying to move that weight. Challenger 1 is a 62 ton tank with a 1,200 hp engine. The Vickers Mk 7 was 54.6 tons with a 1,500 hp engine. No matter how good your suspension is, an overweight and underpowered tank will still be hindered in its mobility.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@RedXlV 1200 horsepower is in no way ''underpowered'' . That is a very powerful engine indeed and a power to weight ratio of over 19 horsepower to the ton is highly impressive. It's worth pointing out that the reverse of your statement is also true. No matter how powerful your engine , a tank with an inadequate suspension system will be hindered in its mobility. Also, leopard 2A5 and A6 now weigh in at a solid 63 tons apiece. These are heavy weights but not overweight by modern standard.

[@RedXlV]

@@andrewwoodhead3141 By modern standards, 1,200 horsepower for tank that's 64 tons stock and 75 tons with the Theatre Entry Standard armour packages added is indeed underpowered. There's a reason why the other tanks in Challenger 2's weight class use 1,500hp engines. Even the 54 ton Ariete (the lightest of the modern European MBTs) uses a 1,270hp engine, and the AMV midlife upgrade will replace it with a 1,500hp. 19 hp/t is actually quite subpar for a modern MBT, with many achieving 25 hp/t or better.

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

@@RedXlV You are abusing the term ''underpowered'' , I think. 19 hp/t is a very high horsepower ratio indeed. It's higher than T72 and , even , the leopard 1 ! if only by a little. Neither of these tanks has ever, to my knowledge, been referred to as '''underpowered ''. You''ll note that the Theatre entry package, ''Megatron'' I think they call it , is a urban combat package that has , so far , been fitted to exactly one demonstrator. So we can call the Challenger a sixty two ton tank, which is what it is. No case for Chally two being underpowered , I'm afraid , and the armour is better than you'll find on any of the Leopard family. Edit : Challenger one was sixty four ton , sorry my mistake. Still plenty of power though. And a great gun .Longest tank kill in history and both have a very effective HESH shell that has proved it's worth in Iraq and Afganistan .

[@matthayward7889]

Such a good looking Tank, although (IMHO) not as good looking at the Mk4 The Mk7 was in a ‘world military weapons’ book I had In the mid eighties and seemed such a clever design. Also “there was some doubt about this, as it was still attached to a tank in Brazil at the time” made me proper laugh.

[@ravenouself4181]

Fun Fact: A Brazilian Tank at the time defeated the Abrams in Saudi Arabia's trials.

[@v4skunk739]

@@ravenouself4181 All the trials are a joke any way. Especially when the tanks are manned by their own nations crews. I know us British never trained our crews to perform well in trials. We just randomly picked a crew and off they went.

[@23GreyFox]

The Leopard 2 hull did everything it was asked to do and more. Good to know. In a sense this tank was like the P13 rifle. A great combination of German and British design features.

[@meckman71]

The anti tank pebble gave me a chuckle. Bringing to mind the declassified Anti Tank rock picture from US archives. Ty for your work.

[@DivineDawn]

Very interesting, had no idea it beat challenger and was such an excellent vehicle.

[@monsterboyuk6300]

Excellent video, I have been hoping you would make such a video on the vickers mk7 and you certainly didn't disappoint

[@armouredarchives8867]

Thanks 👍

[@Splattle101]

I'd not heard of this one before. Sounds very impressive, if cursed by its international pedigree.

[@trappenweisseguy27]

I appreciate your videos and the amount of work you put into them. Thank you.

[@armouredarchives8867]

My pleasure!

[@s.31.l50]

Vickers Mk7 still lives today, as the Challenger 2, whose turret is a further development of the Vickers turret.

[@jasont6287]

Such a shame the Challenger 2's turret wasnt universal and could take different guns and ammo storage hence challenger 3. PS it could take a different smooth bore but ammo storage...lol.

[@DeBoX1985]

Awesome video, interesting story, but a really sad end for such a magnificent machine.

[@ChIGuY-town22_]

I absolutely love when you come out with the video, it means I'm always going to learn something new. Thank you for your hard work, stay safe.

[@ARDEN440i]

I had no idea on this tank's existence until I unlocked and bought it in WT. Since then I have such a fascination for it. Incredible vehicle in-game and IRL. Thanks for the video

[@armouredarchives8867]

Glad I could help!

[@momachine74]

As always the most informative and best produced tank channel on YT

[@Vespuchian]

This makes me wonder what a Vickers 7 turret on a Challenger hull would have been like once the Leopard 2 hulls were off the table.

[@gusgone4527]

The biggest gripe with Challenger is it's speed/mobility. A more powerful engine could in theory help address that. But the real problem is the weight of the hull. The Leo hits the design sweet spot between weight, protection and engine power. The fact it used British armour to do it, is quite frankly annoying. It's engine on the other hand is simply a superb piece of engineering.

[@agt155]

That's basically what Challenger 2 is.

[@agt155]

@@gusgone4527 Problem with the leo 2 PP is that it's enormous and compromises the design in other areas.

[@23GreyFox]

@@agt155 It's the first time someone said that the MTU PP is too large. The 2 power packs have nearly the same size.

[@agt155]

@@23GreyFox Longer, wider and over a ton heavier. No surprise as it's a 47l engine compared to CV12 @ 27l. If you look at a Leopard 2 half the hull is powerpack.

[@stevenbreach2561]

Excellent presentation as always.Look forward to the next one.FTW

[@sharlin648]

What a shame, the UK could have adopted it but we had Chally 1 by then and that would have stopped any export issues for sure. But 'its not made here' grumblings probably would have been an issue.

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

In the 1990’s I would have agreed with you. Today, not so. If several companies in Europe are able to work together and produce a platform that is unbeatable and saves the lives of British servicemen, I'm all for it. The only issue that brings is in the event of a partner refusing to transfer some parts or the political landscape changes cutting the UK off from essential parts

[@Jojooooooo]

I thought from what I saw from a tank museum tank chat a lot of the tech from it went onto the chally 2

[@expatingermany7685]

As a young trooper I was tasked to work in the Gunnery School in Hohne during the preparation training and the subsequent CAT trophy shoot itself. The RH were full of themselves, the politics of Cavalry being used to represent the British Army was typical. The 2nd Regiment close by wore black and didn't get a look in. The chieftain regiments in Germany were shooting better than the Challenger Regiments, the Royal Hussars were indeed one of the worse I'd ever seen.

[@olejnik5165]

Imagine this tank with more modern composite armor, better sights, electronics a smoothbore gun it would be a beast I wonder if it could be on par with some of the tanks

[@brucehemming9749]

Great video thanks for sharing 👍🍻

[@stevenhoman2253]

For a 80s MBT design, the appearance of an MBT is already set in stone. It looks the way that MBTs would evolve in the west. The similarity to the Abrams and Challellenger, not to mention the German Leopard families, is remarkable.

[@dougstubbs9637]

The Perfect Panzer could have been a hun hull, brit turm. Now, the Perfect Panzer is a brit hull, hun turret and gun. Oh, how times change.

[@simonnorburn3518]

This was new to me. Quite unbelievable. I have no knowlege of the ballistics of the Mk7 compared to the Leopard II; are you aware of any comparative trials concerning their ability to absorb hits, rather than give them?

[@armouredarchives8867]

nope, sadly no firing at trials have been recorded, so alas i cant go into conjecture on that point.

[@philorkill]

Good video, keep it up!

[@RobSchofield]

@ 3:20 - bit of a shock to see the IR turret that was being developed and marketed by USFA bv where I was working in 1986!

[@wacojones8062]

Armored Warfare has the Vickers Mark 7 with the German smoothbore 120. Fun ride.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

I have that tank. 😉

[@Oddball_E8]

"The turret itself was then said to be shipped back to the UK. But there are some severe doubts about that, as it's still fitted to the tank in Brazil". Ah... British humor :)

[@alm5992]

9:40 Taken out by the MANPATPS - Man portable anti-tank pebble System!

[@bigblue6917]

Liked. already subscribed and thoroughly enjoyed.

[@DarkHorseSki]

Kind of a bummer this did not get into production, even if only for export.

[@stuartvincent7360]

Awesome 😮

[@RJM1011]

That was good to see thank you.

[@appelsapman434]

Good looking tank.

[@CthulhuInc]

excellent, cheers! my knowledge of Vickers vehicles stops at the 6 tonner - thqanks for the update, ed! 😊

[@mosesracal6758]

If they sold this now, it wouldve coincided with the closing retirement of the leopards that are in the mid-range market specifically Indonesia & Singapore which have both been recently trying to find the eventual replacement for their leopards. If they got the timing right, they couldve sold it to Thailand & Taiwan as well which for the case of Thailand - went for the Chinese VT-4 because of how long it took for Ukraine to complete their T-84 Oplots (which I could imagine would be hard to maintain as well) and as Thailand had some experience with British Equipment as well (Scorpion Light Tank); as well as Taiwan who are looking to replace their ageing M60 Tanks. The Leopard Hull is a proven hull within the Southeast Asian Theater - Im pretty sure everyone wouldve gotten Leopards by now if not for how stringent German Arms Exports Laws are. From what I can even remember, Malaysia was supposed to get Leopards if not for the Asian Financial Crisis which led them to choose the PT-91 Pendekar instead.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Very good Ed - the shady world of arms dealing seems to add extra murk to these stories, it must make research harder!

[@marcuswardle3180]

Nice picture from The National Archives in Kew!

[@marktheyoungest666]

Thank you for another extremely informative video 👍

[@mbr5742]

Choosing the Leopard II hull was a smart idea. At that time Leo 2 was in the third or fourth (A3 or A4) variant and a well tested system. And like Leo 1 it was designed with the west german conscript army as the first customer.

[@antonybullock2240]

I really enjoyed that. Thank you.

[@augustinbelza2418]

Really enjoyed listening to this. Many thanks and now subscribed.

[@drrocketman7794]

Here from Cone of Arc

[@vincenthewlett4329]

The " TSR7 " of the Tank world ........Too good to be true and politically scrapped ........we really are stupid sometimes.......

[@thewomble1509]

TSR 2.........

[@kewlwarez]

One of those tanks I first learned about through Twilight 2000 where it, just like other late Cold War failed projects, was much more prominent than it ever would in real life. Looking at Jane's 1986-87 edition, it mentions that the Mark 7 used "automotive components" of the Leopard 2, but doesn't mention that the hull is from there as well. Was there an original intent to use an original hull for this project but with Leo 2 components or was Jane's mistaken?

[@armouredarchives8867]

yes the whole hull is leo 2

[@nekophht]

It could have been a way to dodge vague-ish export restrictions when talking about the tank. "Automotive components" is safe enough sounding to export, but "tank hull" could cause people to put some thought in the matter in a way negative for Vickers. Then Germany decided anyhow to make explicit that "tank hull" indeed did not get to be exported.

Very intersting vehicle. I gues a "German" Tank potentially beeing a danger to Israel would not have been high on the list of desirabel newspaper stories for the German Government of the day.

[@Julio4394]

What about a video about the Engesa Osorio mbt Itself a very good tank plus a example of designing a new tank without a potencial customer

[@andrewgibbs8406]

A shame f the The Mod had any brains they would bring the tank bank as a replacement for challengeer

[@Leptospirosi]

That turret oddly reminds me of the C1 Ariete. 🤔

[@oryctolaguscuniculus]

Why did you not mention what is probably the most notable fact about the Mk7 - that its turret went on to become the basis of Challenger 2's turret? Surely you can see from the comments that this video has left quite a lot of misapprehension due to that omission.

[@armouredarchives8867]

because i dont have any documents to verify that, only a load of ATDU docs. and i dont use web/forum stuff only archival docs. If i saw it from an original source i would have added it, however, there was a lot of missing stuff from Vickers on the end of the vehicle, but lots on the original stuff. That's not to say its wasn't or didn't, just I have nothing to confirm it.

[@peterfeeney721]

Any chance you could have a close look at CR2E and CR2 - I'm after learning about Automotive given the E had the europack

[@ianbell5611]

Just watched a forces news video on the Ajax, then a couple of days back on the TSR 1 aircraft. It seems this kind of blundering and bewildering incompetentence in decision making is just par for the course when it comes to British defence procurement. Cheers

[@cheeseproductions748]

How much of the technology and/or engineering of the Mk7 did Vickers incorporate into Challenger 2?

[@agt155]

Lots

[@high-velocitymammal5030]

Is Challenger 3 just the reverse of this then?

[@calumknight9178]

Challenger 3 is a essentially a challenger 2 with a new turret. Doesn't use anything from Leo apart from the gun.

[@high-velocitymammal5030]

@@calumknight9178 The turret is derived from the Leo turret I thought?

[@ClumsyProto]

@@high-velocitymammal5030 no, its basically a challenger 2 turret with better armor, better optics and a better gun

[@alangordon3283]

@@high-velocitymammal5030it’s got zilch to do with a Leopard.

[@calumknight9178]

@@high-velocitymammal5030 nope absolutely nothing to do with leopard at all. Just the main gun

[@dogsnads5634]

What was ammo stowage like? Any blowout panels with explosive charges/rounds seperated from the crew compartment? Or did it have the issue that Leo 2 has with ammo stored at the front of the hull ?

[@thejetbloke4509]

British Military Procurement, ...the department that shoots itself in the foot and then reloads.

[@stephen7571]

Can’t help wonder why we keep repeating the same mistakes and hoping for a different outcome. Past was SA80, chieftain tank engine, currently Ajax?

[@orange_phoenix4774]

Exelent video, by the way do you have any infomation on th potential armour layout of the MK7?

[@armouredarchives8867]

sadly no, ive not yet had a blueprint or armour layout of it, just the ATDU reports

[@mabdinur85]

Wow it still makes no sense then why the UK went with Challenger 2 if they had this design lying about? I understand maybe avoiding the German hull but did the universal turret get reused in the Challenger program or will it be part of the new Challenger 3 program? Does this tank hold the speed record by any chance ... first I heard of a MBT going 80+ mph.

[@Celebmacil]

80kmh, not mph. That's about 50mph, which is still quite a brisk pace for a MBT but not unheard of. Also, most top speeds in this category of vehicle are speed limited, not inherently limited by power and weight considerations.

[@dogsnads5634]

80kph not mph... Still exceptionally fast, particularly given the conditions, as thats 50mph....by the sounds of it just on a full tarmacced road it would go beyond that...and thats without the full 1800hp engine...could have been close to 60mph with that..

[@23GreyFox]

The Challenger 3 uses a 100% German designed turret and a Challenger 2 hull. I don't think the data of the Vickers Mk 7 prototype has any usefulness today.

[@batland04]

Will you be doing an MBT80 video at some point?

[@armouredarchives8867]

its been worked on, the 3d model is done, needs a few more bits first

[@batland04]

Cheers was hoping you would. Cant find any books on MBT80 unfortunately. Great series of videos these are!

[@thewomble1509]

@@batland04 MBT 80 never existed as a complete, developed vehicle. All you will find are design studies and test rigs.

[@blxtothis]

Sounds like they should have junked Challenger for the Mk 7!

[@liverpoolscottish6430]

Only the British could snatch DEFEAT from the jaws of VICTORY like this. Absolutely appalling and shocking. I had no idea about this project- fascinating if frustrating viewing!

[@Veldtian1]

Seemed waaaaay before it's time in many ways.

[@jammiedodger7040]

The British government should’ve stepped in to stop vickers from disappearing the last British company that could actually produce tanks

[@armouredarchives8867]

the British goverment were behind it dying sadly. they were and are currently only interested in what they can line their pockets with

[@23GreyFox]

@@armouredarchives8867 Is that the reason why BAE joined with Rheinmetall to produce the Challenger 3 update? I mean when was the last major Challenger 2 update, some 20 years ago? And the new turret seems to be a 100% German design. I heard in other videos that the British lost the tank production lines and even normal maintenance is getting harder doe shortcomings of components not produced in years. In the short term it's cheaper to work with Germany for the upgrade, but it's sad to see all the knowledge gone to waste, because of the manufacturing shutdown 20 years ago. On the other hand everything i wrote can just be bullshit. I'm no expert. And sorry for my broken English.

[@jammiedodger7040]

Unfortunately they have done that to almost every major British industry Automotive, Aerospace,Defence,Locomotive and Rolling Stock.British Aerospace, British Leyland,Vickers,Royal Ordinance,Alvis,English Electric,Avro,De Havilland,Hawker Siddeley, GKN and British Rail.

[@jammiedodger7040]

@@23GreyFox Something you’ve got to remember is Challenger was originally designed by Royal Ordinance than the Challenger 2 was designed by Alvis,Vickers and BAE 3 of the 4 no longer exist and BAE has just become to big for it’s boots taking on too many different types of industry and the side effect of that is the British Military Vehicle and Aircraft industries are basically destroyed. It could technically be rebuilt but it would take years and massive investment if you could find people who used to work in the factory making them it would speed up the training process and intern the rebuilding process.

[@23GreyFox]

@@jammiedodger7040 I know about the British car industry and parts of the railway cargo fleet owned by DB, but i had no idea it was that bad.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

East Germany was way more acomodating when it came to arms Exports.

[@fredtedstedman]

TYPICAL !!

[@olejnik5165]

Could it be still upgraded? Like idk adding new modern composite armor instead of just NERA? The turret surely could be modernized in terms of armor and all of the electronics and be on par with other tanks right? The hull well it could be easily upgraded too

[@iandennis7836]

I rather think that the late Gavin Lyall came across this story and used it in his excellent novel "Uncle Target " (published in 1988) with appropriate changes......

[@rowbags3017]

How can a tank fall off a trailer and end up upside-down? That must take some doing...

[@qasimmir7117]

It can happen quite easily. Remember how heavy the turret is. Once it slips sideways off the trailer, it can easily keep going and end upside down.

[@Shanetangybits]

The mk7 turret looks to me alot like the new challenger 3 turret

[@glynluff2595]

Very interesting. Was there not a Vickers tank supplied to India or is that very long ago?

[@armouredarchives8867]

yep vickers mk1, got a whole vid on that :)

[@billturner6564]

That was a very exciting video as it means the leopard 2 is stunningly reliable and easy 2 drive and operate So Ukraine will have no trouble making them work against the Russians Also it will be good to see challenger 2 burn a few Russian tanks at last ....

[@64mickh]

There’s always a fir chance that we’ll see a few burning Challys. As good as it is, it’s not invincible

[@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM]

As good as the Chally is. I fear they won't be used in the way they're supposed to be used.

[@deptusmechanikus7362]

This tank still was less German than the royal family

[@laszlokaestner5766]

"There are some doubts about (the turret being shipped back to the UK) as it's still fitted to the tank in Brazil." 🤣

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

The fact that a poorer tank meant for Iranian export compared to the Vickers tank ended up becoming the Challenger MkI shows the blinkered view of a MOD head shed. Vickers, a company with such an exemplary track record and history, getting swallowed up by BAE and then shredded is a crime too. I'm not a fan of BAE; it needed a bailout by the government in the 1980’s, privatisation and a second bailout. It became used to automatically getting British military contracts and the companies now under BAE are not as innovating in their new guise as they were under the old ownership.

[@johnbigboote8900]

It's always dismaying to learn of a good design sidelined by inept politics.

[@mrjockt]

Business as usual as far as British military equipment is concerned then.

[@toucan221]

so we can make good Tanks when we want to and Politics and other people don't get in the way. 🙂🙂👍👍

[@DrumToTheBassWoop]

Britain should Just by a batch of leopard chassis, and whack their own turret on it. Probably cheaper too.

[@martincotterill823]

Great video and interesting and sad story. Resonant of so much wrong with Britain

[@Pyrotec_nick]

Mk7 certainly was a great tank. Such a shame the Germans killed it dead.

[@marklelohe3754]

The MOD still needs to limit themselves to the specification and let the expertise of industry get on with it. Bloody politics always gets in the way too. The government never learns!

[@tm5123]

I find the reports on the german leo 2 hull, comical and typical, for what one would expect from germany. 😆 Obviously not everything made in germany is built well, but if its well built, it feels like such a meme when you run into this kind of reporting.

[@23GreyFox]

True not everything, but most is.

[@awesom6588]

this is another case of what i like to call "three british dudes in a shed" it seems like all of britians technical marvels, the mclaren f1, the l96, and now this, were basically made up by some dudes for the fun of it, and every time britian makes a massive effort to make something with lots of people and money its a disaster.

[@ptonpc]

What could have been. You can't tease us with the Mk4 not being able to fill its own fuel tanks and not elaborate! How on earth did that happen?

[@armouredarchives8867]

check the mk 4 vid :)

[@ptonpc]

@@armouredarchives8867 It's still a tease! :D

[@JohnyG29]

It was ok, but had a lot of flaws not mentioned here tbh.

[@serb5635]

Such as?

[@Galvars]

Yeah, could you provide those "lot of flaws" list to be verified?

[@FrontSideBus]

Looks like the Germans are playing silly buggers with Leopard 2 exports again!

[@dwwolf4636]

Ariete like protection levels and a 120mm Rifled gun killed its sales potential.

[@HJDore]

The Mk7 was offered for sale with both the French GIAT 120mm smoothbore and the German L44 120mm smoothbore.

[@baraka629]

anti-tank pebble 🤣

[@lkchild]

I know, now I want one.

[@vanguard9067]

Circumvent. Circumnavigate means to go around the world. No biggie.

[@kizzyp2735]

...so why mention it ??? ..... as it happens the dictionary definition of circumnavigate is : sail or travel all the way around (something, especially the world). "he undertook to circumnavigate the globe in 80 days or less" go around or avoid (an obstacle). "he helped her to circumnavigate a frozen puddle" avoid dealing with (something difficult or unpleasant). "they circumnavigated the issue" .....so he was in fact grammatically correct , one in the eye for the grammar police ! 🤭

[@vanguard9067]

@@kizzyp2735 Two words can have similar meanings, however, one often provides a more accurate definition in context of its usage. I think “circumvent” is by far a more appropriate word, meaning to overcome a challenge, problem, or obstacle (figuratively, often in a sly way. Circumnavigate has much more of a physical connotation, actual movement in space. It is not a matter of grammar, rather one of clear communication. A large vocabulary facilitates precision in effective writing.

[@kizzyp2735]

@@vanguard9067 No, you clearly made the succinct and unambiguous statement that circumnavigate means to " go around the world " ...I have pointed out that though this is the predominant meaning it is not the only meaning. So in the context of your original post you are wrong . If you now wish to shift the parameters of your argument to illustrating the use of more accurate grammar rather than incorrect grammar, then I would suggest you are now being rather disingenuous. Either way I fear the winter evenings are rather long wearisome in your household 😃

[@vanguard9067]

@@kizzyp2735 I did, figuring the most common definition means just that. I believe that circumnavigate is likewise a word used most appropriately for traveling around the globe. Circumnavigating a puddle or a problem seems a bit too flowery to me. What word would have you used in that sentence? We both just took the time to provide fairly long replies. Seems we are both a little bored, arguing about who is nit-pickier:-)

[@kizzyp2735]

@@vanguard9067 ..I would have used the word circumvent . You are indeed correct that would have been the most appropriate word to use . The point I am making is that although it maybe not the best word to choose in the purest sense of technically correct prose , it was not an altogether incorrect use of the word. As implied by your initial response . You are also correct in your second supposition ... I am presently being subjected to Coronation street ..... need I say more ????🙄

[@andywells8894]

You trying to say that the British government didn’t back industry what would of supplied jobs etc on top of a world class tank,

[@manuwilson4695]

Selling it to Egypt at the time would NOT have been a good idea!

[@Rinoyra]

man this thing look cool except it just fliped over

[@heybabycometobutthead]

We should buy exclusively from Germany, so they have full control over how we use it, when we can use it, and what we do with it when we're finished with it 👍

[@markhepworth]

“It’s all the foreigners fault”...

[@heybabycometobutthead]

@@markhepworth Why?

[@23GreyFox]

Doesn't make much sense, the only right Germany have (like every other country in the world) is to dictate who they sell to and if/where the buyer can sell it further. For example if Iraq wanted to sell 20 M1's to Poland, the USA have to give their permission to do so.

[@rezah8889]

funny challenger series was product of shah of iran wanting better tank than chieftain and vickers are Egyptian

[@iberiksoderblom]

The Germans...

[@23GreyFox]

I agree, the refusal to share all our good stuff is heart breaking.

[@parrot849]

Ahh…., personal greed and congenital stupidity; Once again two age old human factors joined together to destroy what would have been a positive technological achievement, the British Mk. 7 MBT.

[@gusgone4527]

It is a real shame that the British Army did not make a stink about how good the MK7 performed. It is cursed with senior officer `yes men.` More interested in a lucrative job after retirement, than standing on their hind legs and making a fuss. A new hull could have been developed quite easily, based on the Leo 2. But with sufficient structural changes to make it unique. The sad 😢 state of British tank manufacturing. Is the direct result of analysis and similar failings.

[@agt155]

Challenger 2 is essentially an upgraded Mk 7 turret on an upgraded Challenger 1 hull.

[@californiadreamin8423]

@@agt155 Made where ?

[@RedXlV]

@@agt155 If only the Challenger 2 had also upgraded the engine. All of the Challengers, even the upcoming Challenger 3, are woefully underpowered given their weight.

[@agt155]

@@RedXlV Challenger 3 is 1500bhp

[@thewomble1509]

@@RedXlV C3 will have a "Quick burst" acceleration function which will enable it to reach 60mph for short periods. This function was also incorporated into C2E. It's average on road speed will be around 40/45 mph.

[@camrenwick]

Foolish MOD. This tank would be amazing by now

[@willems7454]

Who paying you for this tripe, Thank the Gods you wasn't in charge at ATDU back in 90s I don't think Iraq would have played so well for me and my friends if we had the L2 hull do some research on how well the L2 did in Syria and Afghanistan.

[@armouredarchives8867]

Sigh: This video is based on the findings from ATDU and it is their reports, not mine, if they say it’s a good tank then I’m going to go out on a limb and concur with them as they know their subject. As for leopard 2, you mention Syria and Afghanistan. The Turkish misuse of tanks is well known, and a lesson in not using tanks in a surrounded position without infantry. The Dutch used leopard 2 tanks in Afghanistan with no losses. Challenger provided adequate service in GW.1 as well it should, being pitted against primarily 1st gen trash, but that doesn’t excuse it from the fact it did fail the CATS and it is and was always designed as a knockoff export tank that we got lumped with as a stand-in until something better could be made. Them’s the hard facts

[@willems7454]

​@@armouredarchives8867 It was a Danish Leopard 2 that lost a crewman in 2008 to a IED so do some more Checking up only took one two google searches to find that. I get it, your going to defend the L2 Hilt .... It had shit crews blah blah poor Tactics. That doesn't matter that's not my point. look at its destroyed hull look how it come apart. Now look at the Venerable CR2 hull after the Blue on blue. In one piece even if the turret came off two crew survived the Hull bag charges didn't brew up instantly it gave one of the crewmembers valuable moments to pull his friend out of the Burning turret. The L2 hull just wasn't good enough and that was proven with what happened in Syria and Afghan The Vickers was not for the British Army, never would have been, The turret was the Test bed for the CR2 Systems. and if you look at a Bare CR2 turret without the Dorchester Armor fitted you will notice the similarities to the Vickers Mk7 turret. As your such a expert, why do you think the Challenger 2 managed to protect its crew from a IED shaped charge device under the vehicle better than what the Leopard2 did? its pretty simple and its not about MUR cHallenger being better. Its.... ial let you work it out do some reading about both hulls...