Challenger 3: The New Generation of Main Battle Tanks | British Army 

That's why America and NATO got your backs!

@@1234crevis I think I was wrong. We have 3 of 44 tanks in each

@@Sam-tc8ic that don't matter cuz America has 5,500 tanks plus Natos tanks and we all are allies/friends here and we got each other!

We're an island nation. Where we gonna get invaded from, the channel tunnel perhaps?

​@1234crevis not good enough we can't spend everything on the navy

as an island i think we should focus more on the naval and air aspect as theres less of a land based risk

@@zamstig66 you are are not alone in NATO. You have continental duties too.

​@zamstig66 we should atleast have 300 how can we do full military conflicts will low equipment

​@@zamstig66 Well put, but a capable expeditionsry force is still needed 227-283 is what should be aimed for

No point having loads of tanks if you don't have enough infantry or IFV's to support them.

Doubt they would be telling us..

Totally agree. If anything the war in Ukraine has taught us is that tanks are incredibly vulnerable to drones. Especially if the hatch is left open. It's almost made tank warfare obsolete!

Doesn't look like the prototype shown has one yet, but there was a mention in the video of fitting an active protection system, presumably iron fist or trophy. These are hard kill APS. They are basically small missile launchers on the top of the tank that can engage drones and anti tank missiles and slower moving chemical rounds like HEAT-FS and HESH. The tank could also employ soft kill APS which works to disable the line of sight of a missile/drone by using electronic jammers or smokescreens. The black knight tank concept used the hard kill Iron fist APS so we can assume that challenger 3 will probably use it too.

Yes, keep the hatches closed …

And does the track can prevent the tank drowned in mud? Or does it has any upgrades to prevent it collapsed any civilain bridges it crosses?

Impossible, they're converting old challenger 2 hulls to challenger 3 and we only have 213 challenger 2s. If we start making new hulls we might aswell go with a clean sheet design not a challenger 2 with a German gun.

@@Katsumoto0456 Go for NATO compatibility and buy Leopards. The CH3 already has the leopard gun. We have finally dropped the insistence on rifled guns

@@jjsmallpiece9234 If we bought German Leopards we could only use them in conflicts where Germany gives us permission as part of the contract. It's one of the main reasons most major countries want their own MBTs

@@7stormy334 They would be built in the customer's nation using technology transfer. Other nations are replacing their tanks with new designs.

With what money?

Yeah any serious MBT will need some sort of defence from drones

An automated small caliber point defence cannon would work well I think, for aerial top down munitions and drones maybe 300 rounds

@@bobvance8017 The Active protection system also works on drones.

@@donutperson9027 But most systems are still mostly around the tank, and ammo is still extremely limited. I'm banking on a miniaturized ciws system, down to .50 BMG or .338 NM, or even smaller if they can make composite casing and ammo works.

Whats mountain bikes got to do with this?

That's y nato and us in America are here to help!

yep and only until 2040 when it's supposed to be replaced, with less as usual.

in addition to al;ready existing fleet which should bring the total upto 500

@@AIVINBIJU-h8jthe existing fleet consists of CH2 chassis of which there are 227, 148 will be converted to CH3 while the rest are retired. We will have a decrease of 79 tanks.

@@AIVINBIJU-h8jnope not at all there is no such thing as the existing tanks. This new tank isn’t new it’s an upgrade of the existing tanks and they use the old hulls and convert them. 150 tanks pathetic

It's a stop gap, true next gen tanks don't have people in them.

There's no money. Our politicians gave it all away. :(

@@karadan100 that is a spot on comment, we give at least £8 billion a year away in foreign aid that we should be spending on our own defence.

​@tonyjedioftheforest1364 But But But Turkey needs 680 millions of out tax payer money to build a new clean rail line in Turkey!!! Godamit!!

What troubled times? UK has probably never had fewer threats with NI and daft War on Terror over.

True.

We also need to account for losses as well. Not every battle will be a victory.

How you gonna get them to theater? Props fall off ships, where they suppoed to have missles you have treadmills... your towns are no go sharia zones or burned out filth....and you worry about getting more money to your LORDS and their corporations....

Then you pay for Ukraine part then.

I think there's a realisation that current tanks are reaching the end of their usefulness, they still have a use case but air superiority and artillery is far more important, a tank vs an anti tank missile isn't very affective. The only other reason would be that the focus has shifted to the next gen tank which won't have a human crew inside it, which means it can have even more armour as they don't need empty space for a crew. By producing less of these old style tanks they can create more next gen tanks, which is where the UK has always been, we invented it in the first place.

Big f off war? You make it sound like Julius Ceasar has concoquerd all of NATO.

why should the uk be fighting everyone elses wars?

@@light161_ so we dont have to fight them on our own soil I guess

@@AndyG_MTB And who is going to be invading the UK?

It is taking notes. Ukraine was invaded by it's neighbouring country on land by tanks etc. Great Britain is an island nation. Where are we going to be invaded from, the channel tunnel?

This government has no money. The conservatives have ruined this country.

Nah to busy Sending Notes to Ukraine!!.

as much a joke 150 is. our role in nato is primarily our navy.

@@charliechuck1341 Which is nowhere near as strong as it needs to be.!

Which is a good thing, NATO is all about expansion and its expanded up to countries that can tear it a new one. We are best off focusing on the UK, not offensive weapons to be used in far away lands to fulfill the fantasies of the globalist freaks running us.

148 is pretty much enough considering its a new advanced tank, also why should they mass produce them? Its only necessary if they have a total war economy which they don't right now. 5hey aren't fighting any wars.

😂😂😂😂

There are a lot of stupid people out there.

shut up Russian bot.

Most countries mbts are mods of previous ones take the Russians for example with the t90 being a slightly better t72 or the abrams or different leopard 2

Has Russia invaded the UK? No? Then shut up

I'm surprised the MoD hasn't stooped to getting him to do their PR already.

you sound like a communist, or maybe Russians were right all along

labour torie labour torie labour torie, that's how.

Tories wanted to fund tax cuts, Labour to fund social programmes

Becuase we had the longest ever peacetime in european history. there was signficantly less wars from post world war 2 then the same time pre ww 1. Such an age in peace causes people to not want to join the army which means armies all around the world have reduced numbers of soldiers. As an island nation we are under less threat then those of poland or germany who can be attacked via multiple scarios such as land, sea and air, uk however can only be attakc by sea and air. meaning we have had to worry less about russian aggression then mainland europe. Politicians however really havnt helped in the slightest.

@@ashleygoggs5679 That old saying, "if you want peace, prepare for war"

Historically and geographically our place is as a maritime power not a continental one. Continental land wars are bloody affairs as WWI showed, by WWII we'd learnt that lesson and whilst we played our part on land the balance was more naval and air.

Its a good thing we arent involved in any

Not enough men, not enough gear but at least we've got some canny hats....

Now like uniforms made in China lol

​@@Oxley016hats look bent

@@Mantiscular12 you look bent

(yes, Finland has a total of 200 main battle tanks despite the country having a population of 5 million compared the UK population of 70 million) UK doesn't share a huge land border with a potential aggresor. Perhaps you have forgotten that we are an island nation? Does Finland have such a navy as us? Did you study geography at school?

@@friedchicken4326 the Royal Navy isn't that big any more, there has been a bit too many cost cutting measures. Britain bearly has enough ships to escort one of it's aircraft carriers, and Britain can't sail both of it's carriers without other nations stepping in with additional ships to escort. Which is fine at peace time but in the event of war, other countries might be a bit too busy to escort Britains aircraft carriers.

@@matthewbaynham6286 in the event of a war, allied nations come to our aid. Have you heard of NATO?

40$ drone won't do much.

It's not just a "modified Challenger 2" it's a completely new tank. The turret, engine, drive-train, armour, electronics, and survival system are new. It only looks like the old Challenger 2. If you want to see a similar upgrade look at the upgrade life of an Abrams. Still looks almost the same when first introduced in the 80's.

@@ralpha112233 It uses the hull from Challenger 2.

@@jwadaow So. All of the hulls of M1's are refurbished. It is possible to use old parts to build something new.

@@ralpha112233 no that's not how a new anything is created there is no new design process taking place it's just taking the old chassis and bolting on some new bits and calling it new when it's clearly not new!. It's a combat and survivability upgrade package. The fact the entire project is called Challenger 2 LEP (life extention programme) and you can upgrade old challenger 2's pretty much spells it out for you lol 🤷‍♂️. It's not a new tank it's just replacing obsolete components and then calling it a Challenger 3. It's why this program has been actioned over say designing and creating a NEW tank from scratch because that is horrifically expensive and takes around a decade. Like i said it's not a new tank lol i don't know how much simpler to put it for you.. it's just an upgrade package given to existing Challenger 2's for a cost saving over building a NEW tank and also is an excuse for closer ties to Nato by using a different gun and Nato standard ammunition and having the Germans do it for us it's all political aswell. The US does it with their Abrams except they have a different designation for each upgraded version. But still an Abrams tank just an improved version 👍 don't be fooled by the '3' moniker!. It's not the next in the series it's a fancy dancy 2! Not a new tank lmfao you have no idea what your talking about clearly... you obviously don't work in manufacturing do you?. Don't be fooled by the propaganda and don't get your information from Wikipedia or Janes lol 👍.

No more colonial income mate that's probably why

why would we need more than 150 tanks? Waste of money

Get your head out of your back end and look into the history of that hat.................................

It might not be about fashion but he's right, it does look silly

Why would we need more than 150 units?

You still can, Challenger 3 is an Challenger 2 with a few German upgrades.

Side light/ indicator lights fill up with water when jet washed lol

213 max, they're converting old chal2 hulls to chal3

We're only getting 150

At least more than than what the Russians were able to make with their T14s anyway.

@@s0lthe3rd86 lmao

2050? That's when we start designing the 4s

@@MyLittleMagneton probably just being facetious to make a point wasn’t I lad, what do you reckon? 👍

@@mitchdaytonam3 I got that based on "20 tanks", but 2050 kind of beats point as that'd really good.

@@MyLittleMagneton ah righto, you were ok with me being sarky about the number of tanks, but not the year… gotcha. 🙄

@@mitchdaytonam3 Well yea, they'd be doing an insanely good job with those two numbers.

We don't need that many. Russia isnt at war with us

Stop warmongering

Why should be fight Ukraine's wars for them? Stop being a doormat

@@light161_ Yes, absolutely. We shouldn’t be fighting Ukraines Battles for it. Look where that kind of foreign policy albeit in a different context, got us in Iraq and Afghanistan! Cheers.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Some higher up has a serious issue with safety... the running joke the PT belt the US Army has taken to the level of stupid insanity. Don't get caught without it.

shows what you know about the army. not much.

They may be Army, but they are within a factory complex of a civilian firm. All civilian H+S standards apply, no exemptions.

Vickers MBT building facilities in Leeds and Newcastle are both long gone.

Cause were an island and a small one at that plus the UK has always had a powerful navy no point having 1000 tanks if nobody can invade you cause of how powerful your navy is

Uk navy is a joke now

​@@DanielShaw-c1y😮

​@@DanielShaw-c1y you are naive you think those tiny ships will help 😂

Nobody cares if you’re disappointed. You in RAC? Or even the Army?

@jarraandyftm typical, the sheep will argue away every bad decision. The reason the military is in the state it is, is partially people like you arguing away very clear and obvious mistakes and failures.

@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 do you serve?

@jarraandyftm I was barred due to Autism. I am, however, a geopolitical and military analyst and historian. I have studied Ruso-Ukrainian War extensively. This is not a new tank it's a variant of Challenger 2. The Challenger 2 has been proven in Ukraine to be obsolete and vulnerable in the extreme. Yes the active protection system will improve its survivability, but it's a half measure. It's need both a new engine and weight reduction. Turrets and hulls need reshaping on the roof to be more angled like the floors to give more protection against loitering muntions and top attack ATGMs. Still has a manned turret and the crew are not in an armoured compartment. It's also of the last generation while the US, French, Germans and Chinese are all working on the next generation that will be 15-30 years from now at which point we will be back at square one. May aswell admit this is a stop gap messure and a true next generation tank is being developed. They need 1-2 tanks per infantry company under Company and Brigade command levels within Divisions rather than at the division level as they cannot operate in any more than two's anymore. Meaning they need a lot of them.

​@@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 "barred for autism", yep, that tracks

We can start with leaving NATO

What about combat losses? no use to have 4 regiments and all of them at half strength part way through a war. Realistically the only way to get a larger number of regiments would be to build more Challenger 2 chassis.

That 150 never accounted for attrition rates lol

They are old and worn down, doubt you find 285 chally 2 in good enough condition, and then what? There are no spare parts and the factories who made them are long gone.

less numbers some were scrapped a few years ago!

@@peterwait641 You are correct. 386 entered service. 226 were kept for the 3 regular armoured regiments and 3 sabre squadrons were kept for the Royal Wessex Yeomary and training. 75 were and still are mothballed and the rest scrapped and cannibalised for spare parts.

Another one stuck in the past.

@@salman501 How the Challenger 3 is very real, so is the Bradley and American tank made with the British, we can talk about our amazing history as much as we desire, idk what the problem is.

@@DrPandemiczZ Challenger 3 is just a fixed Challenger 2, that got fixed by the germans again

Well said 👍

Wrong. Challenger 3 is almost entirely produced by Rheinmetall--a German company.

So you think thousands of people behind all of this are stupid or what? Stop judging things you have ZERO idea about. People should be more humble and acknowledge that their opinion counts very little, especially when they have no idea of all the reasons and logics behind something. Pathetic to say the least

@LawrenceReitan that's the problem. These are designed by committees and to a budget. They are not designed to be the best they can or should be.

in chat you were!

@@ratchet2505 yeah

Abrams Alison gearbox is much stronger than TN 54.

Until it's in a battle.

It really isn't the best. The British delusion continues

You misspelled Leopard 2A7V very wrongly my dude

The T-80BVM is the best MBT in the world.

1 challenger lost 2000+ russian tanks lost 🤔

They turned around 357 T-72B3, 119 T-80BVM and 88 T-90M to dust.

not a russian one 🤣 made in china.. more likely to go poop and fall to the ground.