Guy's day with the Challenger 2 Tank | Guy Martin Proper 

The BV was/is the most important piece of kit.

No BV no war, and if you broke it, your life was hell

No other army has a Bv in their vehicles

That was a mainstay in the Centurion during hull down actions in Korea :)

The actual active vehicles are immaculate they look nothing like this he wouldn't be allowed in a real one actual combat ready one

More people could learn from Guy's worth ethic and heart. He always puts his blood, sweat, and tears into everything. The man is just a gem to the UK, and to the world.

True. And he's totally insane to boot...

@@apuuvah truly British

Who are they fighting? Third world farmers throwing rocks! Fucking cowards

@@nocraic Ah yawn

nocraic how does that make sense?

@@nocraic Yeah totally that, well done!

@@nocraic Yet you're more then happy to live here. Coward.

Well said Canada from the United Kingdom

Neil F. 381st Model Group Leo 2A7? M1A2? Both are better than Chally 2 at the moment.

@@Kurogumo both have lost vehicles in active combat. Challenger 2 has never been lost, don't think the crew would swap it for a Leo or Abrams if you asked em

Professor Waffle infantry won’t be pleased though no more Hesh rounds to support them anyway MoD is upgrading the challenger anyway

@Professor Waffle Oh is it not? So why do 'rifles' carried by infantry have rifled bores? Shall we issue shotguns? And a rifled bore means a more accurate shot. It can kill tanks others can't.

@Professor Waffle Quick answer is Abrams uses the German smoothbore gun and so does the Leopard and the Americans wanted NATO to standardise on ammunition so the rifled ammunition became less available as firms went after bigger NATO orders. Its to do with politics and US Incorporated and nothing to do with the ability of the gun. Plus few countries can machine a bore as accurately as the Challenger's. the rifled bore increases range and accuracy which is more important to the UK than to the US Army. They believe in high numbers of lower capability because they have the manpower and money and can lose more tanks. We go for survive-ability and first time accuracy. BAE did a trial fitment of the smooth bore 120 mm gun onto a Challenger in 2006 and it was not a success. It needs a major turret overhaul and different fire control and ammunition storage. And the crews didn't like it.

Yeah, RIP Land Rover

one was hit with 70 rpgs also, and the only challenger 2 to be destroyed in combat was friendly fire from another challenger 2

@@SomeoneJr Wasnt conbat, was in training, Target was misidentiofied as hostile, HESH round clipped the opened commanders hatch, killed 2 of the crew

@@BugattiONE666 It was in combat, do some research!!! And how are you going to misidentify a hostile in training? No tank would ever be down range of another tank in firing exercises. 🤡

@@tanner1111 ....No, it was a training excercise....

@@BugattiONE666 Why do people like you even exist...

Hi, why are u gae?

@@venusonfire7606 are you drunk again?

what you doing here mat? I know you are addicted to challie BUT YOU JUST CAME OUT OF REHAB.

@Garrett Misael nonce

@Dallas Skylar nonce

@@argumasch663 Rear turret magazine not well protected on leopard!

A C challenger 3 dark knight is better than leopard 2a7 leopard has no armour

@@challyho6375 If it has the leopard turret fitted it will be less protected. Unless Dorchester armour is added. Don't forget the Germans bought a 60% stake in BAE land. Looks like the CV12 will get common rail upgrade to increase power output from Cat'.

Peter Wait it probably needs a 1500hp engine looking forward to seeing the end result of the chally 2 I've never understood the attraction with the leopard 2 I know it's got a great gun but it has no armour and no tea making facility

@@argumasch663 They still have A6 version only plans to upgrade 50 -70 to A7 version at 67 tons. Merkel waiting for EU army to pay for upgrade!

But it looks like a brick

@@nsr9072 That's deliberate. It has a very clean flat sided appearance for two reasons: Dorchester armour and a low radar signature.

@@thewomble1509 I think he means the Leopard.

Few of us Brits understand a Lincolnshire Lad in full chat mode mate. Run the video at half speed as Guy talks like a machine gun. Brrrp Brrrp. But I love the fellah from his biking days, Isle of Man and now all his TV projects. LEGEND!

@@The.Toaster Guy

@@The.Toaster Guy

My Brother was in the 15th / 19th Hussars and went to the same places as you in Germany but in the late 80's.....

@@neilt7145 All the barracks in Detmold are empty now. Since the mid nineties. I visited Detmold four years ago. The camp is still there but totally run down and the MQ's were full of refugees. I met up with one of my unit interpreter who was then 94. Been in touch with him since I left in '70. Lovely man who passed away three months after my visit. RIP Harry.

Those engines were a HMT decision; they were in storage, unused, and the HMT insisted that the Chieftain's designers use these engines in order to save money. The designers did not want to do so as the engines were unsuitable, but they had no choice.

The joy of the Leyland multi fuel engine. An idea that hampered a very good machine and condemned it to being a breakdown waiting to happen.

@@blowingfree6928 I understand that the L60 was based on the London bus Leyland engine. Just about sums up Army equipment back then. My waterproof DR boots weren't. Neither were my gloves or oversuit. Bloody freezing in the winter but OK when I travelled with the tanks. Always somewhere warm to cuddle up to at the rear!

I hear that.british not have self cooker but have tank kettle for tea

Arthur Culshaw the best alarm clock in the world

Chally Ho good ol roar of a diesel, ah, fun.

Abrams has pretty much the same armor I believe. The turbine is controversial but its unique and cool

@@jamesavery6671 Modern Abrams have the first generation Chobham armour up graded with depleted Uranium. C2 has "Dorchester", second gen Chobham armour.

Come on number one Allie, all was fun yes.

You know the Abrams has both an inferior gun and the first generation British Chobham armour? The current gen that the Challenger 2 uses isn't used by any other tank, anywhere. Also there's a reason a Challenger holds the furthest tank to tank kill record despite lower numbers than Abrams serving in combat roles. - Americans have left the chat -

ahh, but does the abrams have a kettle hazel?

Gibson Gamer challenger 1 that was

Really? A whole track? How come?

@@thewomble1509 Just a single link, it came off a challenger 1 based in germany. I also have a t34 link dug up from latvia.

@@Jagdpanzer-bh4pb Nice! Thanks for the reply mate.

@@Jagdpanzer-bh4pb we have a challenger barrel piece which bears the armoured corps badge as a door piece :p Fucking heavy

No, the Challenger 2 is trash, a simple RPG 29 pierced it like nothing, so the crew had to run away, lol.

@@elgranfreezer9117 Yeah thats not the whole story sunshine

@@elgranfreezer9117 you dont know a bloody thing dumbass

​​@elgranfreezer9117 😂 Trash in Iraq As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks; 63 were restored, while 17 were damaged beyond repair.

​@@elgranfreezer9117 🤡 Abrams tanks repeatedly demonstrated their vulnerability during the hostilities in Iraq, the expert pointed out. "As the Iraq combat experience shows, they went up in flames. The tank turret was pierced by a 100mm armor-piercing blunt nose projectile fired by a T-55 tank. There were instances when Abrams vehicles were struck by automatic guns of both Bradley and our BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles," he said. Instances are also known when the American tank was destroyed by the first Soviet modifications of T-72 tanks firing old shells "that were withdrawn from operational use even before the Abrams concept was devised," Suvorov said. The expert also pointed to the instances when Abrams tanks were wiped out by RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launchers.

All part of grooming a new Fred Dibnah, our nigh-irreplaceable Jack of all trades.

Yip probably 😂

It can still do its job. Like the longest battle kill in history (Challenger One) and none lost in combat. Nothing else can compare to those abilities.

probably one of the older challenger 2's. i got go in one in 2012 and it definitely didnt look like that

@@1chish Yes, other tanks can compare. K2 Black Panther, Type 10, or any new tank. It's easy to not be destroyed if you've never been shot at by anything from this century. As for the longest range hit, irrelevant, and entirely down to luck. Gunner said as much, and most tanks don't have sights that go out that far, because of that. Challenger has sights ranged out farther for use of HESH in indirect fire, which was the only reason they even attempted that shot, and it was against the side armour of a stationary T62, a 50 year old tank.

@@AllThingsCubey Quote: "It's easy to not be destroyed if you've never been shot at by anything from this century." This one statement shows your utter ignorance of the subject and (with respect) your obvious bias. I will ignore your nonsense about that longest kill shot. You can bet if it was an Abrams the Yanks would be making a Hollywood film about it. Challenger 1: Now while the Challenger 1 was introduced in 1983 it was in 1991 it deployed at strength in what US people call 'Desert Shield' or Operation Granby to us in the UK. Originally 221 Challenger tanks were deployed in the original deployment by 7th Armoured Brigade and the 4th Armoured Brigade as the 1st (UK) Armoured Division which came under the command of the US VII Corps. The Division advanced nearly 350 km within 97 hours, destroying the Iraqi 46th Mechanised Brigade, 52nd Armoured Brigade and elements of at least three infantry divisions belonging to the Iraqi 7th corps capturing or destroying 120 tanks and large numbers of armoured personnel carriers, trucks and reconnaissance vehicles. They faced the same weaponry the US Abrams faced. None were lost to enemy fire while some 23 Abrams were lost. Other Abrams were put out of action by engine fires when flammable fuel stored externally in turret racks was hit by small arms fire and spilled into the engine compartment. Challenger 1s were also deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the NATO-led drive into Kosovo. Again none were lost to enemy fire. Challenger 2: The Challenger 2 has faced the same threats and munitions an Abrams and a Leopard has had to face since its introduction in 1998 / 2001 (the turn of the century, which seems of some importance to you, as it happens). Its first battle action was in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. 7th Armoured Brigade, part of 1st Armoured Division, was in action with 120 Challenger 2s. One hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. The crew survived, it was retrieved and back in operation six hours later. Another operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs. None were lost to enemy fire while approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks 63 tanks were restored with 17 damaged beyond repair. From August 2005 to April 2008, at least 20 further Abrams were destroyed. I should have given your crap the attention it deserved and told you to do one but others might like to read the facts.

Hopefully it gets the one of Leopard 2A7V, and also its gun too.

@@shoppingcart9559 some already have the same leo2a7 gun

DEZIIRE Good, because its the only way in which they will stay competative with the quality of the Leopard 2 and K-2.

Thought the LEP project was delayed to 2021?

@@peterwait641 they probably wont be in service till then. But some already have the upgrades. But the decision has been finalised more or less

Is it the thought of being run over by a multi ton tracked behemoth or getting blown to pieces?

hello Alan

@@himerosen they are loud, heavy, solid armour and generally creepy, Hahaha i hadn't thought of being run over by one....now i'm really freaked out

For sure, I think only the leopard 2a7 could give it a run for its money

@TheEnd its literally impenetrable from the front in hulldown which is what irs intended role is

Steve Johnson but all tanks today got that technology

Steve tanks evolve and get better every so many years.The centurian a British tank was the first tank to have. Stabilising gun platform. I trained in on cents in early 1959 .This tank was successful in that over four thousand were built and exported to many countries. The Israeli army used them in their wars against the Arab nations. The Israelis lost one cent against ten russian built tanks. But with the new advanced rockets I think that the tanks of the future are finished. Royal tank corp then the royal tank regiment FIRST TANK REGIMENT.in the world. Motto FEAR NAUGHT. The old tankie is going to have another drink bottoms up.

Ever driven across rough ground in a torsion bar fitted abrahms at 42mph..... It's horrendous. Chally 2 uses hydropneumatic suspension so it's silky smooth.

Meanwhile the T14 armata 74Mph,or rather the correct measurement 120km/h

@@sovietred7371 yeah sure it does..... 74mph tracked vehicle with 50 ton weight.... you have no idea how engineering works.

@@sovietred7371 I'm pretty sure it's actually about 50MPH

M1A2, step aside, while I use half my fuel load on a mile of high speed driving.

Not allowed to show the computers, sensors and optics.

Not really, its just a class division thing. Posh boys get to direct the working class fodder because of their family ties.

thermostat on the kettle, need to know basis only, old chap.

@@billywindsock9597 😂👌

Well....considering the theres a new challenger2 that is coming in has been proposed in this year and coming in 2020. It's the most modern tank there is.

Ed Mon most armoured tank in the world turret wise

I'd spill my coffee to if I was hearing voices, I just watched it again and I can't find where anyone said this was the most modern tank...

No but it is mildly effective against laser guided wepons.

Modern ones are not just smoke obscurification, they have multi spectrum ones now. You also pop smoke and move, the sight may be thermal but the guidance is more often laser now and smoke can disrupt or block that

Infantry support

Why what's better?

@@kennykewn5182 In terms of mobility & protection, not much else...The gun may be showing it's age now though.