Rheinmetall unveiled the U.K.’s new Challenger 3 main battle tank to the public at a British Army event this week, with upgraded armor and a 120mm smoothbore cannon for what the company calls the most advanced tank in NATO.
Do not blame finincial investors for your personal unwillingness to develop or enhance our own industrial base: if your personally are not prepared to make the effort, why blame someone else for doing the same?
@@conormcmenemie5126 They, the financial charlatans embedded themselves into both parties through donations and lobbying and I dare say in conjunction with corrupt political actors on the take. For example, Douglas Hurd wiped 90 billion pounds of war preparations off at the stroke of a pen, no debate in parliament!
It was privatised. After that, the owners primary responsibility is to make a profit for the shareholders, which is incompatible with the need to preserve armaments capacity for use in time of war.
The UK for obvious reasons must focus on its Navy and Air force. There is room for British manufactured tanks, IFV and so forth but not bespoke, rare ammunition.
@@jim.franklin then the US has been at peace since the 2nd world war too, even with all the various invasions and wars it has had. oh wait are those the illegal immigrants of fighting age people are always going on about?
Dispite the constant reference to "rifled gun", that's not the reason why the gun was replaced. The reason is the British gun uses a bespoke two part ammunition (separate bagged charge) and that's the difference. The Leopard gun has single piece ammunition.
Several reasons. #1 Pressure. A rifled gun can physically not sustain a comparable peak chamber pressure to a smoothbore of the same material and caliber. Rifling increases the internal surface area, limiting pressure for autofrettage (hardening process) in the manufacturing process, resulting in a lower material hardness, resulting in a lower peak operating pressure. #2 Friction. A rifled gun can physically not reach a comparable muzzle energy to a smoothbore of the same material and caliber with equally powerful ammunition. Because rifling increases friction, meaning more energy is lost traveling inside the barrel. #3 Kinetic Energy Penetrator length. If you look at a cutaway of a modern APFSDS round you will notice the penetrator extends all the way through the round to the bottom, measuring (on most recent rounds) more than a meter in total length. In two-piece ammunition the length of the penetrator is restricted to the first half. The L55A1 on the Challenger 3 is NATOs most powerful tank gun in serial production. It fires #3 much longer and heavier Kinetic Energy Projectiles with #3 less energy lost in the barrel at #1 much higher chamber pressures than the current L30A1 main gun on the Challenger 2. It is also equally as accurate. Because these days only HESH is spin-stabilised. The current APFSDS on the Challenger 2 isn't spin stabilised, it has slip obturation rings on the sabot that cancel out the rotation. It is fin-stabilised-only just like APFSDS fired from smoothbore guns. So in external ballistics they behave the same.
Virtually the only reason was the rifled gun, we could make allowances for it's uniqueness at the height of the cold war and just after when he had god knows how many Challenger 2s now with only around 200 MK3 we need everything compatible with what NATO is using to ensure we've got ammo for them
@@petersmith7126 not even that. it was due to budget limitations, so that they continued to use the rifled gun, because Chieftains ammunition was cheaper and also in large stockpiles, while with the RH120 smoothbore, they would have had to buy large quantities of new ammunition.
Keeps claiming the rifled Gun is not as good as the smoothbore - yet the Challenger 2 has the longest confirmed kill at around 5km, with regular hits out to 3km. The issue was the ammunition and not the gun.
The WW2 german Sturmgeschütz aka assault gun tracked remained a highlly effective and low budget cross between artillery and mechanised armour. Cost, weight and maintainence savings allowed for more and faster vehicles to be produced. Their kill ratio demonstrated that they hit well above their weight. Ergo the viability of the longer ranged rifiled cannon may be significantly under appreciated when one shifts from a peace-time army based around theory and wargames to that of near peer durty and muddy battlescapes.
@@jim.franklin .... The rifled gun is more accurate but in the modern world today's NATO tanks all use smooth bores so the only sensible option in any upgrade is to swap over then we can use every shell in the NATO arsenal rather than only our own
@@heinedenmark The British empire whether we had one or not, is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this conversation... or was until YOU introduced it and it was (Most probably like my dick... bigger than your would be clitoris) What you should have said was... modern fire control systems make up for the inherent inaccuracy of smoothbores to make the difference, no longer a reason to refuse to adopt one.
@@petersmith7126 Thanks for mansplaining - my comment was correcting a false claim in the video, not whether smooth bore or rifled was the better option for the upgrade.
The British army hung on to the rifled gun because it was good enough, the accuracy over smoothbore is a bit of a myth, I would also note the MBT of all flavours has been chewed up in Ukraine by many different weapons systems including, dismounted infantry with ATGM's Well operated IFV's, Mines and most notably drones with improvised explosives.
@@pegasusted2504 It has an all new turret and gun, new armour all over, an upgraded power-pack, new suspension. Other than the basic steel tub, road wheels and track, it's new.
@@pegasusted2504 I’m no one to call the challenger 3 a bad tank, but this upgrade just brings the challenger 2 up the standards already achieved by its NATO conterparts in the early 2000s.
The rifled gun seems to have done OK for years? "The longest tank kill on record was made by a British Challenger 1 tank during the Gulf War in 1991, when it destroyed an Iraqi T-55 tank from a distance of 4,700 meters:" But, I understand why the change helps standardize the NATO ammunition.
British doctrine has always emphasized infantry support for which the rifled gun firing HESH (for bunker busting) and HE has been superior. The latest Rh-120 based smooth bore guns can now fire programmable folding fin stabilized rounds which allow similar usefulness against bunkers and personnel. The fuses of these full bore folding fins rounds are programmed in the breech for air burst, contact burst or time delay penetrate and burst. The 120mm L30 rifled gun thus no longer has an advantage. The US and Germany only issued HEAT and APFSDS on doctrinal grounds even for their rifled 105mm Leopard 1A4 and M1A1 Abrams and Ukraine has found them very wanting for this reason.
AT LAST. A vid NOT slagging off the rifled 120mm. It served EXTREMELY well when other nations had moved onto smoothbores. Longest tank to tank kill says it all. I can see why the tankies liked their HESH rounds.
The reason rifled guns are more accurate is the spin the rifling imparts on the projectile. Without such spin stability, a round not be able to maintain accuracy over distance, with the round eventually tumbling. I have yet to be convinced that going back to a smoothbore, such as with a very large musket, is in any way superior to a rifled barrel.
I think what should convince you is that the rifling was for hesh, the apfsds the chally 2 uses are designed to negate the rifling so the dart doesnt spin. So uhh yeah theres your reason why to switch.
The slinger was only developed last year, and the obvious lack of add-ons to the turret shown demonstrates that the turret can have additional systems piggy-backed as required. One item which has not been adequatly emphasised here is that the original Challenegr chasis can still be used to mount the upgrades. A massive achievement where protective armour from the 1970s is still relevent now.
@@conormcmenemie5126 actually the Slinger was introduced to the public in may of 2023 so I doubt it was only developed last year. in sept 2023 160 units were promised to b e delivered to Ukraine, so some of them may already be arriving!
Better research would help. For example, the L30 was only ever used by the Challenger 2. The Challenger 1 and the Chieftain retained the L11 - only their ammunition was updated to use APFSDS.
The shift from Rifled to smooth was NATO pressure on UK , to use same ammo as NATO, but i think we should Upgrade All CH 2 to 3 But keeping the Hesh Round + Rifled Barrel on @ least 50 Tanks . Just for those long Range shots where the smooth bore loses accuracy & keeping All the Replaced Barrels in Storage for spares. or Return to Hesh.
The tank is outdated without a modern active defence system like Iron Fist. Fire control and frontal armour might be fantastic but without protection against top attack missiles or drones it is very vulnerable.
Well its better than nothing ! However i agree , its only brings the tank to the level of current MBTs at best ! Since the ukraine war we know that isn t enough ! Anti tank hardkillsytems and anti drone tec is a must have in every tank going forward ! There even was a Challenger (black knight or something) wo had some of that stuff !
@@christianjunghanel6724like most of our ships ‘fitted for but not with’ that will also apply to the new Chally 3 and trophy….it will be fitted to carry it, but won’t be fitted with it when rolled out of a factory
rifled gun did perfect against the soviet vehicles so imma say its a good system to keep for the last few years especially with it holding the all time highest distance tank kill. its not called "rifled" for no reason "Rifle" is a long-barreled firearm designed for accurate shooting and higher stopping power, with a barrel that has a helical or spiralling pattern.
im also surprised that we made such an awesome MBT as the challenger and challenger 2 despite infighting, terrible governments and kremlin meddling in the houses of parliment
The churchill and chieftan paved the way when Britain was still a world power. Not so surprising we made the challenger. More surprising we didnt sell more challengers after selling so many chieftans. Also The challenger was the cheap version of MBT 80. Probably why it didnt sell that well. Pretty good combat records for the tanks that no one wanted.
@@daviddines479 MBT80 was not the superior design it was also far more expensive if they were to produce it. Thats why the challenger got the contract because it was cheaper and a more effective design for combat in the modern age which is why the challenger 2 "megatron" pissed all over the other western MBTs in the NATO tank contest recently and won. Its also why ukraines western tanks are doing okay because when a challenger gets hit the crew is more likely to survive than the other western tanks. I know i sound biased here but ive seen way too much evidence that the challenger was a far better design than the MBT80 would be
Needs an Active Protection System and an automated gun mount to be survivable. Ukraine has taught us that even Western MBTs can be routinely immobilised by ATGMs and FPV drones
It's a challenger 2.5, doesn't even have proper integrated at the factory anti-drone cages which is an absolute must. It's like having a new tank without top attack armor, this is still an antiquated design using all the same tech with minor tweaks.
Sad that only 140 Challangers gonna be upgraded to Challenger 3 level it should be at least 250... Uk have around 400 Challengers in magazines soo why they only upgrate 140 of them ??
Will wait and see. The Brit Government always talks a good game but when it comes to the money to make it happen they cut it short. The Brits have always sold better stuff abroad then they got!
as i understand it the army wanted the Leopard 2 not the Challenger but got lumbered with it as Iran cancelled it's order for the Shir 2 mbt which evolved into the challenger
''The UK has been at peace for 80 years'' Indonesian National Revolution Operation Masterdom Corfu Channel incident Malayan Emergency Korean War 1951 Anglo-Egyptian War Mau Mau Uprising Jebel Akhdar War Cyprus Emergency Suez Crisis Border Campaign First Cod War Upper Yafa disturbances Dhofar Rebellion Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation Aden Emergency The Troubles Second Cod War Third Cod War Falklands War Multinational Force in Lebanon Gulf War Operation Desert Fox Kosovo War Sierra Leone Civil War War in Afghanistan Iraq War First Libyan Civil War Operation Shader Operation Prosperity Guardian
The British liked the rifle gun hence y they built a brand new gun in 90s that wasn't smooth bore & created hesh rnds, 120mm rifled gun with a hesh rnd has longest tank on tank kill in history during iraqi!!! Our biggest issue now is when Tony Blair decided to sell off the royal ordinance factories & facility the BAE who only kept the bits that made money in peace time so now the government has announced the funding too gain these capabilities bk etc, your about us creating a new smooth bore gun rnds as part of the deal to switch guns included a new british designed rnds which has already been tested so it'll entre service at the same time
Challenger 3 needs a major rethink IMO. It's really an upgraded Challenger 2 (Same hull, new turret). Lessons should be learned from Ukraine. It will be far to heavy, underpowered, slow and and vulnerable to attack from above.
@@thewomble1509 You are not wrong. I was very involved with the development of Challenger 1 at RARDE Chertsey back in the day. Today it is film studio.
Will it withstand a Ukrainian drone attack? Tank warfare has changed out of all recognition since the order for Challenger 3 was placed. Get the Ukrainians involved to find its shortcomings, then it will be the best tank in the world.
Im not really up on tanks, so i suppose it’s like saying a shot gun is better than a rifle?……Smooth bore versus rifled barrel doesnt seem at face value to make sense
Its different for tanks, perhaps i should say tank rounds. Thats why most tanks in the world have a smoothbore gun (despite hitting at ranges far exceeding that of a modern medium range rifle) but no rifleman carries a musket because there are no musketeers. The rifled gun worked well with HESH rounds which are great demolition rounds and important for infantry support, the role the challenger is called upon for under british army doctrine.
All the talk about smooth and rifled and best tank is really not the point the point is how many, as the T34 and Sherman proved in WW11, my time as a tankie in the 80s we had 350 MBTs 40 or so used for training, against many thousands of Warsaw pact MBTs our Tanks were better we were told but we all knew we were cannon fodder if they had attacked, one on one the Challenger Abrams Leopard or similar would probably win but against 20 no chance depending on how motivated the crews were a Tank is only as good as it's crew.
Why do these crappy "Defence Industry" type vids use equally crappy "A I" voiced script? This particular version must have been purchased on the cheap from a 'kistani at a computer fair.
I know that it doesn't play a role in the tasks for which this tank is designed and built, but the thing is so clunky, bulky and ugly. But the Challenger has always been the best in the world at that.
@@conormcmenemie5126 Bro you can have an old M1A2 or A1 with the trophy and integrate a weapon with the radar to shoot drones? That old M1 will be more than a match to any latest or future MBTs. Its gonna be heavy though. US has more than 5k M1s in their inventory.
@@junjiezerocool3307 $10 million for an A1M2, $50k for an NLAW. Appachie helicopter tank kill ratio 1 : 80. The cheaper, more numeros, faster and liter troop carrying Bradleys and strikers may be far better value for money and multi role than the tank in a Ukranian war zone, whilst the abrahams might be king on an iraqu scenario - it is a bit like car safety belts: completly unnessary, until they are necessary
@@conormcmenemie5126 I get that. But in a war of attrition those thousand of tanks sitting in the inventory will be use one way or the other. So if they are, then might as well give them a surviving chance.
@@junjiezerocool3307 True - and a potential enemy will already know that they can be taken from storage and put into action. The policy of vexilion, the ability to assemble adequate force, is the way to stop war from starting in the first place.
The Swedish Karl-gustave missile system incorporated high end components from 16 countries. Germany, surrounded by other countries has to consentrate on land warfare as it has done through history, whilst the UK surrounded by water has to consentrate upon naval and air systems. It is what it is.
No mention of blow out panels on the ammunition storage ? So when the tank gets hit & penetrated like in Ukraine it will still lose it turret from an ammunition cook off… To date three challengers lost in combat all three blow their lids off, two in Ukraine, one in Iraq to friendly fire. The track record isn’t great yet to see this tank get penetrated & not blow the lid. The only upgrade I see is third generation night sights for gunner & commanders sights which hardly makes it a “new tank” We should abandon the challenger design & make something completely new, or go with the German leopard or American Abram’s both of which are must better designed tanks.
Because societies which do not have their own energy, steel, or agricultural base are dependent upon their own and other countries willingness or ability to trade or supply them. The economics, skill sets, industrial and technical base for the production of helicopters is highly refined, so if despite the obvious economic case for buying choppers from other countries, history has proven time and again that nurturing the technical and industrial foundation remains a significant factor in the development and maintainence of a state capable of addressing the challenges of the future.
@@conormcmenemie5126 I don't disagree with any of that. The problem with the C3 is numbers. We already have far too few mbt's and given that 1. We don't have a C2 production line and 2. The C3 is merely an upgraded C2 and 3. We're (rightly) donating some of our C2's to Ukraine then the maximum number of C3's available to the army will be pitiful. Better to buy in Leopards.
@@calumscott8737 The problem is that Germany was prevented from becoming energy and resource independent by the Allies during the second World War when Germany was prevented from taking key Soviet territory. Germany has no guarantee that they will be able to produce tanks in the future, since they are reliant upon begging other countries for trade deals. The loss of the second World War destroyed Germany's chances for resource independence and ended its potential to remain a reliable supplier or viable country in the future.
@@user-qr6eb4jg9n Germany has no problems importing the resources to manufacture Leopard 2 tanks as evidenced by the fact it's the most commercially successful modern MBT in the world. Germany doesn't need to beg other countries for trade deals, it gets favourable trade terms through the deals won by the EU. The UK on the other hand is completely screwed by its decision to leave the EU, finding the economic inevitability that a countries are far more willing to give good trading terms to a bloc of 500m people as opposed to a bloc of 60M.
new turret doesnt address the challengers biggest problem. its a pile of unreliable very expensive rubbish that needs a whole new drive and engine to work more than 10 mins
And how many nurses could this have employed? hospital improvements? GP's? Our health service needs money to help the people of Britain and the Government spend it on tanks, submarines and other weapons never to be used.
if the people of Britain are that concerned about their health they'll stop overeating, stop drinking, stop smoking (a variety of shite) take regular exercise and take responsibility for their own wellbeing. Only then will the NHS stop being the black hole it has become. Then the NHS can get rid of the likes of diversity training and officers and half the admin staff etc etc etc. Our NHS does not need money it needs responsible users and a halving of the work force not directly involved in the delivery of health services. Take your BS elsewhere.
@@Scaleyback317 hahahahaha what planet are you on. If the population became healthier so there was less burden on the NHS the Government would allocate less funds not keep paying the same. The NHS will always be in deficit because the Government wants to kill it. The UK is diverse so you need diversity training, get out of the dark ages. How about using the money for the failing education system or social services, or should the aging population not get looked after, tell you what you could always run them over with the pointless Challenger 3 tank
@@paulmatthews2175 Yeah after over a decade of watching garbage like that get destroyed I would know. Evidently you wouldn't. But that's your problem. Keep on being inferior, Dylan. Do go have another cry. 😥😥😥
