Tank Chats #92 | Challenger 2: Part 1 | The Tank Museum 

Yes, this is very sweet christmas gift indeed :))

Didn’t know you are a Tankie

Yep, a really good format and incredibly intresting.

While I like to enjoy a Tank Chat video, this one was a bit too long in my opinion, and would have been better as a three-part rather than two, to cover most of the digressions.

Tacticalsquad 5 HESH is love, HESH is life

Mae ! HESH is still very viable for thin skinned vehicles such as BMPs, BTRs and ZSUs and anything of lesser armour like Technicals, etc. Terrific for anti fortification. Much better at all those compared to APFSDS

Mae ! How about a p1000 ratte but for HESH

until u run out of AP and find another armoured target that ur hesh cant penetrate

@@Eli_G454 HESH doesn't have to penetrate armour to be effective...it damages sights and other critical electrics, can destroy the tracks, knock the turret race out of place. A mobility kill can be just as effective as a K-Kill, if not more so because the vehicle and crew have to be recovered.

Bruce MacAllan

Were you stationed in Warminster?

"It's not just Top Trumps".Tell that to the WOT AFV "experts"

sometimes stupidity knows no limits.

You too!

@@Dockhead if stupidity knew any limits ever, it wouldn't be stupid.

It's probably just because it's not presented by the Moustache. (no offense, David ;-))

Obviously Russians from the 1980s 🤣

XD! Still, to be fair, they worked hard at reliability during the war. Churchills eventually became pretty solid, Cromwells and Comets were good from the start. Compared to the Germans and Soviets, whose vehicles never really came up to scratch, particularly toward the end of the conflict, they didn't do all that badly.

I think the british tanks in WW2 had 5 problems: 1. The gun. The 40mm 2pdr was a good to very good AT gun in the early war, but that was all it was good for. The 6pdr was delayed and while it offerd better armour penetration at close range than the american 75mm, it had a much weaker HE shell, and its penetration at long range was inferior to the 75mm. So, they lacked a good general-purpose tank gun. 2. the engines. Yea, kindofa sore spot for british tanks up to the cold war.... That damn Nuffield Liberty... Just not quite up to the task. And untill the Metor finaly came around, they had few alternatives. I mean, that twin-Bedford.. 350 HP for a 40 ton tank?! 3. that Cruiser tank - Infantry tank thinking. The US had it right. Build one tank for all roles. Who cares if it is a little less good at either roll? You can build twice as many and your logistics are much simpler. And what good is a dedicated infantry support tank in the first place without a good general purpose gun that can knock out an enemy tank and lob a decent HE shell? Besides, that whole thing about exploiting a break-through with fast but all but unarmoured tanks without propper infantry support was probably doomed from the moment someone first dreamed about it... 4. the structure gauge of the british railways. It limited how wide a tank could be, and by that limited the diameter of the turret ring. The british railway net had many places where the space left and right of the tracks was extremely limited. Bridges, tunnels, ect. Thus they couldn't made the flatt-bed cars for the tanks wider. If only the engineers in the mid-19th century had had the foresight to anticipate the need for lager tanks a 100 years in the future. How shortsighted... 5. The adherence to the christie suspension. Realy, it was a neat idea, but in the late 30s it started to show its flaws... It just takes so much space on the sides. And if you are allready limited in how wide you tank can be, it only makes things worse.

@@Bird_Dog00 I think the Brits in WW2 had a great deal more than just 5, mate! :-) Still, since you've taken the time to post it's only polite to offer a counter. 1. You're right, the Brits needed a decent gun. The 2lber stayed in service far too long, the 6lber was limited in it's HE effectiveness and the US derived 75mm lacked penetration by the time it was available in decent numbers. Scandalous, really. The 17lber was a bit of a bonus for AT work, so the Brits weren't particularly outgunned from late '44, but the need for yet another tank type didn't do their logistics any favours. It's worth pointing out that other nations suffered much the same problem though, particularly our American Allies, who didn't start to receive decent numbers of 76mm guns until the middle of '45, by which point the show was almost over and the Brits were getting '77mm' armed vehicles to replace their 75s. 2. The Liberty was fine for the tanks it was intended for. Cruiser Mk III/IV were considered to be acceptably reliable and the Mk VI did well in trials in the UK. The Crusader's reliability woes were down to the inadequate cooling system, which wore out quickly in desert conditions, not any inherent flaw in the American designed engine. The problem came when the British moved from tanks weighing less than twenty tons to vehicles nearer to thirty tons. But the Meteor was available from '43, so even that wasn't a major concern. Large numbers of 6lb armed Cromwells were produced that year, but the Brits wanted 75mm guns, so they weren't deployed, Shermans were shipped out to Italy instead. The existing Cromwell fleet were up-gunned when the production lines began churning out 75mm armed Mk VIIIs. The Bedford's power was adequate. The Churchill's performance off road was similar to other tanks in it's weight class. Reliability was an issue in early models, which was a far greater concern to the British, but those had been resolved by the time the first Mk IIIs went into action in North Africa in '42. Fun fact, the British tested Panthers and Jagdpanthers during and after the war against the tanks they had available. The Churchill VII was marginally faster and considerably more reliable. 3. Cruiser/Infantry is just semantics, Bird. It didn't make sense to call tanks 'light' and 'heavy' when the vehicles being developed for those roles were going to be roughly the same weight. The Soviets had Medium/Heavy tanks, the Germans had the same. There were differences with employment, but the fact is it just wasn't possible to build do it all Main Battle Tanks with 1930s technology. It was possible to build a fast tank or a well armoured one, not both. The Americans weren't immune to that kind of thinking, they had a mix of light/medium and tank destroyer forces. When they faced heavy fighting in close country they requested a heavy /infantry/breakthrough (delete whichever is most objectionable) tank and were issued Jumbo Shermans. I think you're a little off the mark with the role of Cruiser tanks. They were light tanks that fulfilled a cavalry role. M3 Stuarts were employed as cruiser tanks in the Western Desert, for instance. They weren't unaccompanied, especially after a break out. Even before the war started both types of British tank were intended to support foot soldiers. In the Cruiser tank's case they would be mounted in the cavalry variant of what became the Universal Carrier. Later in the war our very generous American Allies leased us half tracks for the job. When technology moved on we got APCs and IFVs, but '30s technology really wasn't up to producing either. The best we could come up with was 'Kangaroos'. Worth a quick search, if you're interested? 4. Lol! Yeah, our railway network could do with a little loving, even now. You'll be happy to know we're still using narrow gauge track today, which means most freight in the UK is moved by road... 5. It's swings and roundabouts. Christie is cheap, mechanically reliable and gives the best ride this side of hydrogas, but you're right, it takes a huge bite out of the tank's available volume. It's not any worse than torsion bar though? No-one seems to complain about German tanks- and some modern ones- having a huge amount of space eaten by massive poles running the full width of the vehicle.

@Billy Clement. A rather comprehensive reply. Cheeres. 2. You may have a point with the Liberty. Most issues I heard about were from the Crusader. You have pointed out something not unimportant though. They worked on very light tanks. Once they moved up, they had a bit of a gap until the Meteor came along. They had to fill it with some less than perfectly satisfying sollutions. Some of the Infantry tanks like the Matilda 2 and the Churchills worked, but were realy slow. Off course not allways an issue, but being able to move down a road at more than 20 km/h is nice if you have a need. 3. It may have changed quickly after they met the Wehrmacht in battle, but from what I heard, the idea of using cruiser tanks as exploitation vehicles after break-through was in the british inter-war doctrine. And since the infantry had no real means to keep up, they would have done so unsupported. I doubt that this wuld have worked. And If you compare a Cruiser MkIII with 14 tonnes and upt to 40km/h on road, with the infrantry tank MK2 with 27 tonnes and 25km/h on a good day, (both in service in the sime period) I don't think it was just semantics. Those were very different types of vehicles. I think too different. I personaly would have prefered a somewhat lighter armoured but faster Matilda instead of the two vehicles, but keep the even heavier Chruchill s a true heavy tank. Say, frontal armour down to 50mm, sides and rear 20-30, turret maybe 50-60 at the front but thinner at the sides and rear. Bring the weight down to maybe 20-23 tonnes? 5. Torsion bar takes afaik about 20-25 cm in the bottom. Makes the vehicle about that much higher. Not a big deal imo. Christie takes that much on both sides. So double the loss. And you can make the vehicle taler. If you are limited by structure gauge, you can't make it wider. So torsion bar strikes me as the superior sollution especialy if you suffer from restricted width. I get the use of Christie in earlier chruiser tanks, but why they didn't switch to something else with the Cromwell and Comet, I'm not sure.

@@Bird_Dog00 Again mate, I think you've been a bit misinformed. There was no gap between the Liberty and the Meteor. The last Liberty engined tank to enter service was the Cavalier, in 1945. The Meteor engined Cromwell had been in service for just shy of two years by that point. It's a big subject, but cruiser engines were generally fit for purpose, British cooling systems attached to them somewhat less so. The speed of infantry tanks was only poor on road. I reckon it's a reasonable trade off to have superb mobility off road, particularly given just how many Soviet and German tanks were lost to mechanical issues the moment they hit the mud. I can give you numerous examples of how the 'slow' Churchill kept moving across supposedly impassable terrain, waterlogged fields, submerged bridges, up impossible slopes and more. Panthers tended to break down reversing over mud. I hear what you're saying about it being nice to put in a burst of speed on firm going, but not if it cost them their proven off piste ability. I think you've been misinformed about the British Army Doctrine. Prior to 1926 they followed the Great War doctrine of Combined Arms Warfare, in which cavalry would break out, supported by 'Whippet' light tanks, after the infantry had broken the enemy line, supported by heavy tanks. The Experimental Mechanised Force, the Experimental Armoured Force and the Armoured Force that followed all refined that concept and looked at ways to integrate the three fighting arms of the army into a coherent whole. The need for transport to accompany the tanks was recognised from the start. As I said, the Cavalry Carrier was developed specifically to accompany the AFs Cruiser tanks, along with scout and Bren gun carriers taken from the general issue. The cash strapped inter war British army wouldn't have bought close to 700 scout and cavalry carriers and goodness knows how many Mk 1 and 2 Bren gun carriers if they didn't intend moving troops with the tanks. Wartime production of the Universal Carrier eventually made it the most produced military tracked vehicle in history. The Brits were never short of mechanised transports, Bird! :-) As for the two types of tank not keeping up with each other? Infantry and cavalry are different fighting arms. Why would you want them to keep up? The cav are tasked with recce, screening, exploitation, rearguard action and reserve counters. The infantry are required to take and hold objectives. They have very different roles and very different equipment requirements. That's not semantics, that's just the difference between how different arms are employed. It's also fairly common across Western Armed Forces. The German 'Blitzkreig' and the British 'Combined Arms Warfare' aren't all that different to the modern US Army Doctrine you can download from jcs.mil. What I meant by 'semantics' is that there's a habit of on line posters trying to make out there was some fundamental difference between the stoopid, old fashioned Brits and all the much better and more modern armies of the World. There were differences, but not anything like as drastic as some make them out to be. 'Heavy', 'breakthrough', 'assault' and 'infantry' are all describing the same basic vehicle role. The British tended to try and keep their size and weight down, the Germans went in for extraordinary giant machines, the US and Soviets fell somewhere in between. But people seem to get hung up on the terminology? Your thoughts on a universal tank pretty much dovetail with what the British actually wanted. Eventually it would result in the Centurion. The trouble was that a late 30s/early 40s compromise tank wouldn't have sufficient mobility to be useful as a cavalry vehicle, nor sufficient protection to be employed in main battle. It took numerous technological advances to make Centurion possible, many of them forced by the war itself. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning with the suspension. Christie and torsion bars take up about the same volume, but neither was seen as a problem to designers at the time. The British shift to Horstmann bogies on Centurion was driven by field maintenance and battlefield repair requirements. It's a real pita to get at Christie units, but bogies, as fitted to Shermans, Valentines and Churchills, amongst others, was a far easier task. Which takes us full circle- we're back to reliability again! :-)

I love your video as well as this

Matsimus Chally makes you Matsimoist

Fletch and I served together last time I was in Bovi was 74 when I did B1 Radio ;I was already B2 gunnery, and the Reg held the record for 1st round hits on battle run and the most Hesh in the air from the same panzer, never been beaten ; UP THE SKINS; best tank regiment ever pity the Chiefy hadnt a better Pack.

SueBobChicVid go to mecar.com and use the promocode TankMuseum for 10% off your first order

Even the HESH practice rounds are useful in combat. These rounds sell themselves. :)

Sadly his job as a HESH salesman will soon end. The coming Challenger 3 will use the smoothbore Rhinemattel gun that is used in the Leopard 2. The smoothbore doesn’t use HESH.

@@atinofspam3433 and HESH is pretty bad at anti fortification duty, HEAT-MP does the same job better. HESH is obsolete from the 70´s onwards as anti tank round, everything you can kill with HESH, you can also kill with HEAT-MP while retaining the ability to fire ALOT more powerful APFSDS rounds

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 thanks for that

Procurement has been plagued in many countries by pet projects and career advancement. Major projects usually have a Col as project chief and their whole career gets in the balance. The development of the Bradley in the US has become the meme of this phenomenon.

becaue eu runner our country

@@patchedupdemon7104 that might be the dumbest thing i have ever heard

you think the 70's where bad? remember the 40's? Half our country tucked tail and ran!

@@tomgarside480 I understand why you think that, when you're ignorant of the facts, it's easy to shout when your feelings get hurt

The F-35 isn't bad, but it's not much of an improvement, and the development is 100% a scam.

Douglas Jones POTUS says it’s fantastic. That was after a meeting with Marilyn Hewson. Note the F35s parked behind him when he signed the NDAA

How many Merkavas lost in combat ? Loads How many Challengers 1 or 2 lost to enemy fire ? Zero . Beat that

@@davidrobertson5700 here here

Israeli defence procurement is essentially what the US is prepared to subsidise and give the No need for for many people on chairs.m

get it, it's a superb book.

Thank you kindly for the back storey on a fascinating subject. Was your family the originator of the Hargreave rocket?

@@olliefoxx7165 Do you mean the Congrieve rocket? James Hargreaves was the inventor of the spinning jenny and we worked on textile machinery before defence industries. ? Regards

So sorry. Must put my memory in the shop and blow off the Cobb webs. Have you ever thought of writing an autobiography? Sounds as if you have lived an interesting life.

@@olliefoxx7165 the bio bit has been mentioned before as some people know quite bit of the other interesting work I have not mentioned like Sellafield, Chernobyl and other innovative scientific/engineering adventures over the last 50-60 years (I started young). Regards

@@johnhargreaves3620 I shall check that out, forgive my ignorance. Cheers

Peter King , wasn’t it the collapse of the Soviet Union that led to defence taking a back seat

Don't we have 200 mbts now?

Damo2690 Which is well short of requirements

Fanfeck absolutely. Then the Gulf War broke out.

@@Damo2690 200 and 200 in storage I think?

It's a British design, that's what they do. They go their own way until there's a problem & then blame the rest of NATO for not being as good as British.

No. HESH was totally obsolete when Chally 2 was made. It doesn't work vs composite armoir anywhere near as well as raw steel, and is mostly used to blow up bunkers these days. FYI, a HEAT round will do that just as well.

Gozza : in fairness the Brits were the only nation to build the Chieftain engine to NATO spec multi fuel, which no one else did then NATO dropped the requirement. NATO is pretty hit and miss.

@@AllThingsCubey Heat is nowhere near as good as HESH at blowing up bunkers though.

@@Arkantos117 HEAT is superb vs concrete.... It has about 150-200% the effective penetration vs concrete compared to steel, and HEAT rounds are already sitting at around 1000mm of penetration vs steel as it is. When it penetrates it vapourises and kills occupants. HESH kills them with shrapnel from the concrete wall. Big difference... both rounds do the job.... difference is HEAT works from a superior smoothbore gun. HESH doesn't.

*laughs in Leclerc*

@@nmspy before being disabled by an RPG

@@dingledooley9283 Leopard 2A7 would like to have a private chat with you

@@gaijinbot8135 not bad for a tankette,. But I was talking about mbts

@@gaijinbot8135 2a7 is the worlds best museum piece

the reason why the chally wasnt lost is that they fought in less important areas, the USA was the spearhead while the UK did flank protection against much oldert ank designs. they never saw the tank divisions with the latest tanks against them.

@@IronPhysik that isn't true. Stop making excuses because you've been offended by what I said. I've got family members who fought in the gulf and in the challengers. Got an uncle who moved up into FIBUA area with an Abrams. Go fact check.

@@MrHowardMoon maybe you should check yourself before it gets embarassing. here the map of operation, and oh look... US units where the spearhead whike the UK forces provided flank protection for the army. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg look closely at the colouring of the arrows, you noticed that US forces where infront the UK forces until the last phase

Iron_Physik I think he meant tanks they came up against not the spearhead part. anyway america has more troops and vehicles so best for them to go in first and overwhelm the enemy

@@FrostySire all Iraq tank units that fought UK troops only had T-55, T-62, Type 69 and other things like BMPs and even PT-76 The T-72s and babil tanks (modified T-72) where in the American sectors.

Do you play world of tanks

@@rebeccacooksey112 Nope, I don't like arcades

@@monikah.g1918 you mean Arcade styled games? Not physical arcades?

Thank you. Glad you're enjoying the videos!

The multi piece ammo is more about it being easier to stow wherever there can be made space than any specific hesh requirement. The RO 105mm/L7 used single piece ammo and did use HESH too without any problem.

SonsOfLorgar was a load time ever comparison made? I am an old US Combat Engine Maint Tex and our M728 CEC used the 165mm Projectile for some really great demolition capability out to 1600 m. Desert Storm very effective in making ant hills out of Iraqi bunkers

In a word 'HESH"

@@Ubique2927 HESH do nothing to composite armor

@@TheSunchaster T64's did NOT have composite armour.

@@Ubique2927 are you kidding or what btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/432armor_eng.htm armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/T64/t64a.php

@@TheSunchaster The T64 had a sort of spaced armour useless against HESH. So I am not kidding.