60 MPH is legit, it's the speed the Tank is capable of reaching in dire emergency situations... Such as when the Crew run out of Tea.

Yes, so we've established that I'm an old bastard! Because not only do I remember the Challenger 1 being replaced by the Challenger 2, I remember when the Chieftain was the big boy on the block and also when we weren't using the Fisher Price SA-80 with it's teeny little rounds, degree level sling antics and mag release catch up nice and tight against your rig.

One factor people seem to forget is crew survivability and general well being in the tank! I'm being serious! The M60 was much loved by crews and so was the centurion: the chieftain was comfortable despite having a poor engine, remedied somewhat by the Sundance upgrade, but the challenger is very liked by crews

My boss was a tank platoon commander in Desert Storm. We talked about it quite frequently over beers. Fascinating stories. The M1s he ran came with a speed governor that restricted the top speed to 40 mph. It was the first thing removed when they arrived in Saudi Arabia. He has personally had one up to 53 mph. That’s across flat, hard packed desert mud and sand with a friggin turbine engine. And you’re seeing data that puts the Challenger III at 60 mph? That’s nuts. And scares me

I served on chally 2. I can honestly say it was an absolute amazing bit of kit to work on. I hope the chally 3 works better. Along as it has a b.v then thats all that matters hahah

Fun fact: The place seen at 8:37 is in Estonia at the Central Training Ground (or something like that) during exercise Sibul 2017 where the forces of EFP were against the local Defence League. In the clearing seen ahead the very same tank was taken out by a cleverly placed Swedish 90 mm anti tank gun (Pvpj 1110). "Virtually" of course. But it did slow the armored column down quite a bit ;) I had the chance to rain down mortar shells on them. "Virtually" of course.

I as a German am proud to deliver the „new“ cannon to a British tank - welcome to the family 🇬🇧 🎉🇩🇪

ik u wont see this koala but thank u for making these vids i watch them over and over again to deal with my depression when im alone for days and im thankful for u being here!!!!

As you may well know, early (lighter) Abrams tanks were more than capable of breaking their 45 mph limit; that speed governor was put in place so those tanks wouldn't throw their tanks or blow up their transmissions.

The crews will tell you if it’s any good when we get our hands on it 😉

Update news, Trophy is being used on chally 3 prototypes and commander scopes of various types are also being selected via testing. Maybe this will be the weapon system we want on the battle field?

I agree with you 100% with regard to the weight, it would have been better to just focus on reducing it to around 50 tons, and there are different effective ways to accomplish that, like for example the way Japan did it with their Type 10, by utilizing modular armor. Thereby you can use different armor packs, depending on the situation, transport it separately, can be easily replaced on the field and upgraded later on if new materials and such are developed. I think they missed a huge chance to make a better tank, which is easier to maintain, and support logistically as well as have a good punch.

The most fragile part in high speed driving a tank are the tracks ... notcthe engine or the transmission... just imagine the force working on a 2,8to track at 100km/h... long befor the engine or transmission would break the tank would throw its tracks... the Diehl tracks on the Leo2 are tested up to 120km/h The Trophy Leopard2 A7A1 are only bought in small number and the only reason is they are for the fast NATO reaction force were they fight together with M1A2 with Trophy to make the logistic more easy by only using one hard kill system. Germany will use ADS for their armored vehicles in numbers

It’s the enemies from within that the armed forces need to worry about when it comes to the procurement and building of our military equipment, too many beaks in the gravy train who couldn’t care hoot about those using the equipment as they wont be doing the fighting.

It definitely has the feel of a stopgap about it, like how the Tornado F3/ADV was kind of a stopgap while the Typhoon was in development. Definitely hoping that we've got something bigger and better planned out for the future beyond the 2040s.

Gotta hand it to you for coming back and still responding to comments on videos and answering questions. Cheers

I had a two hour discussion with a family member who wanted to talk to me about this, and it range true with almost every point you made. UK procurement cycle goes like this: Step 1, design a vehicle which is excellent for the year in which you have designed it, and ultra-optimised to meet and defeat the threats of that period, usually with design work nearing completion right at the time when that threat is going out of fashion, and a sweeping change is coming to all vehicles of this type, rendering your new design (at best) highly conservative, and at worst, obsolete before it's even reached troops. Don't forget to recycle as much as possible from older designs and hamper your new one in as many ways as possible by insisting on nothing clean sheet, all upgrades of upgrades of equipment that has heritage in 1945. Wherever possible, take the cheapest approach short term, whether or not it costs more later. Step 2, spend upwards of 10 years testing the hell out of the prototypes. Really make sure all the minor details are polished to perfection, and that the vehicle is massively over-built, so that it's really mechanically reliable, well laid-out for the crew, and has lots of quality of life features that will ensure the users love it. Don't bother talking about the big details, like how the over-built chassis weighs far too much, or how the armour and gun are now 20 years out of date and it's not even reached troops yet. Rest assured that a fifth re-arrangement of the buttons on the gunner's controls will make it superior to your rivals. Step 3, after spending a decade testing your originally budget vehicle, likely selected over rivals purely because it cost less, you have now spent far more than your rivals did for their development. Cash strapped MOD cuts leave you with a small production run that causes cost per vehicle to spiral. Necessary upgrades are totally forsaken because it cost so much to get the vehicles to troops at all that there is no cash left to make them remotely modern. While vehicles that were already more modern continue to be upgraded, yours grows more and more useless. At this stage it is important to let the troops and public know that they have the absolute best vehicle in the world, which nobody else wanted on export, and you should keep stressing everything is the best right up until the exact moment you order a replacement, at which stage you will change tune and reveal everything was garbage to justify the new expense, acting like you have been saying that all along. Step 4, repeat the cycle. This happens in 30 year intervals. Never accept as a nation that this is a problem, always feel smug and self assured that being British makes all equipment the best in the world. Repeatedly use codename jargon to imply that every part is better than everyone else's and whenever challenged with evidence, claim it's classified and they couldn't possibly know. You will find, the more you dig, that this isn't just exclusive to armoured vehicles. This cycle happens with British submarines, surface warships, aircraft... it's pretty much every MOD project. Spend more money, get a worse outcome, usually obsolete on arrival, or "designed for, but not fitted with" necessary equipment it will never receive, and fiercely defend it as being somehow world-beating so nothing ever changes.

I’ve never thought about this as a new tank and this video really nailed that point home

A well balanced, honest and interesting video. Thank you.

Grew up with CH1, served on CH2, retiring as CH3 comes online. each version is an evolution from the previous incarnation, within the budget set by people who'll never crew them. But as long as they retain the BV they'll always be a favourite

I think they just got confused with kph and mph. When going at over 60kph the Challengers engine would rev over its limit, which could damage the engine. It is the same as driving 50kph in 1st gear at 6.000 rpm in you VW Golf. You could go 60kph if you increase your rpm to 8.000 and risk damaging your engine or you could shift wich loweres your rpm at the same speed. The Challenger would by now be in its highest gear, the only way of going faster is to increase the rpm of the engine. In order to increase the "safe speed" they would either have to adjust the gear ratio , wich would make the tank loose power because the engine would rev at a lower rpm at 60kph. They also did not mention thath they modified the transmission, so that is not the case. The other way of increasing the "safe speed" is by strengthening components in the engine, but there are no mentions that the Challenger 3 received such upgrades. Everything i could find was that they impproved the cooling system which increased the power output a bit so it compensates for the increased weight.

Yep the HESH round was the round for the only Challenger lost in combat from a blue on blue incident. It was a fluke hit, the HESH kill round hit the commander’s open hatch sending HE fragments into the turret, unfortunately killing some of the crew, and starting an internal fire…

The longer this video went on the clearer it became that you have obviously been doing your CR2 research in the Sunday Sport!!!!

I was around for the Chally 1 to Chally 2 changeover, heck I remember the stink when the T62 hit the news as well, which makes me just a bit younger than dirt and I'd like to clarify your information regarding the use of APFSDS rounds fired from the rifled gun. U.S. Pat. No. 4,242,961 to Moredock, et al. issued Jan. 6, 1981 covers the use of an obturator that surrounds the sabot petals and spins when the round is fired, allowing the penetrator and sabot petals to maintain a steady state while the obturator engages the rifling and spins around them. This is discarded along with the petals when the round leaves the barrel. The sabot petals themselves don't spin around the penetrator, they are fixed until discarded when fired. I'm a fan of the Challenger 2 and its attention to the infantry support role, I trust its sibling will maintain the relationship with the promised, programmable rounds. Great vid, some excellent information and lovely footage.

This should have came much earlier, contemporary upgrades.

The two biggest things I come away with in researching this vehicle is: 1. It's not a Challenger 3, it's a Challenger 2 upgrade. 2. The pinnacle of tank achievement for the British was Centurion.

I can't believe I hadn't seen this video before, I really do hope they can amend a lot of these issues before these tanks enter service as they are still so far away. Interesting but very concerning stuff, amazing video and just subscribbed

With the army looking to save money and a decreased priority placed on mbts the procurement choice was probably between this mild upgrade, or no upgrade at all. A completely new design or more radical upgrade was probably never on the cards for cost reasons.

So it’s not just the upgraded fire/ sighting systems, armor packages or the upgraded gun. It’s the entire crew that operates the tank that will provide the best case scenario for how the tank performs.

I think you're right when you say "too little too late". Seeing as only about half the tanks we have are being upgraded, is it possible that the others will get something like the Black Knight upgrade or the 130mm verrsion that Rheinmetall showcased in their promo video? Also QinetiQ have their hybrid drive unit that the yanks are testing so that will be happening at some point. It's all well and good being the first to adopt something but you end up spending fcuk loads of cash and take all the risk and seeing as our media crucify the military/government/defence companies every time there's teething problems, I can understand why the cautious approach has been taken.

Something to be considered...Only one CR1 was ever damaged by a road side bomb. Not a single CR1 or 2 has ever been knocked out by enemy fire......

Thanks again for your thoughtful analysis. Makes good sense. I really like hearing the horsepower per ton number. In the world of physics horsepower describes how much time it takes to do work. Tons describe the weight of the work to be done. So more power is more better.

First of all, talk coming from the MOD suggested that we may drop the MBT from our Forces. This new tank is to be celebrated. Whatever it is called, Challenger Mark 3 or Challenger 3, it is an improvement on it's predecessor. From what I have seen Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 did pretty well in both Gulf Wars. I haven't heard any Tanker complain about the quality of their ride. Secondly, has it got the kit to shoot down A10s. Any plane that does not respond to FOF should have a missile up it's arse immediately. It doesn't have to be the best tank in the world it just needs to be effective.

The speed of tanks is typically limited by the transmission and final drive. The Abrams for example is completely capable of straight line speeds of 62mph, but the transmission will prevent it to protect itself as well as the final drives. Also, the forces exerted when making a sweeping turn at those speeds on the track guides could have you hearing a loud bang and then watching your track sail down the road. They probably improved the transmission and final drives along with better guide pins. The Abrams can actually be adjusted by a mechanic, I've had one at the theoretically top speed and there are still plenty of RPMs to go faster. Plus the speedo goes up to 62 in those.

Very interesting video on a very interesting vehicle. I do agree with your conclusion that the Challenger 3, as it's currently proposed, is only a more modernized and upscaled version of 2 with some extra capabilities. For me it bears the hallmarks of an interim vehicle rather than a true replacement with futuristic capabilities, something to tide you over until you can design a truly revolutionary vehicle. Going without active protection in a modern battlefield though does seem both anachronistic and dangerous at this point though. With UK politics being what they are currently, it wouldn't surprise me if this was more to establish jobs and political capital now and make a more futuristic design later on.

Remember the day they launched the original Challenger 1 at what was ROF Barnbow in Leeds, I lived a mile from the factory. Great channel btw

One massive advantage when developing this new tank is the amount of validation done post Iraq wars !

It’s kinda like the T90 in that the CR3 is a super upgrade like the T90 was for the T72.

NOTE: Spin messes up HEAT rounds too. The needle-jet of the ultra-high-velocity penetrator is made up of the cone-shaped front end of the projectile and thus the outer edges of the cone at its wide-open "mouth" must be very quickly squeezed down to the center to form the jet and you want that narrow jet of quasi-liquid metal (usually) to stay at that size and shape as it extends into the target like a tongue of a frog shooting out to catch a bug, though here to punch a narrow, but very deep hole through thick armor. If the jet material formed from the edge of the wide end of the cone is spinning, it will try to spread out again sideways and defeat the entire purpose of the jet: Forward penetration at a concentrated point. So, HEAT rounds from a rifled gun also have to have some sort of internal de-spinning system for the inner explosive and cone, as was used in the French tank guns or using de-spinning outer rings and fins for actual stability. Otherwise, non-pinning or very-slow-spinning projectiles must be used in missiles and bazooka-type launchers.

While a hypothetical "which tank beats which…" scenerio is a academic circle jerk, there is still a valid argument for a comparison of _practicality and usability_ - which tanks are more desirable for a *clean sheet military* to aquire. That would involve a lot of metrics, of which who would win in a straight slugging match is not the top category … And even if it came down to a actual tank on tank battle, there are a lot of other factors in play than just firepower vs armour. It would be a interesting idea for a video.

I still believe they made a conversion error with the speed and it’s meant to be 60kph.

Challenger 3 might be like the London Olympics, everyone thought it would be a bit crap! To everyone's surprise it wasn't!! in fact pretty good!!!! In fact they had a Freddy Mercury hologram, so FANTASTIC!!!!!! Sooo I'm expecting an extravagant, hard rocking tank..... with a moustache :) that died 30 years ago :(

Gearbox and final drive might explain the improvement even from the same engine output.. you can alter the final drive gearing on cars and certainly on motorbikes which is where I'm getting the thought process from. Put a smaller final drive gear and you will increase speed but reduce the initial acceleration..

Eh, i don't think its as insignificant as you make it out to be. I don't see any tank produced in the near to mid future having the armour to rival some of the ridiculous rounds developed and still being developed for the 120mm. In addition, it's clear Britain isn't really currently in the business of making tank guns and ammunition atm. Adopting a new calibre gun with no idea if any of NATO will join suit is a recipe for disaster, weather that be logistical or even in ammunition available. It's got great optics. It's got a proper computer systems. It's gonna have some kinda APS, and the gun and engine have had small upgrades. Seems like a pretty great tank to me, and it should hold up for a while

The thing is one has to see where the UK MoD was a couple of months ago : scrap the concept of tanks in the Army all together or rework a solid and sturdy platform as is the Challenger. The Challenger 3 may be the foundations of many projects to come as it's been proved in the 130mm Rheinmetall demonstrator, the Black Knight, among others. It´s funny though that after WW2 Germans adopted the British L7 gun as standard while nowadays even the British Industry has fallen to mount a German cannon.

I do agree with your take that this is basically just 'Chally 2 LEP' rather than 'Challenger 3' - imo that's just marketing/PR. Personally, I tend to see this as being very, very similar to the Italian upgrade program to the C1 Ariete - where 125 of 200 hulls (originally they intended all 200, but this was then cut down) will be upgraded as part of a circa €300 million program in order to extend their useful life for another ten years. This program works towards the goal of replacing the tank force with a new type (of which they intend to procure 257 hulls) in the early 2030s in two ways. The first is from a military perspective, to allow the army to maintain a credible armored force for operations over the next decade+. The second is from an industrial perspective - engaging the land-based defense industry in such a program keeps the industry working and breast the latest developments in technology. This allows the industry to remain competitive and able to deliver a credible future tank when that program arrives - or, rather, in the modern context, it is more correct to say that it means the Italian industrial base can remain competitive in order to secure Italy industrial workshare in a tank procured jointly with other nations, and to have sufficient say in the military characteristics of the tank. As far as tank replacement goes, Italy is actually faced with a major dilemma, as the MGCS program, on paper the ideal future, is supposed to produce a tank about five years later than when Italy wants to start phasing in the new platform, and until recently France and Germany had no interest in letting Italy join (despite numerous requests) early enough to have any influence on the military characteristics of the vehicle or have any major role in industrial workshare. Efforts to find international partners elsewhere have not borne fruit. As it stands now, though, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel as Germany has been increasingly moving towards making the program more open, allowing the UK with observer status and creating a potential avenue for Italy to join the program on an more equal basis via Rheinmetall Italia if the Italians procure the Lynx (which appears likely) to replace Dardo. For Britain, I see this Challenger program as largely the same - upgrading 148 of 227 hulls to allow the British army to maintain a credible armored force for the future (until it can be replaced fully by a future platform), and giving the British land defense industrial base something to work on to keep their capabilities up to par, allowing them to credibly contribute to a future tank procurement effort, which will almost certainly be international (with MGCS looking like the most likely candidate, but only time will tell). This will be important to prevent them from being sidelined by potential partners with established programs (ex, France and Germany, or potentially America), as otherwise they won't be able to have enough influence in the program to ensure their military requirements for the future platform are met, or to secure a sufficient amount of industrial participation. It's not a very exciting portrayal of the 'Challenger 3' upgrade program, but it's a necessary one and a step in the right direction if Britain wants to maintain its domestic capability to design and built tanks (though, by all means, if that is something that is worth the trouble is certainly something that can be debated) - though probably one with a bit too much in the way of enthusiastic PR on the part of the British. Calling it 'Challenger 3' just seems to open the door to mockery. For more background on the Italian situation: www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iai2007.pdf

Fascinating video, thanks for uploading!!!!

When it comes to kit being replaced in our generation I can think of two British aircraft straight away - The Tornado being replaced by the Typhoon and the Harrier being replaced by the F35.

Armour Cast you are wrong. Whilst I concede that APFSDS rounds do not become more accurate due to rifling (they use a full bag charge for increased velocity to gain accuracy), other rounds such as HESH are made significantly more accurate due to rifling. The spin imparted on such a round eradicates tumbling and adds a ‘predictable’ spin to the round. It is the predicability of the spin that provides the gunnery computer with enough information to properly extrapolate from other factors such as distance and wind etc. Rifling makes the gun way more accurate because of this.

Just a modernize Challenger with a smooth bore

I LOVE your videos ! You're an awesome narrator.

15:38 Just on APS it has now been finalised it’ll have a Trophy system - on the British army website under Challenger 3 it states “Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd’s Trophy Active Protection System (APS) for armoured vehicles has been selected by the Ministry of Defence for detailed assessment on Challenger 3.”

Are we forgetting that the challenger 2 is one of the most survivable tanks produced? One such tank being hit by approximately 72 rpg rounds and survived keeping all crew members alive? Challenger 2 is a beast let's not forget that

Welcome to the early 2000s Britain! 🎉

I did some rough math and i have to say 142000lbs being pushed by 1200hp isnt all that bad. Most class 8 trucks here in the us have a max gvw of 80000lbs and the standard motor in most modern trucks, a cummins x15 “efficiency series” is “only” a 450hp engine and most trucks with a overweight permit are pulling 120,000lbs with that same motor or at best a performace series rated at 565hp. So 142000 with 1200hp is pretty dang good when you put it in perspective.

i agree with u, this is like a "placeholder" upgrade to not get massively outclassed, but their isnt anything comming after it. so far i know. what the Challenger 3 had needed to be future proven was probably the 130mm gun, new power-pack, APS, RC-weaponstation, front hull redesign or armorpackage etc. but that said, maybe the 130mm + autoloader is not ready yet, not reliable enough or simply just to expensive(what i belive) for the british army.

I would like to think that watching “performance” of Soviet/Russian tanks in criminal invasion of Ukraine the myth of “lighter is better” got finally busted. Several tanks stuck in fields, in mud, in “ordinary” farm field drainage canals, which aren’t really that deep… Transport, logistics, is the only true downside when it comes to “obese” NATO tanks. And, maybe, just maybe, shorter range. Transport can be easily addressed, let’s be honest, western trucks and trailers are much more reliable, efficient, even “safer” for public roads, than Russian junk. And, today, we know that Russian hardware was receiving unjustified hype over the years. It’s like comparing sledgehammer with sculpture artist hammers/tools.

I like the way the rounds are nice bright colours, nice change from all that drab green.

You are very class half full... this is a work in progress and it will evolve.

I hope it is ok for our people to use. Late as usual, what a surprise! I hope that down the line we actually design our own tank and not go the easy way and get the German or American tank. We have a great history of producing military vehicles so we don't need to pay others to produce things we are perfectly capable of producing ourselves!!!!!!

Just today 1/7/2021 the Israeli Trophy Active Protection System has been selected for the Challenger 3 happy days.

Great video I love these guys, and I love tanks so 100% top rated from me! I've been checking these guys videos since about the beginning of their channel, love them and love the channel

My son trained at Knox, U.S.Army. About everyone has a unit there so everyone is talking and look at each other's gear, KIT. The British all seemed to like the Abrams, ergonomics. Improvements in Ergonomics is a main reason. Single piece ammo is easier, the combat effectiveness will come with training.

the time they have upgraded to the challenger 3 will be around 2032 this upgrade only was seen to take it into the mid 2040's i agree with you the time this comes out if it does not have a defensive system it will not be really worth the upgrade as it again will be outdated. and i also would have gone for the auto loader, lets just hope the time challenger 3 comes to a end in 2040s uk government will have the money to give the army a new new tank

Great video mate. Good point about APS , which is already a big deal and with the proliferation of loitering muntions and armed drones is going to be extremely important. This program feels like a decent value for money option. Rather than spend an absolute fortune on a brand new amazing capability they put some very good upgrades on an already good platform and get some decent without breaking the bank. In British Mil procurement that's a win.

I hear that the reason we upgraded our armored mobile tea brewing facilities(the challengers) was because we required more room for Oreo's, Chocolate digestives and bourbon biscuits. That was the only reason. Money well spent in my opinion. Lets be honest the tanks are secondary to a lad in a pair of boots, but just if you think this is not quite true. We do have a phrase of gun barrel tea. This originated some 110 years ago where in warmer climates the machine guns had water jackets, which boiled when fired enough. So after the battle or threat, we had near boiling water to make tea. This is a fact.

The armour on the challenger is highly classified so it’s hard to compare it to what is out there.

My main issue with the Challenger 3 programme is that we currently only plan to field 148 of them - the best tank in the world is no good if you don't have enough of them. I think that changes as drastic as an entirely new turret and main armament surely do justify the "Challenger 3' designation - these alterations are at least as significant as those made between the Challenger 1 and 2 generations are they not? As for the Challenger's armour being weaker than some of its contemporary western MBT designs this is the first that I have heard of this criticism - without access to (presumably classified) data in this regard it is difficult for a member of the public to meaningfully comment further on that matter. I suppose that all this 'Theatre Entrance Standard' additional armour added to the vehicle is a tacit admission that protection has become inadequate against modern threats. I agree that if the MBT has a longer term future then reducing weight - by the adoption of active protection technology instead of heavy armour - is highly advantageous. However, it seems to me that there are limits to the amount of armour reduction measures that could be prudently applied to any crewed tank and in the second half of this century replacing that human element with automation may result in a new generation AFV that is cheaper, smaller, lighter and crucially far more expendable that any crewed MBT can possibly be. Future armoured formations may resemble the latest air warfare concepts with a type of human crewed command vehicle controling a number of subordinate 'Hunter-Killer' drones that do the actual fighting. Time will tell.

The U.K. has been developing hard and soft kill system icarus I think it’s callled

Battle tanks are hitting their peak vs current adversary systems which makes iterative development relevant until a revolution in design or necessity occurs. Main battle tanks still have plenty to do in modern warfare their role is just shifting and adapting. Plus the Challenger is already a beast!

Great analysis... Really appreciate your honest assessment of Chally 3; Too little too late! I do Hope the MOD watches this video!!!

Could this just be a stopgap so they have time to work on the “future tank”? With a relatively low number being produced and the short lifespan it could just be upgrades to hopefully tie things up and give more time for a better tank. Just a thought.

1:50 I cry every time

My childhood tank toys were M26 / M46 Pershings while they were still in use in Korea while the Truce was just starting. Many generations of tanks have come and gone since then.

It has been just 1 year post this content. I did raise the issues against UAV. With the unfolding Ukraine- Russia War, this has become more pressing issue. Challenger 3 or Leo2 all lack ASEA or other APS against top attach ATGMs. Another key thing to notice is, 6 wheel issue. I raised this issue by asking why not 7 wheels. Some explain it as hydropnuematic suspension. K2PL is one of the latest MBT and it is using 7 wheels and hydropnuemetic suspension. The key reason for 7 wheel is for future upgrades. Just like the beautiful Concord having no space fir extra fuel or upgrade, it is becoming a tradition that we do not plan or prepare for future upgrade given this vehicle will be in operation for next 30-40 years. Unfortunately my view re Challenger 3 has not has changed. It lacks vision and lacks the focus on what it is meant to be. Reflecting on Ukraine and Russian War makes it a lot more clear that this is a bad choice. UK should have gone with K2Ex (extended) and targeted EU export market rather than holding onto the legacy. Once again, UK has saved 350 jobs but is risking 35,000 soldiers when they get deployed to theatres.

Challenger 3 needs an MTU engine, they have 2000+ hp versions

It's been reported that there is only going to be 148 challenger 3 tanks in the UK. The question isn't just are challenger 3 any good it's also are there enough of them.

Maybe the best "upgrade" are the changes designed and produced; it makes future design changes easier to know what, if anything, goes wrong here.

One of the more common upgrades that all these tanks will be going through in the next couple of years it’s fire power it is much easier to extend the cannons range which a byproduct will be protecting the tank then it is to redesign the armor and redesign the tank if the gun can shoot 2 1/2 miles nobody can shoot back

Although I agree with your point about this just being a small upgrade, how can you get any information on the armour capability. Isn't that extremely confidential? If its touted as having an equivalent thickness of Xcm of steel (etc.) then surely that is something we would keep secret?

Are you sure about the armor protection, I swear they said they were going to use new composite inserts? As for the name, it kind of is a new tank, they had to change so much internally to get it to use the gun and set it up for safe stowage of new single-piece ammunition it's little more than a Chally 2 cosmetic skin. While generally speaking more HP equals more speed when it comes to diesel with the right transmission they could get more out of the current engine. Though they should have thought about a powerpack swap, maybe that put it over budget or messed with all the changes they had to do to get the new gun in the tank.

I see this thing as a variant/test platform. The tank could be used to test different APS systems and even new types of blowout racks, maybe new optics, ect. However, it is just a variant made too late. What they needed to do was add an APS, drone link, and a much better power pack. The Black Nite looked like a much better option, being that it already came with a pretty good APS. If that APS was automatically reloadable, the Iron fist would be amazing.

Your spot on correct with your assessment… I’m surprised that Rheinmetall would put their name on this…

The amount of times I've confused this tank family with the Ariete is embarrassing :/

Challenger 3.1 should fix things.

Good video, but I did find the opening statements a bit odd. I loved watching the Centurians doing their thing and in a parade the look and sound as they rumbled past was absolutely spectacular, the Centurian not only did it's part but it looked the part. And then it was replaced by the Leopard 1, it was a totally different look and feel and it never seemed to stack up against the Centurian. Then we got the Abrams, its big and powerful and when the crew are in sink with the behemoth they are virtually unstoppable. However when I think of a Tank I still think of the Centurian.

Recent events show that an APS is a necessity. Thx for the video.

A very thorough appraisal and quite depressing to hear. It strikes me all the red tape which is necessary to make these decisions and an undoubtedly limited budget will be the primary culprits for slow delivery of a less than optimal solution. I’m also wondering about the overall strategy for the British armed forces moving forward - how integrated this is and how many elements such as tanks might actually be nearing obsolescence in view of developments in air power, missile technology and other innovations. I guess for the tank, its utility depends on the role and although you touched on that I don’t really understand what is envisaged for Challenger 3 in an era where the US seems to be rolling back on their overseas interventions, terrorism is on the rise around the world and we have renewed Cold War style tension with Russia and China. One also can’t help pondering the implications of the climate crisis; at some point and probably by 2027 even the military will be having to comply with some of the measures needed to address it. This 60 tonne diesel powered Challenger 3 doesn’t exactly look eco-friendly! Great presentation however - thank you :-)

Challenger 2 was designed to be a platform to be evolved over many decades. Whether that was a good idea or not is a separate discussion. But, having committed to that roadmap Britain is continuing with that evolution, so Challenger 3 could never be the revolution you talk about and hoped to see. Of course, whether Britain will have the financial resources to support any desire to be a tier 1 power is another thing. I do not see any signs to encourage that aspiration. There will have to be a move from financial services to something else (well, many somethings) that the rest of the world will want to buy - and in great quantities. That will have to be supported by a world-class education system, and a strong government will to invest in that drive. I hate to be pessimistic, but I just don't see that happening - rather the opposite.

Ya missed the US Army’s transition from the M60A3 to the M1A1. West Germany 86-87. I was there and went through this program… As an ARMOR Crewman… It Was Outstanding! 19e-19k… Cheers!

I'd say the list of improvements are excellent for the British army today, it reduces the cost of running the tank, makes it more powerful, adds national jobs and beats its opponents. That last point is key, while we are at peace with Germany, US etc the only likely opponents are vastly overmatched, so why upgrade your tank massively today when there is little benefit? Better to build a paper future tank for today cheaply and upgrade the real one.

It's interesting to see that modern tanks are basically becoming mini, land battleship. They have CIWS systems, and a main armament, much like a heavy gun cruiser would have. How long before the land-drone craft carrier becomes the dominent force on the battlefield.

Could they potentially be looking at implementing Porsches old method for propelling heavy tanks faster than they have any right to go? They replace the standard transmission for massive electric motors. Then uprate the tolerances on the engine itself.

This new equipment looks amazing. So glad the British army are finally investing in the army.

I believe like any type of warfare, most of the time, it comes down to circumstance and skill. With just a dash of luck.

I'm surprised big heavy "guns on tracks" are still required given knocking out fast disposable drones in volume (glass cannons) would be cheaper?

Still remember the challenger 1 replacing the centurion and chieftain, also had the chance to work with both the MOD and Bovington Tank museum on their own projects. Personally the Abraham's is not on the same level with it armour

CH3 has been pared with the Trophy system APS, but this may be an evolved system by the time it is fitted.

As to the HESH (HEP is US Army terminology) not working with a smooth-bore gun. This is due to having the HESH round merely be a conventional cylindrical/ogival-nosed FULL-BORE projectile. What if you made the HESH internal part slightly narrower (10-15mm, say) and then thickened the outer so that it remained 120mm, BUT, opposite the concept of a rifled bore, you put twisted groves along the side of the new-model HESH shells from base to the lower nose. Then, when you fire it, some of the blast will go through the grooves and spin the shell. These shells are fired at a much lower muzzle velocity than the APFSDS rounds, of course, so some of the propellant power being diverted would be of no consequence. The shell would not need to be complex in any other way. We are not talking about long-range precision fire against a moving tank for a usual HESH target, now are we?

I think Challenger 3 is more of a test tank for a future tank from scratch with a 130mm or a 120mm Railgun and with a autoloader and future tanks will have Active protective systems and the Concept BAE are invention of new technology to basically make a tank invisible so heat tracking cannot be used anymore so I thing we should start designing a new tank now to come in Service in 2035