The main reason it is feared is often overlooked - it is operated by the british army. Professional and enthusiasts, highly trained and highly skilled.

Never forget that in the Gulf War in 1991 offensive the Challenger made a single shot over a staggering range of 5,100m (3 miles) with a Depleted Uranium (DU) round - the longest confirmed tank kill in history

You’ve missed the point completely. The real reason for the switch to a smoothbore is ammunition. Nobody makes ammo for the rifles any more.

... I was a gunner on the 1st Chieftains to be fitted with the extended graticule and laser rangefinder ... my colleagues and i used to be able to claim 1st tound hits on hard target at up to 3000m using the old APDS projectile down a rifled barrel ...

Challenger is faster xcountry than Abrams, because of its suspension. Also the vehicle is lower and more repairable because the suspension units are external, unlike others where double torsion bars go in the bottom of the vehicle, which raises the profile. CR is also vastly more fuel efficient than Abrams. Combat radius is nowhere near as good as Chieftain, but we don't run out of fuel as the US did in GW. Fuelling is a real problem with Abrams. The point about the HESH round was that, in the past it was the projectile that satisfied the NATO accuracy requirement, despite the fact that the primary a/t round was APDS. We later changed our primary anti armour round to a DU fin, using a slipping driving band. One of the problems going to the Rheinmetall gun is the fact that it uses fixed ammunition. This means that we have lost our 10degrees of depression, because you need a longer space behind the gun to load it. This means that, in a hull down position much more of the vehicle has to be exposed, in order to cover the same area of ground in front of the tank. - compared with other vehicles 5 deg of depression. So you offer roughly twice the target area. This not only affects detection and visibility, but also the chance of the enemy hitting you with a less accurate gun. Hard lesson learned in WW2

Challenger 1 with a rifled barrel still has the longest tank on tank kill in history.

The rifled barrel was not itself a problem, in fact it was an advantage in firing given British preferences in rounds, the problem however, is that everyone else in NATO can’t use the same ammunition and vice versa. The new gun we be awesome, but the old gun still has the longest tank on tank kill (5km+) from a Challenger 1 in the Gulf War, so hardly an “issue”.

Ukrainians are very happy with the accuracy of the rifled barrel.

Yes, I do believe that UK minds can come up with the best in this context. Whether their ever smaller pie Govt ideology can fund the scale to make it all worthwhile, is another issue.

Many people claim that the Challenger 2 is a poor vehicle usually pointing to the old Rifling technique still incorporated as its main gun, some call into question its armour too (something I laugh at because its armour is entirely classified) and some cite its 1300 HP engine as a disadvantage compared to Allied 1500 HP engines. I believe that the Challenger is on par with many of its Western Allies and is a threat to any future enemy tank it may seen on the modern battlefield.

Chobham armour is incredible. Gives the crew a much better chance

The only disadvantage with a rifled barrel is you're restricted to your own ammo. But if you've got plenty of ammo then no problem. The UK government are thinking 10 years ahead. There may be times when stocks are low. And if you're going to upgrade other things then may as well make the switch to smoothbore at the same time.

Having a rifled gun barrel was NEVER a problem for the challenger 2 it was Nato that had the problem with it as 80% of Nato tanks were using the same Smooth Bore gun.

Funny old thing, the longest tank on-tank kill was by a Challenger against an Iraqi Russian built tank, the Challenger had a rifled barrel.

That’s why the chalager2 rifled gun holds the recored for farthest distancez confirmed kill they have changed to smoothbore so it can fire nato ammunition not because it’s superior the rifled gun is superior but it comes at a cost

The only problem with the challenger 2 and new challenger 3 will have is we won’t have enough of them

They all have ablative armor as well, designed to cancel some of the force from kinetic strikes. A happy accident; it makes them laser-proof. Hit the armor with a laser and you generate clouds of smoke as the ablative armor burns. your laser turns into an expensive flashlight.

I read C2 gun had longer range and accuracy than smooth bores

I've heard that the rifled barrel of the challenger 2 has a particular utility with regards to the HESH tank round in the sense that the spin of the round helps the plastic explosive 'pancake' against the surface of the target. It's a clever idea really of not actually trying to penetrate armour as such but rather to cause massive trauma to the interior of the tank ... and it's crew. I assume a smoothbore can also fire such rounds but perhaps with slightly less efficiency?

Amazing package ❤Uk.

Challenger2 with its out dated systems still holds the longest tank on tank kill 🇬🇧👍

Great tank but the uk will not have enough !

the Ukrainian crews using the challenger have named it the " sniper" because it is so accurate and efficient....... The advantage of being accurate is that every round in a tanks limited arsenal is dropped on target....

... back in the 70s as a tank crewman on Chieftains, when wire guided missile became a serious threat, we had a perimeter protection radar called ZB298, and i suggested that something like that should be combined with a Carl Gustav firing canister mounted on the turret ... the squadron 2i/c said it was a ridiculous idea ... ha!

That rifled barrel still holds the record for the longest tank on tank kill at 5,000 meters it is incredibly accurate, but as the shells for it are unique to the UK they are relatively expensive and if operating with NATO forces are not interchangeable. So although it's far more accurate and a far better gun we have to dumb down to the standard NATO round.

Good accurate info (although repeated too much). Makes a change from so many others channels on YT.

Listen, we’ve been battling for 2000 years, we know how it’s done.

I worked with Challenger 1 and 2 for many years. Its main armour is one of its best attributes, we knew how it worked but its composition is still classified as top secret. The Chally 2 already has a good fire control system, and is extremely capable in both day and night situations. Also, the Challenger can already fire APFSDS rounds, the main reason we held on to the rifled barrel for so long is because of HESH rounds. Extremely lethal rounds that are effective against most armour. Lastly I would say the crews themselves are at the very top in the world. Of course you could say I am biased, and to a degree I likely am. I served alongside American tank crews, and whilst being professional tankies, they just have a very different attitude when it comes to deploying and attacking an enemy, something that goes for the American military in general.

Its the training of the British Army, highly skilled operatives who serve for a number of years in their machine,each man knows his job, and can also do each others job; they know every nut and bolt, engine servicing, engine stripping in the field and replacing, track removal and replacement in the field plus a host of other things.

I gotta say rifling in a barrel does not increase the friction it decreases the friction the rifling also make it much more accurate. They went to a smooth bore because that just opens up the amount of different kinds of rounds that can be fired

Sadly we just won’t have enough of them, back in the days of BAOR we had 900 now we have a pathetic 143

If one side has tanks you have to keep your own, but this machine is not going to be any sort of game changer, particularly when you only have about 200 of them. The UK would do better re-investing in factories that can produce cannons and ammo rather than relying on Rheinmetall.

"These are super advanced technologies that have been spent years and billions on!" Meanwhile, a barefoot native attached a hand grenade to the drone...

Why does this video keep showing cannons with rifling when talking about smooth bore cannons?

B-A-E is B, A, E. not 'Bay' I know, petty of me but it bugs.

- The Challenger 3 has been unveiled as the UK’s newest and most “lethal” main battle tank (MBT); - The Challenger 3 is produced by modernizing existing Challenger 2 MBTs with 127 planned for conversion from the UK’s existing 221 Challenger 2s; - The refurbishment/modernization of 127 tanks will cost $990 million or approximately $7.8 million per tank, several times more than modernized Russian tanks, and even more expensive or as expensive as new Russian tanks; - The Challenger 3 will weigh more than its predecessor, and both tanks are heavier than their Russian T-72B3, T-90M, T-80BVM, and even T-14 counterparts; - 127 MBTs in total will mean that most likely fewer than 100 tanks will be operational at any given time making it impractical for the UK to project military power abroad in any significant manner; - The Challenger 3 features a 120mm smoothbore gun that will use NATO standard tank rounds which is an improvement over the Challenger 2’s rifled gun which required unique ammunition incompatible with other NATO tanks; - The Challenger 3 is another illustration of Western military industrial production, emphasizing expensive, complex weapons built in small numbers to maximize profits versus equally capable, but cheaper and more numerous Russian or Chinese weapons designed to maximize both battlefield and strategic effectiveness; - While a Challenger 3 may or may not be capable one-on-one with a Russian MBT, the fact that Russia has many more tanks and is able to replace damaged or lost tanks faster than the Challenger 3 and other Western MBTs proves a disadvantage to the UK and the rest of NATO;

#excellent

The rifled barrel wasn't really an issue in itself; it just wasn't wholly compatible with the use of APFSDS shells. Rifling is used to stabilise shells by imparting spin and therefore making them more accurate at range. An APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot) is already stabilised so doesn't need to be spun. The British favoured the use of HESH shells though which did benefit from the spin; so the two rounds were in conflict with one another in terms of rifling. I believe modern tanks now are generally lined with Kevlar spalling shields internally which reduces the effectiveness of HESH and makes the already stabilised APFSDS rounds more preferable and therefore better suited to a smoothbore gun.

So what does the magic energy shield thing actually do ?

Sounds a bit like the Tiger. Apex on the battlefield but never enough of them to truly count. Do we even have enough to really operate a tank as it is supposed to be used, a breakthrough asset?

The $1000 Drone says "Hold My Beer".

"Bae systems" made me wince every time.

Rifling is used to cause the shell (or bullet in a gun) to spin. A spinning object (like a gyroscope) is not affected by torsional forces, and hence the shot can be more accurate.

Yep, I too try to hypnotize my opponent like this, but it doesn't work. 😆

When will it be in the field?And how many will they have?

As we see in Ukraine, no matter what tank you have - if you are spotted, and in range, you are done. All armored vehicles now need active protection against drones, guided rockets, and still not protected against depleted uranium projectiles.

Shame the one the Army gets isn't as good as the demonstrator. A few upgrades and a smooth bore gun are great,- but the demonstrator that won the contract was better and let's hope Rheinmetal haven't gone bust, given the state of the German economy. British tank crews are top notch - I hope this tank lives up to the hype.

The main reason for a large tank upgrade is to deal with newer AT weapons. However how they can call it the Challenger 3, when the hull is the same as the Challenger 2.

Sounds like the first thing that would happen in a real extended conflict would be a shortage of complicated Rheinmetall made ammunition. Especially if all NATO tanks are designed to use it. Bets are we would have to use the Challenger 2 as we still had rifled ammunition in stock. Its all well and good widening compatibility so we can use other countries ammo, but we should still make sure we keep a stock of the tried Challenger 2 and home-made rifled rounds in backup, as well as the capability of producing more if needed.

Well having spent year’s serving on chieftain challenger 1 and two I am not keen on smooth bore guns there seems to be a lot of talk of the excellent computer and tech. Being a old CVRT gunner mech who relied on old fashioned gunnery I like to know what happens when all this tech fails. Even on chieftains we had fin stabilised ammunition

Are the challenger 3 all new tanks or are the challenger 2 been used for the body's to upgrade the tank to 3

So we will have a massive army of 60 tanks if we're lucky

Surely a smooth bore if tight has more friction than a rifled one equally tight?

And yet despite slagging off Chally 2 and its gun, it STILL holds the longest confirmed tank to tank kill using its "crap" 120mm rifled gun and HESH. The Leos have never fought tank to tank until the Ukraine war and have lost four already albeit not in tank to tank warfare. The Chally 2 has done so and has never lost a unit until it lost one due to a mine then follow up arty from the Russians in Ukraine. The M1 Abrams got hammered in Iraq. Just how many is kept an embarrasingly close secret but there are sources out there stating up to 50. I myself passed the carcass of a burned out M1 in Iraq in 2004, just off Route Irish. I must admit I was shocked at that.

RIfled barrels are very accurate and until very recently fired a greater range of shells. So it wasn't a lagging behind, more a pros and cons things.

Now that the Russians are thinking that there unbeatable, we definitely need the New Challenger 3 Tank but we need more than 250, just saying, Rule Britannia from Glasgow 😎🇬🇧👍

Rifled is more accurate, smooth bore requires stabilised shells. The change was purely to ensure compatibility with NATO rounds.

So are we refurbishing our old Mk 2's or are we building brand new Challengers 3's? Also does this mean that we now have the capability of building more Challenger tanks as I thought we had done away with the factory that built Challenger's? God I truly hope we can as I can see a big need for them sadly in our future. Regards Chris

You say that, but the longest record kill is with a Challenger 2! The ONLY reason they are changing out the gun, is for NATO compatibility. The UK army does NOT want to give up it's hesh round, trust me!

The Challenger kept the rifled gun because British tank doctrine prioritized infantry support over tank on tank combat because tanks are usually only seen in small numbers compared to armoured personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. The rifled gun gives superior long range accuracy and effectiveness for High Explosive Squash Head rounds which use chemical energy so don't lose effectiveness at longer ranges the way Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds do using only kinetic energy to penetrate armour. With the proliferation of composite and explosive reactive armours and the development of more effective multi purpose rounds for smoothbore guns switching over to a cheaper smoothbore now makes more sense. The Challenger will lose it's devastating long range power but the gun will suffer reduced wear gain access to cheaper slightly more powerful armour piercing ammo and be able to buy ammo from any NATO ally.

NEED TO GET THEM BUILT AND WORK STARTED ON CHALLY 4 AND 5

Need to have built in mine / heavy metal detectors on the front. Csn not believe how every tank on the battlefield don't have them

It's going to be interesting to see how much further the Challenger 3 can shoot considering the Challenger 1 holds the record for the longest direct fire shot (I'm aware the Ukrainians are claiming the longest kill - it's a impressive feat but was using a T-72 in an indirect role so moving it away from a tank shot and more into an artillery shot instead).

Apfsds ie fin rounds on both guns use fin stabllisation despite the challenger 2 guns being rifled. this article is factually inaccurrate in many ways. particularly in regards to the challenger going smoothbore

i mean it has all the best parts of the leopard 2's and all of the best parts from the challengers. so yeah its a Truely formidible tank.

Can it stop a drone or Artillery ?

Ah yes. The world famous Bay Systems. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Well a smoothbore gun means that the British army will be unlikely to fire HESH rounds. And really thats the round you want to use against buildings.

They are so professional that over 7500 a year fail the fitness test.

Think i heard the C2 has not been destroyed by an enemy tank, think there might have been a blue on blue.

U can fit all the best state of the art defence systems and clad a tank with the most up to date defensive armour but they’ll still b knocked out on the battlefield modern anti tank weapons r so powerful now and in the field systems fail especially in the heat of battle u can only take things so far and it’s all a compromise the heavier it gets the less effective it is and when multi million pound tanks r being disabled or completely destroyed at the hands of a hand held missile that costs a pittance by comparison it alas comes down to costs as well like most things

Biggest problem with any armored vehicle on the battlefield is its track, once the track is immobilized the tank or tracked vehicle is a sitting duck.

Bee Ay Eeeh, not Bay...As in British Aerospace.

the smooth bore is a good step up ... but they have to increase their armor and speed ...

Ruffled gun caused friction and slowed munitions down but it still holds the record for the distance taking out another tank 😁👌 thought it was rifle too heat up the depleted uranium round 🤔

I would hope they armoured the top of the tank with all the top-down weapons in the field now

Thumbnail looks suspiciously like the "Mako" from MASS EFFECT. Hope Challenger 3 is better than Mako over rough terrain.😤

how can you claim it fearful tank when it never been blooded in the fire of battle?

As we won't have enough of these (I think 148?) to equip a full armoured division, I don't think Russia has much to worry about.

When making videos like this you should avoid using descriptions like "Last Week". This description will be accurate for just a week and what you should do is use dates to make the video perpetually accurate.

The problem is the British will only make like 100 of them making it a non factor on a battlefield when your enemy has 3000 tanks .

you would think it would be better to make them unmanned these days. Safer for the (remote) operators and more space for the mechanics inside

Wonder if it still has tea facilities built in like the challenger 2 😊

Makes the ruzzian armarta look like a cardboard armoured kiddies pedal car! Sorry the armarta is a work of fiction! Its armoured with plywood and pushed along flintstone style

Can we just wait untill it actually comes into service.

The main gun is being swapped because the Rheinmetall 120mm guns are now nato standard. Rifling itself is not a or the problem. The new M35 gun on the M10 Booker is rifled, because the nato standard for 105mm rounds is rifled because that what was being used at the time, all western tank guns of that era being based off the RO L7 105mm. When Chieftan & challenger were being designed 120mm rounds did not yet have a nato standard. Standardisation has always been a nato thing, this caliber has always been the outlier.

The Russians are a joke,but they're not going to be frightened of 140 of these however excellent they are,and they are shit hot!

Most important question: Does it come with a coffee-maker/tea-kettle?

I listened to Leopard 2 on u tube ...the round makes a real crack...much sharper sounding than the Russian tanks. Reminds me of like C4......thsts goes crack not kerboom

>"Only reason" >Lists multiple reasons

Rifled v smooth bore is a bit like beta v vhs ...beta like rifled is superior but more expensive and rifled like vhs is cheaper and everyone is using it so no profit in manufacturing arms for a rifled barrel...still to this day the challenger rifled barrel has the longest tank on tank hit

Going smooth bore will make it a lot easier to sell to Nato allies .

The barrel isn't any longer than the L30 both the l55 are 120mm and 55 cal exact same length

you make out a smooth bore is better than a rifled barrel is 100% wrong, Riffled is the better gun, it's more accuate and gives longer range, it's drawbacks is the ammo is harder to make and the barrel wears out quicker. Also the longest tank on tank kill was a riffled barrel, the only reason for the switch is to save money

Can it combat drones

Challenger 3 may be the best , but theres not enough of them ...known as" critical mass "in the military

you show a picture of the alleged challenger 3 barrel , rifled , then state later on that the barrel will be smoothbore ...........

As long as it has tea making facilities it'll be fine

7:57 should he "Tanks for Watching!"

The main problem I see with the Challenger 2 rifled gun is it's life span. It is worn out after 400 full charge shots while the smooth-bore Rheinmetall gun used by Abrams and Leopard 2 lasts for well over 1500 shells fired.