but the US:GAO - Op Desert Storm Report Jan 92 only states 34 tanks were destroyed, 2 intentionally destroyed, 9 from 'Blue on Blue' fire and 23 destroyed or damaged by enemy fire. The document also says others were damaged by enemy fire, landmines and on-board fires. Also Abrams crews struggled to find spare parts, being that the Abrams were deployed in massive numbers, in the thousands. Also it took two M88A1s to pull a single Abrams M1A1. Doesn't look good for the Abrams.
well guys,... dont get all fired up.....about statistics,.... its just what a bureucrat would do. The only way to put a final and decisive test is to make a battle test. 10 L55 vs. 10 Challenger 2, vs 10 M1A2s and see whos the one last in the battlefield!
Part 2 New Vanguard Challenger MBT 1982-97: British Army at the time of 1990 had 1202 tanks in service; 752 Chieftains, 420 Challengers and 30 Centurion AVREs. 180 Challengers were sent to the Persian Gulf and replaced what was left of the Chieftain fleet at the beginning of the war.
@TankNutDave Well the Kuwaits were using the Chieftain Mk5K2 at the time, the UK still had a fleet of Chieftains (Mk11 being the final model) but your right they were never sent, only Chieftain ARRVs were sent. the CRARRV (Challenger ARRV) was rushed in 7 months before its due date, 12 actually seeing action. Chieftains were being rapidly phased out. 17 Armoured Regiments were down to 16 when the Challenger 2 came in.
@FletchRDG well its nice to see someone taking the time to research some facts, makes a change lol. You should check out my site, we have over 800 military vehicles on the site, you should enjoy it. The link is in the discription of the video :)
PART1 early assessment of Op Desert Storm (US General accounting Office; Jan 1992) Performance of Bradley and Abrams: a total of 3,113 Abrams in the Persian Gulf, 2,024 were assigned to deployed units. 1,089 were placed in reserve. 2024 were assigned to Troops, 1904 were M1A1s and 120 were M1s, most exchanged the older models for M1A1s once they were in the Persian Gulf. Thats 3113 US tanks sent there in the 1st Gulf War.
Uhm i thought the modern challengers switched to the Leopard 2's Smoothbore gun because of its higher power. Also the DU ammunition in the Abrams is a new version meant to defeat the russian t 90 Kontakt 5. If the challenger 2's armor was penetrated, does that also mean it was defeated, or are you counting this on people alive in the tank?
@shh341 Only the frontal arc of tanks have armour, the RPG-29 penetrated an area that did not have armour, it was the normal steel that the tank hull is made from. No Challenger 2 has not nor will be having the smoothbore. All the correct information is on my site, follow the link in the discription of this video please.
It is actually quite fun to watch how all the armchair generals argue around here, thinkin' they're all tank experts. So I appreciate a good objective video, even though I'm biased as hell, serving in the Leo 2 myself :P
Dear Dave , great vid , good arguments ... But why not consider Leclerc ? The frogs usually want to stand out and they adopted a different concept - more mobility , less weight and size , advanced battle management system - but admit sometimes it works ! Leo doesn't have the combat record of Chally , but at least many others around the world trust it enough to buy it and base their defense on it , how many Challengers were built and how many Leo's are fielded ? Forget Abrams ....
nowaday Chaly 2 also uses the L55 of Leo 2, from outside it looks the same as before, but it from Rheinmetall.
Maybe you should also compare the fuel comsumption, longevity of the motor ( diesel, gas etc.), cost for maintenance, Chaly 2 is going to use MTU power pack, tks
Thanks for the good vid. You still have a lot of Leo 2 A4 and Chaly 1. But well done
@alvincenthanoi You are wrong on all your information. You can not use rifled CHARM-3 in a smoothbore. Its like putting diesel fuel in a petrol car, they are not compatible. Challenger 2 is not using the German smoothbore L55, we tested it in 2006 and rejected it. We already use a British L55 rifled main gun. You can not fit smoothbore ammunition in the Challenger 2 ammo storage, we would need a new turret. We are not going to use an MTU engine either.
@TankNutDave ur army itested the smoothbore and it had better penetration than ur current gun,the rpg-29 penetrated the frontal armor of ur tank so how is that unprotected area?ur tank didnt see much action in iraq as the abrams by the way
@ahmadov no it didnt lol. Thats what the manufacturer published so they could sell it to us lol. Ive been on the Challenger 2 and mates who worked at the DTU at Bovington. We are not swapping over. With the RPG29 incident, it hit the corner of the glacis plate which isnt protected with Dorchester armour, hence why we got rid of the old ERA nose. We saw action after telic 1 as we were squadron strength and out fighting every night, just like we did to save your country in 1991 lol.
@TankNutDave the manufacturer lied about a test done by ur army to sell the gun to ur army? what u said doesnt make since,explain more please.moreover,it makes since that leo 2 gun is more powerful because it wastes less energy to push the projectile through the gun.ur poriton of operations in iraq is nothing compared to usa,u took care of one or two cities while they took care of everything else,including the triangle of death.u faced old tanks in 1991 so please!
@ahmadov PART 1 Its not my army, it’s the British Army, I don’t have an Army & lets face it, old tanks or not in 91 the Kuwaiti Army still couldn’t defeat them & the British did. The ROF’s that made HESH are now closed. So the MoD trialled the L55 smoothbore to see if it was as good as our L55 rifled main gun aka the CHARM-GUN, so that the Army could be supplied with cheap smoothbore ammunition instead of reopening a production facility for a short run which would have cost a fortune.
PART 2 So the MoD & other sources leaked to the public domain that smoothbore was better in the hope of saving money from cheaper rounds by swapping over to smoothbore. However since my friends work at ATDU who tested the smoothbore told me the truth and also that they tested a new HESH round supplied by a Belgium firm in 2009, so there are now no advantages nor need to swap to a smoothbore.
PART 3 As for Telic, so we had a smaller patch than the USA, so what? During the occupation we kept CR2 in Iraq until 2009 at squadron strength, which was 14 tanks, they were out every night in support of operations against the same enemy and therefore came under attack more frequently than the average Abrams as they were in greater demand due to lesser numbers.
PART 4 My mate on his tour saw his tank attacked 36 times including the IED that saw Steve have his leg amputated. The US returned 5% of its Abrams to the ANAD as destroyed. CR2 sent to the UK? 0%.
@TankNutDave as for ur service in Iraq,what u saw is nothing to what the Americans and their tanks have seen,most of the resistance occurred in American controlled territories.so u cant argue that ur tanks didnt have any destroyed tank when u only had 14 of them serving against smaller resistance groups. did u hear of a triangle called the triangle of death,that is where the americans served.it was hell.
@ahmadov PART 1 I never mentioned that the BRITISH ARMY did not loose a single tank in 91 lol The UK forces occupied a quarter of Iraq 2003 onwards, the Polish ran the other quarter. UK forces faced the same enemy and the same weapons as the Americans, but on a proportionate scale due to a smaller area and as such the UK had to buy MRAP’s too as well as up-armour the Challenger 2 like the Americans did with the Abrams.
PART 2 The fact that British tank crews such as Sean Chance lost only toe’s in an RPG attack which has killed other non UK tank crews and Steve was inflicted with only shrapnel following a large IED attack that resulted in an amputation, shows that UK Forces contributions were far from “nothing” and you should not belittle that, just because you can not comprehend scales and ratios. Stop posting disrespectful comments.
@TankNutDave I'm fed up with Americans using the excuse of "Abrams saw more action so we would obviously lose more" the fact is the yanks and British tanks had the same weapons fired at them and when a Milan anti tank missile and 14 rpgs only managed to knock out the sights on the Challenger 2 I think the fact speaks for itself that because Challenger 2 has the best armour it is able to withstand more damage and come out of a fight unharmed.
@TankNutDave well im replying to ur false arguments here.u argue that u lost far less than the american although u did NOT face the same resistance groups cause u controlled mostly shia cities while americans were stationed in strongholds of the biggest resistance groups such as the islamic army,im not being desrespectful but u should not post false info.second ied sizes differ and not every ied could penetrate abrams either.
@ahmadov Were you there, did you actually particapate in the fighting? served in the British Army? partcipated on joint operations with the Americans?
@TankNutDave man!! this is a fact,the americans controlled the hot regions and i know well since im an arab who lives in kuwait,we had the news of attacks on amercans coming every day through aljazeera channel.i dont know how u can argue about this!! we rarely saw videos against british troops but mostly against americans.i saw these videos at aljazeera for years! i'm not saying that u were doing nothing but ur contribution to the war effort is MUCH less than that of the americans!
@ahmadov PART 1 So that’s a no then. You live in another country and saw footage of Americans being attacked aired by a tv channel that has been accused of being bias to Americans. Your totally missing the point. If there were more attacks against Americans by insurgents that’s because there were more Americans. It doesn’t mean that the attacks inflicted upon them had a higher level of lethality than those inflicted upon the British.
PART 2 They had the same RPG’s, the same artillery shells to build IED daisy chains which were used to attack Challenger 2’s left over from the former Iraqi Army. 1 got hit by 14 RPG variants and a MILAN. The Challenger 2 survived as the crew did as well. You have said it yourself, that the Challenger 2 has better protection, that is what this video is about, survivability.
PART 3 As far as the German L55, I am sorry, but you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge about tanks and that you use incorrect/out of date information by your comment on the RPG29 attack saying that it penetrated the frontal armour. The RPG29 dropped short, exploding on the ground sending shrapnel and blast up under the tank penetrating the steel belly of the tank which doesn’t have armour. I write about tanks for a living, which has included the BBC and my mates were there.
@ahmadov Its called the Challenger 2, Challenger was the WW2 A30. The fact you say Leo2 has better firepower shows how little you know. Leopard 2 is operated in various models which have 2 different smoothbores. They use the L44, which stands for calibre Length 44 and L44, calibre Length 55. A L55 has greater firepower than a shorter L44. The Challenger 2's main gun is also a calibre Length 55. So how can Leo2 have better firepower lol?
@TankNutDave i didnt mention anything about the ww2 a30.if am talking about l55 then i must be talking about leo2a6.lol. the smoothbore l55 will give more power than the rifled l55 cause it has less friction,got it!
@Tommyfungun Depends where your going to war mate, it would either be the Canadian Leopard 2A4M CAN or Challenger 2 uparmoured tier 2. Both have very good protection :)
If it were a race, I'd put everything on the Abrams (Engine governor off).They all have excellent guns, but the Abrams armor is only 1st gen chobham, compared to the Challenger's 2nd gen, I'm not sure what the Leopard has, but based on the worship the bloody thing gets, I'm guessing the same, or an equivalent. Abrams lacks the survivability of the other two, particularly the Chally. It comes down to the CHally vs Leopard really, Abrams is just outclassed in terms of armor. Need to upgrade it.
@RAMBQNER Challenger? that was a WW2 cruiser tank. Monkeys? why would they being operating a tank? How am I bias? If I was I wouldn’t hosting hundreds of videos from around the world, not just the UK and I wouldn’t have built an international site with a translator to read the 800+ articles I have done of international military vehicles. Only people who accuse others are being bias are those with a low IQ who can’t figure out how to upload videos like you lol
@haloamusedcrib when you say M1A1 you mean those tanks which have mk1 chobham, no hunter killer and a shorter main gun, where the CR2 has mk2 armour, a longer gun for greater range and a hunter killer abilty so can detect tanks quicker than the M1A1?
@iFunnky They are old school when at the time rifled offered disadvantes when operating large tank fleets compared to the modern Challenger 2 :) good comment
I think personaly The challenger 2 tank ranks first place because very healivily armoured and never lost 1 from the eniemy ( not being biased). 2nd the leopard 2 tank because the same reason with challenger 2 & German engering. 3rd & 4th the Arbrans because there armour is very weak.
good video, but I I didn't agree on the survivability part. those IED's where undetermined on size and point of impact. perhaps the challenger crews where just lucky, I'd rather see armour test comparisons.
also you forgot to mention the accuracy while on the move, at which the Leopard is the best. and the speed at which they can attack a new target at a different position.
@Trisscarro Part 1 - thank you, glad you enjoyed it. Challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured tank in the world. The street fighter upgrade saw dorchester armour modules added to the side of hull and turret and with the tier 2 having era on top of this, it weights in at just under 75 tonnes, so its nothing to do with luck :P
Part 2 - I didnt forget about accuracy on the move, its just the video has to be limited to 10 mins. There are some 13 odd versions of the Leo2 around the world with most having diferent fire control systems. Challenger 2 hydrogas suspension uses a nitrogen springing medium, which is 6 times more flexible than conventional steel as used in TorsionBar suspension of the Leo2 series. So CR2 is a more stable platform for firing on the move :)
its all and well saying the challenger is the superior of the three tanks bu we have to remember that the british only built some 500 challenger 2s whereas the americans built some 9000 m1a1 and m1a2 abrams tanksand the germans bulit more than 3500 leopard 2s. we must remember quantity is a qulaity of its own
@brezzzzzz1 its more like 400 CR2's and 7500 M1A2's. (not right i know). But just look how big USA is (size and population) compared to UK, we dont need that many MBT as we only have to defend a small area. Also you wouldn't have all the Abrams facing down all the Challengers in the same battle would you?
one thing about the fire power, you have to take in the actual Shell info to determine this, a 105mm HEAT round will cut through steel plates just fine, but put in ceramic tiles, the jet of hot metal is spread out, making it severely uneffective, while a SABO anti armor round will go right through, also, for armor, take the fact that there are more abrams than challengers, meaning higher probablity of being hit. also, the abrams is THE ONLY tank to have automatic computerized tracking of targets
@MUJUNKY lol all 105mm guns are rifled, you can not effectively use HEAT in them as the imparted spin breaks of the copper jet. The only country to both was France on the AMX-30 backin the 1960's. Ceramic armour is just as effective on HEAT as it is on SABOT rounds. Also on the numbers, you will never get all the Abrams in one place lol and the vast majority are M1A1 which have no hunter killer capability so a Challenger 2 will spot an Abrams first.
@RAMBQNER The M1 Abrams used the L7 105mm rifled main gun. The M1A1 Abrams upgrade was when they added the M256 120mm Smoothbore. The Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System uses the 105mm M68A1E4, not the L7. Get your facts right before trying to question mine! lol
every country use to state that it has the best tanks, yet from all the tanks mentioned, only the merkava and the abrams have taken enough hits by modern missiles and shells to show a statistical reliable statement.
the leo2 and challenger simply didn't evolved in enough conflicts and stroke by enough missiles to say anything.
I prey that non of the brave crewmen will not get killed or injured but the bestness of any tank is yet to be answered.
@nirharpaz1 What are you on about? Challenger was a ww2 cruiser tank, get the name right! Challenger 2 served in former Yugslav wars peace keeping like Abrams series and 2003 onwards until 2009 in Iraq. Cr2 has been attacked by the same enemy with the same weapons, ie rpg7, rpg29 and daisy chains. get your facts right!
abrams can go 70 mph if it diddnt have the general on it and with out general the abrams still goes faster then the challenger 2 32mph abrams goes 35 mph of road so suck it ps suck it challenger ;)
@MRWALKER500000 now adays, not alot lol thats why UK tanks have always been the most heavily armoured and less mobile as we view armoured protection capable of stopping incoming fire as a form of mobilty as the tank can still keep moving :)
@TankNutDave yeah, mobility shouldn't be judged in speed, but freedom of movement and the logistics footprint. I mean you hear Americans praise the top speed of the M1 at 40 mph but it didn't stop 18? of them being knocked out a couple of monkey model T-72's and RPG's!
@TankNutDave the challenger has a L-30 gun not the l-55 on the leopard 2a6. The L-30 gun on the chalenger 2 is inferior to the l-44 on abrams and l-55 on leo 2. they where going to put L-55 on the challenger 2 but never put it on.
@nick74178ify L55 stands for calibre Length 55. The British Army does not name its guns after their calibre Length like Germany. The British L30 is a calibre Length 55, so yes it is a L55. As for inferior lol the L11 on Challenger 1 scored a kill in 1991 at 5300m’s & the L30 replaced the L11. ATK who manufacturer the Abrams M829A3 rate the m/v as 1555 & target range as 3000m. You need a higher m/v to increase range which gives the FIN round more punch = increased lethality you troll lol.
As with your video, I agree that the Challenger 2 is the best 3rd gen tank in service. However your mobility statistics are incorrect, as both the M1A2 and Leopard 2A6 are faster than the Challenger 2, both On and Off road. Top speed of tanks on road as follows: M1A2 - 72 Kph, Leopard 2A6 - 68 Kph, Challenger 2 - 60 Kph. This is probably the Challenger 2s most significant weakness when comparing all 3 tanks against eachother. Challenger 2 does have a more reliable engine, however.
@Runer2009 Yes and no, British Army see's armour protection as a form of mobility. However what you dont know and many others dont, is that Challenger 2 is also governed, but by rpm, not km/h. All these tanks can reach 72km/h if they have the right road, however the viberations and movement can injure the crew and why the all wear body armour in the tank so as to prevent injury. Good comment you made, but not fully correct :)
@UKNationalAirsoft yup, if you go to my site you will see me on the Challenger 2 page on the challenger 2 of the development and trials unit at Bovington Camp :)
All of the tanks in this video are equal, m1,challenger, and leopard are too closely matched to be properly measured in combat effectiveness just based on the statistics. It all comes down to the crew and how they operate in a combat situation.
WTF!!!....NOWONDER!!..THE FAG WHO MADE THS VIDEO WAS A BRIT!!...FUCKING BIAS!!....EY! DICKHEAD!...KNOCK UR BRAINS OFF!!!...WHY DONT U LOOK AT THE RATIO BETWEEN M1 TANKS AND YOUR DUMMY CHALLENGER!!...AND HOW MANY CHALLENGER BEEN IN IRAQ AND M1...2000 M1....ONLY LESS THAN 300 CHALLENGER WERE SENT!!.....FUCKING DUMMY!!!
i served in the greek army in a leopard tank. awesome weapon. But the challenger2 looks so sweet and lethal at the same time. i'd love to get inside on of those
@toxicnoodle64 if I was bias I wouldnt have included the other tanks that are not from the UK. I suggest you check out my site which I have written over 750 military vehicles from around the world. If you want to be critical of my efforts try coming up with something a little more articulated lol
Problem was breakup of SU with production split between Kharkov (T-80UD) in Ukraine and Omsk (T-80U) in Russia, and yes, some production at Peter. T-80 simply cost to much during financial chaos in 1990's. Besides, T-95 taking shape nicely at Nizhny Tagil :)
@BuratinoOmsk Russia rejected the T-95 some months back. they stopped purchasing T-80U as it cost to much money to run and its poor performance during Chechen Wars.
Well, I´m driving Leopard 2A5, and has done so for 9 years now, and let me say: in the world of tankers, we take some pride in knowing everything about all the tanks that exist ( or atleast as many as u possibly can )
here is the oppinion of all the tankers I know including myself:
The M1A2 and Leo 2 are very much alike....same gun, almost same design, but the M1 has heavier armor and uses a gas-turbine engine.
No offence to the Challenger, but in our world, it just dos´nt come close to M1/Leo2
@abramsere Strange, because all the Tankies I know say that the Abrams and Leo2A5 they have been in on exercises, Iraq and Afgan all say your tank has choclate armour and short stubby gun that cant match the Challenger 2's lol
Great video. A lot of info. Well done! Greeting from the USA. Maybe a 4th must be measured. (4.) Quantity- USA 6,300 mbt, UK- 386 mbt , Germany- 408 mbt.
@xz327 hhhhmmm dont fully agree with that. I do agree that crew training is important but a well trained crew in a centurion with a 105mm is not going to penetrate Chobham armour (or armour on Leo2 & Abrams) nor will it be able to out range a 120mm Cal L55 main gun. Thou most British crews say a monkey can operate an Abrams you are going to only ever have well trained crews in CR2, Abrams and Leo2 family of tanks :-)
@themangix357 Yes, I would say it has the top hunter killer capability, but only the M1A2SEP versions. Also the reset program completed at the ANAD is very very good. I would happily go to war in a M1A2SEP (as it has upgraded armour) but I would rather have a CR2 :)
@TankNutDave if you think how easy the leopard is to change engine and serve and how much fuel they use during action so is the leopard outstanding!!!!
These 3 MBT's are very similar and the differences your arguing over are so small, there not going to make a difference. In Tank VS Tank it will come down to the crew,terrain and what crew of one tank see's the other first.
3 Pillars to a Tank design = Speed / Fire Power / Armour (they say the best tank will have all 3 perfectly but i beg to differ)
U.S / German tank doctrine = Armour Superiority through Speed and Fire Power
British doctrine = Armour Superiority through Fire Power and Armour
@SkullKing11841 Good comment, mobility there isnt a huge differences, however I disagree when comparing firepower, you get significant different results dependant on cal Lengths and other types, such as range, accuracy, puch and ammo types. Your right on the doctrines and the Israelis is the same as ours, in that we view superior armour as a form of mobility as you can move over the battlefield after surving strikes :)
Very well put together and finally one that shows the true attributes of all three tanks instead of an American lying to make the Abram sound better... when in fact its crap n I would prefer to be in a Mastiff!!
The info on crew losses arent correct, Challenger 2 suffered 2 dead crew men during friendly fire. Check for info wiki.
Also when all tests showed that the 120mm L55 Rheinmetall gun giving enhanced performance then the current used 120mm L30 why are you thinking its better? The HESH you are talking about is just useful against Tanks with less armor protection and thats why they used it in Iraq and other battles just facing T72 and other already old tanks.
@Termite3 PT1 - Why would I want to check wiki? Ive been around, on and written about CR2. I was the 1st pressman to photograph the new CR2 version. It says at the beginning of the video combat proven, that is what we are comparing the damage the enemy has done to the vehicles, not blue on blue, so my stats are right. What is funny is you say HESH is less effective, however it was HESH that destroyed that CR2 in Blue on Blue. HESH hit’s the weakest point of all tanks, the roof.
PT2 - If we were going to use The L55 we would have swapped. We tried it out as the ammo is cheaper, just like we did on Chieftain and rejected it. We have developed a new round for production to replace CHARM-3 when we need too. Try to use something more reliable than wiki, anyone who is anyone can change the info on that site to what they want it to show even its wrong!
@TankNutDave Is it not true that the limit of APFSDS projectile lenght is less in the C2 vs in the Leopard-2 and M1A1/2 tanks. IIRC the CHARM-3 is about on par with the M-892A1 due to these restrictions. I am open to changing my mind if evidence can be presented.
Unfortunately rifling the barrel means that you burn through them quicker than the smooth-bore ones. Also remember that the leopard II is the oldest and the M1A1 a year its junior. The Challenger II tank came out in 1998 and if you couldn't come up with something better in an 18 year time span then something is wrong...
@USMC2nd Im sorry but your thinking of the old L7 105mm series that the US used for years on the M60 series and M1 Abrams. A vast amount has changed since then. On average we fire per CR2 450+ rounds a year on active vehicles during training exercises and averaged 200 during Operation Telic 1. The 120mm L30 cannon is made from Electro Slag Re-melting steel (ESR).
I thought you could fire HEAT from a rifled gun, but the shells are more complicated, with slipper rings to avoid spin. HESH works better with spin, or is it a problem with accuracy in a smoothbore?
@SvenTviking France developed HEAT Obus G for their 105mm. It had an outer casing which the inner shell containing the shaped charge sits in. The inner shell is narrower than the outer casing, thus you have a small HEAT round. For HEAT to be effective you need to keep increasing muzzle bore and is very expensive & is why no one did it for 120mm main guns. It only remained in France. HESH uses rifling to arm its self.
there was a test in norway 5 years ago, pitching the leopard 2 vs the challenger 2, and the abrams tank, the score in the end was the leopard 2 with 2 points ahead of the challenger on most field tests done in arctic conditions, while the abrams actually often broke down due to the cold. so you should NEVER think about wich is the best because of either the gun, armor, speed, agility..the last factor is the most crucial, resistance against the elements, wich was proven time and time again in ww2
@kornek21 I have never heard of this test. Can you please send me as a pm the source for this. In all these tests they never test the armour, so you are not going to get a true representation.
In terms of firepower and arrmor the it's obviouse Challanger 2 comes out on top. Speed and operation distance is between Leopard and Abrams. Mass production goes to Abrams. If I had to pick a tank that would win in a fight between Leopard and Abrams I'd go with the Leopard. If I had to choose which tank I'd use out of all 3 Challanger 2 is way ahead of the others. 1. Challenger 2. Leopard. 3. Abrams.
If the rifled barrel is so superior, why has everyone (besides the British) phased it out in favour of the smoothbore?
I'm not bashing the rifled barrel, I just don't know much about the subject and it seems strange. I've heard people say the smoothbore penetrates targets better because it achieves greater velocity?
@JBMontgomery87 Its not that simple. The rifled gun used by other nations such as US & Germany were of a smaller calibre, ie 105mm where as UK was using 120mm. When the Abrams & Leo2 came out they went with the 120mm smoothbore as they wanted to use HEAT ammunition. You can not use this in a rifled gun as the imparted spin breaks up the copper jet released by the shaped charge of the HEAT round. Thats why they went with smoothbores. We stuck with rifled as we wanted HESH & rifling arms HESH.
@TankNutDave Rifled Guns can shoot at a longer distance but have less Muzzle Velocity and that means less Penetration. Besides it doesn`t matter since the newer challengers also have a smoothbore gun. Just look on Wiki.
The german Rheinmetall L55 which is the same as in the Leopard 2 A6.
All 3 use the Rheinmetall guns so if you take away the gun and replace it by their standard guns the Leopard 2 is far superior but with all 3 armed with the same gun i think that they are all equal. ;)
@Termite3 What a silly comment lol How do you achieve distance? by having a high muzzle lol. As for CR2 with smoothbore, its not happening! It will never happen. Try using more than just the out of date incorrect wikipedia page. We added a new armour suite and improved suspension last year. Go to click on the link above and look at CR2 page (you will see me on the new CR2 and why we are not going to use smoothbore.
@TankNutDave I thought you know the pros of rifled guns? Well let me explain: It increases range through the Spin it gets for a rifled barrel but because of this spin you lose Muzzle velocity.
Muzzle Velocity is gained with time the longer a barrel the higher the muzzle velocity it also increases by using Kinetic Ammunition.
If i Check your site am i then not just checking your infos?
You can also check Rheinmetall detec. com to see some infos of the special Ammunition.
@Termite3 PT1 - Lol yes you loose an insignificant amount of energy, but not enough that you cant penetrate armour with FIN rounds (APFSDS). A smoothbore requires a higher muzzle velocity to compensate for the loose of range and accuracy by not using rifling. There is no advantage in a smoothbore today over rifling since the introduction of the L30.
PT2 - I don’t need to check Rheinmetall’s site, they are very helpful and supply me with the correct information I have needed when writing about their products via email or telephone lol
@Termite3 PT1 - Your right, I shouldn’t laugh at you, however much I find your lack of knowledge funny. Your 1st comment to me was - Rifled Guns can shoot at a longer distance but have less Muzzle Velocity and that means less Penetration. So you did say it lol.
PT2 - Your argument has no weight. There are more factors than just smoothbore vs rifled. The L30 on CR2 is also a Cal Length 55 just like on Leo2 A6, therefore CR2 will have higher M/V than a shorter L44 smoothbore which means greater range over the smoothbore. The rifling is an added bonus and is why CR1 Rifled Cal Length 55 holds world record longest tank to tank kill.
@NationalSniper What? Judging by your comments you should be a politician! The Dutch bought 445 Leopard 2A4 during the Cold War, upgraded 180 of those to the A6 and sold 336 A4 & A6, which leaves them with 109, which is a small fleet than the Challenger 2's fleet lol
Abrams and Merkava were build with protection as most important.
Protection: 1. M1A2SEP 2. CR2 3. Leo2 A6
CR2 has no DU in its Chobham.
Mobility: 1. Leo2A6, 2. M1A2SEP, 3. CR2
I am not sure on firepower on how the CR2 gun compares to the L55 or L44. Can it kill T-80U at 4km?
Leo 2 A6 would beat M1A2 SEP slightly on firepower. The Leo has better gun but Abrams compensates this with DU ammo which gives almost same protection. Overal I think the 3 tanks are about equal on firepower.
@NationalSniper Again wrong, IDF & British doctrine is firepower and armour, US & German is mobility & firepower. As for your protection stat's, CR2 doesnt use Chobham armour it uses Dorchester and it contains several materials including DU. CR2's main gun is a L55 and its older version scored the longest tank to kill at 5.1km.
There's only one way to sort this out. FIGHT!
ludocrat 1 month ago 2
but the US:GAO - Op Desert Storm Report Jan 92 only states 34 tanks were destroyed, 2 intentionally destroyed, 9 from 'Blue on Blue' fire and 23 destroyed or damaged by enemy fire. The document also says others were damaged by enemy fire, landmines and on-board fires. Also Abrams crews struggled to find spare parts, being that the Abrams were deployed in massive numbers, in the thousands. Also it took two M88A1s to pull a single Abrams M1A1. Doesn't look good for the Abrams.
FletchRDG 1 month ago
well guys,... dont get all fired up.....about statistics,.... its just what a bureucrat would do. The only way to put a final and decisive test is to make a battle test. 10 L55 vs. 10 Challenger 2, vs 10 M1A2s and see whos the one last in the battlefield!
Opiuth 1 month ago
you are right, Dave, it is not Charm 3 but DM53 for Leo 2. You are real expert.
Tks
alvincenthanoi 1 month ago
Part 2 New Vanguard Challenger MBT 1982-97: British Army at the time of 1990 had 1202 tanks in service; 752 Chieftains, 420 Challengers and 30 Centurion AVREs. 180 Challengers were sent to the Persian Gulf and replaced what was left of the Chieftain fleet at the beginning of the war.
FletchRDG 1 month ago
@FletchRDG The Chieftain was never sent to Iraq.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave Well the Kuwaits were using the Chieftain Mk5K2 at the time, the UK still had a fleet of Chieftains (Mk11 being the final model) but your right they were never sent, only Chieftain ARRVs were sent. the CRARRV (Challenger ARRV) was rushed in 7 months before its due date, 12 actually seeing action. Chieftains were being rapidly phased out. 17 Armoured Regiments were down to 16 when the Challenger 2 came in.
FletchRDG 1 month ago
@FletchRDG well its nice to see someone taking the time to research some facts, makes a change lol. You should check out my site, we have over 800 military vehicles on the site, you should enjoy it. The link is in the discription of the video :)
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART1 early assessment of Op Desert Storm (US General accounting Office; Jan 1992) Performance of Bradley and Abrams: a total of 3,113 Abrams in the Persian Gulf, 2,024 were assigned to deployed units. 1,089 were placed in reserve. 2024 were assigned to Troops, 1904 were M1A1s and 120 were M1s, most exchanged the older models for M1A1s once they were in the Persian Gulf. Thats 3113 US tanks sent there in the 1st Gulf War.
FletchRDG 1 month ago
Uhm i thought the modern challengers switched to the Leopard 2's Smoothbore gun because of its higher power. Also the DU ammunition in the Abrams is a new version meant to defeat the russian t 90 Kontakt 5. If the challenger 2's armor was penetrated, does that also mean it was defeated, or are you counting this on people alive in the tank?
shh341 1 month ago
@shh341 Only the frontal arc of tanks have armour, the RPG-29 penetrated an area that did not have armour, it was the normal steel that the tank hull is made from. No Challenger 2 has not nor will be having the smoothbore. All the correct information is on my site, follow the link in the discription of this video please.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
It is actually quite fun to watch how all the armchair generals argue around here, thinkin' they're all tank experts. So I appreciate a good objective video, even though I'm biased as hell, serving in the Leo 2 myself :P
solbergsindre 1 month ago
Dear Dave , great vid , good arguments ... But why not consider Leclerc ? The frogs usually want to stand out and they adopted a different concept - more mobility , less weight and size , advanced battle management system - but admit sometimes it works ! Leo doesn't have the combat record of Chally , but at least many others around the world trust it enough to buy it and base their defense on it , how many Challengers were built and how many Leo's are fielded ? Forget Abrams ....
superwout 1 month ago
The British learned well since WW2.
1169Timothy 1 month ago
nowaday Chaly 2 also uses the L55 of Leo 2, from outside it looks the same as before, but it from Rheinmetall.
Maybe you should also compare the fuel comsumption, longevity of the motor ( diesel, gas etc.), cost for maintenance, Chaly 2 is going to use MTU power pack, tks
Thanks for the good vid. You still have a lot of Leo 2 A4 and Chaly 1. But well done
alvincenthanoi 1 month ago
@alvincenthanoi You are wrong on all your information. You can not use rifled CHARM-3 in a smoothbore. Its like putting diesel fuel in a petrol car, they are not compatible. Challenger 2 is not using the German smoothbore L55, we tested it in 2006 and rejected it. We already use a British L55 rifled main gun. You can not fit smoothbore ammunition in the Challenger 2 ammo storage, we would need a new turret. We are not going to use an MTU engine either.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave ur army itested the smoothbore and it had better penetration than ur current gun,the rpg-29 penetrated the frontal armor of ur tank so how is that unprotected area?ur tank didnt see much action in iraq as the abrams by the way
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov no it didnt lol. Thats what the manufacturer published so they could sell it to us lol. Ive been on the Challenger 2 and mates who worked at the DTU at Bovington. We are not swapping over. With the RPG29 incident, it hit the corner of the glacis plate which isnt protected with Dorchester armour, hence why we got rid of the old ERA nose. We saw action after telic 1 as we were squadron strength and out fighting every night, just like we did to save your country in 1991 lol.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave the manufacturer lied about a test done by ur army to sell the gun to ur army? what u said doesnt make since,explain more please.moreover,it makes since that leo 2 gun is more powerful because it wastes less energy to push the projectile through the gun.ur poriton of operations in iraq is nothing compared to usa,u took care of one or two cities while they took care of everything else,including the triangle of death.u faced old tanks in 1991 so please!
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov PART 1 Its not my army, it’s the British Army, I don’t have an Army & lets face it, old tanks or not in 91 the Kuwaiti Army still couldn’t defeat them & the British did. The ROF’s that made HESH are now closed. So the MoD trialled the L55 smoothbore to see if it was as good as our L55 rifled main gun aka the CHARM-GUN, so that the Army could be supplied with cheap smoothbore ammunition instead of reopening a production facility for a short run which would have cost a fortune.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 2 So the MoD & other sources leaked to the public domain that smoothbore was better in the hope of saving money from cheaper rounds by swapping over to smoothbore. However since my friends work at ATDU who tested the smoothbore told me the truth and also that they tested a new HESH round supplied by a Belgium firm in 2009, so there are now no advantages nor need to swap to a smoothbore.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 3 As for Telic, so we had a smaller patch than the USA, so what? During the occupation we kept CR2 in Iraq until 2009 at squadron strength, which was 14 tanks, they were out every night in support of operations against the same enemy and therefore came under attack more frequently than the average Abrams as they were in greater demand due to lesser numbers.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 4 My mate on his tour saw his tank attacked 36 times including the IED that saw Steve have his leg amputated. The US returned 5% of its Abrams to the ANAD as destroyed. CR2 sent to the UK? 0%.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave as for ur service in Iraq,what u saw is nothing to what the Americans and their tanks have seen,most of the resistance occurred in American controlled territories.so u cant argue that ur tanks didnt have any destroyed tank when u only had 14 of them serving against smaller resistance groups. did u hear of a triangle called the triangle of death,that is where the americans served.it was hell.
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov PART 1 I never mentioned that the BRITISH ARMY did not loose a single tank in 91 lol The UK forces occupied a quarter of Iraq 2003 onwards, the Polish ran the other quarter. UK forces faced the same enemy and the same weapons as the Americans, but on a proportionate scale due to a smaller area and as such the UK had to buy MRAP’s too as well as up-armour the Challenger 2 like the Americans did with the Abrams.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 2 The fact that British tank crews such as Sean Chance lost only toe’s in an RPG attack which has killed other non UK tank crews and Steve was inflicted with only shrapnel following a large IED attack that resulted in an amputation, shows that UK Forces contributions were far from “nothing” and you should not belittle that, just because you can not comprehend scales and ratios. Stop posting disrespectful comments.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave I'm fed up with Americans using the excuse of "Abrams saw more action so we would obviously lose more" the fact is the yanks and British tanks had the same weapons fired at them and when a Milan anti tank missile and 14 rpgs only managed to knock out the sights on the Challenger 2 I think the fact speaks for itself that because Challenger 2 has the best armour it is able to withstand more damage and come out of a fight unharmed.
Reverbful 1 month ago
@TankNutDave well im replying to ur false arguments here.u argue that u lost far less than the american although u did NOT face the same resistance groups cause u controlled mostly shia cities while americans were stationed in strongholds of the biggest resistance groups such as the islamic army,im not being desrespectful but u should not post false info.second ied sizes differ and not every ied could penetrate abrams either.
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov Were you there, did you actually particapate in the fighting? served in the British Army? partcipated on joint operations with the Americans?
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave man!! this is a fact,the americans controlled the hot regions and i know well since im an arab who lives in kuwait,we had the news of attacks on amercans coming every day through aljazeera channel.i dont know how u can argue about this!! we rarely saw videos against british troops but mostly against americans.i saw these videos at aljazeera for years! i'm not saying that u were doing nothing but ur contribution to the war effort is MUCH less than that of the americans!
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov PART 1 So that’s a no then. You live in another country and saw footage of Americans being attacked aired by a tv channel that has been accused of being bias to Americans. Your totally missing the point. If there were more attacks against Americans by insurgents that’s because there were more Americans. It doesn’t mean that the attacks inflicted upon them had a higher level of lethality than those inflicted upon the British.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 2 They had the same RPG’s, the same artillery shells to build IED daisy chains which were used to attack Challenger 2’s left over from the former Iraqi Army. 1 got hit by 14 RPG variants and a MILAN. The Challenger 2 survived as the crew did as well. You have said it yourself, that the Challenger 2 has better protection, that is what this video is about, survivability.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
PART 3 As far as the German L55, I am sorry, but you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge about tanks and that you use incorrect/out of date information by your comment on the RPG29 attack saying that it penetrated the frontal armour. The RPG29 dropped short, exploding on the ground sending shrapnel and blast up under the tank penetrating the steel belly of the tank which doesn’t have armour. I write about tanks for a living, which has included the BBC and my mates were there.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave i know that challenger has better armor regarding chemical energy attacks, but the leo2 is better in firepower and mobility
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov Its called the Challenger 2, Challenger was the WW2 A30. The fact you say Leo2 has better firepower shows how little you know. Leopard 2 is operated in various models which have 2 different smoothbores. They use the L44, which stands for calibre Length 44 and L44, calibre Length 55. A L55 has greater firepower than a shorter L44. The Challenger 2's main gun is also a calibre Length 55. So how can Leo2 have better firepower lol?
TankNutDave 1 month ago
@TankNutDave i didnt mention anything about the ww2 a30.if am talking about l55 then i must be talking about leo2a6.lol. the smoothbore l55 will give more power than the rifled l55 cause it has less friction,got it!
ahmadov 1 month ago
@ahmadov You said "Challenger" I corrected you. The Leopard 2A6 is not the only model to use a L55.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
nice Dave, well done
PolysiusHanoi 1 month ago
@PolysiusHanoi thank you :)
TankNutDave 1 month ago
great tanks all comes down to the crew and crew actions
archi2nd 2 months ago
Dear Dave
you made a horrible, horrible mistake in the video!!!
you can´t compare Abrams, Challengers, LeClerc etc. ( them beeing MBTs ) to a Leopard 2!
You have to admit, that the Leopard 2 is by far the best MBC in the world!
Don´t compare Tanks with Cats ;-)
Anyhow, I have to admit, that you are probably right with your vid.
MBTs need fuel, Leopard 2 & Puma need Whiskas ;-)
Is there a vid like that about IFVs/AFVs/APCs? can´t find a good one
Greets from germany
APedroSanchez 2 months ago
@APedroSanchez Interesting comment lol I think I might make a video about the IFV's/APC's soon :)
TankNutDave 2 months ago 3
@TankNutDave Dave, if you had to go to battle in a Tank, which one would you choose?
Tommyfungun 2 months ago
@Tommyfungun Depends where your going to war mate, it would either be the Canadian Leopard 2A4M CAN or Challenger 2 uparmoured tier 2. Both have very good protection :)
TankNutDave 1 month ago
That also being said... out of those three, the Challenger 2 is definitely my favorite of them.
And thats speaking as an American.
Ariana321 2 months ago
If it were a race, I'd put everything on the Abrams (Engine governor off).They all have excellent guns, but the Abrams armor is only 1st gen chobham, compared to the Challenger's 2nd gen, I'm not sure what the Leopard has, but based on the worship the bloody thing gets, I'm guessing the same, or an equivalent. Abrams lacks the survivability of the other two, particularly the Chally. It comes down to the CHally vs Leopard really, Abrams is just outclassed in terms of armor. Need to upgrade it.
Ariana321 2 months ago
@RAMBQNER Challenger? that was a WW2 cruiser tank. Monkeys? why would they being operating a tank? How am I bias? If I was I wouldn’t hosting hundreds of videos from around the world, not just the UK and I wouldn’t have built an international site with a translator to read the 800+ articles I have done of international military vehicles. Only people who accuse others are being bias are those with a low IQ who can’t figure out how to upload videos like you lol
TankNutDave 2 months ago
@MrMasterMinecraftMan
C2 and Abrams M1A2 look too similar IMO for that to be true.
theshow2k8 2 months ago
Remember there are not a lot of challanger 2's compared to the amount of M1a1's.
haloamusedcrib 2 months ago
@haloamusedcrib when you say M1A1 you mean those tanks which have mk1 chobham, no hunter killer and a shorter main gun, where the CR2 has mk2 armour, a longer gun for greater range and a hunter killer abilty so can detect tanks quicker than the M1A1?
TankNutDave 2 months ago
I don't know why the other tanks don't have a rifled barrel?
iFunnky 2 months ago
@iFunnky They are old school when at the time rifled offered disadvantes when operating large tank fleets compared to the modern Challenger 2 :) good comment
TankNutDave 2 months ago
Isnt the challenger the slowest?
DeutschPorsche 2 months ago
@DeutschPorsche no. Challenger 2 is governed too :)
TankNutDave 2 months ago
The tracks of the Leopard and the C2 are both made in NE England. They also make tracks for the Le Clerc.
transonicbuoy1 3 months ago
M1A2 is fucking hot baby!
TheBogdan33 3 months ago
lets face it guys none of these tanks are a match for an MLRS barrage...........
CGAFFWYT 3 months ago
@CGAFFWYT Bring it on !!!! :p
TankNutDave 2 months ago
I think personaly The challenger 2 tank ranks first place because very healivily armoured and never lost 1 from the eniemy ( not being biased). 2nd the leopard 2 tank because the same reason with challenger 2 & German engering. 3rd & 4th the Arbrans because there armour is very weak.
gangstersteve1993 3 months ago
Well the leopard looks more cool.
5HREDD3R 3 months ago
Well said dave, British Challenger 2 for the win.
Reece1Harding 3 months ago
Merkava isn't battle hardened 3rd generation MBT? :)
BitnikGr 3 months ago
@BitnikGr yesmate, mk3 and mk4 have hunter killer so 3rd generation and they have fought in Lebanon war 2006 :)
TankNutDave 3 months ago
good video, but I I didn't agree on the survivability part. those IED's where undetermined on size and point of impact. perhaps the challenger crews where just lucky, I'd rather see armour test comparisons.
also you forgot to mention the accuracy while on the move, at which the Leopard is the best. and the speed at which they can attack a new target at a different position.
Trisscarro 3 months ago
@Trisscarro Part 1 - thank you, glad you enjoyed it. Challenger 2 is the most heavily armoured tank in the world. The street fighter upgrade saw dorchester armour modules added to the side of hull and turret and with the tier 2 having era on top of this, it weights in at just under 75 tonnes, so its nothing to do with luck :P
TankNutDave 3 months ago
Part 2 - I didnt forget about accuracy on the move, its just the video has to be limited to 10 mins. There are some 13 odd versions of the Leo2 around the world with most having diferent fire control systems. Challenger 2 hydrogas suspension uses a nitrogen springing medium, which is 6 times more flexible than conventional steel as used in TorsionBar suspension of the Leo2 series. So CR2 is a more stable platform for firing on the move :)
TankNutDave 3 months ago
its all and well saying the challenger is the superior of the three tanks bu we have to remember that the british only built some 500 challenger 2s whereas the americans built some 9000 m1a1 and m1a2 abrams tanksand the germans bulit more than 3500 leopard 2s. we must remember quantity is a qulaity of its own
brezzzzzz1 4 months ago
@brezzzzzz1 If you had gotyour figures right on the number of tanks I might have agreed with you on some level
TankNutDave 4 months ago
@brezzzzzz1 its more like 400 CR2's and 7500 M1A2's. (not right i know). But just look how big USA is (size and population) compared to UK, we dont need that many MBT as we only have to defend a small area. Also you wouldn't have all the Abrams facing down all the Challengers in the same battle would you?
MrAl3x0o 2 months ago
@KiranaForever
Idk, I thought abrams was more expensive then challenger2??? Please correct me :S
unnoon 4 months ago
one thing about the fire power, you have to take in the actual Shell info to determine this, a 105mm HEAT round will cut through steel plates just fine, but put in ceramic tiles, the jet of hot metal is spread out, making it severely uneffective, while a SABO anti armor round will go right through, also, for armor, take the fact that there are more abrams than challengers, meaning higher probablity of being hit. also, the abrams is THE ONLY tank to have automatic computerized tracking of targets
MUJUNKY 4 months ago
@MUJUNKY lol all 105mm guns are rifled, you can not effectively use HEAT in them as the imparted spin breaks of the copper jet. The only country to both was France on the AMX-30 backin the 1960's. Ceramic armour is just as effective on HEAT as it is on SABOT rounds. Also on the numbers, you will never get all the Abrams in one place lol and the vast majority are M1A1 which have no hunter killer capability so a Challenger 2 will spot an Abrams first.
TankNutDave 4 months ago
@TankNutDave The abrams uses a 120mm smooth bore not the old 105mm rifled like on the stryker.
RAMBQNER 2 months ago
@RAMBQNER The M1 Abrams used the L7 105mm rifled main gun. The M1A1 Abrams upgrade was when they added the M256 120mm Smoothbore. The Stryker M1128 Mobile Gun System uses the 105mm M68A1E4, not the L7. Get your facts right before trying to question mine! lol
TankNutDave 2 months ago
@MrMasterMinecraftMan leopard is the best looking!
ddioppp 4 months ago
every country use to state that it has the best tanks, yet from all the tanks mentioned, only the merkava and the abrams have taken enough hits by modern missiles and shells to show a statistical reliable statement.
the leo2 and challenger simply didn't evolved in enough conflicts and stroke by enough missiles to say anything.
I prey that non of the brave crewmen will not get killed or injured but the bestness of any tank is yet to be answered.
many parameters were not mentioned but nice video
nirharpaz1 4 months ago
@nirharpaz1 What are you on about? Challenger was a ww2 cruiser tank, get the name right! Challenger 2 served in former Yugslav wars peace keeping like Abrams series and 2003 onwards until 2009 in Iraq. Cr2 has been attacked by the same enemy with the same weapons, ie rpg7, rpg29 and daisy chains. get your facts right!
TankNutDave 2 months ago
In modern war you need protection over mobility.
firehappy2008 5 months ago
abrams can go 70 mph if it diddnt have the general on it and with out general the abrams still goes faster then the challenger 2 32mph abrams goes 35 mph of road so suck it ps suck it challenger ;)
blueatchley 5 months ago
@blueatchley What a fantastic childish comment. Clearly your IQ is low you cant tell the diffence between mp/h and km/h lol
TankNutDave 2 months ago 10
@TankNutDave but does speed make a difference when you have an Sabot travelling at mach 1?
MRWALKER500000 2 months ago
@MRWALKER500000 now adays, not alot lol thats why UK tanks have always been the most heavily armoured and less mobile as we view armoured protection capable of stopping incoming fire as a form of mobilty as the tank can still keep moving :)
TankNutDave 2 months ago
@TankNutDave yeah, mobility shouldn't be judged in speed, but freedom of movement and the logistics footprint. I mean you hear Americans praise the top speed of the M1 at 40 mph but it didn't stop 18? of them being knocked out a couple of monkey model T-72's and RPG's!
MRWALKER500000 2 months ago
@TankNutDave the challenger has a L-30 gun not the l-55 on the leopard 2a6. The L-30 gun on the chalenger 2 is inferior to the l-44 on abrams and l-55 on leo 2. they where going to put L-55 on the challenger 2 but never put it on.
nick74178ify 1 month ago
@nick74178ify L55 stands for calibre Length 55. The British Army does not name its guns after their calibre Length like Germany. The British L30 is a calibre Length 55, so yes it is a L55. As for inferior lol the L11 on Challenger 1 scored a kill in 1991 at 5300m’s & the L30 replaced the L11. ATK who manufacturer the Abrams M829A3 rate the m/v as 1555 & target range as 3000m. You need a higher m/v to increase range which gives the FIN round more punch = increased lethality you troll lol.
TankNutDave 1 month ago
CHALLENGER 2 THE BEST
MegaK4rl 5 months ago
what about the guns effective range?
crazyrice33 5 months ago
Why did a leading armour magazine vote the Leopard 2A6 the best tank in the world?
Spindry96 5 months ago
@Spindry96 back handers? they didnt have all the facts? which magazine is this please :)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
As with your video, I agree that the Challenger 2 is the best 3rd gen tank in service. However your mobility statistics are incorrect, as both the M1A2 and Leopard 2A6 are faster than the Challenger 2, both On and Off road. Top speed of tanks on road as follows: M1A2 - 72 Kph, Leopard 2A6 - 68 Kph, Challenger 2 - 60 Kph. This is probably the Challenger 2s most significant weakness when comparing all 3 tanks against eachother. Challenger 2 does have a more reliable engine, however.
Runer2009 5 months ago
@Runer2009 Yes and no, British Army see's armour protection as a form of mobility. However what you dont know and many others dont, is that Challenger 2 is also governed, but by rpm, not km/h. All these tanks can reach 72km/h if they have the right road, however the viberations and movement can injure the crew and why the all wear body armour in the tank so as to prevent injury. Good comment you made, but not fully correct :)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
dave have you seen the new mental chally 2 upgrades? and good work with the videos keep it up!
UKNationalAirsoft 5 months ago
@UKNationalAirsoft yup, if you go to my site you will see me on the Challenger 2 page on the challenger 2 of the development and trials unit at Bovington Camp :)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
@TankNutDave thanks mate!
UKNationalAirsoft 5 months ago
All of the tanks in this video are equal, m1,challenger, and leopard are too closely matched to be properly measured in combat effectiveness just based on the statistics. It all comes down to the crew and how they operate in a combat situation.
RAMBQNER 5 months ago
@RAMBQNER I detect a low IQ :p
TankNutDave 5 months ago
Challenger 2 has the best armor, it is close to invincible,
dmax631 5 months ago
WTF!!!....NOWONDER!!..THE FAG WHO MADE THS VIDEO WAS A BRIT!!...FUCKING BIAS!!....EY! DICKHEAD!...KNOCK UR BRAINS OFF!!!...WHY DONT U LOOK AT THE RATIO BETWEEN M1 TANKS AND YOUR DUMMY CHALLENGER!!...AND HOW MANY CHALLENGER BEEN IN IRAQ AND M1...2000 M1....ONLY LESS THAN 300 CHALLENGER WERE SENT!!.....FUCKING DUMMY!!!
paengv 5 months ago
@paengv Dummy? says the man who cant figure out how to load a video on to youtube lol
TankNutDave 5 months ago
I VOTE FOR THE M1A2 ABRAMS SERVICE IN WHOLE YEAR!!!!!!!!
jjmaxx16 5 months ago
i served in the greek army in a leopard tank. awesome weapon. But the challenger2 looks so sweet and lethal at the same time. i'd love to get inside on of those
vonzuchter 6 months ago
I think your bias
toxicnoodle64 6 months ago
@toxicnoodle64 if I was bias I wouldnt have included the other tanks that are not from the UK. I suggest you check out my site which I have written over 750 military vehicles from around the world. If you want to be critical of my efforts try coming up with something a little more articulated lol
TankNutDave 5 months ago
@TankNutDave I actually want to take a look at that site. Do you mind giving me the link?
MakersMark723 5 months ago
@MakersMark723 Its below the video mate :)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
@TankNutDave Well that was a little embarrassing lol I forgot it was you who posted the video. Thanks a lot man :)
MakersMark723 5 months ago
@MakersMark723 no worries ;)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
Ok who cares wich of the 3 is best? we are all on the same side these tanks will never face each other in combat.
toxicnoodle64 6 months ago
@toxicnoodle64 We have fought Iraq twice within 12 years and now the US has sold Iraq M1A1 Abrams ... never say never.
TankNutDave 5 months ago
t-80-best tank of the world
shuljup 6 months ago
@shuljup So good that the Russians stopped building it in favour of the T-90 lol
TankNutDave 5 months ago
@TankNutDave
Problem was breakup of SU with production split between Kharkov (T-80UD) in Ukraine and Omsk (T-80U) in Russia, and yes, some production at Peter. T-80 simply cost to much during financial chaos in 1990's. Besides, T-95 taking shape nicely at Nizhny Tagil :)
BuratinoOmsk 5 months ago
@BuratinoOmsk Russia rejected the T-95 some months back. they stopped purchasing T-80U as it cost to much money to run and its poor performance during Chechen Wars.
TankNutDave 5 months ago
Well, I´m driving Leopard 2A5, and has done so for 9 years now, and let me say: in the world of tankers, we take some pride in knowing everything about all the tanks that exist ( or atleast as many as u possibly can )
here is the oppinion of all the tankers I know including myself:
The M1A2 and Leo 2 are very much alike....same gun, almost same design, but the M1 has heavier armor and uses a gas-turbine engine.
No offence to the Challenger, but in our world, it just dos´nt come close to M1/Leo2
abramsere 6 months ago
@abramsere Strange, because all the Tankies I know say that the Abrams and Leo2A5 they have been in on exercises, Iraq and Afgan all say your tank has choclate armour and short stubby gun that cant match the Challenger 2's lol
TankNutDave 5 months ago
@abramsere well ONLY 2 Challys have been destoryed in combat 1 due to friendly fire 0-0
jasincl 5 months ago
@jasincl only 1 has :)
TankNutDave 5 months ago
American tank crews aren't asleep during training you know..
Anathema1984 7 months ago
perfect video man, and the fact that this tanks are all allies make then even better :)
palkia555666 7 months ago
The Leopard 2A6M is probably the best in my opinion
SickFlow4U 7 months ago
nice video broham, i guess this clears up some misconceptions..
psychoclown420 7 months ago
Great video. A lot of info. Well done! Greeting from the USA. Maybe a 4th must be measured. (4.) Quantity- USA 6,300 mbt, UK- 386 mbt , Germany- 408 mbt.
jhnb12876 8 months ago
Finally somebody who knows what there talking about!
Ask an American "what is the best MBT?"
the will reply "M1A2 Abrahams"
"why do you say that?"
"because it's American!"
CradamsAC 8 months ago
@TankNutDave I'm prettty sure the T-90 was used in the Dagestan War
gequitz 8 months ago
@xz327 hhhhmmm dont fully agree with that. I do agree that crew training is important but a well trained crew in a centurion with a 105mm is not going to penetrate Chobham armour (or armour on Leo2 & Abrams) nor will it be able to out range a 120mm Cal L55 main gun. Thou most British crews say a monkey can operate an Abrams you are going to only ever have well trained crews in CR2, Abrams and Leo2 family of tanks :-)
TankNutDave 8 months ago
Where's the T90?
gequitz 8 months ago
@gequitz Video clearly states Battle Hardened, T-90 isnt :-) Its on my other video below in the responses as top 10 tanks.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
So this vid in some way tells in a way that the Abrams series is the worst tank of the three. Poor Abrams.
Does the Abrams have some other good points besides being in the top 3 best MBTs?
themangix357 8 months ago
@themangix357 Yes, I would say it has the top hunter killer capability, but only the M1A2SEP versions. Also the reset program completed at the ANAD is very very good. I would happily go to war in a M1A2SEP (as it has upgraded armour) but I would rather have a CR2 :)
TankNutDave 8 months ago 9
@TankNutDave if you think how easy the leopard is to change engine and serve and how much fuel they use during action so is the leopard outstanding!!!!
mickelrav1 5 months ago
@mickelrav1 they all do engine swap out lol
TankNutDave 5 months ago
What about Mid Range Munition? I think they are just for smoothbore guns, but I'm not sure :)
DonKecskemethy 8 months ago
These 3 MBT's are very similar and the differences your arguing over are so small, there not going to make a difference. In Tank VS Tank it will come down to the crew,terrain and what crew of one tank see's the other first.
3 Pillars to a Tank design = Speed / Fire Power / Armour (they say the best tank will have all 3 perfectly but i beg to differ)
U.S / German tank doctrine = Armour Superiority through Speed and Fire Power
British doctrine = Armour Superiority through Fire Power and Armour
:)
SkullKing11841 8 months ago
@SkullKing11841 Good comment, mobility there isnt a huge differences, however I disagree when comparing firepower, you get significant different results dependant on cal Lengths and other types, such as range, accuracy, puch and ammo types. Your right on the doctrines and the Israelis is the same as ours, in that we view superior armour as a form of mobility as you can move over the battlefield after surving strikes :)
TankNutDave 8 months ago
you forgot targeting systems m1a1 has best one
nazitom28 8 months ago
@nazitom28 Really? how about the M1A2? lol
TankNutDave 8 months ago 3
the Challenger 2 certainly is a impressive bit of kit.... top vid mate
Blandy086 8 months ago
@Blandy086 Thanks
TankNutDave 8 months ago
Very well put together and finally one that shows the true attributes of all three tanks instead of an American lying to make the Abram sound better... when in fact its crap n I would prefer to be in a Mastiff!!
DEAZER1 8 months ago
The info on crew losses arent correct, Challenger 2 suffered 2 dead crew men during friendly fire. Check for info wiki.
Also when all tests showed that the 120mm L55 Rheinmetall gun giving enhanced performance then the current used 120mm L30 why are you thinking its better? The HESH you are talking about is just useful against Tanks with less armor protection and thats why they used it in Iraq and other battles just facing T72 and other already old tanks.
Termite3 8 months ago
@Termite3 PT1 - Why would I want to check wiki? Ive been around, on and written about CR2. I was the 1st pressman to photograph the new CR2 version. It says at the beginning of the video combat proven, that is what we are comparing the damage the enemy has done to the vehicles, not blue on blue, so my stats are right. What is funny is you say HESH is less effective, however it was HESH that destroyed that CR2 in Blue on Blue. HESH hit’s the weakest point of all tanks, the roof.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
PT2 - If we were going to use The L55 we would have swapped. We tried it out as the ammo is cheaper, just like we did on Chieftain and rejected it. We have developed a new round for production to replace CHARM-3 when we need too. Try to use something more reliable than wiki, anyone who is anyone can change the info on that site to what they want it to show even its wrong!
TankNutDave 8 months ago
@TankNutDave Is it not true that the limit of APFSDS projectile lenght is less in the C2 vs in the Leopard-2 and M1A1/2 tanks. IIRC the CHARM-3 is about on par with the M-892A1 due to these restrictions. I am open to changing my mind if evidence can be presented.
EasyEs 8 months ago
@EasyEs IM sorry but are you asking that CR2 FIN rounds are shorter than Abrams/Leo2?
TankNutDave 8 months ago
Unfortunately rifling the barrel means that you burn through them quicker than the smooth-bore ones. Also remember that the leopard II is the oldest and the M1A1 a year its junior. The Challenger II tank came out in 1998 and if you couldn't come up with something better in an 18 year time span then something is wrong...
USMC2nd 8 months ago
@USMC2nd Im sorry but your thinking of the old L7 105mm series that the US used for years on the M60 series and M1 Abrams. A vast amount has changed since then. On average we fire per CR2 450+ rounds a year on active vehicles during training exercises and averaged 200 during Operation Telic 1. The 120mm L30 cannon is made from Electro Slag Re-melting steel (ESR).
TankNutDave 8 months ago
@TankNutDave They problem youare stating no longers exists
TankNutDave 8 months ago
I thought you could fire HEAT from a rifled gun, but the shells are more complicated, with slipper rings to avoid spin. HESH works better with spin, or is it a problem with accuracy in a smoothbore?
SvenTviking 8 months ago
@SvenTviking France developed HEAT Obus G for their 105mm. It had an outer casing which the inner shell containing the shaped charge sits in. The inner shell is narrower than the outer casing, thus you have a small HEAT round. For HEAT to be effective you need to keep increasing muzzle bore and is very expensive & is why no one did it for 120mm main guns. It only remained in France. HESH uses rifling to arm its self.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
there was a test in norway 5 years ago, pitching the leopard 2 vs the challenger 2, and the abrams tank, the score in the end was the leopard 2 with 2 points ahead of the challenger on most field tests done in arctic conditions, while the abrams actually often broke down due to the cold. so you should NEVER think about wich is the best because of either the gun, armor, speed, agility..the last factor is the most crucial, resistance against the elements, wich was proven time and time again in ww2
kornek21 9 months ago
@kornek21 I have never heard of this test. Can you please send me as a pm the source for this. In all these tests they never test the armour, so you are not going to get a true representation.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
yup,yup the challenger 2 is the best :)
jub6966 9 months ago
In terms of firepower and arrmor the it's obviouse Challanger 2 comes out on top. Speed and operation distance is between Leopard and Abrams. Mass production goes to Abrams. If I had to pick a tank that would win in a fight between Leopard and Abrams I'd go with the Leopard. If I had to choose which tank I'd use out of all 3 Challanger 2 is way ahead of the others. 1. Challenger 2. Leopard. 3. Abrams.
GodwinCarpenter 9 months ago
If the rifled barrel is so superior, why has everyone (besides the British) phased it out in favour of the smoothbore?
I'm not bashing the rifled barrel, I just don't know much about the subject and it seems strange. I've heard people say the smoothbore penetrates targets better because it achieves greater velocity?
JBMontgomery87 9 months ago
@JBMontgomery87 Its not that simple. The rifled gun used by other nations such as US & Germany were of a smaller calibre, ie 105mm where as UK was using 120mm. When the Abrams & Leo2 came out they went with the 120mm smoothbore as they wanted to use HEAT ammunition. You can not use this in a rifled gun as the imparted spin breaks up the copper jet released by the shaped charge of the HEAT round. Thats why they went with smoothbores. We stuck with rifled as we wanted HESH & rifling arms HESH.
TankNutDave 9 months ago
@TankNutDave Rifled Guns can shoot at a longer distance but have less Muzzle Velocity and that means less Penetration. Besides it doesn`t matter since the newer challengers also have a smoothbore gun. Just look on Wiki.
The german Rheinmetall L55 which is the same as in the Leopard 2 A6.
All 3 use the Rheinmetall guns so if you take away the gun and replace it by their standard guns the Leopard 2 is far superior but with all 3 armed with the same gun i think that they are all equal. ;)
Termite3 8 months ago
@Termite3 What a silly comment lol How do you achieve distance? by having a high muzzle lol. As for CR2 with smoothbore, its not happening! It will never happen. Try using more than just the out of date incorrect wikipedia page. We added a new armour suite and improved suspension last year. Go to click on the link above and look at CR2 page (you will see me on the new CR2 and why we are not going to use smoothbore.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
@TankNutDave I thought you know the pros of rifled guns? Well let me explain: It increases range through the Spin it gets for a rifled barrel but because of this spin you lose Muzzle velocity.
Muzzle Velocity is gained with time the longer a barrel the higher the muzzle velocity it also increases by using Kinetic Ammunition.
If i Check your site am i then not just checking your infos?
You can also check Rheinmetall detec. com to see some infos of the special Ammunition.
Termite3 8 months ago
@Termite3 PT1 - Lol yes you loose an insignificant amount of energy, but not enough that you cant penetrate armour with FIN rounds (APFSDS). A smoothbore requires a higher muzzle velocity to compensate for the loose of range and accuracy by not using rifling. There is no advantage in a smoothbore today over rifling since the introduction of the L30.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
PT2 - I don’t need to check Rheinmetall’s site, they are very helpful and supply me with the correct information I have needed when writing about their products via email or telephone lol
TankNutDave 8 months ago
@TankNutDave Now youre getting silly and your lols arent helping you any more.;)
So first you mention: How do you achieve distance? by having a high muzzle lol
And now you explain: Lol yes you loose an insignificant amount of energy, but not enough that you cant penetrate armour with FIN rounds (APFSDS).
I never sayed that a rifled gun cant penetrate armour but that its advantages come also with disadvantages.
So Smoothbore is better then Rifled when it comes to Tank vs Tank warfare.
Termite3 8 months ago
@Termite3 PT1 - Your right, I shouldn’t laugh at you, however much I find your lack of knowledge funny. Your 1st comment to me was - Rifled Guns can shoot at a longer distance but have less Muzzle Velocity and that means less Penetration. So you did say it lol.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
PT2 - Your argument has no weight. There are more factors than just smoothbore vs rifled. The L30 on CR2 is also a Cal Length 55 just like on Leo2 A6, therefore CR2 will have higher M/V than a shorter L44 smoothbore which means greater range over the smoothbore. The rifling is an added bonus and is why CR1 Rifled Cal Length 55 holds world record longest tank to tank kill.
TankNutDave 8 months ago
So many British so little time.
MrSquaky 9 months ago
@MrSquaky and?
TankNutDave 9 months ago
Isnt it true the British are considering switching the rifled guns for smoothbore?
thenoobfactor 9 months ago
@thenoobfactor no its not. I don't understand why people keep thinking this. It was tested 5yrs ago and dropped as I stated in the video at the end.
TankNutDave 9 months ago
To bad the British Army is phasing out so many Challengers because of budget cuts.
I heard there will be little more then 200 left.
The Dutch Army in 1999 had 330 Leopard 2 tanks. So the British army will turn out smaller then the Dutch army of 1990!
Why are politicians so stupid? I hope the remaining CRs are kept in reserve and not sold.
NationalSniper 9 months ago
@NationalSniper What? Judging by your comments you should be a politician! The Dutch bought 445 Leopard 2A4 during the Cold War, upgraded 180 of those to the A6 and sold 336 A4 & A6, which leaves them with 109, which is a small fleet than the Challenger 2's fleet lol
TankNutDave 9 months ago
Abrams and Merkava were build with protection as most important.
Protection: 1. M1A2SEP 2. CR2 3. Leo2 A6
CR2 has no DU in its Chobham.
Mobility: 1. Leo2A6, 2. M1A2SEP, 3. CR2
I am not sure on firepower on how the CR2 gun compares to the L55 or L44. Can it kill T-80U at 4km?
Leo 2 A6 would beat M1A2 SEP slightly on firepower. The Leo has better gun but Abrams compensates this with DU ammo which gives almost same protection. Overal I think the 3 tanks are about equal on firepower.
NationalSniper 9 months ago
@NationalSniper Again wrong, IDF & British doctrine is firepower and armour, US & German is mobility & firepower. As for your protection stat's, CR2 doesnt use Chobham armour it uses Dorchester and it contains several materials including DU. CR2's main gun is a L55 and its older version scored the longest tank to kill at 5.1km.
TankNutDave 9 months ago
@TankNutDave Dorchester is just a newer version of Chobham I thought?
stevobath 9 months ago
@stevobath Same bonding and matrix system or possibly improved, but it has a diferent ceramic mix from that of the CR1.
TankNutDave 9 months ago