The Challenger 2 is better it uses the newer grade 2 colum armour while the Abrams uses the same grade 1 colum armour and has a riffled barrel for greater accuracy but it costs twice as much .
The M1 was designed to fight an European war and not a long range assault in open country. With this the M1 has done quite well in desert combat and the M1s lost to IEDs are due to the fact that the Americans operate in an area 10X that of the UK. If you want to compare tanks on paper the German Lepaord II would win. However, I'll take the M1 since has a great battle record!
@Nondairyreamer Ever heard of the Helmand province? It's basically the arse end of Afghanistan and the centre of the Taliban's operations. The Brits have operated in that area alone for a couple of years now. Some of the most intense fighting of the war has been fought in Helmand. So your point about the Americans being in an area 10x worse is crap.
At least both tanks have seen actual combat operations. What have the Germans done recently?
@DaveandNic4eva theres probably been way more abrams deployed in battle also just a bit curious where did you get those numbers? not saying your lying just curious.
@Jutzujin LOL Americans really shouldn't preach about others being "misinformed" ... your entire nation is fed complete an utter nonsense from birth. For instance, you're led to believe you have the best armed forces on the planet, which simply isn't the case. China, for example, is on par with you for technology. China has more soldiers at their disposal. Great Britain, Germany etc have superior training and produce more professional servicemen. The US has NEVER won a war on its own, mate.
@DaveandNic4eva ..Great Britian is a war monger then!!!. China steals much of what it knows from western countries. Hey sorry about the farmers who kicked you out of the colonies and did well untill the french arrived with it's navy to give you the final and it was a pleasure to help you guys in WW2 with millions of riflemen and the tanks and fighter planes and heavy bombers. By the way Great Britian would be steam rolled by the Chinese in a invasion before the U.S. We have guns
Bushmaster - Challenger 2 carries HESH & Fin rounds, former is explosive for use against buildings, soft vehicles etc and latter for use against armour. Who knows if the Challenger could take out an Abrams - we'd never know unless the UK loaned a few to the US Army ;0) (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
The barrel being rifled does not matter, what matters is what kind of round it shoots. Last time I checked the Challenger shot HEAT rounds while the Abrams Shoots self-sharpening depleted Urainium rounds. I dont think heat rounds will penetrate depleted urainuim amor of the Abrams
@TheBushmaster94n Just on that. We fire fire APFSDS ROUNDS. The ammo depends on the target. Heavy armour will be engage by a ARMOUR PIERCING FIN STABLISE DISCARDING SABOT. it will penetrate any thing. and we also fire HESH this is a are weapon or light armour, High explosive squash head. the effective range of this round is 5000m.
For operations the add on armour increase the weight of th CR2 to 79 ton.
@naughtyboy21822 ..Not all IED's are the same, Just like the one that penetrated the CH2 and the driver lost his leg wasn't like the ones that hit your tank and were not at all like the ones that blew the abrams to bits.
@hardnut451 calm down mate. And it says in the video that america has 9000+ and the UK only has 450 so thats where i got the facts from. I'm guessing you are a very angry person
In the nicest way possible, it kinda takes the piss how we have 450 challenger 2's, and the USA has well over 9000. And how did we get a lower score on 'cost/value for money'? The only thing we lost at is the manoeuvrability and thats because we destroy the enemy straight away. The Abrams has to chase the enemy cos they can't destroy them haha.
@Bagellicious93 9000 where did you get that number from your thick brain because america only has 1653 tanks and thats the most in the world you dumbass get your facts right
I believe the chally 2 has a rifled barrel which is what has always made it the better killing machine than the Leopard 2 and the Abrahms, and as for 2 Abrahms vs 1 challenger 2..I suggest you bring more Abrahms. British tank crews are spend 4 days a week in simulators practicing gun drills and are almost a part of the tank with almost no emotion when it comes to battle, thats the way we train and the way we function. No hesitation just programmed behaviour.
@MrLeomondo british tankers train no more than their american counterparts, several week training courses. but the rifled gun has no advantages over a smooth bore gun firing APFSDS. the british even stated smoothbore guns are better in the long run(nearly 10x longer service life die to there being no groves to wear out)and this is why the british were planning on fitting a smoothbore gun into the challenger 2 as an upgrade, however this never came to fruition.
@MrLeomondo ..For someone who talks about how the British tank crews train with the vague imply that it's more than the Americans you don't even know if the CH2's barrel is rifled or not.
Whats funny is that both these tanks are actually British designs. The factory where i work in Texas assembles the Abrams, and back in 1980 we needed to authorization from the British designers to build it. My guess is they couldn't afford to mass produce them, so started on another project.
The 2 Tanks are so close in Armor, firepower, and electronics that it's not an argument of which tank is better. it comes down to the tank crew's proficiency
Both tanks have thier good and bad the Amrams is perfect for down right destruction on the battle fild while maintaing good speed perfect armorment and tec. the challenger is perfect for manuvering in and out of tight space but due to the rifled gun while it is a tad bit more accuret the the abram dosent have as much damage.
I hope the rest of the data is more accurate than the bit about Challenger using the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun! At 0.31 there is a clear view of the rifling at the muzzle!!
According to my calculations the loss of a Challenger tank would be a percentage reduction equivalent to the loss of 20 Abrams. From what I've seen the Abrams has nowhere near that many tanks lost.
why would the challenger use a seperate loading ammunition? and no auto loader? and yes, the comments are correct, the challenger has a rifled barrel, the abrams has a smooth bore. rifled is more accurate, with shorter range. smoothbore is less accurate with longer range. and for the record, the armor on the 2 is the same. it was developed jointly between the US and UK for both tanks.
@cummins24421 It wasn't developed jointly, and they don't use the same armour. And rifled is more accurate to any distance, which is why rifled rounds are supposed to be used as a more accurate means of hitting a target far away. The longest hit ever recorded was from the challenger 2 at 5km.
@cummins24421 lol, your a little wrong in just about all you said.rifled doesnt mean shorter range. and the dorchester armour is ONLY fitted to the UK challenger 2. and it WASNT developed at all with US help.
ive seen both in action in Iraq.....there both just as good as each other, the chally has a little better armour but thats all really. but the M1 makes up for it by cost value.
1 on 1 the challenger would win but it's twice as expensive . both are great tanks but tanks are getting used less and less now it's all about helicopters and jets now
Aaaaaaahhhhh !!!!! The challenger dose not have a smooth bore gun ... It's rifled witch is clearly noticeably when the camera zooms out of the main gun..wat source did ur facts come from ?
@spiked101clown Good spot, I didnt notice your post and said exactly the same a minute ago..To be honest a major mistake as thats what makes British tanks so accurate..Smoothbore fails big time
The challenger has a rifled gun quite unique amongst the world's MBTs, the M1's m256 is a licensed copy of the smoothbore Rheinmetall 120 mm L44. The M1's gun is actually inferior to the Challenger 2's 55 calibre long L30A1 and the Rheinmetall 120 mm L55 on the German Leopard2.
Doesn't really matter in the end since I doubt either will encounter a decent modern MBT in the near future.
The armour is almoust identical but the Challenger wins that but it looses in one key element, mobility and that is part of a tanks survival the arment is the same. it baisicly saying the one more or two more RPG shots is use full but what need is their for it if you can dodge it all together by moving faster and now they have the M1A2 wich has better armour more numbers and is faster
there was never a abrams tank lost their was one that the tread broke and we ditched it so it was only the tread it wasnt really destroyed and why dont we just make a hybrid tank thats like both put toghter
@topzombie3 Ive seen plenty of destroyed Abrams pics. Give me a break. Around 80 M1A1's have been lost. A handful by attacks,some by IED's, others immobilized in battle and later destroyed to prevent capture.
What a stupid and pointless video. Both tanks were designed to combat the Soviet T-55/64/72 tanks of the Cold War era so there's no point comparing them against each other. Nobody in public knows the actual performance values of the armor or ammunition of either vehicle so stating that one tank or the other has better amor or gun is totally pointless. What counts is that they both can beat the Soviet T-series tanks at ease and have performed well in combat in Irag etc.
challenger 2 doesn't have a smooth bore barel "it's rifled". so unlike the abrams it's accurate at when fired and doesn't just hit something over there
The Chobham armour is obviously strong, make a quick Google search of Challenger 2 RPG and you'll find an article detailing how the Challenger survived EIGHT RPG's in close ranger as well as a MILAN AT-Missle. Admittedly the American's Abrams has seen ALOT more combat than the Challenger , especially since it can be deployed in Afghanistan and the Challenger cannot (Due to the ground being to soft). I'm just glad we're on the same side!
@fringeailments agree, like the vid, absolutely hated the crappy sound track, had to turn it off or would have puked. Any national anthem SHOULD be about the people or the country, NOT about keeping a pampered, never done a days work in their lives monarch in the luxury and comfort they have NEVER earned.
@Aligray4444 also, none of them have ever been destroyed, and one Challenger 2 in Operation iraqi Freedom got hit by 14 RPGs, and a MILAN anti-Tank system which only destroyed the sight, and was repaired and back in service within 6 hours :D
@coastguard1996 as i seem to recall, all the battles the M1 has been in the challenger has too, so dont see how its more battle proven. also its allied countries you sell em to, and at well subsidised cost, they are locked into buying US stuff, doesnt prove they are better. the "pudding", how many lost in action to enemy, challenger...0 M1..... let you add that.
Some where a post lists 4 Abrams being destroyed in battle, the fact is 3 were M1's, of the early 70's, these are not Abrams, M1a1 or M1A2's.... the only Abrams lost during the war was one driven of the bridge going into Baghdad, it was hit with dense smoke and the driver got confused. It was serviceable, but due to the speed of movement it was destroyed by US sappers to keep the Technology secret, it took 3 tons of RDX to completely make it unusable...... I saw both in action, THEY BOTH ASS
The sad truth is. The U.S. has the fiscal means to cover the cost of producing the M1. The more they make ,..the cheaper it gets.(being simplistic) The one enemy which the Challenger2 cannot defeat is the cost of manufacture. That fact is and will be the greatest hindrance to selling it to other countries. The German Leopard, had a very slick marketing program, and is a success, although it has never been subjected to combat 'hits'. Even if one dislikes the Chally, a record of no losses is tops.
most importantly... Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs.[9] This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK. wiki
Its exceedingly difficult to compare the two in a vs situation. Both are virtually indestructible. Both use Chobham armor. Not sure about the Challenger, but the Abrams uses depleted uranium plates in the metal matrix of that layered armor system. Both also now use reactive armor tiles in the most vulnerable hit boxes (sides and turret face). The only real major difference is the Abrams uses a 120mm smooth bore cannon while the Challenger uses a rifled barrel. Both pack tremendous firepower.
@Cirux321 The Chaly 2 uses Dorchester armour which has tungsten rods in the ceramic & alloy laminates and is superior to early chobom armour - because its chrome lined gun is rifled it can fire Hesh "squash" rounds which are especialy effective with bunker busting or older cast armour where sabot rounds can pass straight through.
Both tanks use almost identical composite armor. The advantage of the M1 is that there are more M1's than Challengers. If you want to know how the M1 performed against other tanks, look up The battle of 73 Easting.
Oh not another USA VS UK video. Just shut it tanks are designed to make your day a living hell! I do prefer the Abrams i think she is much better looking but in terms they are both great tanks. From your allie <3
Would you give it a rest all ready. Ok im british and there is the smallest of differences between the tanks. Challenger 2 has slightly better armour but is almost no real difference and m1 has slightly better speed and fuel efficiency which again amounts to no real difference. Why are you competing against each other when there are nations which are much more of a threat. We are allies and there will never be a time when these tanks go up against each other.
I have to say that the Challenger has the edge in armor protection, a better general purpose round (HESH), and the simplicity of a conventional engine.
However, the M-1A1/A2 has a better main gun (smooth bore M-256), better anti-armor round (M-829A3), better fire control (3rd Gen TTS), and better automotive performance/mobility.
Having crewed an M-1A1, I'm not aware that there is any armor the M-829 wouldn't penetrate. At least my results were always satisfactory.
As for the British 120mm rifled gun, I've never fired it but they seem happy with HESH as an anti-armor round. I know they are thinking of re-gunning to the M-256, but I've heard that is to have commonality with the rest of NATO ammo types.
@WickedrWil Why would the UK need 9000+ tanks if nobody can touch the 450 odd? Waste of money. Just because there are more Abrams don't make it better, that's just silly.
@WickedrWil So your saying the Sherman is better because they HAD to make 45k to get passed 8k Tigers etc? That don't make the Sherman better then the Tiger/Panther. Just like having 9k Abram's don't make it better then the Challenger. This only points out that America is a big country with a big industry. And that WW2 was about Quantity (USA/USSR) Not Quality(Germany) etc etc. You don't need mass amount's of tank's in today's world.
from my understanding even though they are both very good at doing there jobs. the challenger is the tough sniper type, out ranging and more precise than its competitors. where as the Abrams it a Assault fast and agile but always under fire.
If you're some poor guy in a T72 or T54 in a hot, dusty country and you and your machine survived the air onslaught before an Abrams or C2 gets anywhere near you - it's pretty irrelevant whether the Brits or Yanks have the slightly better tank. Your day is not going to end well.....
Info is a bit wrong 18 M1 where lost in the 1991 gulf war and so far since 2003 80 M1 have been lost in Iraq, most weren't total right offs but damaged enough to need shipping back to the states.
@newhoped he said no challenger 2 where lost not abrams m1 unless i read your comment wrong if i did isay sorry in advance but he said the british challenger 2
I am confused this video says the Challenger 2 is £4.217 million and the Abrams is more expensive so why is the negative for the C2 the cost? As it is cheaper than the Abrams, has better armour and none have been destroyed by enemy fire. The only thing the Abrams has over the C2 is that it is faster, like they will be able to out run a tank shell
@marcusbloods1 Yes the Challenger was used in both Gulf wars, Bosnia, Kosovo. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.
@marcusbloods1 The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.
@ComradeMcLovin and when recovered, 6 hours of work by the illustrious, heroic, stalwarts of the REME the VMs soon had it back in action. (ex REME VM, so im a little biased lol)
@marcusbloods1 The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.I think that speaks for itself
ALL Tanks are TOAST ! This Is way : , Tanks are nothing compared to the chinese Anti Tank System The 152/155mm laser-guided artillery weapon system is designed to engage tanks and armoured combat vehicles from 20 km The weapon system can be operated with both towed (Type 66 152mm, Type 89 155mm) and self-propelled (Type 83 152mm, PLZ-45 155mm) gun-howitzers Made in China
The Challenger 2 is better it uses the newer grade 2 colum armour while the Abrams uses the same grade 1 colum armour and has a riffled barrel for greater accuracy but it costs twice as much .
TheImperialtroll 2 days ago
good, but you got the wrong gun on the challenger 2...
MrLOLTRAKTOR 2 days ago
The M1 was designed to fight an European war and not a long range assault in open country. With this the M1 has done quite well in desert combat and the M1s lost to IEDs are due to the fact that the Americans operate in an area 10X that of the UK. If you want to compare tanks on paper the German Lepaord II would win. However, I'll take the M1 since has a great battle record!
Nondairyreamer 4 days ago
@Nondairyreamer Ever heard of the Helmand province? It's basically the arse end of Afghanistan and the centre of the Taliban's operations. The Brits have operated in that area alone for a couple of years now. Some of the most intense fighting of the war has been fought in Helmand. So your point about the Americans being in an area 10x worse is crap.
At least both tanks have seen actual combat operations. What have the Germans done recently?
TheTrooper458 2 days ago
@TheTrooper458 now this is a guy who talks sense.
MrLOLTRAKTOR 2 days ago
The real moral of the story is... Stick em side by side in a war and you have a whole new world of pain.
babalonkie 6 days ago 2
wow, what are the stats for the side turret of the Challenger 2? they're totally flat :\
Rossco139 1 week ago
Don't bother fighting about who has the best tank. Everyone is just going to keep supporting their own country anyway.
TheCGIMaster 1 week ago
Doesn't the Abrams guzzle 4 gallons of fuel for every mile?
Like the man at the end said, because they need such a huge, lumbering support network to keep them running, that alone will be a serious hindrance.
All the enemies' gotta do is target their vulnerable support network..
trouzerpants 1 week ago
Challenger II's Destroyed: 0
Abrams Destroyed: 4
That's the only information that matters.
DaveandNic4eva 1 week ago
@DaveandNic4eva theres probably been way more abrams deployed in battle also just a bit curious where did you get those numbers? not saying your lying just curious.
heartline12 3 days ago
@DaveandNic4eva Then a squadron of A-10's flies in and destroys your entire battalion. You're misinformed.
Jutzujin 2 days ago
@Jutzujin but before they can reach the tanks, they are easily destroyes by the latest in lazer guided S.A.Ms.
MrLOLTRAKTOR 2 days ago
@Jutzujin LOL Americans really shouldn't preach about others being "misinformed" ... your entire nation is fed complete an utter nonsense from birth. For instance, you're led to believe you have the best armed forces on the planet, which simply isn't the case. China, for example, is on par with you for technology. China has more soldiers at their disposal. Great Britain, Germany etc have superior training and produce more professional servicemen. The US has NEVER won a war on its own, mate.
DaveandNic4eva 2 days ago
@DaveandNic4eva ..Great Britian is a war monger then!!!. China steals much of what it knows from western countries. Hey sorry about the farmers who kicked you out of the colonies and did well untill the french arrived with it's navy to give you the final and it was a pleasure to help you guys in WW2 with millions of riflemen and the tanks and fighter planes and heavy bombers. By the way Great Britian would be steam rolled by the Chinese in a invasion before the U.S. We have guns
vorevox 1 day ago
The Abrams doesen't even compare to the Challenger II... Challenger tanks are almost unstoppable.
BradTheMineCraftGuy 1 week ago
Moral of the story: don't fight The US and UK in an armored engagement unless you have more tanks then they have ammunition.
TRomecki94 2 weeks ago 11
where are u getting some of your info the challenger 2 has a rifled gun for better accuracy
1Dansnape 3 weeks ago
Bushmaster - Challenger 2 carries HESH & Fin rounds, former is explosive for use against buildings, soft vehicles etc and latter for use against armour. Who knows if the Challenger could take out an Abrams - we'd never know unless the UK loaned a few to the US Army ;0) (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
CharlesHopper 3 weeks ago
The barrel being rifled does not matter, what matters is what kind of round it shoots. Last time I checked the Challenger shot HEAT rounds while the Abrams Shoots self-sharpening depleted Urainium rounds. I dont think heat rounds will penetrate depleted urainuim amor of the Abrams
TheBushmaster94 3 weeks ago
@TheBushmaster94n Just on that. We fire fire APFSDS ROUNDS. The ammo depends on the target. Heavy armour will be engage by a ARMOUR PIERCING FIN STABLISE DISCARDING SABOT. it will penetrate any thing. and we also fire HESH this is a are weapon or light armour, High explosive squash head. the effective range of this round is 5000m.
For operations the add on armour increase the weight of th CR2 to 79 ton.
naughtyboy21822 4 days ago
@naughtyboy21822 for the biggest threat of most recent conflicts was the IED.
now i have seen 4 M1A1 tanks blown to bit by IEDs.
And from experience i know that CR2 have not lost a single tank to IED. infact, my vehicle alone was hit 8 times by IEDs in a period of 3 months
naughtyboy21822 4 days ago
@naughtyboy21822 ..Not all IED's are the same, Just like the one that penetrated the CH2 and the driver lost his leg wasn't like the ones that hit your tank and were not at all like the ones that blew the abrams to bits.
vorevox 1 day ago
@hardnut451 calm down mate. And it says in the video that america has 9000+ and the UK only has 450 so thats where i got the facts from. I'm guessing you are a very angry person
Bagellicious93 4 weeks ago
At the end of the day smooth or rifled UK or US tanks always kick ass because of thier crew not because of the tank....
mack2512 4 weeks ago
the gun from the challenger 2 is a L30 rifled gun so yeah get your facts right
raceace5 1 month ago
In the nicest way possible, it kinda takes the piss how we have 450 challenger 2's, and the USA has well over 9000. And how did we get a lower score on 'cost/value for money'? The only thing we lost at is the manoeuvrability and thats because we destroy the enemy straight away. The Abrams has to chase the enemy cos they can't destroy them haha.
Bagellicious93 1 month ago
@Bagellicious93 9000 where did you get that number from your thick brain because america only has 1653 tanks and thats the most in the world you dumbass get your facts right
hardnut451 1 month ago
@Bagellicious93 ..cos..haaa..haaa
Whatever Bevis
vorevox 1 day ago
The off road speed is 40mph. Jeremy Clarkson said so.
RyedaleAirsoft 1 month ago
I believe the chally 2 has a rifled barrel which is what has always made it the better killing machine than the Leopard 2 and the Abrahms, and as for 2 Abrahms vs 1 challenger 2..I suggest you bring more Abrahms. British tank crews are spend 4 days a week in simulators practicing gun drills and are almost a part of the tank with almost no emotion when it comes to battle, thats the way we train and the way we function. No hesitation just programmed behaviour.
MrLeomondo 1 month ago
@MrLeomondo british tankers train no more than their american counterparts, several week training courses. but the rifled gun has no advantages over a smooth bore gun firing APFSDS. the british even stated smoothbore guns are better in the long run(nearly 10x longer service life die to there being no groves to wear out)and this is why the british were planning on fitting a smoothbore gun into the challenger 2 as an upgrade, however this never came to fruition.
hotpocketpoison 1 month ago
@MrLeomondo ..For someone who talks about how the British tank crews train with the vague imply that it's more than the Americans you don't even know if the CH2's barrel is rifled or not.
vorevox 1 day ago
Whats funny is that both these tanks are actually British designs. The factory where i work in Texas assembles the Abrams, and back in 1980 we needed to authorization from the British designers to build it. My guess is they couldn't afford to mass produce them, so started on another project.
TheTwinchrisnation 1 month ago
@TheTwinchrisnation Actually, I think the authorization was because of the Cobham armour. Might be wrong
GeckoLycan 1 month ago
Side by side its a pretty even match.. It would have to be the crews that make the difference.
lonewolf031 1 month ago
Challenger2 8kk and Abrams 4.3 ? Of course 2 Abrams win 1 Challenger.
RS00023 1 month ago
The 2 Tanks are so close in Armor, firepower, and electronics that it's not an argument of which tank is better. it comes down to the tank crew's proficiency
BigChiefMike 1 month ago
Challenger 2 ftw!
DietPepsi19970 1 month ago
LOL 0:16 that's Winston Chuchill. hahaha
MrH1tler 1 month ago
Both tanks have thier good and bad the Amrams is perfect for down right destruction on the battle fild while maintaing good speed perfect armorment and tec. the challenger is perfect for manuvering in and out of tight space but due to the rifled gun while it is a tad bit more accuret the the abram dosent have as much damage.
rainbowsixODST 1 month ago
I hope the rest of the data is more accurate than the bit about Challenger using the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun! At 0.31 there is a clear view of the rifling at the muzzle!!
1946nimrod 1 month ago
Полюбасу американцы и англичане смотрят этот клип стоя приложа руку к сердцу)))
Dar7502 1 month ago
According to my calculations the loss of a Challenger tank would be a percentage reduction equivalent to the loss of 20 Abrams. From what I've seen the Abrams has nowhere near that many tanks lost.
Eboreg2 1 month ago
why would the challenger use a seperate loading ammunition? and no auto loader? and yes, the comments are correct, the challenger has a rifled barrel, the abrams has a smooth bore. rifled is more accurate, with shorter range. smoothbore is less accurate with longer range. and for the record, the armor on the 2 is the same. it was developed jointly between the US and UK for both tanks.
cummins24421 1 month ago
@cummins24421 It wasn't developed jointly, and they don't use the same armour. And rifled is more accurate to any distance, which is why rifled rounds are supposed to be used as a more accurate means of hitting a target far away. The longest hit ever recorded was from the challenger 2 at 5km.
PlaneAU 1 month ago
@cummins24421 lol, your a little wrong in just about all you said.rifled doesnt mean shorter range. and the dorchester armour is ONLY fitted to the UK challenger 2. and it WASNT developed at all with US help.
789crafty 1 month ago
Rule Brittania!
alikos88 1 month ago
the m1 actually is a 120mm smoothbore gun
bigcard4221 1 month ago
ive seen both in action in Iraq.....there both just as good as each other, the chally has a little better armour but thats all really. but the M1 makes up for it by cost value.
Antish421 1 month ago
I am an American and I say, two great countrys two great tanks and we are allies
bassmaster1231 1 month ago
Same armour.
transonicbuoy 1 month ago
Challenger 2 is being tested with an L55. Or at least it was. The lethality upgrade testing started way back in 2006.
This may explain why the uploader has the Challanger listed as using smoothbore.
mainomai 1 month ago
challenger 2 is better.
Harry6389 1 month ago
1 on 1 the challenger would win but it's twice as expensive . both are great tanks but tanks are getting used less and less now it's all about helicopters and jets now
chroniclejoel 1 month ago
Aaaaaaahhhhh !!!!! The challenger dose not have a smooth bore gun ... It's rifled witch is clearly noticeably when the camera zooms out of the main gun..wat source did ur facts come from ?
spiked101clown 1 month ago 11
@spiked101clown Good spot, I didnt notice your post and said exactly the same a minute ago..To be honest a major mistake as thats what makes British tanks so accurate..Smoothbore fails big time
MrLeomondo 1 month ago
@spiked101clown Rifled, more accurate, able to reload quicker, shells have more spin giving it more penetration. Are you saying rifled is crap?
skemjames 3 weeks ago
@skemjames Nope, Rifled barrels were introduced to increase accuracy and stability of the round.
Gr0undMaster 2 weeks ago
@Gr0undMaster And a rifled barrel is built so the bullet has more spin, have you not seen a drill?
skemjames 2 weeks ago
@skemjames The drill has the grooves to displace matter which it is cutting into. Bullets do not act like drills.
PetrolDemon 1 week ago
@PetrolDemon the inside of a rifled barrel is like an inverted drill
skemjames 1 week ago
@skemjames yes but it is designed to spin the bullet rather than like a drill (drills cut and displace whereas rifling just spins)
PetrolDemon 1 week ago
@PetrolDemon which is my point, it spins, giving more range and penetration
skemjames 1 week ago
m1 is better than chally i mean chally took the same gun from the m1
Battlefield1985 1 month ago
@Battlefield1985
The challenger has a rifled gun quite unique amongst the world's MBTs, the M1's m256 is a licensed copy of the smoothbore Rheinmetall 120 mm L44. The M1's gun is actually inferior to the Challenger 2's 55 calibre long L30A1 and the Rheinmetall 120 mm L55 on the German Leopard2.
Doesn't really matter in the end since I doubt either will encounter a decent modern MBT in the near future.
Chinomareno 1 month ago
@Battlefield1985 Other way around actually :P
DarkShowdownn 1 month ago
@DarkShowdownn no im pretty sure im right
Battlefield1985 1 month ago
WW2: German Tiger Tank.
Cold War era: Russia T-72
Modern era: M1 Abrams
urbancombat1000 1 month ago
Abrams is the best tank in the world it can shoot 4 type of round watch dairy of the M1 Abrams
urbancombat1000 1 month ago
@urbancombat1000 Challenger 2 is better, but hey, itleast you guys get to shoot four types of rounds :D
DarkShowdownn 1 month ago
@DarkShowdownn Nope-
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
The armour is almoust identical but the Challenger wins that but it looses in one key element, mobility and that is part of a tanks survival the arment is the same. it baisicly saying the one more or two more RPG shots is use full but what need is their for it if you can dodge it all together by moving faster and now they have the M1A2 wich has better armour more numbers and is faster
luckylaxplayer7 1 month ago
there was never a abrams tank lost their was one that the tread broke and we ditched it so it was only the tread it wasnt really destroyed and why dont we just make a hybrid tank thats like both put toghter
topzombie3 1 month ago
@topzombie3 Ive seen plenty of destroyed Abrams pics. Give me a break. Around 80 M1A1's have been lost. A handful by attacks,some by IED's, others immobilized in battle and later destroyed to prevent capture.
supramanz 1 month ago
What a stupid and pointless video. Both tanks were designed to combat the Soviet T-55/64/72 tanks of the Cold War era so there's no point comparing them against each other. Nobody in public knows the actual performance values of the armor or ammunition of either vehicle so stating that one tank or the other has better amor or gun is totally pointless. What counts is that they both can beat the Soviet T-series tanks at ease and have performed well in combat in Irag etc.
Kaakao 1 month ago
Charlie 2's are the shit
jjhearn 2 months ago
Challenger's gun can hit a moving target the size of a football at over 4 miles, FUCK YEAH
MrTroninator 2 months ago
challenger 2 doesn't have a smooth bore barel "it's rifled". so unlike the abrams it's accurate at when fired and doesn't just hit something over there
10Supersniper 2 months ago
All British tanks have tea making facilities on board.
End of argument really :/
programaster 2 months ago 9
@programaster BV's rule all
789crafty 1 month ago
@789crafty Yes. Yes they do.
I'm proud to be British sometimes.
programaster 1 month ago
@programaster BV
Tony2438 1 month ago
@programaster not just for tea u dumb ass.
MrShawzyxx 1 month ago
A tank represents a series of design priorities and choices.
The M-1 represents the choice of battle field mobility and the use APFSDS.
The Chally represents the choice of armor protection and the use of the HESH.
Each choice is valid depending on how well the tank is employed, supplied, and how well the crew is trained.
The problem occurs when you have a major flaws in a system, like crew safety in the T-64/72/90's.
Waltham1892 2 months ago
us m1 is 1000% better then any tank newhere
VYPYRFAN5150 2 months ago
@VYPYRFAN5150 brainless douche.
TheRPDizzle 2 months ago
@VYPYRFAN5150 lol fukin fag
fantana817 2 months ago
@VYPYRFAN5150 challenger has way better armour and gun
p.s if it wasnt for england the u.s wouldnt exist and neither would the abrams.. your welcome. ;)
fantana817 2 months ago
@VYPYRFAN5150 unfortunately i disagree, the challenger 2's battle statistics prove themselves, but the m1 is far more numerous!
numba1danman 2 months ago
@VYPYRFAN5150 are you sure its not 457.000.000.000 times better, may as well say that as some other made up figure lol
789crafty 1 month ago
i heard a t-54 can be bought for as little as $60,000
SgtMajorBrown115 2 months ago
The Chobham armour is obviously strong, make a quick Google search of Challenger 2 RPG and you'll find an article detailing how the Challenger survived EIGHT RPG's in close ranger as well as a MILAN AT-Missle. Admittedly the American's Abrams has seen ALOT more combat than the Challenger , especially since it can be deployed in Afghanistan and the Challenger cannot (Due to the ground being to soft). I'm just glad we're on the same side!
rammen4 2 months ago
challenger 2 has the armour and the gun, abrams got the speed and the numbers
p.s kettle in the challenger ;)
BMTHmosher 2 months ago
lol@god save the queen. you royalist slave traitor filth.
fringeailments 2 months ago
@fringeailments agree, like the vid, absolutely hated the crappy sound track, had to turn it off or would have puked. Any national anthem SHOULD be about the people or the country, NOT about keeping a pampered, never done a days work in their lives monarch in the luxury and comfort they have NEVER earned.
789crafty 1 month ago
chally is better than the m1 end of,
better armour, gun, more reliable engine, tea kettle, and roomier (once got 13 peeps inside one)
Aligray4444 2 months ago 15
@Aligray4444 also, none of them have ever been destroyed, and one Challenger 2 in Operation iraqi Freedom got hit by 14 RPGs, and a MILAN anti-Tank system which only destroyed the sight, and was repaired and back in service within 6 hours :D
MrTroninator 2 months ago
@Aligray4444 The main gun of Challenger 120 millimetres (4.7 in) ,
Main gun of M1 105 mm , Your saying the gun is better? dude get your facts right
Also i aint haiting on your american tanks or anything i aint british as well , but im just saying ;)
PleaseShareCash 1 month ago
@PleaseShareCash
i was supporting the chally fucknuts!
the m1 gun is 120mm aswell!
Aligray4444 1 month ago
@Aligray4444 which one is more combat proven? which one is highly produce? which one is operated by many countrys?
you dont know anything about tanks so next time time shut up
coastguard1996 1 month ago
@coastguard1996 as i seem to recall, all the battles the M1 has been in the challenger has too, so dont see how its more battle proven. also its allied countries you sell em to, and at well subsidised cost, they are locked into buying US stuff, doesnt prove they are better. the "pudding", how many lost in action to enemy, challenger...0 M1..... let you add that.
789crafty 1 month ago
@Aligray4444 ....ORGY..????
789crafty 1 month ago
yeah its not a smooth bore mate
MegaSdog123 2 months ago
Mute point we are on the same team! Very similar tanks
drtruth37 2 months ago
wtf the challenger isnt smooth bore you idiot you can even see the fucking rifling in the video
OllieKampo222 2 months ago
Some where a post lists 4 Abrams being destroyed in battle, the fact is 3 were M1's, of the early 70's, these are not Abrams, M1a1 or M1A2's.... the only Abrams lost during the war was one driven of the bridge going into Baghdad, it was hit with dense smoke and the driver got confused. It was serviceable, but due to the speed of movement it was destroyed by US sappers to keep the Technology secret, it took 3 tons of RDX to completely make it unusable...... I saw both in action, THEY BOTH ASS
BigWolfBoy50 2 months ago
@BigWolfBoy50 wrong.....i was in arifjahn camp kuwait doing the repairs and saw PLENTY dead M1s most from either friendly fire or from IEDs
789crafty 1 month ago
wow four u.s. tanks killed conpare that to the number of times we kick Iraq's ASS
m1abrams8975 2 months ago
The sad truth is. The U.S. has the fiscal means to cover the cost of producing the M1. The more they make ,..the cheaper it gets.(being simplistic) The one enemy which the Challenger2 cannot defeat is the cost of manufacture. That fact is and will be the greatest hindrance to selling it to other countries. The German Leopard, had a very slick marketing program, and is a success, although it has never been subjected to combat 'hits'. Even if one dislikes the Chally, a record of no losses is tops.
arriviste2020 2 months ago
most importantly... Like every British tank since the Centurion, and most other British AFVs, Challenger 2 contains a boiling vessel (BV) also known as a kettle or bivvie for water which can be used to brew tea, produce other hot beverages and heat boil-in-the-bag meals contained in ration packs.[9] This BV requirement is general for armoured vehicles of the British Armed Forces, and is unique to the armed forces of the UK. wiki
carbonvein 2 months ago
the tank that learns to fly and is piloted by dinosaurs first wins
carbonvein 2 months ago
Its exceedingly difficult to compare the two in a vs situation. Both are virtually indestructible. Both use Chobham armor. Not sure about the Challenger, but the Abrams uses depleted uranium plates in the metal matrix of that layered armor system. Both also now use reactive armor tiles in the most vulnerable hit boxes (sides and turret face). The only real major difference is the Abrams uses a 120mm smooth bore cannon while the Challenger uses a rifled barrel. Both pack tremendous firepower.
Cirux321 2 months ago
@Cirux321 The Chaly 2 uses Dorchester armour which has tungsten rods in the ceramic & alloy laminates and is superior to early chobom armour - because its chrome lined gun is rifled it can fire Hesh "squash" rounds which are especialy effective with bunker busting or older cast armour where sabot rounds can pass straight through.
trevortrevortsr2 2 months ago
That weird how the brits load thier guns, i don know id get used toit.
madkabal 2 months ago
@madkabal with seperate projectile and charge,(which can be altered) they can vary the range and distance for each shoot.
789crafty 1 month ago
Only about 800 Challenger 2s have been made while thousands of Abrams have been made, and they are roughly even tanks.
Deutschland428 2 months ago
the challenger has a rifled gun not a smooth bore it is one of the most accurate tanks in the world and in my opinion the BEST!!
lostlaces 2 months ago
4:00 i wonder what would T-90's grades would be... atleast 14/10....
RomaGorov 2 months ago
the tank loader is listening to music !!!!
coolnathan90 2 months ago
Both tanks use almost identical composite armor. The advantage of the M1 is that there are more M1's than Challengers. If you want to know how the M1 performed against other tanks, look up The battle of 73 Easting.
NoOdL3z18 2 months ago
lol, anything short of a 2000lbs laser guided bomb would not destroy these tanks!
Com18Alpha 2 months ago
egypt has 1000 abrams tanks?
do israeli know this?
niinja2 2 months ago
Given that you can't even remember that the Iraq war started in 2003, I'm very nervous about the rest of your 'information'. Reassure me.
ludocrat 2 months ago
They're both allied tanks, between 2 countries that love each other. Why make it a .vs video?
Alteonify 2 months ago
Oh not another USA VS UK video. Just shut it tanks are designed to make your day a living hell! I do prefer the Abrams i think she is much better looking but in terms they are both great tanks. From your allie <3
BlackWidowZ93 2 months ago
Both shit hot tanks. Lets use them on those damned Ruskies!...(joke)
vonsmith 2 months ago
Would you give it a rest all ready. Ok im british and there is the smallest of differences between the tanks. Challenger 2 has slightly better armour but is almost no real difference and m1 has slightly better speed and fuel efficiency which again amounts to no real difference. Why are you competing against each other when there are nations which are much more of a threat. We are allies and there will never be a time when these tanks go up against each other.
MrBigyin13 2 months ago
c2 ftw!!! The only disadvantage to being in a British tank is having the yanks as allies (you know what I'm talking about, friendly fire)
dodds85 2 months ago
I like how people compare the Chally 2 to the earlier M1 abram versions
TheCatholic143 2 months ago
If you mix engine oil with gasoline[petrol]you have a diesel substitute that will work in diesel engines
gilly1946ish 2 months ago
I have to say that the Challenger has the edge in armor protection, a better general purpose round (HESH), and the simplicity of a conventional engine.
However, the M-1A1/A2 has a better main gun (smooth bore M-256), better anti-armor round (M-829A3), better fire control (3rd Gen TTS), and better automotive performance/mobility.
I'm sticking with the M-1A1/A2...
Waltham1892 3 months ago
@Waltham1892 That anti armour is gonna be no use if u cant even penetrate the armour.
Scottx125Productions 2 months ago
@Scottx125Productions
Having crewed an M-1A1, I'm not aware that there is any armor the M-829 wouldn't penetrate. At least my results were always satisfactory.
As for the British 120mm rifled gun, I've never fired it but they seem happy with HESH as an anti-armor round. I know they are thinking of re-gunning to the M-256, but I've heard that is to have commonality with the rest of NATO ammo types.
Waltham1892 2 months ago
in my opinion i believe the 2 tanks are equily as good as eachover
legofreak123456781 3 months ago 17
@legofreak123456781 Not exactly, if one tank is near invinsible and the other isnt, i think i know which one wins.
Scottx125Productions 2 months ago
@legofreak123456781 actually, the challenger 2 has been proven to be better than the m1 abrams
mrfantazzz 2 months ago
@legofreak123456781
did you go to school....at all ?
captainumbnuts3 2 months ago
Challenger 2 wins.
Nanoflux123 3 months ago
both very nice tanks :)
nezomega 3 months ago
The problem with the challenger is there is only roughly 450 of them, while with the abrams there is 9000+
WickedrWil 3 months ago
@WickedrWil thats the deciding factor in my opinion. numbers matter, and the tanks are so close in quality that quantity is what decides it
CurlyHeadedStud 3 months ago
@WickedrWil Why would the UK need 9000+ tanks if nobody can touch the 450 odd? Waste of money. Just because there are more Abrams don't make it better, that's just silly.
konradfat 2 months ago
@konradfat Just like the sherman needed 45 thousand produced to get passed 8000 tigers and panthers, yes numbers do matter... ALOT.
WickedrWil 2 months ago
@WickedrWil So your saying the Sherman is better because they HAD to make 45k to get passed 8k Tigers etc? That don't make the Sherman better then the Tiger/Panther. Just like having 9k Abram's don't make it better then the Challenger. This only points out that America is a big country with a big industry. And that WW2 was about Quantity (USA/USSR) Not Quality(Germany) etc etc. You don't need mass amount's of tank's in today's world.
konradfat 2 months ago
am i the only one who sees mr bean with some of this music...
cs512tr 3 months ago
from my understanding even though they are both very good at doing there jobs. the challenger is the tough sniper type, out ranging and more precise than its competitors. where as the Abrams it a Assault fast and agile but always under fire.
john681611 3 months ago
isnt the data on the challengers gun wrong? iam not sure its a german rheinmetal
guysey2 3 months ago
@guysey2 Your right well spotted, they use a British rifled cannon.
Tommyfungun 3 months ago
Challenger 2 win easy
Mrluke2807 3 months ago
21st??? the m1 was in the 20 sentery
USAmilitarypower 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're some poor guy in a T72 or T54 in a hot, dusty country and you and your machine survived the air onslaught before an Abrams or C2 gets anywhere near you - it's pretty irrelevant whether the Brits or Yanks have the slightly better tank. Your day is not going to end well.....
inactualfact 3 months ago
Comment removed
inactualfact 3 months ago
Comment removed
inactualfact 3 months ago
0:48 - the challenger 2 has a rifled cannon, the shitrams has the rheinmetall smoothbore
MrLOLTRAKTOR 3 months ago
@TheARMAProductions agree with you tbh if you get to the stage of over heating the you in the shit as you have prob run out of ammo any how
dennislions1 3 months ago
Info is a bit wrong 18 M1 where lost in the 1991 gulf war and so far since 2003 80 M1 have been lost in Iraq, most weren't total right offs but damaged enough to need shipping back to the states.
newhoped 3 months ago
@newhoped he said no challenger 2 where lost not abrams m1 unless i read your comment wrong if i did isay sorry in advance but he said the british challenger 2
dennislions1 3 months ago
I am confused this video says the Challenger 2 is £4.217 million and the Abrams is more expensive so why is the negative for the C2 the cost? As it is cheaper than the Abrams, has better armour and none have been destroyed by enemy fire. The only thing the Abrams has over the C2 is that it is faster, like they will be able to out run a tank shell
ComradeMcLovin 3 months ago
@ComradeMcLovin have the challenger been in any major battle like the adrams
marcusbloods1 3 months ago
@marcusbloods
Chally 2's were used in GW2 and Iraq.
chaz8758 3 months ago
@chaz8758 how many were deployed how many if any saw action
marcusbloods1 3 months ago
@marcusbloods1 Yes the Challenger was used in both Gulf wars, Bosnia, Kosovo. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.
ComradeMcLovin 3 months ago
@marcusbloods1 The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.
ComradeMcLovin 3 months ago
@ComradeMcLovin and when recovered, 6 hours of work by the illustrious, heroic, stalwarts of the REME the VMs soon had it back in action. (ex REME VM, so im a little biased lol)
789crafty 1 month ago
Comment removed
ComradeMcLovin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusbloods1 The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.I think that speaks for itself
ComradeMcLovin 3 months ago
"one foot in a bucket" its a pity the UK cheapskates never made some fresh ammo
trevortrevortsr2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL Tanks are TOAST ! This Is way : , Tanks are nothing compared to the chinese Anti Tank System The 152/155mm laser-guided artillery weapon system is designed to engage tanks and armoured combat vehicles from 20 km The weapon system can be operated with both towed (Type 66 152mm, Type 89 155mm) and self-propelled (Type 83 152mm, PLZ-45 155mm) gun-howitzers Made in China
zakaslam1 3 months ago
the challenger does not have a smoothbore barrel its rifled.
airsoftjunkie2 4 months ago