Well, doesn't really matter does it? America and Great Britain are allies so we can take on any other tanks with the two that are clearly the best in the world. It doesn't matter which one's better when they're fighting together.
TomHartill I am guessing you are an American juvenile. I was going to make a derogatory comment about your lack of intelligence, however I feel the word 'American' says enough. You do realise there is another 195 countries in the world, it's not just America. And trying to suggest your tank is better than ours is the equivalent of other playground banter like 'my Dad can fight your Dad!'. We are on the same side you clown, it is just unfortunate that we are all fighting a creation of the US!
LEOPARD2 OWNS ALL...AGILITY,ARMOR,FIREPOWER,SPEED....before some makes comments learn about tanks the right facts.go canadian army trophy..watch results...leo2 owns m1a2 and challenger2...
@SvenGer007 lol maybe you should too. Canadian Trophy '87 is where the challenger 1 had poor results against the older Leo2 and M1A2, the result of this put forward an upgrade program to the Challenger 1. A new turret was designed, upgraded rifled main gun, more up-to-date FCS, Comms unit, TOGS and image intensifying cameras put and and a more efficient powerplant. Then look at tank loses its been in compared to its M1A1/A2 counterpart. but oh look, the Leo2 hasn't seen action at all
@murf503 actually it didn't, it pierced through a soft part of the frontal armour and took off 3 of the drivers toes, the tank is in service and has been completely repaired since. The driver survived and is still in service and serving in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. Even with such damage it was still operational.
@FletchRDG not a single challenger 2 has been knocked out of operations by enemy fire. Damaged yes, nothing is completely invincible but this tank has always come out of the thick of it.
@SvenGer007: Canadian Army Trophy doesn't test the Tanks, it tests the Crew. The first CAT with Leopard 2, M1's & Challengers (1) were in 1987, were the M1's won. Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as the Worlds best Battletank. There are much Tanks, with the same Speed as the Leopard 2, Leclerc & T-90 are more agile, because they are lighter, Challenger 2 & T-84 does have superior armor, and the M1A2 superior Firepower. The Leopard 2 is just a good mix between them.
@SvenGer007: As someone said, the Leopard 2 doesn't even saw action, it could be the best Tank in the World, 4x superior to every other, but the Tank would be still unnecessary, the Leopard 2 doesn't have a single Tank kill, compared to Challenger & Abrams, which are combat-proven.
@CountPushkin1 dude the abrams would win unless it was really out number like 5 to 1 I really don't see much differnce from the t-72 to be honest and I don't think there much of thim anyways true be told dude :D
UK has the Challenge 2, US has the Abrams, Germany has the Leopard 2. All are intimidating tanks. All are on the same side. I don't know whey anyone would want to piss of NATO and potentially face all of them at once.
Wan to have a go with the Challenger 2? Get SB Pro PE, its included as playable tank (interior is missing at the moment though) in the latest version.
@LeviathanTank Really! last time I check The Abrams went to compete against the Leo2 and Challenger II in a tank/crew competition held in Canada. Just guess who came in first and last. The Abrams and it's crew won while the Challenger and it's crew took the last place...LOL! The British Harrier is a piece of crap. That plane killed more pilots due to malfunction. British military is Americas puppets. When we say jump they jump when we say roll over they roll over...LOL! Now sit down and STFU!
@quickzilver333 Hey. What's with the disrespect? No need for that. Anyway, I am pretty sure that the Abrams coming up against a Leo 2 and the Challenger 2 is likely to lose. It's not whether if it's the best weapon and armour, it also depends on the terrain and crew. The Harrier is a great plane for its hovering and maneuvering so I wouldn't say it's a piece of crap. You also shouldn't disrespect the Army, as we are America's allies; as they start wars, we fight their wars.
@TuaRemenersis I will give you a chance to do a research on the competition they held in Canada. It was Abrams and its crew VS Leo2s and Challenger II and it's crew. Just guess who came in 1st in the competition.....take your time! the answer is on the video!
@quickzilver333 I'm done with you. You don't even have any actual proof. You're American, it is quite obvious that you are being biased. You will find that there are more people out there that like the Challenger II better than the Abrams. Suck up princess.
@quickzilver333 yes that was in trials but in the second Gulf war the Challenger II performed way better getting the longest tank to tank kill and Zero losses.
@CountPushkin1 The Abrams service in the second Gulf war is longer than any other coalition forces. It was there fighting from the begging till the end. It had encountered more attacks by RPGs and ATGM than any Challenger II. Most of the damage and destroyed Abrams are from IEDs and Mines.
@quickzilver333 Yes the Challenger were fielded in smaller numbers and they were there for less time, but it does not change the fact that a Challenge survived fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. 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.
@CountPushkin1 yes but a challenger 2 was penetrated with its era by a rpg-29 and killed 3 of the crew ... Conclusion do not fight with countries who posses rpg-29 ... hahaha
@TheKifinas Ha all I know is I would hate to be facing either tank with a RPG or not. But one thing I think we can agree on, is that they both can own any Russian Tank, no disrespect to the Russians but come on.
@CountPushkin1 no we do not agree . Look at t-90ms .. you think that Russian tanks suck because t-72's were obsolete in the gulf war . That is the problem . everything western countries fight are weapons 40 years old .. Put a abrams or a lecler or a chally in battle against t-90 . Modern t-90's . Or a fighter or an ifv or a helicopter or a ship . Give me a weapon that UK posses that can defeat a Russian counterpart ...
@TheKifinas Yes I agree that the T90 is not to bad but it is a little out of date. To the fine me a British weapon to match a Russian one, it is pretty hard as the UK is a bit more advanced but Russian stuff doesn't break and is also pretty good.
@TheKifinas Yes I have seen it i never comment with out a bit of research and ya the T90 is not bad and I do like the fact that it can drive under water ( I bet any one would piss them self''s if they saw it coming out a lake). But it is not the best nor is the Chally or the Abrams, they are to closely matched.
@TheKifinas Ok then lets make it an even comparison. How many Russian made T-80s and T-72s got destroyed and sliced open by Chechen hunter killer team with RPGs and ATGM? Now Compare that to how many Abrams got destroyed with complete armor penetration all the way through the crew compartment. The T-80s and T-72s crew were nice and crispy inside while the Abrams crew survived. The Russians are using NON-EXPORT AND ITS NOT A MONKEY MODEL T-72s/T-80s. Anymore excuses?
@quickzilver333 TheKifinas is right the T90 is a bad ass tank and the T80's and 72s were not so hot, but the truth is the T90 has never faced the Abram's or the Chally, so all we can do is guess on the out come.
@CountPushkin1 you have to put somebody in first . At least from manufacturer experience or the success of previous tanks of the manufacturer company ..
@CountPushkin1 The Abrams took the same hits also including from another Abrams to dissable a damage Abrams and the crew compartment is intact no penetration inside. It all depends on where the Abrams and Challenger II took the hit. The Abrams has battling insurgents longer than the Challenger II equiped with RPGs and various types of anti-tank missiles. Not to mention alot of damage Abrams due to mines and IEDS.
@quickzilver333 I would real like to know were you got your info because they have been put out of action by HMG rounds when hit in some areas. Secondly there engine's gave issues when sand got sucked into them. even if you look at states the Chally2 has a more advanced version of CHOBEM armer, and is faster off road, and yes i know the Abram's is faster on road.
@CountPushkin1 Friendly fires Abrams to Abrams occured during the 1st and 2nd Gulfwar. The Abrams also took severeal hits against Iraqi Insurgents with various RPGs and ATGMs. It was in Iraq longer than any coalition forces main battle tanks hence the amount of damage and destroyed Abrams. This is also including damage from mines and IEDs.
@quickzilver333 - I cant find such tank trials in Canada, can you give a URL to support your claims.
Also can you confirm that the Challenger 2 was tested and not the Challenger 2 E which is a stripped down export version of the tank. Also can you tell us what aspects of the tank were tested, bearing in mind that the Challenger 2 favours protection over other aspects as dictated by British tank doctrine.
@TomHartill LOL! the competition wasn't even about how strong and how thick the Armor of such tanks...It's about how fast and how long were the able to acquire and destroy the target. Search in you tube they have it on video.
As for firepower fightability, we can compare some official statisitcs: The challenger 2 claims a ROF of 8 targets in 40 seconds - official BAE website. While the M1A2 claims a ROF of a maximum of 6 targets in 60 seconds - multiple sources including wiki.
Manoverability: The M1A2 is faster on roads yes, but it it just uses steel torson bar suspension as oposed to hydropneumatic which offers considerably better...
@TomHartill LOL! you seem to miss the point. The competition is about the tanks and it's "CREW". The US Abrams crew exceeded all task during the competition. They were the underdog against the Challenger II and Leo II but they prevailed just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Abrams and Challenger II has similar doctrines applied when building it's Armor. Why do you think the M1 A2 Abrams weighs 70tons? It's Amror is the main focus of the built just like the Challenger II.
@quickzilver333 - LOL! you still fail to provide a link or even a date of when this happened.
I don't think the armour is the main focus of the build, US doctrine treats mobility just as importantly as protection, where British doctrine favours protection over mobility. Anyway the Abrams is practically a German designed tank anyway.
Besides the Challenger2 is a better armoured tank anyway, so your point is irrelavent.
@TomHartill Why do you think the M1 A2 Abrams weighs 70tons? It because the main objective of the design id protection. The Abrams has been in many battles compared to the ChallengerII...LOL! You mak it sound like a German design tanks is inferior. Where have you been in the past decades? The US military have been using german design weapons. The British Military are also using US and German made weapons. Your point is stupid...LOL!
Listen dude, you can probably find the official doctrine online, and I assure you it says fightability through protection, firepower and mobility, while British doctrine is firepower and protection first and foremost.
I never said German designs were bad! on the contrary, it is one of the reasons why the Abrams is such a good MBT.
Regardless, the CR2 still uses a better protection package.
@TomHartill LOL! Your to busy making excuses instead of looking for it. They have the video on youtube. I will give you a hint:" Canadian Army Trophy AKA CAT Shoot".
There is another competition in Germany also were the Abrams and it's crew prevailed once again VS the Challenger II and Leo2. I will give you another hint:" Canadian Army Trohpy Shoot Grafenwohr Germany. Take your time and save your embarrasment to yourself...LOL!
@quickzilver333 - I'm not making excuses lol. I have search for it, but I didn't use the search terms you just provided. Besides being as you are the one who brought it up, the burden of proof is upon you, not me. I would actually be interested in seeing it, not do I deny it exists.
You know there have actually been a number of trials, but most use the Chally 2E or do not count protection as a variable, some were even biased and unfair, like the greek trials where the wrong...
@quickzilver333 - I just watched that video amd read up about CAT. The last CAT took place over 20 years ago, the Challenger 2 was NOT used for it, the Challenger 1 and M1 was used. If you would like to compare an M1 to a Challenger then you would have to be pretty silly in a realistic situation. The M1 uses just a 105 L44 gun I think, while the Chally1 used a 120mm L55, no comparison there. Also the chally1 scored most direct hits, but was let down by a slow fire control.
@TomHartill Thats not all there are other competitions. This time I will let you do all the research. Let me give you another hint: It was held in Germany not too long ago and the Abrams and it's crew came on top again......:) There is a video on youtube. What kind of excuses are you gonna make this time?.....LOL!
@TomHartill LOL! The burben of proof...LOL! You are commenting on YOUTUBE and the proof is in YOUTUBE. You are just making up excuses and I never said the M1A2 Abrams is the king. Look at my previous comments and show me when did I said it. The M1A1/A2Abrams has been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than any Nato tanks. It has been in battle longer than the Challenger II. The Abrams is present in Afghanistan. Where is your Challenger II?...Stop making excuses!...LOL!
@quickzilver333 actually the British were "bombed up" on the 18th of march 2003, on D-Day (19th of march 2003) Both the US and British Forces started their offensive, the British forces assaulting Az Zubayr and Basrah where as the US took to the north, considering the US forces were much larger and could cover more ground, having well over 1,000 tanks in theatre. where as, the BriFs, assaulting 1/4 of the land sent in 120 Challenger 2s. the larger the force the bigger the target.
@quickzilver333 - Well actually the Challenger 2 was in both Iraq and Afganistan, I'm not sure if they are still there now tho. But if your trying to stay the CR2 has not seen any combat then your wrong, in fact if you take into account just how overstretched the British army was in Afganistan then I would say that each Chally2 saw more combat than any single M1A2.
The proof is not on youtube, because ur talking out your ass, just admit you made a mistake dumbass.
@TomHartill You are a dumbass. The Abrams was in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than any Challenger II. The British armored Unit left earlier than the US amored Unit. The Abrams has more battle experience than any Challenger II.
I've already provided you the vidoe of the Cat shoot in Canada. Now look for the Cat Shoot competition in Germany. You are just yaping your mouth and not even doing any research. Stop making excuses. The Abrams won the competition against the Leo II and Chalenger II.
@quickzilver333 ...cont... fightability when on the move and when traveling over rough terrain.
Also you do realise that the CR2 is built to a secific doctrine which favours protection over all other aspects? - to remove this aspect in a fair comparison is ridiculous.
@quickzilver333 wrong, the challenger 2 has never been in the CATs, the Challenger 1 has and was last place but oh look, what happend in the 1991 Gulf War. The longest ranged tank on tank kill.
@FletchRDG LOL! How long was the Challenger II in combat during the 1st and 2nd Gulf war? Now compare that to the M1 Abrams combat record. Even the M1 Abrams with 105mm gun out performed and outshoot the German LEO II in the Germany Cat shoot competition. The Leo II is more advance than the Challeger II...LOL!
@quickzilver333 well as a start the challenger 2 was never in the Gulf War. It was in the Iraq war. oh right if we're going down that route, compare the centurion, chieftain and the Challenger 1 to the M48, M60 and the entire M1 series. Hmmm where did the origins of that 105 come from, ill garantee you its based on the British Centurion. The Leo2 is an all-round tank with no combat experience. CATs are a test of the crews not the tanks.
@quickzilver333 and to answer your first question, Gulf War '91: British Army Declared "bombed up" or operational on the 18 of March, Coalition forces commenced offensive attacks on the 19th. Iraq War '03: Coalition forces led by US and UK forces commenced offensive operations on the 20th of March. UK forces withdrew on April 9th 2009, US forces handed over 38 bases to Iraqi forces at the end of June 2009. The last US Combat brigade left on August 19th 2010.
@quickzilver333 and the Last troops left on December 18th 2011, so what your stating is that the US stayed a year longer then the Brits, woop-de-doo US forces only stayed there to swop oil for weapons and military equipment i.e M1s and M1A1s and considering that The US Army is made-up of mostly M1A1s isnt a wise move. but yeh the Challenger 2 may not have been there past 2009 but we saw it through until stability was restored, The US stayed for resources and political gain.
@FletchRDG You are an idiot since when did with talk about US troops? We are talking about the lenght of Combat experience of the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. The US Military is upgrading all the M1s and M1A1s. The process of building the new M1A3Abrams is within 10yrs.
Like I said before even the M1 Abrams with it's crew out performed the German Leo2s. Which is far superior than the Challenger II...LOL!
Ridley Scott couldn't have produced a better film to promote British excellence in design, manufacturing and all out quality in a machine. I suspect an a American tank promotional film to be shown to the sounds of........ M-I-C...K-E-Y.......M-O-U-S-E, mickey mouse, mickey mouse, mickey mouse etc etc....
lovely -- Rifled gun for HESH, 2-part ammo instead of a giant metal cylinder round, best armor protection available! (a .50 cal. coax would be nice...)
@xblCaboose don't you think that would have been factored in by an experienced design team? this tank was built on from a long pedigree reaching back to the Centurion
According to my WO2 mate whos is still serving in 1RTR? Dorchester Armour is a poor relation to Chobam or second gen Chobam? As asusual we ran out of money?. In Iraq M1A2 Abrams were killed by RPG? Challenger 2 Armour wasnt defeated by Multypel RPG strikes? Just the optics were smashed.
since the Challenger now is equipped with a German MTU engine (as in the Leo) & now has 1500 HP rather than 1200 (old perkins engine), & since the MTU engine ableit 300bhp more powerful is smaller, the Challenger now has space for larger fuel tanks. On top of that the old RO 120mm riffled gun has been replaced with a Rheinmetal 120mm smooth bore. We can't make cars, trains or anything. Best get out of the tank business too. We have made less than 400 Challengers with next to no exports at all.
@trident3b Because They took away alot of the armies funds, + america is much bigger and only have 6k of there main battle tank, I don't see your point.
@skemjames well my point is that we keep barking around how wonderful we are, and we're not. I'm happy to admit it. We are a nation that loves to kid itself. The funds card is always the excuse. We always have excuses but make wild claims. We say none of ours were lost in combat etc but with less than 400 in existence what does one expect? There are hardly any around to be hit. Should love to see what happens to a Challenger when hit by a KornetE. Same as any other tank. Horrific.
@trident3b Yeah but you dno't know how strong 2nd gen choban is, noone does besides the actual people who make and test it, and cmon they're not about to go firing KornetEs at there own tanks to test it and again if they did it wouldn't go public,
@skemjames no I don't, that's right. But look at the beating the Israelis took in the 2006 Hizballah conflict which is where the KornetE was deployed. Having said that I think most modern anti tank weapons will make mince meat of any tank. I can't say but would speculate that chobham won't deal with modern HESH anti tank missiles. Watch the Swedish Bill2 deal with an old centurion. Most tanks nowadays will not survive modern anti tank missiles: /watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk
@skemjames OK, I stand corrected. I had no idea that combat took place chiefly at night. :) Re your vid, if true, would it take long to establish alternative night recognition systems I wonder? It's all about having functional military stuff. Any idea how many times Challengers had perkins powerpacks replaced during the Iraq campaign, sand getting everywhere etc? It was a disaster. Ask any tank comander who was there. Like Landrovers all stuck in sand. Hummers forever pulling them out
@trident3b It works on infared and night vision most modern anti tank missiles use some sort of electronic computer program, the man on the anti tank missile will most likely ignore it unless he like sblowing up cars.
@trident3b Maybe with that vid you showed me, but that wouldn't penetrate a CHallanger2, all modern AntiTank are computer guided and with that BAE systems tank hiding pads he will see a car, obviously at close range the tank is fucked unless the guy is shot down first like within 600m.
@skemjames well I want to avoid a back and forth of opinions as we sometimes see on yt threads. You say it (you mean the most modern anti tank missiles?) wouldn't penetrate a Chall'2? The thing is that we haven't seen any tests, we don't know. This is also part of my gripe, until it happens we don't know. Mind you, if what you say is right this would mean that the Ch2 armour would be many many times tougher than that of e.g the latest Merkava4, which KornetEs & Bill2s 100% destroy.
@trident3b Noones tested the choban gen2 in public, it would be stupid to do so. SO let's leaven it at that, we don't know, we don't want a full scale war so we don't want to find out either.
@skemjames you know the car thing is suspect really. 2 things: 1. the likelyhood of seeing a car in such terain is near to 99% unlikely (gets stuck in mud instantly & can't move) & ∴ ultra suspect, and 2. the car "image" appears to be static hence no simulated movement of car suspension & other characteristics. This is all made worse by the fact that one now knows that apparently BAE have something that apparently can do this, so one would now even, thx to that alone, look out for it.
@skemjames is perhaps what is said, but you never ever see it submerged in action or in demos. Can you find me a vid on youtube perhaps that shows that? I bet you'll have a problem. Just another "claim" we love to make. I know I sound harsh but I live abroad & I tell you, we make berks of ourselves with wild claims hence my saying this sort of thing. The Germans leave us technologically totally standing. Look around you, decent car? BMW, Merc, Audi Porsche etc.Pleanty to be seen in UK
@skemjames not familiar with that but I know BAE alright. Let's just assume they have.. so we have invented something like, but it's the krauts who are exporting the Leo to places like Canada and exporting their subs all over the place. When did we last export a sub? When BAE gets an order, it's from our government only, same goes for the shipyards who will make our aircraft carriers. Like leyland cars, 90% sold in UK only. No one else wanted the crap. Forgive me but it's like that.
@MrCapKorzeniowski Challanger 2 and leopard are the ebst tanks in the world, we won't find out which is best because I doubt any future wars will be Germany vs Britain
@skemjames we might since both countires export their respective tanks, although less than 400 Challengers have been built and hardly any exported whereas the Leo is exported all over the place.
@skemjames Yes, Oman was the only export I believe. Was it as many as 60? As for the armour I don't think that's right. Chobham Armour apparently is a Britsh product with the composition being "secret". Not sure the yanks would use the same.
@skemjames yes I remember that. The AV8A and B... modified versions... but look what happend? It didn't take long and we have grounded ALL our Harriers and the US is replacing their lot with the F-35B. This is a pure VTOL and supersonic at 1.6+ MACH. The Harrier never managed much more than the cruising speed of regular airliners (approx 660mph). Britain intends to purchase the f-35 which also doesn't have a RR pegasus engine but one made by Pratt & Whittney.
@skemjames worse, I think the government is committed to buying 2 new aircraft carriers at enourmous cost. It is already a standard joke that we will have aircraft carriers with no aircraft for them since we won't even really be able to buy the F-35. There are even comedies about the issue already... although this is a joke, it is based on the fact that we have actually committed to these things which we can't really afford: /watch?v=i2jhQflPFnA
@skemjames "lousy" may be too strong a word ;) - I've never heard of the Challanger Mk IV - is it a WW2 tank? The Churchill was well armored, but very slow and according to what I've read not very successful against other tanks, but with a flame thrower towing a tank with extra fuel - it was very successful against German positions
@LeviathanTank Most US military equipment has always been American. And half of the RAF uses American aircraft so pipe down before you embarrass yourself.
@LeviathanTank Tanks are protected by infantry you dipshit, and I would love to see you run up to a tank and try that. Second you fit the profile of a whiny Euro bitch. First you complain about how arrogant Americans are. Then you go and say how bad America sucks followed by the claims of European superiority...fuck off hypocrite. Europeans are the most arrogant people on earth. Which is why you fucks have invaded each other so many times.
Gladify, I'm a proud Scot, and I love tanks, but my memory is that the Chobham armour project was joint work between the British and US militaries. We came up with the ideas, worked with them to build it, and then let them stick it on the Abrams to see if it worked.
When it did we armoured up the Challenger I, and then improved it to the Dorchester armour we use now on the Challenger II.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a couple months since I looked it up
@gladifly I'm a proud Scot, and I love tanks, but my memory is that the Chobham armour project was joint work between the British and US militaries. We came up with the ideas, worked with them to build it, and then let them stick it on the Abrams to see if it worked.
When it did we armoured up the Challenger I, and then improved it to the Dorchester armour we use now on the Challenger II.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a couple months since I looked it up
France was always a coward nation in WW2 it was captured by germany in just 2 weeks and waited for GB to come and help him and always when its about war it always allies with GB so it wants protection but when its not war french ppl hate so much british ppl that they doesnt even not want to see them! GB didnt got captured since 1066 didnt got defeated by germany in WW2 and it will never be captured!
Very nice finish and handling. I'm American and I always thought the Challenger 2, next to our Abrams, as well as Germany's Leopard 2, looked rather sexy (yes, I called tanks sexy). Now for the important question. Are there cup holders? In any case, I'm glad you guys are our allies. Respect.
@rex3453 you do realise that all the A-10s are being phased out by 2015, good thing you dont need to worry about the british nuclear fleet, which even that americans have admitted is the most powerful weapon in the world at the momment.
@gladifly uh, Abrams tanks have, in some cases, taken over 70 hits and driven off the field of battle. You forget that the technology in the Challenger 2 is in the Abrams, and vice versa. There's a pact stating that technology is to be shared 100% freely between the two countries.
@gladifly yes, and guess who helped with the engineering? Not to mention that, in case you forgot, modern chobham is 5x more effective and made of completely different materials than the original.
@redreaper2020 how can you say im trolling when your making up fales facts about chobham armour being a joint project. why can't you let others take the credit for things instead of being greedy and saying "oh we invented this and that" and no i never went to kindergarden. im not an american.
Well, doesn't really matter does it? America and Great Britain are allies so we can take on any other tanks with the two that are clearly the best in the world. It doesn't matter which one's better when they're fighting together.
JammyDodgerGB 1 day ago
Trust me, id rather be in the chanllenger 2 in battle since its arguably the most protective and armoured tank on the planet.
AliHvideos 1 day ago
@AliHvideos I'd rather been in the new M1A3 Abrams...:)
quickzilver333 1 day ago
@quickzilver333 oh right, a tank that doesnt exist yet?
FletchRDG 13 hours ago
Nice, but I miss the description of the main gun...
Necrophite78 2 days ago
TomHartill I am guessing you are an American juvenile. I was going to make a derogatory comment about your lack of intelligence, however I feel the word 'American' says enough. You do realise there is another 195 countries in the world, it's not just America. And trying to suggest your tank is better than ours is the equivalent of other playground banter like 'my Dad can fight your Dad!'. We are on the same side you clown, it is just unfortunate that we are all fighting a creation of the US!
TheProudPom 4 days ago
LEOPARD2 OWNS ALL...AGILITY,ARMOR,FIREPOWER,SPEED....before some makes comments learn about tanks the right facts.go canadian army trophy..watch results...leo2 owns m1a2 and challenger2...
SvenGer007 6 days ago
@SvenGer007 lol maybe you should too. Canadian Trophy '87 is where the challenger 1 had poor results against the older Leo2 and M1A2, the result of this put forward an upgrade program to the Challenger 1. A new turret was designed, upgraded rifled main gun, more up-to-date FCS, Comms unit, TOGS and image intensifying cameras put and and a more efficient powerplant. Then look at tank loses its been in compared to its M1A1/A2 counterpart. but oh look, the Leo2 hasn't seen action at all
FletchRDG 5 days ago
@FletchRDG I apologise the M1, not M1A2, A2 didnt come about until '92, A1 in '91 just in time for the Gulf war
FletchRDG 5 days ago
@FletchRDG the rpg 29 took out this tank
murf503 2 days ago
@murf503 actually it didn't, it pierced through a soft part of the frontal armour and took off 3 of the drivers toes, the tank is in service and has been completely repaired since. The driver survived and is still in service and serving in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment. Even with such damage it was still operational.
FletchRDG 1 day ago
@FletchRDG not a single challenger 2 has been knocked out of operations by enemy fire. Damaged yes, nothing is completely invincible but this tank has always come out of the thick of it.
FletchRDG 1 day ago
@SvenGer007: Canadian Army Trophy doesn't test the Tanks, it tests the Crew. The first CAT with Leopard 2, M1's & Challengers (1) were in 1987, were the M1's won. Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as the Worlds best Battletank. There are much Tanks, with the same Speed as the Leopard 2, Leclerc & T-90 are more agile, because they are lighter, Challenger 2 & T-84 does have superior armor, and the M1A2 superior Firepower. The Leopard 2 is just a good mix between them.
SuperGeronimo999 5 days ago
@SvenGer007: As someone said, the Leopard 2 doesn't even saw action, it could be the best Tank in the World, 4x superior to every other, but the Tank would be still unnecessary, the Leopard 2 doesn't have a single Tank kill, compared to Challenger & Abrams, which are combat-proven.
SuperGeronimo999 5 days ago
in reality I think the answer is no.....
look at wikipedia leopard 2 combat history. Thin to say the least.
If this is accurate then they have been "attacked" by 2 IED's.
The original varients are also nearing 30 years old.
So Challenger it is then!!
smilo996 1 week ago
The feeling in this video was nice, reminded me of some old, epic war movie. Propably the music that did it.
MsDjessa 1 week ago
has the leopard wver actually been used in combat?
smilo996 1 week ago
@smilo996 I think it has. In the first Gulf War and now in Iraq and Afganistan. Mind you I don´t remember for 100% certainty.
MsDjessa 1 week ago
@CountPushkin1 dude the abrams would win unless it was really out number like 5 to 1 I really don't see much differnce from the t-72 to be honest and I don't think there much of thim anyways true be told dude :D
39Mcintosh 2 weeks ago
UK has the Challenge 2, US has the Abrams, Germany has the Leopard 2. All are intimidating tanks. All are on the same side. I don't know whey anyone would want to piss of NATO and potentially face all of them at once.
BigChiefMike 2 weeks ago
@BigChiefMike nice
RADWHL 2 weeks ago
Doomsday Machine!!
jamesthedude1977 2 weeks ago
Wan to have a go with the Challenger 2? Get SB Pro PE, its included as playable tank (interior is missing at the moment though) in the latest version.
SoulSnatching 3 weeks ago
The Challanger 2 is a REAL Deathbringer Leo2 and Challanger 2 are both Great tanks
greetings from Germany
Rast581 3 weeks ago
This is a beast dont be misinformed
digisage57 1 month ago
@LeviathanTank Really! last time I check The Abrams went to compete against the Leo2 and Challenger II in a tank/crew competition held in Canada. Just guess who came in first and last. The Abrams and it's crew won while the Challenger and it's crew took the last place...LOL! The British Harrier is a piece of crap. That plane killed more pilots due to malfunction. British military is Americas puppets. When we say jump they jump when we say roll over they roll over...LOL! Now sit down and STFU!
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 Hey. What's with the disrespect? No need for that. Anyway, I am pretty sure that the Abrams coming up against a Leo 2 and the Challenger 2 is likely to lose. It's not whether if it's the best weapon and armour, it also depends on the terrain and crew. The Harrier is a great plane for its hovering and maneuvering so I wouldn't say it's a piece of crap. You also shouldn't disrespect the Army, as we are America's allies; as they start wars, we fight their wars.
TuaRemenersis 4 weeks ago
@TuaRemenersis I will give you a chance to do a research on the competition they held in Canada. It was Abrams and its crew VS Leo2s and Challenger II and it's crew. Just guess who came in 1st in the competition.....take your time! the answer is on the video!
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 I think it would be awesome if you could give me the link considering you're being biased right now.
TuaRemenersis 3 weeks ago
@TuaRemenersis I have two words for you: YOUTUBE!!!
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 I'm done with you. You don't even have any actual proof. You're American, it is quite obvious that you are being biased. You will find that there are more people out there that like the Challenger II better than the Abrams. Suck up princess.
TuaRemenersis 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 yes that was in trials but in the second Gulf war the Challenger II performed way better getting the longest tank to tank kill and Zero losses.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 The Abrams service in the second Gulf war is longer than any other coalition forces. It was there fighting from the begging till the end. It had encountered more attacks by RPGs and ATGM than any Challenger II. Most of the damage and destroyed Abrams are from IEDs and Mines.
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 Yes the Challenger were fielded in smaller numbers and they were there for less time, but it does not change the fact that a Challenge survived fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile. 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.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 And another survived 70 RPGs in another incident.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CountPushkin1 yes but a challenger 2 was penetrated with its era by a rpg-29 and killed 3 of the crew ... Conclusion do not fight with countries who posses rpg-29 ... hahaha
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
@TheKifinas Ha all I know is I would hate to be facing either tank with a RPG or not. But one thing I think we can agree on, is that they both can own any Russian Tank, no disrespect to the Russians but come on.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 no we do not agree . Look at t-90ms .. you think that Russian tanks suck because t-72's were obsolete in the gulf war . That is the problem . everything western countries fight are weapons 40 years old .. Put a abrams or a lecler or a chally in battle against t-90 . Modern t-90's . Or a fighter or an ifv or a helicopter or a ship . Give me a weapon that UK posses that can defeat a Russian counterpart ...
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
@TheKifinas Yes I agree that the T90 is not to bad but it is a little out of date. To the fine me a British weapon to match a Russian one, it is pretty hard as the UK is a bit more advanced but Russian stuff doesn't break and is also pretty good.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 did you see the latest t-90ms ??? if you haven't seen it . google it . Seriously it is the best tank in the world ..
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
@TheKifinas Yes I have seen it i never comment with out a bit of research and ya the T90 is not bad and I do like the fact that it can drive under water ( I bet any one would piss them self''s if they saw it coming out a lake). But it is not the best nor is the Chally or the Abrams, they are to closely matched.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 have a look at the rpg-28 penetrates a challenger and thats a earley 90s weapon
murf503 2 days ago
@CountPushkin1 and that was a front shot
murf503 2 days ago
@TheKifinas Ok then lets make it an even comparison. How many Russian made T-80s and T-72s got destroyed and sliced open by Chechen hunter killer team with RPGs and ATGM? Now Compare that to how many Abrams got destroyed with complete armor penetration all the way through the crew compartment. The T-80s and T-72s crew were nice and crispy inside while the Abrams crew survived. The Russians are using NON-EXPORT AND ITS NOT A MONKEY MODEL T-72s/T-80s. Anymore excuses?
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 TheKifinas is right the T90 is a bad ass tank and the T80's and 72s were not so hot, but the truth is the T90 has never faced the Abram's or the Chally, so all we can do is guess on the out come.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 and what tank would you propose for the first place ..
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
@TheKifinas Like I have said over and over again they are to closely matched to call, and I say this for all modern tanks.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 you have to put somebody in first . At least from manufacturer experience or the success of previous tanks of the manufacturer company ..
TheKifinas 3 weeks ago
@TheKifinas I don''t have to do any thing.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 they were from above in apartment blocks and theres fuck all armorm,above all tanks would fair the same in an urban situation
murf503 2 days ago
@CountPushkin1 The Abrams took the same hits also including from another Abrams to dissable a damage Abrams and the crew compartment is intact no penetration inside. It all depends on where the Abrams and Challenger II took the hit. The Abrams has battling insurgents longer than the Challenger II equiped with RPGs and various types of anti-tank missiles. Not to mention alot of damage Abrams due to mines and IEDS.
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 I would real like to know were you got your info because they have been put out of action by HMG rounds when hit in some areas. Secondly there engine's gave issues when sand got sucked into them. even if you look at states the Chally2 has a more advanced version of CHOBEM armer, and is faster off road, and yes i know the Abram's is faster on road.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@CountPushkin1 Friendly fires Abrams to Abrams occured during the 1st and 2nd Gulfwar. The Abrams also took severeal hits against Iraqi Insurgents with various RPGs and ATGMs. It was in Iraq longer than any coalition forces main battle tanks hence the amount of damage and destroyed Abrams. This is also including damage from mines and IEDs.
quickzilver333 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quickzilver333 Like I have Said before most modern tanks are to closely matched to call.
CountPushkin1 3 weeks ago
@quickzilver333 - I cant find such tank trials in Canada, can you give a URL to support your claims.
Also can you confirm that the Challenger 2 was tested and not the Challenger 2 E which is a stripped down export version of the tank. Also can you tell us what aspects of the tank were tested, bearing in mind that the Challenger 2 favours protection over other aspects as dictated by British tank doctrine.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill LOL! the competition wasn't even about how strong and how thick the Armor of such tanks...It's about how fast and how long were the able to acquire and destroy the target. Search in you tube they have it on video.
quickzilver333 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - Why cant you just give us the video link?
As for firepower fightability, we can compare some official statisitcs: The challenger 2 claims a ROF of 8 targets in 40 seconds - official BAE website. While the M1A2 claims a ROF of a maximum of 6 targets in 60 seconds - multiple sources including wiki.
Manoverability: The M1A2 is faster on roads yes, but it it just uses steel torson bar suspension as oposed to hydropneumatic which offers considerably better...
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill LOL! you seem to miss the point. The competition is about the tanks and it's "CREW". The US Abrams crew exceeded all task during the competition. They were the underdog against the Challenger II and Leo II but they prevailed just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Abrams and Challenger II has similar doctrines applied when building it's Armor. Why do you think the M1 A2 Abrams weighs 70tons? It's Amror is the main focus of the built just like the Challenger II.
quickzilver333 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - LOL! you still fail to provide a link or even a date of when this happened.
I don't think the armour is the main focus of the build, US doctrine treats mobility just as importantly as protection, where British doctrine favours protection over mobility. Anyway the Abrams is practically a German designed tank anyway.
Besides the Challenger2 is a better armoured tank anyway, so your point is irrelavent.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill Why do you think the M1 A2 Abrams weighs 70tons? It because the main objective of the design id protection. The Abrams has been in many battles compared to the ChallengerII...LOL! You mak it sound like a German design tanks is inferior. Where have you been in the past decades? The US military have been using german design weapons. The British Military are also using US and German made weapons. Your point is stupid...LOL!
quickzilver333 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - hmmm still no link i see.
Listen dude, you can probably find the official doctrine online, and I assure you it says fightability through protection, firepower and mobility, while British doctrine is firepower and protection first and foremost.
I never said German designs were bad! on the contrary, it is one of the reasons why the Abrams is such a good MBT.
Regardless, the CR2 still uses a better protection package.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill LOL! Your to busy making excuses instead of looking for it. They have the video on youtube. I will give you a hint:" Canadian Army Trophy AKA CAT Shoot".
There is another competition in Germany also were the Abrams and it's crew prevailed once again VS the Challenger II and Leo2. I will give you another hint:" Canadian Army Trohpy Shoot Grafenwohr Germany. Take your time and save your embarrasment to yourself...LOL!
quickzilver333 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - I'm not making excuses lol. I have search for it, but I didn't use the search terms you just provided. Besides being as you are the one who brought it up, the burden of proof is upon you, not me. I would actually be interested in seeing it, not do I deny it exists.
You know there have actually been a number of trials, but most use the Chally 2E or do not count protection as a variable, some were even biased and unfair, like the greek trials where the wrong...
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill ... ammo was used and the crew operating the tank were trained with different tanks.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - I just watched that video amd read up about CAT. The last CAT took place over 20 years ago, the Challenger 2 was NOT used for it, the Challenger 1 and M1 was used. If you would like to compare an M1 to a Challenger then you would have to be pretty silly in a realistic situation. The M1 uses just a 105 L44 gun I think, while the Chally1 used a 120mm L55, no comparison there. Also the chally1 scored most direct hits, but was let down by a slow fire control.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@TomHartill Thats not all there are other competitions. This time I will let you do all the research. Let me give you another hint: It was held in Germany not too long ago and the Abrams and it's crew came on top again......:) There is a video on youtube. What kind of excuses are you gonna make this time?.....LOL!
quickzilver333 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 - The burden of proof is still upon you. I am afraid I cannot find the vid you speak of...
these are the only vids I can find: watch?v=JYMlGlfXcSM
and: watch?v=EOukPCTQ9rs
And I dont understand why you are so reluctant to just give a link?
I am affraid that it appears the last CAT was in 1991, I think you just got mixed up between an M1 and M1A2 and also Chally1 and Chally2.
And even if you are correct, which your not, it still doesn't mean the M1A2 is king.
TomHartill 6 days ago
@TomHartill LOL! The burben of proof...LOL! You are commenting on YOUTUBE and the proof is in YOUTUBE. You are just making up excuses and I never said the M1A2 Abrams is the king. Look at my previous comments and show me when did I said it. The M1A1/A2Abrams has been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than any Nato tanks. It has been in battle longer than the Challenger II. The Abrams is present in Afghanistan. Where is your Challenger II?...Stop making excuses!...LOL!
quickzilver333 6 days ago
@quickzilver333 actually the British were "bombed up" on the 18th of march 2003, on D-Day (19th of march 2003) Both the US and British Forces started their offensive, the British forces assaulting Az Zubayr and Basrah where as the US took to the north, considering the US forces were much larger and could cover more ground, having well over 1,000 tanks in theatre. where as, the BriFs, assaulting 1/4 of the land sent in 120 Challenger 2s. the larger the force the bigger the target.
FletchRDG 5 days ago
@quickzilver333 - Well actually the Challenger 2 was in both Iraq and Afganistan, I'm not sure if they are still there now tho. But if your trying to stay the CR2 has not seen any combat then your wrong, in fact if you take into account just how overstretched the British army was in Afganistan then I would say that each Chally2 saw more combat than any single M1A2.
The proof is not on youtube, because ur talking out your ass, just admit you made a mistake dumbass.
TomHartill 5 days ago
@TomHartill You are a dumbass. The Abrams was in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than any Challenger II. The British armored Unit left earlier than the US amored Unit. The Abrams has more battle experience than any Challenger II.
I've already provided you the vidoe of the Cat shoot in Canada. Now look for the Cat Shoot competition in Germany. You are just yaping your mouth and not even doing any research. Stop making excuses. The Abrams won the competition against the Leo II and Chalenger II.
quickzilver333 4 days ago
@quickzilver333 - So what if the British chally's left earlier?
Why dont you stop blubbering on and just give a link you little bullshiter.
Ohh and I have done reasearch, thats how I know your talking out ur arse.
TBH i think your just a troll, if your next comment doesn't have the link to this imaginary video then I will know your just a troll lol.
TomHartill 3 days ago
@quickzilver333 ...cont... fightability when on the move and when traveling over rough terrain.
Also you do realise that the CR2 is built to a secific doctrine which favours protection over all other aspects? - to remove this aspect in a fair comparison is ridiculous.
TomHartill 1 week ago
@quickzilver333 wrong, the challenger 2 has never been in the CATs, the Challenger 1 has and was last place but oh look, what happend in the 1991 Gulf War. The longest ranged tank on tank kill.
FletchRDG 1 day ago
@FletchRDG LOL! How long was the Challenger II in combat during the 1st and 2nd Gulf war? Now compare that to the M1 Abrams combat record. Even the M1 Abrams with 105mm gun out performed and outshoot the German LEO II in the Germany Cat shoot competition. The Leo II is more advance than the Challeger II...LOL!
quickzilver333 1 day ago
@quickzilver333 well as a start the challenger 2 was never in the Gulf War. It was in the Iraq war. oh right if we're going down that route, compare the centurion, chieftain and the Challenger 1 to the M48, M60 and the entire M1 series. Hmmm where did the origins of that 105 come from, ill garantee you its based on the British Centurion. The Leo2 is an all-round tank with no combat experience. CATs are a test of the crews not the tanks.
FletchRDG 21 hours ago
@quickzilver333 and to answer your first question, Gulf War '91: British Army Declared "bombed up" or operational on the 18 of March, Coalition forces commenced offensive attacks on the 19th. Iraq War '03: Coalition forces led by US and UK forces commenced offensive operations on the 20th of March. UK forces withdrew on April 9th 2009, US forces handed over 38 bases to Iraqi forces at the end of June 2009. The last US Combat brigade left on August 19th 2010.
FletchRDG 13 hours ago
@quickzilver333 and the Last troops left on December 18th 2011, so what your stating is that the US stayed a year longer then the Brits, woop-de-doo US forces only stayed there to swop oil for weapons and military equipment i.e M1s and M1A1s and considering that The US Army is made-up of mostly M1A1s isnt a wise move. but yeh the Challenger 2 may not have been there past 2009 but we saw it through until stability was restored, The US stayed for resources and political gain.
FletchRDG 13 hours ago
@FletchRDG You are an idiot since when did with talk about US troops? We are talking about the lenght of Combat experience of the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. The US Military is upgrading all the M1s and M1A1s. The process of building the new M1A3Abrams is within 10yrs.
Like I said before even the M1 Abrams with it's crew out performed the German Leo2s. Which is far superior than the Challenger II...LOL!
quickzilver333 6 hours ago
Best Tank ever, hands down.
TuaRemenersis 1 month ago
Ridley Scott couldn't have produced a better film to promote British excellence in design, manufacturing and all out quality in a machine. I suspect an a American tank promotional film to be shown to the sounds of........ M-I-C...K-E-Y.......M-O-U-S-E, mickey mouse, mickey mouse, mickey mouse etc etc....
24765968 1 month ago
lovely -- Rifled gun for HESH, 2-part ammo instead of a giant metal cylinder round, best armor protection available! (a .50 cal. coax would be nice...)
noponat666 1 month ago
One shot to the side of the turret and it's fucked. Slant the sides, like Abrams, and this would be fucking unstoppable.
xblCaboose 1 month ago
@xblCaboose don't you think that would have been factored in by an experienced design team? this tank was built on from a long pedigree reaching back to the Centurion
SouthernElectrics 1 month ago
According to my WO2 mate whos is still serving in 1RTR? Dorchester Armour is a poor relation to Chobam or second gen Chobam? As asusual we ran out of money?. In Iraq M1A2 Abrams were killed by RPG? Challenger 2 Armour wasnt defeated by Multypel RPG strikes? Just the optics were smashed.
royaltiger704 1 month ago
i hate how americans are always considered selfish in every vid....like you ppl are taking the dumbass that post those comments to serously??
LigerZeroFtw 1 month ago
since the Challenger now is equipped with a German MTU engine (as in the Leo) & now has 1500 HP rather than 1200 (old perkins engine), & since the MTU engine ableit 300bhp more powerful is smaller, the Challenger now has space for larger fuel tanks. On top of that the old RO 120mm riffled gun has been replaced with a Rheinmetal 120mm smooth bore. We can't make cars, trains or anything. Best get out of the tank business too. We have made less than 400 Challengers with next to no exports at all.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Because They took away alot of the armies funds, + america is much bigger and only have 6k of there main battle tank, I don't see your point.
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames well my point is that we keep barking around how wonderful we are, and we're not. I'm happy to admit it. We are a nation that loves to kid itself. The funds card is always the excuse. We always have excuses but make wild claims. We say none of ours were lost in combat etc but with less than 400 in existence what does one expect? There are hardly any around to be hit. Should love to see what happens to a Challenger when hit by a KornetE. Same as any other tank. Horrific.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Yeah but you dno't know how strong 2nd gen choban is, noone does besides the actual people who make and test it, and cmon they're not about to go firing KornetEs at there own tanks to test it and again if they did it wouldn't go public,
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames no I don't, that's right. But look at the beating the Israelis took in the 2006 Hizballah conflict which is where the KornetE was deployed. Having said that I think most modern anti tank weapons will make mince meat of any tank. I can't say but would speculate that chobham won't deal with modern HESH anti tank missiles. Watch the Swedish Bill2 deal with an old centurion. Most tanks nowadays will not survive modern anti tank missiles: /watch?v=8ARjuTKdiIk
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b True but first they have to find the tank, watch?v=jkkWya-oun0
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames OK, I stand corrected. I had no idea that combat took place chiefly at night. :) Re your vid, if true, would it take long to establish alternative night recognition systems I wonder? It's all about having functional military stuff. Any idea how many times Challengers had perkins powerpacks replaced during the Iraq campaign, sand getting everywhere etc? It was a disaster. Ask any tank comander who was there. Like Landrovers all stuck in sand. Hummers forever pulling them out
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b It works on infared and night vision most modern anti tank missiles use some sort of electronic computer program, the man on the anti tank missile will most likely ignore it unless he like sblowing up cars.
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames as I say only at night perhaps. During the day he'll see a tank... or?
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Maybe with that vid you showed me, but that wouldn't penetrate a CHallanger2, all modern AntiTank are computer guided and with that BAE systems tank hiding pads he will see a car, obviously at close range the tank is fucked unless the guy is shot down first like within 600m.
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames well I want to avoid a back and forth of opinions as we sometimes see on yt threads. You say it (you mean the most modern anti tank missiles?) wouldn't penetrate a Chall'2? The thing is that we haven't seen any tests, we don't know. This is also part of my gripe, until it happens we don't know. Mind you, if what you say is right this would mean that the Ch2 armour would be many many times tougher than that of e.g the latest Merkava4, which KornetEs & Bill2s 100% destroy.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Noones tested the choban gen2 in public, it would be stupid to do so. SO let's leaven it at that, we don't know, we don't want a full scale war so we don't want to find out either.
skemjames 1 month ago
@trident3b And this may be educational to you, I learnt alot myself watch?v=4GG7iXZdYbg
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames you know the car thing is suspect really. 2 things: 1. the likelyhood of seeing a car in such terain is near to 99% unlikely (gets stuck in mud instantly & can't move) & ∴ ultra suspect, and 2. the car "image" appears to be static hence no simulated movement of car suspension & other characteristics. This is all made worse by the fact that one now knows that apparently BAE have something that apparently can do this, so one would now even, thx to that alone, look out for it.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b I doubt you would be thinking about bae systems when you're in a battle.
skemjames 1 month ago
@1.25 the german leo goes right under water 100%... can the Challenger?
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Does it matter? It's a tank not a submarine, youtube search challanger 2 udnerwater or something
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames it matters if they hit a pond thinking they can go through it, and they can't. Engine stops and crew drown.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b It's air tight besides on something on the turret iirc
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames is perhaps what is said, but you never ever see it submerged in action or in demos. Can you find me a vid on youtube perhaps that shows that? I bet you'll have a problem. Just another "claim" we love to make. I know I sound harsh but I live abroad & I tell you, we make berks of ourselves with wild claims hence my saying this sort of thing. The Germans leave us technologically totally standing. Look around you, decent car? BMW, Merc, Audi Porsche etc.Pleanty to be seen in UK
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Germans leave us behind, BAE systems invented something that disguises a tank as a car on infared.
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames not familiar with that but I know BAE alright. Let's just assume they have.. so we have invented something like, but it's the krauts who are exporting the Leo to places like Canada and exporting their subs all over the place. When did we last export a sub? When BAE gets an order, it's from our government only, same goes for the shipyards who will make our aircraft carriers. Like leyland cars, 90% sold in UK only. No one else wanted the crap. Forgive me but it's like that.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Are submarines are advanced technology so was the harrier at its time, it's stupid to sell our stuff.
skemjames 1 month ago
star wars voices :D funny
izmirliization 1 month ago
@LeviathanTank the f-35
AndyThaBoss92 1 month ago
the UK had the most lousy tanks during WW2 now they a tank almost as good as the German Leopard ... amazing
MrCapKorzeniowski 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski Challanger 2 and leopard are the ebst tanks in the world, we won't find out which is best because I doubt any future wars will be Germany vs Britain
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames
- hopefully we will never know which is the best
MrCapKorzeniowski 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski Germany and Britain are both in Europe, we should fighter together not against one another.
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames
In fact the Danish Leopard 2 tank platoon in Helmand has just come under British command - so now you have the change to fight with the leopard
MrCapKorzeniowski 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski Nice
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames we might since both countires export their respective tanks, although less than 400 Challengers have been built and hardly any exported whereas the Leo is exported all over the place.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b 410 challanger 2s are british 60 are OMAN we also have Challanger 1s I don't know if we use them but they have the same armour as Abrams
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames Yes, Oman was the only export I believe. Was it as many as 60? As for the armour I don't think that's right. Chobham Armour apparently is a Britsh product with the composition being "secret". Not sure the yanks would use the same.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Well we sold the yanks our harrier technology, you never know:/
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames yes I remember that. The AV8A and B... modified versions... but look what happend? It didn't take long and we have grounded ALL our Harriers and the US is replacing their lot with the F-35B. This is a pure VTOL and supersonic at 1.6+ MACH. The Harrier never managed much more than the cruising speed of regular airliners (approx 660mph). Britain intends to purchase the f-35 which also doesn't have a RR pegasus engine but one made by Pratt & Whittney.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b And now we plan to buy F-35s to put on our queen elizabeth classes? damn what is the governement doing:/
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames worse, I think the government is committed to buying 2 new aircraft carriers at enourmous cost. It is already a standard joke that we will have aircraft carriers with no aircraft for them since we won't even really be able to buy the F-35. There are even comedies about the issue already... although this is a joke, it is based on the fact that we have actually committed to these things which we can't really afford: /watch?v=i2jhQflPFnA
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b We can waste 50mill on colleges don't worry they have the money, but where?
skemjames 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski il think youll find the first ever tank was british
AndyThaBoss92 1 month ago
@AndyThaBoss92
That's true - and it was just as dangerous to its own crew as to the Germans and it was only employed with limited military significance.
MrCapKorzeniowski 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski The Challanger Mk IV was not lousy nor was the Churchill or the Black Prince(churchill).
skemjames 1 month ago
@skemjames "lousy" may be too strong a word ;) - I've never heard of the Challanger Mk IV - is it a WW2 tank? The Churchill was well armored, but very slow and according to what I've read not very successful against other tanks, but with a flame thrower towing a tank with extra fuel - it was very successful against German positions
MrCapKorzeniowski 1 month ago
@MrCapKorzeniowski Well the Challanger MK IV could take on a Tiger head on, the British/American firefly was based on the Challanger MK IV
skemjames 1 month ago
240p we meet again.
jackbuller1996 1 month ago
@LeviathanTank Is that all you got? Really? Keep up the anti-American bashing and stereotyping "mate". You've got no other leg to stand on.
navyrayne 1 month ago
@LeviathanTank Most US military equipment has always been American. And half of the RAF uses American aircraft so pipe down before you embarrass yourself.
njdevil281 1 month ago
Comment removed
hattonhaha 1 month ago
@njdevil281 yeah, i wouldnt say half.
AsILayDyingBFMV 1 month ago
@LeviathanTank Tanks are protected by infantry you dipshit, and I would love to see you run up to a tank and try that. Second you fit the profile of a whiny Euro bitch. First you complain about how arrogant Americans are. Then you go and say how bad America sucks followed by the claims of European superiority...fuck off hypocrite. Europeans are the most arrogant people on earth. Which is why you fucks have invaded each other so many times.
njdevil281 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gladify, I'm a proud Scot, and I love tanks, but my memory is that the Chobham armour project was joint work between the British and US militaries. We came up with the ideas, worked with them to build it, and then let them stick it on the Abrams to see if it worked.
When it did we armoured up the Challenger I, and then improved it to the Dorchester armour we use now on the Challenger II.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a couple months since I looked it up
RogueSpearofTRA 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gladifly I'm a proud Scot, and I love tanks, but my memory is that the Chobham armour project was joint work between the British and US militaries. We came up with the ideas, worked with them to build it, and then let them stick it on the Abrams to see if it worked.
When it did we armoured up the Challenger I, and then improved it to the Dorchester armour we use now on the Challenger II.
Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a couple months since I looked it up
RogueSpearofTRA 1 month ago
Doris dear pass me the cheque book I believe I'll replace the micra. I wonder if they do part exchange?
Calzags 2 months ago
Gotta love that big turret. :)
Eriance 2 months ago
Leo 2 , M1A2 Abrams and Challenger 2 are all equals working for the same team.
bengtsson45 2 months ago
Show me a better tank and i'll show you a liar.
2349DF 2 months ago
France was always a coward nation in WW2 it was captured by germany in just 2 weeks and waited for GB to come and help him and always when its about war it always allies with GB so it wants protection but when its not war french ppl hate so much british ppl that they doesnt even not want to see them! GB didnt got captured since 1066 didnt got defeated by germany in WW2 and it will never be captured!
xeoan35 2 months ago
@xeoan35 GB may fall one day, all states fall eventually and new ones take there place
MrJoviun 2 months ago
@MrJoviun yeah, but in the mean time, RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULE THE WAVES!
BLADEMANDAD 2 months ago
@BLADEMANDAD no bother lad no bother at all
MrJoviun 2 months ago
Very nice finish and handling. I'm American and I always thought the Challenger 2, next to our Abrams, as well as Germany's Leopard 2, looked rather sexy (yes, I called tanks sexy). Now for the important question. Are there cup holders? In any case, I'm glad you guys are our allies. Respect.
RevanRA 2 months ago
Nice Tank,Better than American Abrams Tank.
Mohitsidhpura 2 months ago
Nice to see the British being smug again. Good thing we're both allies, and good thing you don't have to worry about our A-10's ;)
rex3453 2 months ago
@rex3453 you do realise that all the A-10s are being phased out by 2015, good thing you dont need to worry about the british nuclear fleet, which even that americans have admitted is the most powerful weapon in the world at the momment.
KiwiTomCrawford 2 months ago
@KiwiTomCrawford Military leaders are going to extend the A-10 up to 2023 IIRC.
rex3453 2 months ago
@UthurPendragon yeah i know mate im just angry at that guy who thinks his source is 100% accurate. and is making up false facts.
gladifly 2 months ago
Awesome tank!
RiccardoTheBeAst 3 months ago
i bet an abrams cannot survive 14 rpg hits and 1 milian hit lol it couldn't even survive 1 rpg hit.
gladifly 3 months ago
@gladifly uh, Abrams tanks have, in some cases, taken over 70 hits and driven off the field of battle. You forget that the technology in the Challenger 2 is in the Abrams, and vice versa. There's a pact stating that technology is to be shared 100% freely between the two countries.
redreaper2020 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@redreaper2020 no tank can survive 70 hits not even a challenger 2 and your forgetting that the abrams uses british armour.
gladifly 3 months ago
@gladifly a tank can, yes. And actually, the armor is developed jointly.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 chobham armour was made in britian not america.
gladifly 3 months ago
@gladifly It was co-designed and is still manufactured at Lima. I've physically toured the plant--my dad worked there as a programmer.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 it was developed at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey, hence the reason they call it chobham armour.
gladifly 3 months ago
@gladifly yes, and guess who helped with the engineering? Not to mention that, in case you forgot, modern chobham is 5x more effective and made of completely different materials than the original.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 why you americans so bothered about taking anyways its ok to not be the best at somethings you know.
gladifly 3 months ago
@gladifly what? Yeah, nice try. You sound more like a troll now than before...
A joint project is a joint project. Don't you remember kindergarden? "Sharing is caring"
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 how can you say im trolling when your making up fales facts about chobham armour being a joint project. why can't you let others take the credit for things instead of being greedy and saying "oh we invented this and that" and no i never went to kindergarden. im not an american.
gladifly