Comments by "1IbramGaunt" (@1IbramGaunt) on "Challenger 2: The UK tank that's never been destroyed by the enemy" video.

  1. Iraq? 2002/2003
    30
  2.  @sinoichi  not only is the ammo multi-part ammo but the explosive bits are kept in special armoured cases with water surrounding them, so no, not happening
    17
  3.  @GaryFÓBrien  more of a Yorkshire Tea bloke myself haha
    13
  4. ​ @johndododoe1411  I'm no expert but I very much doubt it'd be simple or cheap or quick to make a rifled NATO gun of a smaller calibre fire smoothbore Soviet shells of a larger calibre just by reboring lol, if that WAS remotely easy to achieve I imagine we'd have already done it ourselves so our existing Challenger 2's could fire the same latest-model shells as the Abrams or Leopard 2 instead of fitting whole brand-new guns into brand-new turrets to do it, effectively making a whole new tank, the Challenger 3. If you DO know of a remotely easy or cheap way to do that, without making the tank more dangerous to it's own crew than to the enemy that is lol, I'm sure our Ministry Of Defence would like a word with you
    9
  5. The weight becomes even more of a problem than it already is then though doesn't it, but yeah you're not wrong. If we do send some to Ukraine I hope they'll be ones in good condition with the latest upgrades, in particular the Theatre Entry Standard or "Megatron" extra armour packs for the lower-front and sides, and have a plentiful supply of spare parts and ammo being sent along too, as it won't be compatible with anything else the Ukrainians have. That said they've already proven themselves very quick learners, so training them to operate & maintain one of these won't be so big an issue as some are saying I don't think, and they've also proven to be geniuses at field-modifications (wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to bodge Russian 125mm guns onto these once the uk-supplied ammo runs out, that'd be a sight to see wouldn't it)
    7
  6.  @topkek8671  hopefully that's changing with the Challenger 3 upgrade, and even in the meantime? with that autoloader carousel thing (and loose extra ammo too) running right around the inside of the tank a T-72 is far more vulnerable in every way than any Challenger, and that's without even considering the difference in armour protection
    6
  7.  @Fmfk23  can is not the same as will
    5
  8. Hardly "very quickly", they still have the rifled gun now, aside from one working CR3 prototype with a smoothbore everything else is still CR2's with rifled guns; we have started work on the upgrade but the first production CR3's won't be available for years yet
    4
  9.  @BS-vm5bt  if things go well it'll be the much lighter Leopard 2 that'll actually be doing the lion's share of the work, a big part of the idea of sending these at all is to convince other NATO countries to start sending their OWN tanks too. As things are, don't cross bridges that can't take the weight then and watch out for mud, there's dry bits and stronger bridges there too
    4
  10. @questionthenarrative4969  nobody's denying that but the Ukrainians need heavy armour and they know all about the weight problem, they'll simply find ways to work around it
    3
  11.  @lubumbashi6666  they'll hopefully be GETTING sufficiently potent tank recovery vehicles, and as for things like bridging vehicles or, indeed crossing existing bridges or the tank sinking in mud, the Ukrainians know their own land, they are definitely not stupid (wouldn't have lasted long in this war if they were) and they KNOW how comparitively big, slow and heavy these tanks are gonna be yet are practically begging for them anyway, they won't be using these tanks anywhere that isn't dry and won't be crossing any bridges that can't handle the weight
    3
  12. Ooooh it already has lol, tons of Russian bots too, you've your work cut out for you this time mate
    3
  13.  @MichaelPetek  70
    3
  14.  @topkek8671  yeah artillery and advanced modern ATGM's can take one out but find me a tank that's not true of, and with the ATGM the enemy has to get close enough, not easy if these are being properly supported by infantry and used correctly (i.e. not in tight city streets), and with the artillery that's where air-power and the Ukrainian's OWN artillery like the dreaded HIMARS comes in
    3
  15. @errornamenotfound2513  no, the ammunition is multi-part ammunition with the explosive charge part kept in a special armoured case with individual chambers inside THAT surrounded by water, the only way for an enemy hit to set off a Challenger's ammo is not only to penetrate the outer Dorchester 2 armour but also get right to the centre of the tank, with sufficient force still in your shell at that point to ALSO penetrate not one but three seperate layers of additional protection (and yes I know Challenger tanks have still been known to brew up but those were a friendly-fire incident and a training accident, both involving hatches that wouldn't be open in battle)
    3
  16. @Stockfish1511  got any actual proof for that "oneshoot" statement? Any whatsoever? No, I know you don't because the Challenger 2's latest Dorchester 2 armour is CLASSIFIED, and the tank has never encountered a modern Russian tank before nor them it, so NOBODY knows for sure how it's gonna perform. It was designed & built in the early 90's to match or beat all forms of Soviet Cold War armour of the time though, and that's the era most of what Russia is still using comes from
    3
  17.  @rytiskurcinskas7179  and how exactly are they going to actually GET close enough to do so if this tank is being properly supported by Ukrainian infantry, artillery and anti-air? hmm?
    2
  18. @jambarreturns9060  you have great taste! Do you get it imported then or is it something they actually get in the shops normally there?
    2
  19. Iraq ring a bell?
    2
  20. @johnlenin830  and the drones will provide excellent target practice for the Ukrainian infantry with machine-guns and Stingers following these tanks around, who will be expecting exactly that
    2
  21.  @gusgone4527  Having said all that, 148 tanks (or 227 for that matter), however good those tanks may be, is certainly still not enough even for a largely second-rate military power, so one way it seems we could actually get a sensible number of tanks again at some point in the near future, AND the capacity to make more, is to follow the example of Poland of all people, and buy not the Leopard 2 or Abrams, or even upgrade more old Challengers, but instead turn to the South Korean K2 Black Panther. It's a first-rate modern MBT on the cheap, that we could even acquire the rights and plans and tooling to make more of ourselves like the Poles are planning to, perhaps helping with jobs and the economy in the process; could even alter the design a bit and put our own spin on it with our own Chobham/Dorchester armour
    2
  22. disabled not destroyed, was back in action soon after and everyone inside survived
    2
  23. @utkanutku12  we'll see won't we, there's just recently been a new longer-dart APFSDS round developed for it which I'm sure will be sent along with the tanks
    2
  24.  @obamium8150  we'll probably see the truth soon enough won't we, so let's wait and find out before passing final judgement huh (which fortunately is not up to you or me to decide on anyway at the end of the day). If these tanks were truly so inferior though, if all the haters in this comments section are 100% right and have been all along, why would the Ukrainians want these tanks in the first place? they've been asking us for them practically from the start, and they knew and still do know everything you and I do (which isn't much mind, because just like with the F35 controversy a lot of the real hard data on this tank is in fact still very much CLASSIFIED to civilian keyboard warriors like us, but that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone making grand sweeping statements about it despite not having all the facts) but Ukraine kept asking anyway, and their patience and persistence seems to finally be paying off, for good or ill we shall see
    2
  25.  @fizzgigmalmy2567  not up to me is it, if it was they'd ALREADY be there and a lot more than ten of them
    2
  26.  @andrewhayes7055  it'd probably stand a better chance than most, the latest ones do have laser warning receivers and jamming devices, it's Dorchester 2 armour is still among the best in the world if not THE best and the new Challenger 3 will have an Active Protection System fitted too, probably Trophy; but it would probably still get knocked out all the same by a square enough hit by a sufficiently advanced and powerful missile sad to say, no-one said the Challenger was invincible, no tank is. That's where the supporting friendly infantry is supposed to come in though, stopping the enemy getting close enough in the first place for that
    2
  27. Iraq ring a bell?
    2
  28.  @gusgone4527  Whatever we need tanks for in the future it won't be a fight we're in by ourselves, and that's my biggest point that you seem to be missing. I would LOVE for us to still have a military like we had 50 years ago that could fight and win a large-scale conventional war against another great power single-handed, I'd LOVE to see us have tanks in the THOUSANDS again not the hundreds, just as much as you would, but we don't have the money or industrial capacity for that anymore and sadly we're not going to anytime soon, and that's simply the harsh reality of the situation; it doesn't mean Britain can't fight and win wars by ourselves altogether mind, I'm actually completely confident that we could win a second Falklands War as I mentioned above even if this time they had Chinese help; but that would still be a relatively small-scale proxy-conflict at the end of the day. The big stuff? Leave that to the Americans (and if they can't help I guess whoever it is will have to fend for themselves), with us just helping on the sidelines where and when we can, and THAT's where our small army comes in- an expeditionary force, much like we had for a large part of our history as a matter of fact, small and lean but professional and well-trained & equipped, with the Royal Navy constituting most of our true offensive fighting-power for the majority of the time, something that IS I'm happy to say getting at least some real money, time and energy put into it again at least after decades of neglect
    2
  29. Or you will be shown just how much more punishment this tank can take than any Soviet sh*tbox
    2
  30. As for the Middle East or China that's up to America, we'd just be there in a supporting role if we were at all
    2
  31. if that's all true and all that matters where are the Russian air-force and artillery for them right now, to take out the tanks Ukraine ALREADY has? hmm?
    2
  32. Challenger Main Battle Tanks would be completely useless in the Falklands due to the terrain, it's all either steep rocky mountains or muddy peaty bogs and marshes, there's a reason all we brought in 1982 was much smaller lighter vehicles like the Scorpion and Scimitar, not our then-MBT the Chieftain; if the Argentines tried again what we'd need most would be air and naval superiority not heavy armour, which is where our new Queen Elizabeth class carriers with their F35's and escorting strike-groups come in
    2
  33.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  find me a modern Western/NATO tank that has a BETTER combat record, all the fighting ANY have seen is against old Soviet export armour
    2
  34.  @aurathedraak7909  actually I do, I just wasn't aware you were being sarcastic, sorry
    2
  35. @ratking3770  a "mobility kill" by a 30mm Raden on a Warrior AFV apparently, first I've heard of it but I'm assuming it hit either the engine, radiator or one of the tracks; in other words what I'd consider disabled through friendly fire rather than destroyed/knocked out per-se, but it does take the tank out of the fight regardless so fair enough
    2
  36.  @obamium8150  you'll notice I called myself one too? it's no invalid assumption, neither of us can convincingly prove to the other we're anything more than that on here even if we are
    2
  37. We'll see won't we
    2
  38.  @rosskidd7243  it's a 30 year old design, there's not a lot new they could learn that they wouldn't already know
    2
  39. both versions of it in the respective Gulf Wars yes, including against T-72's
    2
  40. 70 not 80
    2
  41.  @fizzgigmalmy2567  don't cross weak bridges or soft terrain then, work and plan around it
    2
  42.  @DarkShroom  only if they can capture one intact, so far they haven't succeeded in getting hold of a HIMARS have they and you KNOW they want one of those a heck of a lot more
    1
  43. @catalinxnecula  we'll see won't we
    1
  44. @b1battledroid396  oooh absolutely, with two sugars and just a dash of milk, strong too, you wanna "see that spoon stand up" haha, let it stew for a good two or three minutes at least
    1
  45.  @manishdyall4779  "several times the size of the entire British tank fleet" is not really saying much these days is it haha, and as for what the Russians have we'll see, a lot of it's detractors are banging on about how the Challenger 2 has never seen combat against a modern adversary, but neither has any RUSSIAN tank, and they sure as hell haven't come up against Dorchester armour
    1
  46. The T72's and T90's didn't have Chobham/Dorchester armour
    1
  47. we'll see soon enough won't we, could be this tank will surprise you
    1
  48.  @Chinunit22  we'll see won't we
    1
  49.  @jurgenmuller143  which both have factories here in Britain too and who have a merger with our own BAE Systems don't they
    1
  50. ​ @danieljames2015  hey you're preaching to the choir here, I was just trying to explain the lack of new tanks and why so many were sold off over the years, peacetime cutbacks combined with their being considered (incorrectly) obsolete and not worth the upkeep
    1
  51. Outside of ancient stuff in museums, or stuff that should BE in museums like the Soviet relics currently duking it out in Ukraine, what tank HAS been in serious battle
    1
  52. If they're quote "drone-fodder" how much WOULD be enough
    1
  53. Up until last year there hadn't been a conventional full-scale ground-war involving British forces and necessitating the use of Main Battle Tanks since Iraq in 2003-2009, and before that there hadn't been other than the PREVIOUS Gulf War for decades either, and there hadn't been one worth mentioning in Europe itself since WW2. Both models of Challenger saw action maybe three times in 40 years. Tanks were and often still are considered old hat anyway in a world of drones and ATGM's, and are notoriously difficult and expensive to operate and maintain in large numbers. Most of what money there was for defence-spending went to the navy and air-force
    1
  54. Haha well remembered. "one Clarkson, target destroyed"
    1
  55. part of one leg and that's all that WAS lost, everyone inside survived and the tank was still fully functional; plus we later addressed the weakness that incident showed by simply adding extra armour to the part of the tank penetrated then, feel free to try firing RPG's at it again now and see what happens
    1
  56. Actually they didn't :) the B.V. or Boiling Vessel, most important component on the whole vehicle
    1
  57.  @limedickandrew6016  Unless you have conclusive proof on this stuff maybe stop assuming so much? the Ukrainians seem to be doing pretty damn well to me for an army of teenagers with no ammo, and when it comes to accurate well-researched journalism The Sun puts Russian propaganda to shame lol, and that's a BRIT saying that haha, so I wouldn't assume too much based on anything they say or show either
    1
  58.  @limedickandrew6016  it has SOME air-power, mostly old Mig 29's, SU-27's, SU-24's and assorted Hind & Mil helicopters along with lots of drones of various kinds, not much granted but you don't need much when your enemy can't properly use it's own far greater air-power for fear of your SAM defences. As for those tank formations well they know how to use theirs already and they're not going to be getting any Challengers until they know how to use those too, we already have thousands of Ukrainian troops here in the UK undergoing training, including armoured warfare training; and as for ammo they've captured whole stockpiles of abandoned Russian ammo and are getting more sent all the time, they're burning through it at a rate of knots granted but that's the way a real full-scale war like this is gonna be, and they're more than holding their own
    1
  59. @limedickandrew6016  the Challengers wouldn't be operating alone though would they, they'd form a squadron that'd form a heavy armour spearhead supported by Ukraine's OWN much larger numbers of T-72's, T-64's and T-80's, all covering each other's backs and flanks, along with their infantry and artillery and air-power of course, and will hopefully have plentiful fuel and ammo supplies. The German Tiger Tanks were doled out piecemeal, were poorly supplied and supported and were picked off one by one; if these Challengers are used correctly (by well-trained, well-led, well-coordinated troops) that won't happen in Ukraine
    1
  60.  @limedickandrew6016  Seem to be doing little more than that right now against the tanks Ukraine has already, and don't you mean the "mighty" Russian army HAD all those things, past-tense, had them this time last year in fact, I'm sure nooothing could've happened to them in the intervening time lol...
    1
  61.  @limedickandrew6016  tell that to the T-72's and T-62's it'll be up against lol
    1
  62. why do people keep thinking it hasn't, has everyone somehow forgotten the Iraq War at this point?
    1
  63.  @kolinmartz  not in what I've seen but if you say so, either way see above for my thoughts on the weight thing
    1
  64. @BlutoandCo  yeah well whatever German said that is talking out of his arse then as the Leopard 2 is at least 5-10 tons lighter in everything I've read, and thanks to it's smoothbore gun has access to superior modern shells that the Challenger's 30-year-old rifled gun can't fire, the "Chally" CAN indeed take out a T-90 I'd say but it has to hit it in the right place from the right angle, whereas a Leopard 2, Abrams or Black Panther can blow one apart with ANY square-on hit with the best APFSDS shells THEY have access to; why do you think the new Challenger 3 upgrade is seeing it finally transitioning to a similar gun as them and why that's such a big deal
    1
  65.  @DarkShroom  hardly "porkies", regardless of the truth of that particular incident the Challenger 2 is definitely clearly as tough & battle-proven a tank as any out there today, and that RPG penetration is not something that should be repeated now, as the Theatre Entry Standard extra armour negates that old weakness in the lower front glacis plate
    1
  66. @lynby6231  that's part of the reasons but hardly the only one. In order to stay competitive on the modern battlefield this tank needs to be able to fire the latest most powerful shells that can be gotten for it, and it's already gone beyond the best that can be developed for a rifled 120mm with multi-part ammo; in order to be able to fire something with a sufficiently long Depleted Uranium penetrator-dart to, say penetrate the front armour on a Chinese Type 99 or Russian T-14, it needs single-piece ammo that can fit that dart, and those darts can't grip the sides of the barrel once fired so need a smoothbore gun. Arguably what we should've done if we REALLY want the Challenger 3 to stay competitive is skip ahead straight to using the 130mm, probably the standard calibre of the future, but you take what you're given, and the latest Rheinmettal L55 out of the Leopard 2A7 will certainly do for going on with
    1
  67.  @JammyDodger45  well thanks for your service then. I think there's got to be a lot of conflicting information about that event online then as needless to say that's not what I heard; people are probably getting it mixed up with that other similar incident, or possibly TWO other similar ones, as there was one Challenger (allegedly) hit by 70 RPG's that just shrugged it all off and another where it was 14 RPG's and a MILAN ATGM; one or the other was supposedly also the one with the lower glacis plate penned by an RPG-39 but that could've been yet a third completely different tank in a different incident, I dunno, I wasn't there and there's conflicting accounts from those that were as I say
    1
  68. ​ @JammyDodger45  part of his foot more like and he still drove the tank out of there so it can't have been all that bad
    1
  69. No but nor is anything Russia has, and the simple fact is it has Chobham/Dorchester armour and their tanks don't
    1
  70. We'll see won't we, but even if they DO get stuck that's where the mighty Ukrainian farmers on tractors come in- they've had a lot of practice towing out tanks recently 😁😁😁😉
    1
  71.  @jjsmallpiece9234  well the books and officers in question are talking out of their arses then, it had a similar overall set-up sure but was still a completely new hull & turret
    1
  72.  @Wannes_  sad but true; the title should've been that it had specifically never been destroyed by ENEMY fire
    1
  73. ​ @jjsmallpiece9234  The Chieftain is a completely different much older tank?! the only thing it and either of the Challengers have in common is the main gun
    1
  74. Actually among those of us who are in the know, nobody is saying that about the Challenger 2, some WILL be lost in open battle against Russian armour, along with artillery, drones, helicopters, ATGM's, planes and so forth, it's all occupational hazards on the modern battlefield against a near-peer opponent. Nobody SMART is claiming or has ever claimed that this tank is invincible, NO tank is; for every one we do lose though? they should expect to lose at least 5 of their own tanks trying
    1
  75. Well does the Iraq War count?
    1
  76. were you? I don't think so either
    1
  77.  @utkanutku12  fair enough
    1
  78. @adelphodiego337  well they're probably going to soon, a tank that's actually pretty evenly matched with the Challenger 2 specs-wise so should be interesting to see which comes out on top
    1
  79. Or maybe YOU'LL be the one doing the "seeing"
    1
  80. Well maybe if Ireland would deign to actually fight in wars AT ALL a little more often that wouldn't be the case haha, no offense. You've already proved you can be excellent UN Peacekeepers after all so maybe if there's a ceasefire it'll need someone neutral to enforce it
    1
  81. @@alexeismirnoff8371 and in Kosovo before that too. And it's older brother the Challenger 1 was in Desert Storm
    1
  82. all the beer lol, all of it
    1
  83.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  We'll see won't we, the modern T-72 variants have never met a modern Western tank anymore than a Chally has met them so there's no prior evidence to go off there; What we do know just from everything we've seen in Ukraine recently is that the old Soviet turret-launching party-trick is still in full effect, and that their ERA is often actually swapped out for rubber or cardboard lol, so if I had to choose I know which tank I'd rather be inside
    1
  84.  @genericscout5408  and the Russians DO have working planes? dunno if you've been watching the news much lately but the performance of the Russian air-force hasn't exactly been spectacular
    1
  85.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  yeah well unlike the Russians we can actually learn the lessons from that sort of thing
    1
  86.  @zhufortheimpaler4041  how's that prove anything about the M1 being superior? as you say the British tanks were only there in relatively small numbers compared to the American ones so it's not really a fair comparison is it, the Abrams has similar firepower and armour protection and was up against the same enemies in the same circumstances, but was just used more over a wider area in greater numbers, so naturally it's gonna have a higher kill count
    1
  87.  @prezodent2371  doesn't mean what he's saying's wrong or a lie does it. Look up the Challenger 2 "Megatron"
    1
  88. Why does half this comment-section seem to think that?! Iraq War, 2003, kinda a big deal, Google it
    1
  89.  @johndododoe1411  best way to get these tanks firing Russian or Ukrainian ammo would be just to take out the existing gun and swap it for one out of a captured Russian tank; cutting torch, welding gear, some scrap-steel for filling in gaps and a big crane for lifting & moving such heavy stuff around. Wouldn't be pretty that's for sure lol, and you'd have to redo stuff like the optics and stabilisation gear too (if you had time to bother with those at all), and you'd need to re-work the whole set-up inside to allow ammo storage for single-piece shells, but it could be done
    1
  90.  @BroadHobbyProjects  true
    1
  91.  @manishdyall4779  plus if the Ukrainians have lost that many tanks imagine what the Russians have lost
    1