Comments by "Dave Devon Lad" (@davedevonlad7402) on "Defense News" channel.

Is it a waste, the UK has the best fire control system and the best armour of virtually any tank going and has for many years, giving our technology to countries that could be overrun by enemy nations or a change in government who is against NATO is a very bad idea.
11
@cathulhu-q7y it's not exactly the same, it's an upgraded version of the L/55 that is on the challenger 3 and has new ammunition that is compatible with the older guns.
10
@jimbosun2 Now that is a very good question in today's modern battlefield.
4
 @ianjardine7324 This is a very good answer, many people don't realise how much British and other countries technology is spread around the world in various military equipmen.
4
@politenessman3901 personally I think you are right,the UK will not be standing still with anti-drone systems that will probably encompass a very large area of the battlefield, Now we have a better understanding of how they work it will be easier to come up with a practical solution.
3
 @tommygun5038 Abrams cheeper??? You can pick up the tab for the fuel then 😂
3
@ianjardine7324 well said 👍
2
 @cathulhu-q7y It could also fire "hesh rounds" where a smoothbore can't.
2
@phil3114 ah ok, it's the upgraded and latest 2A7+ Not the 2A7 as you said. I understand the L55 was in the A6 and A7 but the upgraded targeting systems on the A7+ and challenger 3 is superior to what has come before. So putting the upgraded gun and new systems together will make a very potent system and commonality of the ammunition. I have just been reading up on it and thank you for putting me in the right direction.
2
@cathulhu-q7y So how come B.A.E was awarded a contract earlier this year to supply them.
2
@berndbrakemeier1418 ok, whatever but I don't have an issue with it, just get the correct facts, I agree that the "type" of gun has been fitted to various leopard tanks but the very latest upgraded one with the latest fire control systems on the challenger 3 is exactly the "same gun" with many upgrades but is not the same fire control systems. It takes the "marriage of both of these to make a big difference including training, And British army tank training is very highly regarded for its accuracy over a distance. The latest tests for the challenge 3 shows this as no leopard tank with that gun has ever hit a target at over 5000 meters before, if the leopard could it would have done so by now and it hasn't, So "come on" and get your information correct before telling me to "calm down" I think you should rain it in yourself and not presume to tell people what to do. Tut tut tut...
2
@tommygun5038 80% US ha, haha, hahaha hahahaha. You are talking out of your behind. Now I know you don't know what you are on about.
2
@tommygun5038 What a load of codswallop 🙄 You obviously don't know anything about British military production and innovation.
2
@Slavicplayer251 I think you should look up the stories on challengers armour in the gulf wars compared to Abrams and the modern version of the armour of the British main battle tanks. Don't get me wrong Abrams is good but the records speak for themselves.
2
What exactly are you expecting a country that is tiny to actually do ? We have always been a defensive force in the modern era, we are not the world's police.
2
@tommygun5038 That's ridiculous, the Abrams is well known to be one of the most expensive tanks to run. We also would not benefit from no investment in UK technology and development of our own tanks, instead all the economic benefits go to the USA, it's a really bad idea. Also the Abrams is designed for wide open areas of fire and has a compromised engine compartment compared to the better designed and armoured challenge that was designed for European urban combat. Also the USA would never let us do any upgrades on the Abrams without massive concessions. There were major problems with the Americans when we upgraded the Apache helicopters in British service, they wanted us to spend huge amounts of future contracts and future deals including the purchase of the F-35 If you think the USA won't become our puppet masters then you really need to check why the British are always a bit reserved when dealing with them.
2
@apistodiscus Yes technology has moved on but physics haven't. At that range it's more to do with physics. But technology does play a huge part in the calculation of the earth and weather.
1
@cathulhu-q7y the new L55 gun has been tested with modern ammunition to hit a target regularly at 5,000 meters, that range is the longest any modern tank has hit anything in history. It is only testing but in reality the tankers can usually do better.
1
@apistodiscus You might want to look at the test results.
1
@apistodiscus look them up , you not stupid are you ?
1
@cathulhu-q7y I never said they didn't want to, I just pointed out the old rifled gun could fire hesh and the new one can't.
1
@iainansell5930 I assume that's why the British army is changing from hesh to the new dedicated AP rounds but I bet something is in the works to replace the hesh. if engaging a truck an AP round will go straight in and straight out without much damage so something is needed.
1
@apistodiscus You made the first comment with no data to prove your "facts" it's not up to me if you can't back up your claims. And attacking me by saying "antivax"oh grow up 🙄 This shows you lash out when someone questions you, people only do that when threatened because they know they are wrong. So what does your behaviour say about you. And remember you are doing this on a platform open to millions of people, I would seriously think about what you say because you are not painting a very good image of yourself.
1
@cathulhu-q7y oh I have looked it up and you are correct, Those rounds are a perfect replacement for the hesh rounds, a huge improvement in my opinion.
1
@williamzk9083 Yeah thought as much, it's really interesting technology.
1
@cathulhu-q7y B.A.E Glascoed in Wales makes tank rounds and various other ammunition to this day. There is also another base in the north east making 155 mm artillery rounds.
1
@philcanny6356 I agree, Drone combat has changed the battlefield in ways that the designers of military Technology will need to take a serious look at.
1
@philcanny6356 When is any option the best in wartime, it's constantly developing and as soon as something rolls out it's old technology and something will be developed to counter it. The challenger 3 will have situations where its advantages will be used but then again the leopard and other equipment will be better in other situations. I have nothing against other tanks and personally I think the British and Germans have developed fantastic tanks, but a good old two man team with AT missiles can absolutely pound an armoured column to scrap metal, our tanks are currently in a phase of "oh crap, what do we do about drones" and personally to upgrade now is a better option than building a brand new tank without figuring out how to stop the drone and GPS artillery threat. A new "tank" will come but what it will be like is something none of us expect I guess.
1
@tommygun5038 brimstone, martlet, starstreak, typhoon, multiple armoured vehicles, two classes of new Submarines, two new types of warships and new state of the art radar systems ,wildcat and merlin helicopters with British made systems and top end submarine hunting equipment, One of the best torpedoes ever made in the modern era, And countless other things. British engineering and innovation in technology and equipment is some of the best in the world. So little old great Britain is doing perfectly ok. And if you think we need as much equipment like the cold war then you are massively mistaken, great Britain in the modern era is a defensive force and limited offence. So for what limited money and resources the military have because of successive governments sucking them dry we are not doing too badly. Remember we are members of NATO and that is not something to be sniffed at if all countries develop their own technology so the whole of NATO could not be compromised all at once, Just look at how technology was used in Israel recently, would it be really beneficial if say all the tanks in Europe could potentially be shut down because of a computer virus. It's not out of the realm of reality as any technology can be hacked or disrupted. To be independently protected is safer than a massive integration.
1
@tommygun5038 Clueless am I, You really need to be quiet now. How about I tell you a story of when a russian submarine was approaching the USA during the cold war and the TWO American subs could not find it after being told by the British it was coming after we tracked it across the Atlantic. The Americans asked the Royal navy diesel electric submarine to find it again and keep track of it, eventually the British submarine had to intervene and scare it off because the American subs had no idea where it was. I know this because my father in-law was the chief stoker of that British submarine. Do not tell me how much the USA "holds our hand" when I have multiple stories of the British Navy coming to the rescue of the Americans on multiple occasions. The biggest difference is nobody hears about the UK's involvement because we don't need to keep polishing our ego's unlike our American cousins.
1
@stephenporter5886 you also forgot to mention the USA buying up excocet missiles from the french. You learning something now ? I can keep going and going. Oh just remembered in the first gulf war the British Tornado's took on the job of attacking Iraq's runway's as we had the only weapon and aircraft capable of doing the job at low level, funny how the superior American military could not do a simple little job like that. The poor old Iraqi air defense were too much for the F-111 or the F-16s But hey this little country and its pilots will go on the most dangerous mission in aviation history "attack an airfield" while flying straight and level. Even General Schwarzkopf was stunned by the bravery and guts our lads showed,they did their duty in a war that we were asked by the USA to join in with.
1
@tommygun5038 hahaha oh my, I just can't respond to the utter garbage I am hearing. I just can't respond if you get basic facts incorrect, You also forgot to mention the USA buying up the Exocet missiles from the french so the Argentine air force could not get hold of them. Come on if you are going to quote history get it right.
1
@tommygun5038 "you clowns" So your anger is directed at the British people now is it, OK! I am getting the signs that you just don't like the British so anything I say won't matter. I really hope you go learn history in depth a bit more and research the facts as It might just soothe your ego a little bit. The USA is not the holy grail of everything, many countries have saved the USA much embarrassment over the years. If you want I can tell you the story of my father in-laws submarine that was asked to help two American submarines that "lost" could not find a russian submarine. Or would that bruise that ego of yours too much.
1
@stephenporter5886 absolutely 👍
1
@tommygun5038 er the USA has a little under 5000 main battle tanks according to 2024 data. NATO has 12,000+ I am sorry but I can't take you seriously as your facts and data is constantly wrong. I wish you a good life but this conversation is over for me.
1
@mkultra3679 I never said "best armour" you did 🙄 I am just pointing out how many Abrams were disabled and knocked out compared to how many challenger tanks, I assume you don't know the story of how many RPG hits one of our tanks took and it still protected its crew, it was also back in service and on patrol that evening after minimal repairs. There have been only a few challenger tanks taken completely out by enemy fire, and a blue on blue incident, the most recent being the older challengers in Ukraine where it was disabled by a mine "track blown off" and later completely disabled by a current russian missile system after the top hatches were left open when the crew bailed out, the crew survived btw to fight another day. But like I said Abrams is not bad at all and has blow out panels where the challenger does not, but the Abrams is vulnerable to damage to its engine compartment that was proven in both gulf wars and the vulnerability to its top armour Ukraine. You might want to check out what Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman has confirmed about the vulnerability of the Abrams in Ukraine.
1
@mkultra3679 "best armour of virtually any tank going" yes that is what I said. Virtually means "one of the best" and the challenger has always been known to have one of the best armoured packages in the world, and with the new upgrade challenger 3 it will once again have "virtually" the best armour of any modern battle tank currently. The word "Virtually" in a sentence means "nearly" or "extremely close to" Please read the context to the sentence correctly before you pass judgment.
1
@tommygun5038 I know that's the problem but it's not just us who do it is it, so many other countries do it as well so we don't need an absolutely massive armed forces.
1
@darthsarcastus1064 agreed 👍
1
@tommygun5038 Can you prove they haven't, The British just purchased multiple artillery units as a stop gap until the boxer artillery units are made operational and that is going to be very soon. So the answer is yes the British have.
1
@donaldmacintyre1233 We don't call them battalions anymore, the British call them Regiments and we have three of them with around 56 main battle tanks in each not including others armoured vehicles in each regiment as well. The British army and armoured forces currently have a reorganization of its units to make a joint armoured/artillery combat team as there is new armoured vehicles on the way and they are designed to integrate into this new system.
1
@tommygun5038 That's why we purchased a stop gap until we get them. I explained that.
1
@donaldmacintyre1233 Well why didn't you mention you were in the core as then people will know you understand the system.
1
@tommygun5038 I agree to a somewhat degree, we do have some similarities to the US military but not in many others, our doctrine is very different to the USA, we can't design our military around the USA as we can't guarantee that the USA will be there for us in every battle we have. I agree the compatibility of bullets, missiles and Comms equipment is vital for inter-opperblity but we need to have different artillery systems and ships, Submarines and aircraft because we don't operate the same as the USA and also for security and safety reasons. There are hundreds of reasons we need to be separate from the USA but we also need to be able to work closely together when needed. Every nation has its strengths and weaknesses and the UK being a small nation with limited resources allows the UK to operate in ways the unlimited resources of the USA just don't take into account.
1
@donaldmacintyre1233 No need to duck when you have the experience to back it up.
1