Comments by "Edward Cullen" (@edwardcullen1739) on "Why the UK Challenger Tank is So Hot Right Now" video.

@Justin Martin Challenger 3 will be remanufactured Challenger 2 hulls with new turrets. There's a lot of upgrades in the turret, mainly in situational awareness. The gun isn't so much an upgrade as a compromise to share ammunition with other NATO countries - the L30A1 uses 2-part ammunition, rather than the self-contained round used by the rest of NATO. The 2-part ammo is easier and quicker to load, which is why C2 still holds record for most targets engaged in 1 minute. Obviously, the advantage of the self-contained is simplified logistics, which really matters if you're in a protracted conflict.
4
 @niallrussell7184 Unless you want to fight on the European plains, while maintaining a reserve... Or there's a conflict abroad where tanks could be useful...
2
@Justin Martin The number of serviceable Challenger 2s is around the 150 mark - the rest have already been cannibalised for spare parts.
2
@kfekadu55 Precisely. 14 tanks isn't enough. Even if used correctly - and they're extremely lucky - they'll last a month. Breakdowns will happen (they are OLD), bogdowns will happen (inexperienced crews will get them stuck in the mud) and every one lost will be a significant propaganda victory for the Russians. Ammunition supplies are also very limited. UK defence procurement is a complete shambles.
2
@connorleeduckworth8952 The design of the Challenger 3 is already finalised. And we already know the weaknesses. CR2s have already had several deployments, not least of which was the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All we'd be doing is enabling the Russians (and Chinese) to learn how to fight against them.
2
@SuperCrow02 150 would be enough for defending the mainland, due to terrain and home advantage, but it's really cutting to the bone - we couldn't afford to send any overseas, because any losses would be irreplaceable. It's clear we're entering a "pre-war" phase so I completely agree that we should be spinning-up production and building up the tank force, not reducing it.
1
@arthor675somthing You've obviously never owned an old car... Any mechanical system wears out, especially when you're having to cannibalise to get the parts you need. If we were still building them, still making the parts and the ammunition, I would agree with you, but this hasn't been the case, almost since the moment they entered service. The base design is older, but the Abrams production has continued into the 2000s. Barnbow closed over 15 years ago. Was demolished and replaced with housing since. At least the US still has an Abrams production line.
1
@economistfromhell4877 I'm not sure that this is the case. My belief is that the Russians have spent the last 6 months fixing these problems - I do not think that the number of Russian generals that have "fallen" out of windows over that timeframe is coincidence. I believe that the next month or so will prove me right or wrong - if the Russians make a successful major push that is "surprising", I will be right. If the conflict continues as it has for the past year, I will be wrong. Honestly, I'm not sure which would be worse...
1
@kerriwilson7732 150 tanks would last about 2 months in Ukraine. Because UK is an island, 150 would be enough to repulse an invasion. Defending an island is nothing like fighting across the open plains of Ukraine. We don't need to fight in Ukraine. Poland and Romania are NATO members. We could draw defensive lines there. Far easier to defend than fighting across Ukraine. Besides, West cannot win in Ukraine, at least, not in less than 2-3 years - we simply do not have the production capacity to fight a war of attrition. Entering Ukraine would expose this reality and leave Eastern NATO members exposed to retaliation.
1
@aaront2131 Which is precisely why 150 isn't enough.
1
@aaront2131 WW2 would like to disagree. Numbers matter. Technology can only work in your favour to a point. No tank is indestructible. NATO tanks were designed around NATO doctrine, which was to perform a fighting withdrawal to the Rhine and use the river to exhaust Soviet forces before counter-attacking. When you have a good defensive position and you are willing to give ground, you can defeat a 10:1 attack, but if you have too few vehicles any loss becomes a critical, irreplaceable reduction of your forces. UK originally built ~400 CR2s for the British Army. This would have been a meaningful quantity that enabled maintaining fighting strength in the face of casualties. Edit: 150 tanks cannot be everywhere all at once. You need sufficient numbers to be able to spread them across the front, while maintaining a high enough concentration to remain effective. Not sure what the exact numbers are, but 1 squadron (14 tanks) per 5 miles sounds about right. Even if it's double that, you're talking about the entire force being able to defend 100 miles...
1