British Tank Driver Talks About Challenger 2

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

this concerns modern tanks – but I think it’s interesting nonetheless. Thanks to kitch347 for this one. Description under the video.

Post by British Army.

55 thoughts on “British Tank Driver Talks About Challenger 2”

  5. At the risk of getting trollish answers….

    Q: What attributes does the Challenger boast in comparison to other well known MBTs? (M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2A6, Merkava, etc.). I really don’t have a clue when it comes to modern armor >_< All I know is that the Chally employs hesh, uses a rifled 120mm main gun and has great armor protection.

    • What, you mean those noobs are shooting gold shells all the time in a tier eleven tank? They should L2P, shouldn’t they? Perhaps some weakspot skins will help, lest they want to run out of credits.

    • Nope, you can’t compare the M1A2, Leopard 2A6, Leclerc with the Challenger. You have to take the Challenger 2 (not the same !)

      Seriously, the Challenger 2 doesn’t have much more than other tanks.
      Only armor.
      And it’s also slower than all the NATO MBTs

        • On road:
          Leclerc : 72 km/h
          M1A2 : 68 km/h
          Leopard 2A6 : 72 km/h
          Challenger 2 : 59 km/h

          Off-road:
          Leclerc : 55 km/h
          M1A2 : 48 km/h
          Leopard 2A6 : 45 km/h
          Challenger 2 : 40 km/h

          (Of course speed is limited for the crew)

            • Friend of mine was driver on Leopard 2 before speed limiter came. They where overtaking Trucks on Autobahn and made Hill down record of 121 km/h :D

          • The Challenger is one of the fastest combat tanks over off-road, is the precise element. It’s not the fastest to top speed, but it can maintain pace and accuracy at a higher speed than any other tank than perhaps the K2 or Type 10 (as they weren’t around when the claim was made about its combat speed)

            This is due to its 2nd Generation Hydrogas (or Hydropneumatic) suspension# it recieved in 2010 that keeps it at the forefront. The tank is VERY stable, shockingly so for something that can weigh upwards to 75 tons in full armour mode. Thats Challenger’s real claim to fame in the mobility department. It’ll never outsprint an Abrams, it’ll never outturn a Leo, it’ll never dash as fast as a Leclerc, but when it comes to keeping first hit accuracy on the move, it’s “can do that from” speed is very very high indeed.

    • ‘Dorchester’ armour type, which is supposedly the best out there…So mainly armour.

      It has a better gun than the Abrams and Merkava,( arguably, ofc) and worse or on par with the Leo2A6

      • Leopard 2A6 and Abrams has the same gun ^^
        The 120mm Rheinmetall

        The Challenger has the L30A1 Royal Ordnance and the Leclerc has the GIAT CN120-26/52

    • Mostly Armour. And the meanest gun in NATO.

      While the Abrams can be brought down by a $150 RPG round. The Chally is a little tougher. There was a case a few years back where one went out on a night drive in order to meet up with some infantry. It was caught in a village and put under fire.
      The driver backed it up into a ditch, where the track fell off from the impact. The attackers then took out its vision ports and continued to fire. That chally was recovered the next day, with no injuries to the crew, and no critical damage. In total, it had taken close to 15 RPG rounds, and sustained a hit from an AT missile.
      One of the few cases where a Chally 2 has actually been penetrated and the crew sustained injury was when the tank was going over a crest, and an RPG-29 had struck the belly. Penetrating into the driver’s compartment. The driver lost 3 toes and part of his foot.
      The ONLY case of a Chally actually being destroyed was during a battle in which Thermal vision was required. Now, through this thermal vision, and in the heat of battle. Judgement is often not the best; the commander of a Chally had spotted what he thought to be an enemy T-72. He ordered his gunner to fire. What he had actually spotted was a friendly Challenger 2 flanking the enemy position. A HESH round struck the open commander’s hatch, and detonated. Killing the crew and setting the vehicle alight.

      Now. You would argue the loss statistics of the Abrams are very low. This is because of how the Americans classify an Abrams as “Lost”. It is not determined lost by the vehicle being a smoldering wreck. No. It’s lost when they cannot recover the engine. Why the engine you may ask? The company that produces the Engines for Abrams tanks when bust 20 years ago. No more can be produced.

      As far as guns are concerned. The Abrams uses, what is essentially a modernised L7A1. Built on lease by the Germans, then sent to the US for use on the Abrams. While the Chally uses, again, what is essentially a modernised L1A1. Arugably, the Leo 2A6 has a better gun, this has yet to be proven in Combat. While you can boast of shots made on the firing range, the fact of the matter stands that the Challenger holds the longest range kill-shot ever. If I recall, the shot was roughly 2.6miles, and it struck and destroyed a T-72. If the distance is incorrect, please do correct me.

      So. An essay later this is what the Chally has in comparison to other modern MBTs.

      • The difference is the Challenger 2 can take a hit from any of those tanks and survive. Only the Abrams can take a hit from a Challenger 2 and probably survive. Some of the battle reports where Challenger 2′s were attacked are pretty stunning in how resistant it is to damage. The Leclerc has has no armour to speak of and the Leopard 2 has a fairly basic perforated armour layout. Neither of which have really been battle tested. The Leopard 2 is so popular because of how easy it is to maintain.

        • T-72′s had no trouble dealing with Abrams during the Gulf Wars. So I’m eager to see how they hold up to a Chally’s gun.

          • you realize US tank forces annihilated t72′s right I forget which battle but the entire republican guard was raped in like a day with the only US calvary death being the commander of a Bradley. Russian tanks have been owned in every engagement they’ve faught in. I know we were fighting outdated soviet equipment though not their modern mbt’s.

        • Leclerc has no armour layout ?
          Leopard 2 has a fairly basic perforated armour layout ?

          Only brainwashed by propaganda would say that :D

          • No, not really. The Leclerc keeps it’s weight down by reducing armour and the Leopard 2 doesn’t have advanced composite armour like Chobham or Dorchester. Read up on the Leopard 2s development, read some books for instance.

        • >Abrams tank engines are still being produced. I don’t where you get that from?

          From multiple ex US-servicemen. Several of whom were tankies.

    • Absolutely nothing we mere nobodies know of.
      People will keep telling you (mostly will national pride) that X tank is better, or more armored, or faster…

      The only real answer is that apart from speed and firepower, which all modern Western tanks are similar in, no one but some engineers and higher-ups in the armies know for sure which tank is superior to which.

      That’s what makes a realistic modern tank game impossible to make.
      75% of it would be complete and utter guesswork.

      • “75% of it would be complete and utter guesswork.”

        No.
        75% of it would be a propaganda game more than a simulation.

  6. Dammit, stop teasing me and launch the bloody “After” (aw-ftr) blog already….

    Also, sorry Woras, I’m stealing the name

  7. Yeah it’s pretty much the “heavy” of the modern NATO MBT’s except the brits kept a rifled gun so they can fire hesh, I’m not sure why they need the fins on AP shells tho…

  8. Sorry for off-topic, but when can we expect 9.5 test server? It was said it will start today…

  9. So NATO getting ready to make new Yugoslavia style battletest field in Ukraine? What the hell make new british tanks in Poland? They getting lost and occasionally drive all over Europe? or may be USA battleship moved to Black sea to fishing? And how many G4S soldiers used there vacation to watch Kiev and Poland? You several time wrote that You angry about russians ocupants – but may be there was russian depleted uranium ammo was fired in Serbia? or russian airforce drop bombs on Baghdad or Syria? Looks like USA by hands of EU NATO forces want destroy main competitors – but who will be next – China or may be GB and Germany and France before?

    (btw – if IRA put a direct assault on London – they will be terrorist or patriot who wants remove chains of Monarchy fron country – looks for Ukraine – when terrorist dropped democratically choosen president (look for news from times of his election – even USA was declared that there was clear battle) – they didnt was killed, even they get impisoned – no they are heroes and they saved power in own bloody hands. And look for IRA – how many bloodon there hands – and powerful USA secret services, that must know all about all peoples in the world, couldnt erase then – think Why?)

    P.S. Sorry for long post – but British tanks in Poland – Im really in deep fear for simple Ukrainian peoples. What was made in Yugoslavia must not be repetead anywere. But now – more and more news from Ukraine looks like news from Serbia and Kosovo. And again USA and NATO military is nearby

    • Because Poland is now responsible for defense of Baltic countries – including Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia by the order of NATO and a certain directive. Not only tanks, but we already have several if not more aircraft patrolling EU air boundary. I believe it’s a counter measure to russian training programs in Kaliningrad which had taken place there recently.

    • Russia growing into militant empire with imperialistic manners. Is good to be prepared.
      Lets hope that all of this will end with this arms rattle.

    • Dont worry dude its just planning for Barbarossa II these tanks will be in Moscow by Christmas, bringing you decadant western values so you too can be part of USA/EU/NATO enjoy and rejoice!

      • :) NATO was unable to quell minor power such as Iraq and ultimately had to withdraw in shame while civil war keeps raging on. It’s not that difficult to see they will never go against a more dominant power (such as China or Russia) because they would get ROFLstomped which would reflect really badly on presidental erection, oops, election, not to mention that it would be ungodly expensive. ObamaCare costs mucho dinero so there will be no direct confrontation.

        • Because occupation is the same thing as what would probably be a controlled border engagement.

    • They have execise in “Drawski firing range” the bigest and well equiped training ground in European NATO countries (bigest are only in Russia and in Ukraine)

      This traing ground is so big that whole mechanized regiment can train there at once (and attack battalion size defence) + there are bombing targets for squadron size attack (and cost of transfer to poland is far more lower then to US or Canada)

      There is everything as in central Europe landscape – small hills, rivers, forest, lakes and marshes

      Is very popular place for training of Nato armies (mostly US and Nordic countries) since Poland join it in the end of XX century

  10. Blah blah blah. I already know those things. I wanted to see it in action, how it handles.

  11. My German teacher was a driver of a Challenger 2 when she lived in Germany…
    Best German teacher ever :D