Why Doesn't Any Country Buy the Challenger 2 Tank? The Problem is Just One Detail

The main reason no one except Oman bought Challenger 2 mainly two reasons, one it was built at a time when not many countries were buying tanks and two is because Challenger 2 is very much custom made for British army doctrine. The ammunition is not slower to load than one piece ammo because the projectile and charge weigh less, can be lap loaded and is more readily accessible. It does however limit its armour penetration performance in the long term. But it must be noted that tank engagements in combat are rare and that high explosive based projectiles are used more. This is where HESH has shown its strength. Its blast performance and range are excellent.

Hi there, I would just like to point out a couple of errors, having served on both Challenger 1 & 2's. Technically Challenger has 3 piece ammunition. A carry over from Chieftain. Underneath the breech you will find a removable magazine that resembles a rifle magazine but larger. This accommodates specially converted 0.50 calibre empty cases filled with gunpowder, each magazine holds 10 cases. So when the main armament is fired the firing pin hits the case which in turn burns the bag charge to then send the shell on its way. My second point is that British Tank Crews usually stay together on one vehicle for up to 2 years and so they make a formidable team. A good crew can achieve 9 rounds a minute under battlefield conditions. Having worked with both the Americans & the Germans and observed how their crews operate they can manage only 7 rounds with one piece ammunition! And that is under optimal conditions.

The Germans and French offer the best back handers to buyers

It just beat every other Tank that NATO use in this year's NATO Tank competition! It also holds the record for taking around 70 hits from RPG's and still drove away

Little willie was the first tank ever built by the British in 1915....yes brits invented the tank!🙂

Weapons of the UK - longest tank kill, longest sniper kill

Yes we don't make them anymore. The rifled gun is indeed unique to the challenger 2 and does have a major advantage over smoothbore variants. It can engage enemy tanks further away. Also it has just won some kind of competition involving Abrams,. leopard and leclerc tanks. Testimony to the brilliant 4 man crews they have and of course to the best tank ever built.

My father worked for 37 years as a fitter where these tanks were made. Unfortunately the factory closed down many years ago. That's the reason why nobody can buy any.

"Problem" is the wrong word to use as it implies the Challenger 2 has inferior capabilties. This of course is not true. Tha Challenger 2 has an exceptional main gun that unfortunately is not NATO standard. If any crew wants to survive an enemy attack then the Challenger 2 is the tank for that.

Yes, you are quite right. Britain has now downgraded Challenger to carry the less effective populist smoothbore main armament. Other nations emphasise interoperability over perfection in seeking accuracy. The British however have always said 'who cares how quickly other tanks can reload if we can pick them off at 4.2km before they can fire back', unfortunately perfection costs more so we have to go the way of budget. A shame nobody else joined Britain in the pursuit of excellence.

The Challenger was originally developed by Vickers for the Iranian market pre Aiatollah. The tank was designed to be broader than those previously designed by Vickers because the restrictions of road & rail for use in the European theatre did not apply. When this market abruptly ceased the British government somewhat reluctantly compromised over the width restrictions & in order to maintain British manufacturing bought Challenger. I used to work with the retired senior manager of Vickers & from time to time we 'talked tanks'.

Here is some inaccurate things: 1. Slow reload - acttually the fastest reload and best safety for 4 crew members only Leclerc in NATO has best reload with 3 crew members 2. Rifled guns are on paper produce slower shells, but if you use the Coriolis effect in mind then you realise if someone has smoothbore guns that doesn t means he will have better range, also coriolis effect has impact on force on plate if you have minimum coriolis effect that means on longer range the SIN of F- force will almost the maximum. Rifled gun has bores it works like ribs on radiators better exchange of heat in this situation better chilling. The main reason is lack productivity in NATO for this standard of ammunition, and more expensive producing for this type doctrine. I wish you best from ancient Bosniak - Bosnian. Rule Brittania

Maybe the 'Incentives' offered by the American competition has some part of this?

This video misses quite a few interesting points. Chally prioritized infantry support capabilities over armour penetrating which has always been British doctrine. When the tank was being designed composite armour and ERA was rare and in their infancy so HESH rounds were more than capable of dealing with almost any conceivable target. The better long range accuracy and wider squash area provided by the rifled gun would make a Chally hull down in the crest of a hill devastating for enemy forces. However this capability came at a price APFSDS rounds had to be designed to counter the spin imparted by the rifling and friction in the barrel slightly reduced muzzle velocity which partially dictates the fin rounds armour penetration also resulting in increased barrel wear. With all near peer forces having some form of composite armour and wide availability of ERA the HESH round is far less effective and with the development of newer programmable ammo these compromises no longer make sense hence the smoothbore upgrade. But probably the biggest reasons Chally didn't sell are that it was expensive too heavy for most counties road infrastructure and arms deals are heavily political and people want to be America's friend much more the Britain's these days.

Didn't it just win some competition out of all the other main battle tanks recently?? None are perfect but some are constantly competing on a high level, something to think about yeah

Yep, in a "battle royale" of the various 3rd gen MBTs, the tank you'd want to be crewing would definitely be inside the chobham armour of the Challenger 2, staring down that most accurate of rifled gun barrels.

2:47 - T72: “Amateurs! AMATEURS! I serve in 44 countries!”

The interesting thing about people buying the Challenger is that after the First Gulf War the Kuwaiti government wanted to buy Challenger and placed an order for several 100, but the US said to them "you can buy Challenger tanks - and the US will withdraw its forces from defending your nice, newly reclaimed nation. Or, you can cancel the contract and buy Abrams tanks - and we will retain US forces locally to protect Kuwait." So the first major buyer of Challenger decided not to go ahead with the purchase. The same may well have happened on other occasions.

they use rifled barrels because they wanted to b able to use hesh rounds . also they were custom made for british army doctrine , but if they're so bad why have they just won the nato tank comp

No other country knows how to operate the most important device the boiling vessel 😂 The tank is designed and built to defend and protect the boiling vessel at all cost, the heart and soul of the British Empire.