Imagine yourself going into battle and you have the choice between a British Challenger 2, or a Russian T-90. Which would you choose?
– Challenger 2:
The FV4034 Challenger 2 (MoD designation “CR2”) is a third generation British main battle tank (MBT) in service with the armies of the United Kingdom and Oman. It was designed and built by the British company Vickers Defense Systems, since renamed BAE Systems Land & Armaments.
In 1986 Vickers Defense Systems began a follow-up to the Challenger 1 as a private venture. The Ministry of Defense ordered a prototype in December 1988. In June 1991, the MoD placed an order for 140 vehicles, with a further 268 ordered in 1994. Production began in 1993 and the unit’s tanks were delivered in July 1994, replacing the Challenger 1. After a production delay, the tank entered service with the British Army in 1998, with the last delivered in 2002. The Challenger 2 was also exported to Oman.
The Challenger 2 is an extensive redesign of the Challenger 1. Although the hull and automotive components seem similar, they are of a newer design than for the Challenger 1 and only about 3% of components are interchangeable. A visual recognition feature is the armoured housing for the TOGS thermal gunsight: the Challenger 2 has this above the gun barrel, the Challenger 1 has it at the right hand side of the turret. The tank has a 550 kilometers (340 mi) range and maximum road speed of 59 kilometers per hour (37 mph).
The Challenger 2 is equipped with a 120-millimetre (4.7 in) 55-calibre long L30A1 tank gun, the successor to the L11 gun used on the Chieftain and Challenger 1. Uniquely among NATO main battle tank guns, the L30A1 is rifled, because the British Army continues to place a premium on the use of high-explosive squash head (HESH) rounds in addition to armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot rounds. The Challenger 2 is also armed with a L94A1 EX-34 7.62 mm chain gun and a 7.62 mm L37A2 (GPMG) machine gun. Fifty main armament rounds and 4,200 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition are carried.
It has seen operational service in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq.
Since entering service, various upgrades have sought to improve the Challenger 2’s protection, mobility and lethality, the most recent of which was the Life Extension Programme (LEP). In March 2021, the British Army announced plans to upgrade 148 Challenger 2s under the LEP with the aim to extend its service life to at least 2035. These upgraded models will be known as Challenger 3. It is not planned to upgrade all Challenger 2s, the balance will be retired.
– Russian T-90:
The T-90 is a third-generation Russian main battle tank developed from the T-72. It uses a 125 mm 2A46 smoothbore main gun, the 1A45T fire-control system, an upgraded engine, and gunner’s thermal sight. Standard protective measures include a blend of steel and composite armour, smoke grenade dischargers, Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA) and the Shtora infrared anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) jamming system.
The T-90 was designed and built by Uralvagonzavod, in Nizhny Tagil, Russia. It entered service with the Russian Army in 1992.
As of 23 January 2023, Oryx blog has documented that Russia has lost at least 41 T-90s during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, including 31 T-90A (17 destroyed, 1 abandoned, 13 captured), 3 T-90S (2 destroyed, 1 captured), 7 T-90M (4 destroyed, 1 abandoned, 2 captured). During this conflict, the T-90 faced thousands of anti-tank missiles, including modern “top attack” missiles such as the American-produced FGM-148 Javelin and the Anglo-Swedish NLAW, which have been known to be able to defeat these tanks. Russia developed a modern defense system called Arena, which is an active protection system (APS) developed for the purpose of protecting T-90 from destruction by anti-tank weapons, anti-tank guided missiles, and missiles with top attack warheads. But Arena has not appeared in the Ukraine war.
source
"Don't know if anyone's mentioned it but there's a case of a Challenger 2 getting hit by 70 RPG's near Basra. Tank survived. I think all the optics were destroyed and the crew were a little worse for wear but nobody died and the tank survived the encounter."
"don't forget about the in-built BREVILLE kettle with a boiling speed of 100 seconds with impenetrable patterned plastic armor carrying a payload of up to 1 liter of pure British water."
Two comments from the original video! But really, which tank would you rather be a crew member of? I know my pick!
Challenger 2 all the way, already tested in combat in 2003 2nd Gulf war on the drive to Basra these things rocked. No enemy action killed any crewman in this tank it could take punishment and dish it out in kind. Its older brother the Challenger 1 with and older version of the 120mm rifled gun the L11 has the world record tank kill during the First Gulf War. They both get mixed up and called the same but the Challenger 2 only has 3% of the same spare parts from the Challenger 1 it is a different tank. Overall Ukraine are doing very well with the training within this tank which is happening now and I'd say they will be in Ukraine by next month sometime ready to go. The T90s combat record so far is not as good with quite a few now destroyed and or captured in Ukraine.
Challenger all the way, and it comes with tea making facility, total class.
Both are scrap metal for 1 shot of any anti-tank weapon
One disadvantage for the Challenger is that rifled gun as of late. Glad they're switching to smoothbore.
Also the Challenger isn't compatible with NATO 120 ammo
The "English" tank…. shudder, had to stop watching from there.
The Challenger 2 is by far the superior tank because the crew have tea making facilities on board.
We now know most of the modern features of the t90 were not put into most of the t90s and they are not Russian main battle tank the Ukrainians are much more commonly facing t72s
More importantly the T90 does not have any tea making facilities.
Russia has no good military personnel….a good tank is useless in the hands of a Russian rapist
The Germans put a Beer jug on the front of the Leopard 2 cannon
The proof is in the eating. T90;s are lighting up like matches but the Chally 2's have easily survived 70 rpg rounds with modern penetrators at the time I would even take the chally 2 over the same era american tanks as even today the M1A2 only has the BRITISH Chobham version (Burlington) armour, whilst the the chally has Dorchester (version 2)
Also during second Iraq war the american tank casualties were high, conversely not one single challenger 2 tank was lost due to enemy fire.
Also battle experience. The UK has been at war with some nation or other for almost 1000 years and is used to fighting alone against an enemy AND the UK STILL holds the highest record of winning wars against first world nations-when fighting alone. This stands at 80%. Conversely Russia only has the latter half of WW II and Crimea (which was lost against the UK) and then Russia's experience is only fighting little nations that have trouble defending themselves. Conversely this is a similar situation with the USA. The USA has a 0% record of winning wars on its own against first world nations.,
So given how experienced and trained the British tank Crews are, I would take the chally 2 even over a modern American tank.
challenger 2 a good tank? liberal/neocon fake news at its worst.
wat is a challenger 2 tank…..lets see:
1. worst armor of all modern tanks, 62tons of rha steel with some aramid, no era, no non-explosive reactive armor, no ceramics, same protection level as ww2 era tanks
2. no active protection of any kind, no active/passive interference of any homing methods of guided munitions
3. more than 20 rounds of 120mm ammo stored openly next to the crews inside the hull, in the location with the highest chances of getting hit both in the front and from the sides amongst all modern tanks
4. largest vehicle profiles from the front, side, rear and above amongst all modern tanks, largest turret of all modern tanks
5. slowest turret rotation(turning rate) of all modern tanks
6. only modern tank armed with a rifled main gun, slowest flight speed among tank gun ammos, lowest kinetic energy, fewer ammo types available than any other modern tank, slowest reload speed, the gun is literally a direct enlarged copy of l7 made in the 50s
7. poorest fire control and electronics among all western tanks, smallest gunner and commander sights of all western tanks, no better than t-90s
8. worst power-to-weight ratio, slowest speed, slowest acceleration, worst turning rate, worst braking/deceleration rate, worst cross country ability, worst ability in crossing over natural and man made obstacles due to the smallest approaching angel of its lower hull, easiest to roll over in higher speed turns, shortest range, Of All Tanks Made After WW2
9. worst transportability of all modern tanks due to its size and weight, bigger than abrams, worst deployability
10. in terms of reliability….just think, of all the countries that make cars, including russia and china, and india, which country makes the most unreliable cars? which other western country can make its high end luxury brands' cars break down more often than some no brand local farmer built cars out of china and india?
Challenger has to upgrade it's true but it's battle record is superb. I know the Ukrainians who get to take it to battle could not wish for a better tank! Glory to Ukraine!
Challenger 2 is a tank built to win wars, where most other tanks including the t-90 are built to win a statistical battle
The Challenger II will Decimate a T90…. ERA on them? No…. Just a pair of old Commie Y-fronts…… Useless!!
Simple analysis. The Challenger I completely wrecked Iraqi T-72s without receiving a single casualty in return from the T-72s. The T-90 is a tarted up T-72 with the same major flaw – ammo storage. A Chally can take a hit from a T-90 and keep fighting. A T-90 taking a hit goes jack-in-the-box. One Challenger threw a track in Iraq and the Iraqis pummelled it with 70 RPG hits. The crew remained safe, buttoned up inside and when the tank was recovered, it only took six hours of repairs to put it back into service.
The Challenger II has multiple armour kits that can be added for urban warfare. The Challenger's gun is better stabilized and the sensors setup allow the commander to be searching for targets while the gunner is busy killing others. On paper the T-90 looks good, but Ukraine has already proved otherwise.
This video has 0 useful information. It's the most basic "Russian tank has a 125 mm gun and an autoloader" stuff. The same tank model, say T90, gets updated and new versions develop (T90A, T90S, T90M), then these same versions can change slightly, especially during war time, when tanks are quickly adapted to the current situation. Modern Leopard 2A7 and the early Leopard 2 models from the 1980s are vastly different machines. The modern T72s and T80s variants are more advanced than the early T90A. Different armor packages are installed, different optics, etc. The shells that the tanks fire is a very important aspect that's not covered here at all. The new ones are developed and 1980s shells and modern shells will have significantly different penetration.
And there are so many other aspects other than tanks themselves that play a role in "who will win?", the question becomes ridiculous.
These youtube war experts in the comments 🤦♂"T72's weak spot is the ammo rack, I saw them T72s blown to pieces in Iraq". They learn one aspect about a tank, (that mostly seem like a marketing ploy, considering how much stuff like this is overrepresented in english documentaries) then spam their basic knowledge all over the internet.
You should check channels like SY Simulations and similar, where they do simulations of different shells hitting different armor of different tanks. That's much more interesting than basic videos like this.
We can't go to war without a cuppa. I've read the challenger 3 is going to be something special. There not saying to much yet as I think they are keeping it under wraps.
I’d be happier behind the Chobham armour of the Challenger and don’t like the idea of the thin steel on top of the turret on the T90 coupled with the ammunition carrousel that is exposed to anti tank weapons dropping vertically down onto the turret. All the NATO tanks have a 4th crew member/loader for a reason and that is they can protect their magazine and not have it so exposed to enemy fire.
Dear Erwin nordvolk go and volunteer for the Russian tank army in a T90 and I’m sure you will soon find out if your theory is correct!
I think that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has proven that Russian tanks are POS. They, the Russians are having to salvage T 54, 55 and 62's, because they are running out of tanks. The armour behind the tracks is thin, and directly behind it is the ammo carousel. The T90 has been taken out with armour piercing rounds from a 30mm 2A72 cannon mounted on a BRDM.
russian tanks in ukraine have been found to have sub-par optics and fire-control systems.. the russian armour is also inferior in ukraine as been found out by ukraine forces.
the Challenger 2 armour is a top secret (the name isnt, but the material composition is) and has been thoroughly tested in afghanistan and iraq
russian tanks in ukraine have had egg cartoons on the side to look like armour plates in some cases (no joke)
The russian tanks also have a tendancy to blow up on impact due to the ammo storage system
I think the British have a sort of 'if it's not broken, then don't fix it' type of approach (apart from the L80 rifle), it's more or less a logical approach. This is not to say they do not get it wrong, just, well they have a decent and capable vehicle, why don't we tweak a few bits that need attention, and call it 2 or 3 etc.
As a Brit I would say the challenger 2 because we maintain our tanks and vehicles by the R.E.M.E (Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers) and plus from what the reports are saying from both sides that the Russians have a difficult time maintaining their front line battle tanks not enough support to fix and maintain them I could be wrong and it’s propaganda
no challenger tank has ever been destroyed by enemy fire.
I do not think you can make anything except generalisations, especially for Challenger 2 as the British are rigidly bound by the Official Secrets Act and the real detail is unknown to us in general, I worked in the UK defence industry for 18 years, the OSA bites hard.
Also bear in mind that you cannot move outside the design triangle for tanks having Firepower, Mobility and Protection at the apexes, they are interdependent. Challenger 2 has partly broken that triangle with Dorchester armour, the exact nature and performance of which we do not know. British design philosophy has always been Protection, Firepower then Mobility, you could call this "live to fight another day.".
It has been mentioned about the Challenger disabled in Iraq, it unfortunately reversed into a ditch and threw a track, it was fired on all night including a MILAN missile but without effect.
Finally, some historic instances of much vaunted and hyped pieces of Russian equipment, aircraft and vehicles which ultimately are shown to be far below the performance claimed.
An important consideration is the training of the crews and their tactics.. Not until if and when they engage will we find out. I was attached to British Cavalry in the 1970's and they were pretty switched on. That was of course on Chieftain.
What would I choose T90 or Challenger 2. It would be the challenger 2 every day.
we seen that the t90 been cable of in Ukraine war and its not good at all and suffered heavy losses while chally 2 is yet to be killed in a conflict bar some blue on blue action its easy pic for me its the one with the rapid tea loading capability
Remind me that 56 Leopard 2 tanks and 36 Challenger 2 tanks were destroyed in Syria ?
A good job to compare the specifications of the tanks if they are trustworthy. Assuming if they are correct then i refer to for example car reviews. The stats for a Alfa is even better then the VW or Japanese cars. But the last two don’t suffer from breaking down. The same is applicable for the T90. Having a tank is fine, but driving and firing is better than having a lot unserviceable in store. You hardly see T90 in combat but mostly the T72. The T90 misses a loader. Disadvantage are : 1 when the loading system doesn’t work the firing will be a challenge. 2. When a track have to be repaired, you miss the most powerful crew member. 3. A lot of the ammunition is stored in the turret, you can see a lot of ammunition explosions when hit and the turret is blown away. In the comments people mentioned that not only the tank has to be good but the crew as well. The training in the Russian army is less then a quarter in comparison with NATO countries. So that statement is so true. And besides the poor training the logistics for the T90 is also bad. A lot of tanks are not well maintained , tracks broken or rotten, no communication equipment, no aiming devices etc etc. more then 75% are not operational, and a lot of them beyond repair. So on paper a good tank, but in the practice a bad one, due to the bad training and the even worse logistic train.
The trouble with t90 is the amo is in the middle of the tank .just look what’s happening in the Ukraine
Well having seen after action combat reports on both types, its a none contest. T-90's have proven to be just as much of an abject disaster in combat as their forebear the T-72. T-90 is in essence just a heavily modified T-72 and has all of the same inherent failings as the older tank, lack of ammo protection for the main gun being the main cause of combat losses, indeed as do all of the late cold war based Soviet era MBT's (T-64 and 80 included), lots of very visible examples of all 'T' types being relatively easily to knock out in Ukraine now too (often by cheap, simple and ancient RPG's to the thin flanks). Challenger 2's combat record is nigh on perfect and in comparison the crews are far, far safer. As an ex MBT crewman myself I know which one I would be happy to take in to combat (hint it would be the one with a BV fitted in the fighting compartment. that you can actually see out of and has a four man crew).
I have noticed how the Russian tanks rock back when their main gun is fired. I don't think any of the NATO tanks being supplied do this. The video confirms that the Challenger 2 definitely doesn't. Also as mentioned, the gun stabilisation looks superior
Challenger 2 longest tank on tank kill 'nough said
Only one challenger 2 has been destroyed and that was by another challenger 2 in a friendly fire case
It is also known that no Russian tank can knock out or kill our tanks. I think also that neither can the American and German tanks hurt it either so as to kill it.
One of the most important abilities of any tank is the ability to be able to reverse quickly from an engagement. The T-90 can only go 3mph in reverse and is therefore at a disadvantage when it needs to relocate quickly whereas Challenger 2 can reverse over 3 times faster than T-90 so is going to spend less time in trouble when it has to reverse out of trouble.
What is also left out about in comparison vids is the T-90 and yes I've been in one are very cramped ever for a 3 man crew and you would not want to be operating for more than a couple of hours in these. While the Challenger 2 has a 4 man crew compared to the T-90 it's a darn site more spacious and able to maintain operations for far longer in comfort, plus have a BV (boiling vessel) so you can have hot meal no prob and also that most important moral raising booster call TEA !!!
челленждер бесполезный кусок металлолома, но отправляйте, да. мы внимательно его изучим
Personally I would use the Challie 2 as the tank still holds the record of the longest tank on tank kill with the riffled gun and the armour is the best in production ATM. explosive reactive armour and bar armour can also be added to increase survivability.
HESH rounds ( High Explosive Squash Head ) are old tech which UK artillery also still use in anti tank rolls. The round is not guided/rocket assisted or fin stabilised. The accuracy comes from the Fire control system and the rotation of the round in flight induced from the riffled barrel.
I would think this film was made before the disastrous performance of the Russian tanks in Ukraine.
Who before this all started would have seen it going on this long
the day of the tank is numbered.
I think many times, this comparison only looks at the weapons system (the tank) in isolation, but in reality it is the training, flexibility, and tactics that has a huge impact on survivability and effective use of all weapons systems. NATO has training in depth with a very effective non-commissioned officer corps (corporals, sergeants etc.) and their training and tactics tend to be far superior to Russia, who are still very often hampered by WW-II era tactics, no non-commissioned corps, and sub-standard equipment due to theft and poor procurement practices. I would take the Challenger over the T-90 any day of the week.