Why the Challenger 2 Tank is So Hard for Russia to Destroy | War on Tape | Daily Mail



Britain’s Challenger 2 tank has a reputation for being extremely hard to destroy – in fact, until very recently, the only Challenger ever lost in combat was destroyed by friendly fire from another Challenger. That’s hardly surprising, when you realise that this tank has maybe the best armour in the world and one of the most accurate cannons. But in an historic piece of footage, the Russians scored a confirmed kill on one of the 14 Challenger 2s the UK donated to Ukraine. How did they do it? We examine the tape, get hands-on with the Challenger and speak to a commander to find out.

Daily Mail Website: https://www.dailymail.co.uk
Daily Mail Facebook: https://facebook.com/dailymail
Daily Mail IG: https://instagram.com/dailymail
Daily Mail Snap: https://snapchat.com/discover/Daily-Ma
Daily Mail Twitter: https://twitter.com/MailOnline

Daily Mail Pinterest: https://pinterest.co.uk/dailymail

Get the free Daily Mail mobile app: https://dailymail.co.uk/mobile

source

46 thoughts on “Why the Challenger 2 Tank is So Hard for Russia to Destroy | War on Tape | Daily Mail”

  1. American 120mm Heat rounds are not used against other tanks. They're used against lighter armored vehicles like IFVs and APCs. U.S. tankers engage other tanks with APFSDSDU-T rounds.

    Reply
  2. Russia, producing 125 tanks a month, 2000 still available, UK, we've only got a 127 in total, how that does not ring alarm bells I'll never know, and no budget to produce anymore as most of the UK budget is funding boats crossing from France as the French are weak

    Reply
  3. It is very rare to see Challengers on the frontlines
    It is always the Leopards and the Abrams at the front, that is why they are getting destroyed more often
    Ukrainians would rather sacrifice an Abrams because its maintenance costs are too high, spare parts are overpriced, and consumes more diesel, it’s not worth recalling them after a mission, if they survive the lines of contact
    They’d rather abandon it rather than try to save it

    Reply
  4. Is it because the Challenger does not have an effective anti personnel main armament round like the HEAT MP-T or AMP (advanced multi purpose)?????
    HESH is pretty useless in that role. So on the front line with lots of enemy infantry the Abrams and Leo would be more useful using HEAT MP-T or AMP?

    Reply
  5. As a former armoured corp soldier of 10 years…

    I am not sure who told you or where you researched the CHALLENGER 2 MBT was the best in the world.

    My guess a U.K source, or a U.K member of the MoD ..

    If it was? Then, 100% to that soldier like with any nation, they believe in the capabilities of the veh they are operating..

    It's hard to find a non biased Top 10 list.. many are propaganda..

    My conversations with Tank crews world wide. NCOs (never ask an officer or a Trooper)..
    They dont have the experience, time or knowledge an enlisted person has….

    Your delivery however with your topic, was well executed…
    Now I watched it all the way, and your a civie and for that reason, it's hard to find real unclassified defence capabilities, most that are released to the public of actively used vehicle by militaries is never the true info.. for national security ..

    Anyways mate well done.

    Reply
  6. I have to confess. Although I am an Orc, sometimes I like to listen the British propaganda. It's probably hard to explain to English-speaking people. But I like the way they sometimes pronounce CHAllenger and Bladimyr PFutin with that specific emphasis. Otherwise, the British are, of course, bloodthirsty, but funny, like movie villains for us, for Orcs.

    Reply
  7. Yes, but they have very different philosophies. During the Cold War nato tanks were designed to be able to be more survivable and to hold out longer because it might take longer for nato tanks to get replaced while Russian tanks were designed to put into service as fast as possible and overwhelm the enemy. Both were designed for the plains of Eastern Europe. It’s also understood that most likely nato powers would have air superiority. Russian tanks also have arguably one big flaw is the design of the auto loader in Russian tanks that weren’t designed to do the modern fighting they’re doing.

    Reply
  8. From memory, having seen this footage months ago…. The tank hit a mine, the crew got out and fled and then it was shelled with artillery though I can't remember if it was Russian or Ukrainian arty.

    Reply
  9. they just had to downplay everything to make it as if it is so hard for the russian to destroy Challenger 2. ukraine only got 14 and already lost 3 , obviously they cant afford to lost the remaining challenger2 they have and place it away from the frontline

    Reply
  10. One feed says that the British Challenger is the best "ever". But if you continue watching another feed will tell you that the ruzzain Armatta is the best tank. Then the next feed tells you that the American, or israeli tank is the best. I tire watching all these videos and still wonder which tank I'd rather be in on a battlefield.
    But……
    Slava Ukraine 🇷🇼🇷🇼🇷🇼

    Reply
  11. "So hard to destroy" this is utter BS. We know all tanks are not invincible and the Challenger tank being invincible is a MYTH its just a propaganda created by media like this one.
    In reality it only takes a lancet and fiber optic drones to destroy this tanks. It has a very obvious weakness that Russian troops already knew so it not hard to kill.

    Medias like these things people are still dumb.

    Reply

Leave a Comment