The Challenger 2 is too heavy, lacks protection and needs too much support
March 29, 2024
ROYAL ARMORED CORPS PHOTO
With reporting by Gabriel Silveira.
The United Kingdom donated to Ukraine 14 71-ton Challenger 2 tanks. The Ukrainian air assault forces’ 82nd Brigade is the sole user of the 13 surviving tanks after one was destroyed during fighting around Robotyne, in southern Ukraine, late last summer.
The Challenger 2 is the British Army’s only tank. And the Brits successfully deployed it during the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The four-person Challenger 2 isn’t good for Ukraine, however. There are reasons to believe London offered up those 14 Challenger 2s merely to encourage other NATO countries to donate their own, better tanks: Leopard 2s, Strv 122s and M-1s.
The Challenger 2 lacks mobility
One Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew member told The Sun the tank’s 1,200-horsepower engine is under-powered for a 71-ton vehicle. Challenger 2s often get bogged down in Ukraine’s soft soil and need towing by other Challengers or engineering vehicles.
In the heat of combat, when towing isn’t always possible, a stuck Challenger 2 is a vulnerable Challenger 2.
Its protection is lacking
Since its first combat campaign, in Bosnia in the 1990s, the Challenger 2 in British service always has deployed with add-on armor on the sides of the hull and the lower frontal plate. And for good reason: these spots are where the baseline Challenger 2—which was designed to fight straight ahead while dug in—is most vulnerable.
Ukraine never got these add-on armor kits, probably because the extra three tons of weight would make Ukrainian Challenger 2s even less mobile on soft ground. The Ukrainians instead have added lightweight slat armor to their Challenger 2s’ most vulnerable aspects.
The slats might help mitigate strikes by drones and handheld anti-tank weapons, but heavier munitions should blast right through.
The Challenger 2 has a unique main gun
The Challenger 2’s L30 120-millimeter cannon is a problem. In contrast to the smoothbore cannons on contemporary Western tanks, the L30 is rifled. Its ammunition isn’t compatible with other tank guns, so the Ukrainians must maintain a separate logistical system just to keep 13 Challenger 2s shooting.
While a smoothbore L44 tank cannon has a useful life of up to 1,500 rounds, a rifled L30A1 wears out after 500 rounds. This is especially problematic because the 82nd Brigade—apparently worried about its tanks getting mired—has been keeping them miles behind the front line and using them like mobile howitzers.
A howitzer wants to shoot a lot. But that’s something the Challenger 2 can’t do without wearing out its main gun.
There aren’t enough of them
Ukraine so far has received 71 Leopard 2s and similar Strv 122s from European countries plus 31 M-1s from the United States—and is set to get 34 more Leopard 2s and nearly 200 Leopard 1s in the coming year or so. But even these tanks are outnumbered by the many hundreds of Soviet-style T-64s and T-72s that comprise the bulk of the Ukrainian armor corps.
All that is to say, 14—now 13—Challenger 2s amount to a rounding error in Ukraine’s order of battle. They barely are worth the effort to maintain and arm them. Oh, and to tow them when they get stuck.
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here. Send me a secure tip.
The British tank is no doubt a damned good tank. The problem is the low numbers of them, which does strain the logistics.
I think that the Ukrainians will keep them back until they get enough artillery and some fresh troops to get back into an offensive footing again, when these tanks will come into their own. With their heavy armor and plows, they will bulldoze their way through roach minefields, trenches, and gun emplacements.
Right, Mr. Ofp, my opinion, too. The Challenger ain’t a bad tank, and apparently has proven in combat to be quite solid, but its low numbers in Ukraine are a problem. If the UK had delivered at least one hundred of them, the special ammunition issue wouldn’t be such a big deal, but for just 14 tanks, that’s too much of a logistical nuissance. I guess the Brits should rather focus on delivering APCs and other vehicles of the FV series, which are available in sufficient numbers.
🤔
This time I agree with you, Mr. Gray. The Brits have other things that could be very useful for Ukraine.
Only this time, Mr. Ofp? It had been my impression that we agree with each other very often, almost every time. 👋🙂👍
I meant as a reciprocal of the previous commentary and not in general of all commentaries.😉
And yet the UAF have only lost one in combat in a year of fighting.
1) ALL armored vehicles currently put add on armor. So big deal.
2) the UAF has about 60 different vehicle logistics chains. so again big deal.
3) weight is an issue but ALL tanks get mired in mud, even the lighter Soviet era tanks. the better protection makes up for it. Vehicle recovery is a planning issue in EVERY mechanized operation. unless you are Russia.
4) The L30 is incredibly accurate and can through and through even the best Russian tanks at ranges that exceed almost every tank in the world up to 4 kms or more. If a Challenger II can draw a bead on a Russian tank it is dead. Day or night and in almost any weather conditions.
One vehicle in a year is constitutes “The proof is in the pudding.”
Yeah, I do think, too, that the combat experiences prove that the Challenger is a worthy equal to Leo 2s and Abrams tanks. Actually, maybe even ahead a bit, but this could be a consequence of the British training being more suitable for the conditions in Ukraine. However, the low number is a logistical problem, let’s not sugarcoat that. That’s simply not very efficient. 🤔
Not really, as I read somewhere else only 2 of the tanks are actually in working order.
I think the low loss rate is probably because it didn’t see a lot of use.
Ukraine only received 14 and no spare parts, so its use is very limited.
I think the West really failed Ukraine.
I would have liked it if the UK actually gave ALL of its Chally’s as they don’t need them that urgently
as they are an Island nation, and in return other Western countries would pay for its replacement with for example brand new Leopards, new Abrams or even better for the UK: to have its entire tank fleet replaced by newly built Challenger 3 tanks.
This way Ukraine would have a meaningful number of the exact same tank with spare parts available and in some years the UK would have a much better tank force.
Now it has a hodgepodge of tanks: even the Leopard 2’s consist of a dozen of models.
^bert
True, Bert, the hodgepodge of equipment in the AFU isn’t a very efficient collection of weapons. Under better conditions, there should be a lower number of different types, but a higher quantity of each single one. It’s telling what Greece is doing in that regard:
“Greece will sell some of its fighter jets”
“[Defense Minister Nikos Dendias] stated that the renovation of the Air Force is at the top of the list of priorities, pointing out that the current aircraft fleet is overloaded due to the large number of different types of aircraft and needs to be unified.”
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/greece-will-sell-some-of-its-fighter-jets/
As I have stated before in comments, it would be preferrable if Nato had established a coordination bureau for handling Western arms deliveries to Ukraine, ensuring that all aspects are covered and the donations result in an efficient modernisation of the AFU. Much too often, deliveries are guided by national vanity and political convenience instead. That’s not the best way to support Ukraine, even though ‘every little helps’. 😕