Why are British Challenger 2 Tanks having problems in Ukraine?
During the 1st World War, due to overpowered fire support means and wire barriers, casualties increased, positional warfare increased and the war became stagnant. The parties began to look for solutions. As a result of this search, tanks became a combat vehicle developed by the British for the first time.
On the Internet, I came across an article by Forbes Magazine, which explained that Challenger 2 tanks are not suitable for Ukraine because they are too heavy, lack protection and need too much support. I then looked at other sites and compiled some information about the Challenger tank, which is the main battle tank of the British. What follows is written in the light of this information.
England is the first state to build a tank, that is, to invent the tank. During the 1st World War, when the armies suffered too many casualties due to the overpowered fire support means and the newly used wire barriers, the parties started to look for solutions to overcome the congestion of the war and to end the stagnation of the positional warfare.
As a result, the Germans invented gas shells and developed new offensive and defence concepts. The British, on the other hand, designed a vehicle that would take the infantry, which suffered a lot of casualties due to wire obstacles, intense artillery barrage and machine-gun withholding fire, to the enemy defensive position without causing casualties.
In order to prevent this vehicle from being learnt by the Germans, they referred to it by the code name "Tank" in their correspondence and communications. Thus, tanks were used for the first time in the history of warfare by the British on the European Western Front in 1916. The tanks created a shock effect on the German army, which saw such a weapon/vehicle for the first time, and enabled the positions to be broken through. However, they did not have much impact on the outcome of World War I, as new doctrines and concepts were not developed.
However, new tanks continued to be developed throughout the war. Following the British, the French also built their own tanks, but neither British nor French tanks had turrets like today's tanks. These first tanks, which also carried a certain amount of infantry soldiers, were more like armoured fighting vehicles than the tanks of today.
Tanks proved their importance on the battlefield in World War II. It was the Germans who massively used tanks in their armies and won many short-term and decisive battles from the beginning of the war with the doctrines and concepts they created for them. The use of tanks rapidly spread to other armies.
Since the British continued to produce and develop tanks after World War I, they immediately started to form armoured units like the Germans during World War II and to formulate doctrines and concepts for them. Although they could not produce tanks as good as the Germans, they continued to develop their own tank models after the war. For this reason, it is possible to say that Britain has the most extensive experience in tank production in the world.
Today, the British still produce Challenger tanks, one of the few basic tank models known by the whole world. The Challenger tank is considered among the most prestigious tanks such as the Russian "T" series tanks, German Leopard tanks and American Abrams Tanks.
Nevertheless, the incidents that happened to these tanks in the battles in Ukraine have caused the adequacy of Challenger tanks to be questioned. Although the Russian "T" series tanks, the German Leopard tanks and the American Abrams tanks also face similar criticisms, especially the Challenger is more prominent in the Western world.
Although these criticisms are new, the problems raised are not. However, media organs seem to have forgotten or never realised that Challenger tanks, like Abrams and Leopard tanks, were used, damaged and rendered unusable in many battlefields before Ukraine. Because almost no one has mentioned the casualties suffered by the armies using these tanks in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where there was no equality of power between the warring parties.
The Challenger was used in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and deployed in Iraq after the war. During this period, several Challenger tanks were damaged, and one of them even had its front armour pierced by an RPG, injuring the driver. Many tanks also got stuck in soft ground and had to be towed out.
At the time, no one mentioned the inadequacy of the Challenger tanks because many more Iraqi tanks were neutralised. For this reason, the Challenger was praised as having generally excellent protection for its crew. To this day, some Western writers continue to praise the Challenger tank in the press, but the Challenger tank's failures are now discussed more than its successes.
The British must have seen the tank's weaknesses in previous wars, even if the press did not, because they started developing the Challenger 3 model long before the war in Ukraine. This new model tank will have some improvements in sensors and electronic systems, as well as smoothbore armament to be able to launch APFSDS (Armour Penetrating Fin Stabilised Sabot Projectile).
Challenger 2
A British Army Challenger 2 in the mud in Poland
Although the British recognised the need in advance, the debate in the press began with the Ukrainian War, when a Challenger tank was shot down by the Russians. However, this was not the only reason for the destruction of the tank. The tanks that were not shot down in Ukraine also experienced many problems, for example, they got stuck in the mud, those stuck in the mud could not be easily rescued and had many malfunctions. For this reason, they did not perform as expected and were not successful in offensive operations.
In fact, tanks of other countries (such as Leopards and Abrams) also experienced the same problems. Moreover, Britain did not give Ukraine enough tanks to change the course of the war. The UK donated 14 71-tonne Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. Late last summer, one of these tanks was destroyed by the 82nd Brigade of the Ukrainian airborne assault forces during fighting near Robotyne in southern Ukraine, leaving 13 tanks.
Yes, as the defenders of the Challenger tanks say, the British successfully used this tank during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, the Iraqi army both confronted the British with old generation Soviet tanks in disrepair and misused them. Moreover, Iraq was not even recognised in terms of air superiority. Today, the Iraqi army does not have as many, diverse and modern anti-tank weapons as the Ukrainian army. UAVs, UCAVs and drones were not being used effectively by anyone at that time.
For this reason, the Ukrainian experience is very important for the British. Because Challenger 2 is the only tank of the British Army. In other words, they have no chance to say that this model did not work, but we will use the other model. On the other hand, if Challenger 2s do not work in Ukraine, they probably will not work elsewhere.
It is clear that Challenger 2 tanks are not at all suitable for Ukraine. Because this tank is too heavy to move on the muddy ground in the agricultural lands in Ukraine, where rainfall is abundant. Due to its weight, its mobility is very low. As it is understood from the statements of Ukrainian tank personnel to some media organs, the 1,200 horsepower engine of the tank is not powerful enough for a 71 tonne vehicle.
For this reason, they often got stuck in the mud and it was very difficult for them to be towed by rescuers (armoured engineering vehicles). A tank that gets stuck in the mud in the fiercest moments of the battle and cannot be towed and rescued naturally becomes a vulnerable tank.
Challenger II tanks have a mud problem in Ukraine because they are so heavy that they can sink into even the smallest soft ground. Although lighter Russian tanks can also sink in the mud. However, when they are lighter, they sink less and can be rescued more easily when they sink. This is because Russian tanks have lower ground pressure and higher engine horsepower per tonne.
For example, the Russian T-90 M tank is 48 tonnes and has a track length of 4.280 m and a track width of 0.580 m. This means that it has a contact area of 4.9648 m2. Dividing the weight by this, the T-90M has a ground pressure of 9.668 tonnes per m2 .
The Challenger 2 tank is 75 tonnes and has a track length of 4.790 m and a track width of 0.650 m. This means that it has a contact area of 6.227 m2. Dividing the weight by this shows that Challenger 2 has a ground pressure of 12.044 tonnes per m2. This shows that the pressure applied by the Challenger per square metre is 25% higher than the T-90M.
The same is true in terms of engine power. The T-90M has 48 HP for its weight of 1130 tonnes, giving a ratio of 23.5 HP/T. The Challenger 2, on the other hand, has 1200 hp for its weight of 75 tonnes, giving a ratio of 16 hp/t.
In terms of both contact pressure and hp/t, Challenger 2 is far inferior to the heaviest Russian tanks currently in the field. It is therefore a very cumbersome tank and this contributes to its ease of getting stuck in the mud.
The armour protection of Challenger tanks is also problematic. For this reason, since the Challenger 2 tanks' first combat operation in Bosnia in the 1990s, additional armour has always been placed on the sides of the hull and the front bottom plate. These areas are where the Challenger 2 is most vulnerable.
Ukraine has never received these additional armour kits. This is probably because of the danger that the extra three tonnes of weight would further immobilise Ukrainian Challenger 2s on soft ground. The Ukrainians instead added light crenellated armour to the Challenger 2s' weakest points.
Challenger 2 tanks in the Ukrainian army
There are also problems with the weapon systems of the Challenger 2 tanks. For example, the Challenger 2's L30, 120 millimetre gun is problematic. Unlike the smoothbore guns on other Western tanks, the L30 barrel has rifling and sets. Since its ammunition is not the same as the ammunition of other tanks, Ukrainians need to make a separate ammunition supply planning for 13 Challenger 2.
Maintenance and upkeep of the gun barrel of this tank is also problematic. While the barrel life of a smoothbore tank gun is up to 1,500 rounds, a rifled L30A1 barrel wears out after 500 rounds. This is perhaps the most important problem because the 82nd Brigade, already worried about its tanks getting stuck in the mud, keeps them kilometres behind the front line and uses them as self-propelled guns, taking barrel life into account. In other words, the tanks could not be used for their intended purpose.
Despite all this, the Challenger 2 is still one of the good tanks. Challenger 2 tanks are very important for the British army. This importance is not only due to its good performance. It is important for a country to produce its own tanks both in terms of the country's prestige and national security.
WW2 Churchill tank
As a matter of fact, the British had many problems with the tanks they produced in World War II, but they still managed to defend themselves with their own tanks. Since they produced their own tanks independently of other tank producing countries, they did not have to buy tanks from the USA in World War II.
Yes, one Challenger 2 tank was destroyed in Ukraine. Probably more will be destroyed. This is normal in a war with a militarily strong country like Russia. The Challenger II is still a very capable tank. It is true that it has some shortcomings and problems. It has also been clearly demonstrated that it can be easily shot down. However, the shooting down of the Challenger and the vulnerabilities it showed are not unique to this tank.
Due to the development of anti-tank weapons, UCAVs and drones, the tanks of each country have faced similar problems. For example, Russia lost thousands of tanks in the first month of its invasion of Ukraine. Even with high-tech equipment, there is no indestructible tank in the world. That is why no one claims that Western tanks are indestructible anymore.
References
