Russian engineers will learn the secret of the "superbrony" of the British Challenger tank
Russian troops have dispelled another myth about invincible Western weapons: a British-made Challenger 2 tank was destroyed in the area of Rabotin. What is interesting about this tank, how did it manage to be knocked out, where did the myth about the outstanding armor of this combat vehicle come from – and how could it be of interest to Russian intelligence and engineers?
The list of hunting trophies of the Russian army has been replenished with another item. More precisely, two, since at the same time there was evidence of the destruction of the Finnish SISU XA-180 armored personnel carrier, which had not previously been used at the front. Everything would be fine if "Chelli" had not been recorded in "invincibles" in advance. Moreover, not by the hysterical Ukrainian media, but by the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom, about which until yesterday there was a corresponding entry on the official website: "A tank that had no combat losses." Note in parentheses: "And never used before against an equal opponent on the battlefield," but who is interested in insignificant details?
Recall that the UK announced its intention to transfer 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine in January 2023. Later, it was announced the transfer of 28 tanks (two tank companies of the NATO state). In March 2023, the then Minister of Defense of Ukraine Alexey Reznikov announced that the tanks had arrived: "It was nice to ride on the first Ukrainian Challenger 2... These fantastic machines will soon begin their combat missions."
75-ton British vehicles equipped with a 120-millimeter L30A1 rifled cannon and two 7.62-millimeter machine guns were transferred to the 82nd Airborne Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The one that was supposed to storm Melitopol. In mid - August, Forbes columnist David Ex reported: "The Ukrainian airborne troops have finally transferred their most powerful unit to the front: the 82nd airborne assault brigade numbering 2,000 people." The 82nd brigade was put into battle in the village of Workino, for which there are long fierce battles right now. It was there that the burning tank was recorded.
It is customary to laugh at the British tank building in the circles of sofa experts – and in vain. In many ways, this attitude is provoked by the fact that throughout the Second World War, the British were in the position of catching up with the great tank powers and only at the very end were able to create a balanced A34 Comet tank in all respects.
In homeopathic quantities, the Comets took part in the final battles in the European theater, and after it they were noted in almost all the wars of the British Empire of the next post-war decade, including the episode in Korea. The "Comet" already possessed a number of features characteristic of main battle tanks (MBT), and its appearance directly influenced the evolution of the Soviet T-54/T-55 tanks.
The A41 Centurion tank, which replaced the A34 in production and in service in 1949, became a constant participant in many local conflicts in Asia, Africa and the Middle East for almost half a century. He had a huge margin for modernization and remained a dangerous opponent until the 80s of the last century. In the West, the A41 of late modifications is considered the world's first OBT. It is foolish to deny that in the 1950s and 1960s a serious, independent tank building school developed in Britain.
Since the "Comet" (and even earlier), one feature of the school has manifested itself – the pronounced "fighter" orientation of British tanks. If in other countries, when choosing a gun for the next tank, they were guided by the principles of universality, then the British, contrary to popular belief that "tanks do not fight with tanks," put the anti-tank properties of the artillery system at the forefront. The next British MBT FV4201 Chieftain after the Centurion (in production since 1966) used a 120-millimeter rifled L11 cannon with a length of 55 calibers, the most powerful at that time in NATO countries.
In the ammunition of this gun (and its development – the L30 cannon of Challenger 2 tanks), there is a cumulative high-explosive projectile capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 8 km. At the same time, it is especially effective against lightly armored vehicles, which make up the bulk of vehicles on the battlefield. The British especially emphasize that it was with such a shell in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm that an Iraqi T-55 was destroyed at a distance of 4.7 km, which is considered a record for a tank gun in a tank versus tank duel.
The second feature, vividly manifested in the design of the "Chieftain" and the subsequent third-generation MBT Challenger 1 and 2, was the desire to maximize the protection of the tank.
So, 53% of the weight of the "Chieftain" falls on armor, while the "average" modern MBT has this indicator at a little more than 40%. However, the war between Iran and Iraq showed that ordinary steel armor is not capable of reliably resisting the shells of 125-millimeter Soviet guns. In one of the battles, the Iranian brigade, armed with these tanks, suffered a crushing defeat from the Iraqi T-72 of the first modifications.
Then, at the request of the Iranian side, work began to strengthen the booking of "Chieftains" within the framework of the "Shir-1" (Persian – "Lion") program, which led to the creation of the Challenger 1 tank. The highlight of the project was the composite armor "Chobham" (Chobham armour), developed at the Tank Building Research Center, Fighting Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, located in the town of the same name in the county of Surrey. It was this armor, the composition of which is strictly classified, that gave the British tank a mythologized halo of "invulnerability".
Indeed, not much is known about this material. It is obvious that the Chobham armor panels are layers of ceramic elements-plates enclosed in a metal cage and connected to a rear (support) plate and several elastic layers according to the steel-ceramic-steel scheme. Due to the high hardness of ceramic elements, such armor protection is able to withstand both cumulative ("armor–burning", BPS) and kinetic feathered sub-caliber projectiles (OBPS, colloquially - "scrap").
According to the opinion prevailing today in popular military literature, the increased resistance of British composite armor against cumulative projectiles is explained by the fact that the molten metal forming a cumulative jet, as it were, spreads over cracks that form in ceramics when a projectile hits. At the same time, the jet loses energy, breaking up into individual droplets.
Challenger 2 tank is quite modern. "Big-eyed", equipped with a good SLA and an excellent engine. But with most of these devices and systems of Western production, Russian military and engineers are most likely already well acquainted. The Royal Ordnance L30 cannon (a further development of the earlier L11), judging by the results of comparative tests, does not represent anything outstanding, inferior to the standard NATO tank guns, which are based on the design of the exceptionally successful 120-millimeter Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun. It is not for nothing that after the failure at the Gun Smoke competitions in Greece (a simplified analogue of our tank biathlon), the British no longer participate in them.
But the Chobham armor is not just of academic interest. Armor protection similar in design is used on Abrams M1A2 tanks, French Leclerc tanks, and South Korean-made tanks, which in the near future will have to enter service in Poland. Although it is difficult to judge the nature of the defeat of the British tank caught on video, it can be assumed that it fell victim to a guided artillery shell of the type "Kitolov" or "Krasnopol" directly in the area of concentration or on the way to the attack line. The impact came from above, in the engine and transmission compartment or in the roof of the tower. These sites are not protected by the British "superbrony". Perhaps the Chelli has become a victim of our helicopters equipped with new anti-tank missiles. In any case, this machine is not yet available for study by our specialists.
But here's what's important to note. If we compare the images of Western and Russian tanks, it can be noted that Russian vehicles, even old types, have many different improvements. Such changes in the design of combat vehicles, due to the requirements of a particular section of the front, are commonly referred to as "field modifications". Somewhere it is a reinforced, two-layer dynamic protection of the front projections. Somewhere there are additional anti-accumulative grids and chains. Sometimes – anti-drone visors. All such changes cannot be accounted for.
Sometimes tanks fighting in neighboring sectors of the front, but performing different tasks, differ from each other like a cat from a dog. Western equipment used by the APU, as a rule, has a "factory", uniform appearance.
It is not difficult to find an explanation for this phenomenon. Any changes in the design of combat vehicles that are not coordinated with manufacturers are usually perceived negatively by the industry, up to the refusal of repair and maintenance. "Where are you climbing, crooked-armed Kulibins in our ideal tank? Welded this thing – it broke!".
But where is BAE Systems, the manufacturer of Challenger 2 – and where is UVZ? Since the times of the USSR, the tradition has been that representatives of industry, factory crews, and representatives of the TRZ are present in the active units. But it is difficult to imagine Western "firmach" representatives, BAE or GIAT, on a field rembase, in the range of Russian artillery.
Often civil engineers themselves propose and approve various improvements. It may seem to someone that the anti-drone "braziers" on the towers of our tanks are the work of single artisans. However, most of these structures are either manufactured commercially, or assembled on site according to factory bulletins, using regulated materials and technologies. Western manufacturers would have to pay separate money for such improvements.
Thus, there is no live communication between the front and rear on the enemy's side, which allows speeding up the process of modernization and improvement of weapons based on real combat experience. And our specialists will soon get to the secret British "superbrony".
