Forbes: Challenger 2 tank, "donated" by Britain to the Armed Forces, has dangerous defects
The British Challenger 2 tank, it turns out, is "not suitable for Ukraine." This is the conclusion reached by the business publication Forbes. The reasons for considering the tank unsuitable are listed quite convincingly: poor armor, weak engine, short-lived cannon. Why was it necessary to give such a marriage? The author gives a strange answer.
The Challenger 2 is too heavy, it has weak protection, and it requires too much maintenance.
The UK has transferred 14 71-ton Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. The 82nd Airborne Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is the only unit using the 13 remaining tanks after one vehicle was shot down in battles near Rabocino in southern Ukraine at the end of last summer.
The Challenger 2 is the only tank of the British Army. The British used it quite successfully in 2003 during the US-led invasion of Iraq.
However, this car with a crew of four is not suitable for Ukraine. There is reason to believe that London transferred these 14 tanks only to encourage other NATO countries to transfer their own tanks, which are better. These are Leopard 2, Strv 122 and M-1.
Challenger 2 lacks mobility
One of the crew members of the Ukrainian Challenger 2 said that its 1,200 horsepower tank engine was not powerful enough for this 71-ton machine. "Challenger 2" very often gets stuck and gets stuck in the soft Ukrainian soil, and it has to be pulled out by other "Challengers" or evacuation vehicles.
In the midst of a battle, when it is not always possible to take a car in tow, a stuck Challenger 2 immediately becomes a very vulnerable target.
Weak protection
Since the very first combat use, and it was in Bosnia in the 1990s, the Challenger 2s in service with the British army have always been fitted with additional armor on the sides of the hull and on the lower part of the frontal plate. There are reasons for this. These places of the basic version of the tank, designed for direct fire from cover, are the least protected.
Ukraine has not received these mounted armor protection kits. This is probably due to the fact that the additional three tons of weight will make the Challenger 2 even less mobile on soft ground. Ukrainians put light mesh screens in their place, covering the most vulnerable places.
Such nets help to weaken the force of a drone strike and the damaging effect of hand-held anti-tank weapons, but a more powerful munition will certainly penetrate the armor of a British tank.
The unique main weapon of the Challenger 2
The 120mm L30 Challenger 2 cannon is a problem. Unlike the smoothbore guns of modern Western tanks, the L30 has a rifled barrel. Other shells are not suitable for it, and therefore the Ukrainians are forced to maintain a separate supply system only so that 13 Challenger 2s do not stop firing.
Up to 1,500 shots can be fired from the smoothbore L44 tank gun, after which its service life will come to an end. The rifled L30A1 cannon wears out after 500 rounds. And this creates serious problems, because the 82nd Brigade, fearing that its tanks will get stuck in the mud, keeps them far from the front line and uses them as self-propelled howitzers.
The howitzer shoots for a long time. And the Challenger 2 can't shoot for a long time, because the barrel of its gun is wearing out.
There are not enough tanks
As of today, Ukraine has received 71 Leopard 2 tanks and a Strv 122 similar to it from European countries. Plus, 31 M-1s from the United States have been delivered there. In the coming year, she should receive 34 more Leopards 2 and almost 200 Leopards 1. But the Soviet T-64 and T-72, which form the basis of the Ukrainian tank forces, number in the hundreds and outnumber Western vehicles.
Thus, 14 "Challenger 2" (now 13) by the standards of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is nothing more than a rounding error. They are not worth the effort that has to be spent on maintenance and repair. Oh, yes — also to pull them out when they get stuck.
Author: David Axe
Gabriel Silveira provided his material for the article.
