The tragedy occurred at dawn on March 25, 2003, when the British armored divisions were in the vicinity of the city of Basra (Iraq). It seemed like a normal day for the boys of the ‘2nd Royal Tank Regiment’; as usual as it can be to defend a bridge in the middle of a country located more than five thousand kilometers from home. Out of nowhere, two tanks cut across the horizon; enemies, or so it seemed. After permission to fire required, a ‘main battle tank’ Challenger 2 English spat explosive lead on them. “Fire!”. And a shot. “Fire!”. And another shot. An enemy burst out screaming.
The loas quickly turned into tears. Looking more closely, the regimental commander caught a glimpse of the unmistakable outline of the tanks. They were also Challenger 2, although of the ‘Queen’s Royal Lancers’, a neighboring English regiment. Without meaning to, they had just taken the lives of two of his companions and destroyed one of her Majesty’s tanks. That was a debacle that still stings on the other side of the English Channel and that has generated endless lawsuits against Lieutenant Colonel Lindsay MacDuff, the person in charge of reporting the position of those two wayward men. Mistakes are also paid.
That “avoidable tragedy”, as it was defined during the process, resulted in the only Challenger 2 main battle tank destroyed in combat. Or so the British still say, either reality or a myth replicated by countless authors. But this is not the only record held by the car that, in the coming weeks, will set foot on the battlefields of Ukraine hand in hand with the United Kingdom. In addition, it hides one more positive: it is the tank that has shot down an armored target at a greater distance throughout the entire history of this type of vehicle. It was in the Gulf War, against an Iraqi tank, and about four kilometers.
But reality, as often happens, is not as white as it seems. Rather, he is halfway between the altars to which some raise him, and the mud through which others drag him. «Its history is very long: Balkans, Baltic States, Iraq… It is a battle-tested and efficient tank. However, England thought it was going to be an export success similar to the American F-16, and has found that it has barely managed to place thirty-eight to Oman. The one who speaks is already a regular in ABC’s arms analysis: Jose Luis Hernandez Garvi. Each thing in its place.
break with the above
Robert Griffin tells in his recent ‘Challenger 2: The British Main Battle Tank’ that this tank is the result of years of technical refinement after the rudeness of World War II. The conflict that shook Europe forced the island army to face a Third Reich that elevated armored design to an art. It cannot be denied that, by then, the English were devastated at all levels. Old Churchill y Cromwell they could do little against the Teutonic panzers. Although the engineers learned from their mistakes and, from then on, they changed their paradigm with the aim of leading the old continent.
His new commandments were to shape a tank that prioritized, in this order, firepower, protection, and mobility. Gone are outdated doctrines such as the American one, which differentiated between infantry tanks and tank destroyers; the new essence of ‘heavy metal’ fighting was the forging of a ‘main battle tank’. “The aim was to find a solid balance between firepower and protection,” adds the Anglo-Saxon expert in his work. This is how the Chieftain first arrived – active between 1960 and 1970 and the first in NATO to mount a 120 mm cannon – and then, and after several intermediate models, the germ of our protagonist.
Challenger tank in 1999
The Challenger 1 arrived in the late eighties. And the truth is that it was not a bad tank. Analysts say that it had performance somewhat below that of the first-generation M1 Abrams and that, both on paper and in the field, it could easily stand up to the T-72s that the Soviet Army had just pulled out of the factories. . In fact, in Iraq they performed well, killing three hundred enemies. It was the first with composite armor and had a gun that analysts said was among the most accurate in the world thanks to its rifled bore. All in all, it proved to be out of date with the new T-80s of the great Russian bear.
This is how the need to forge a new British colossus arose. The juiciest proposal was presented by the company Vickers Defense Systems, and was called Challenger 2 despite the fact that, according to the same company, it barely shared 3% of the parts of its older brother. It only kept its elongated aesthetic characteristic and its large turret. The project was promoted by the Ministry of Defense with an injection of 90 million pounds. But, the more money, the more requirements. The Government delivered eleven rigorous criteria that the new vehicle had to meet in order for it to start mass production. And even so, in 1991 a comparative test was carried out between our protagonists and a Leopard 2A5 and M1A2 Abrams.
Specifications
As Garvi explains to ABC, the British government was so convinced that its export version –Challenger 2E– would be so popular that it would sweep the markets of the Middle East and among its allied countries. The reality was that when it entered service in 1994, it was a fiasco in this regard. «With exceptions, it was equivalent to the Leopard and the M1 Abrams, with which it shares parts and characteristics, and both were much more salable abroad. So I was doomed, ”reveals the analyst. The result was the acquisition of an anemic number, almost for own use: 386 for the British Army and 38 for Oman.
The same English army perfectly defines the characteristics of the Challenger 2 in several dossiers. They admit that its weight –62.5 tons, more than its predecessor– and the armor that protects the chassis make it somewhat slower and less maneuverable than its competitors; but, in exchange, they claim that it is one of the best-armed vehicles on the planet. Its main gun is the 120mm, 6.6 meter long L30A1 CHARM. In principle it is comparable to that of its competitors, but it has a difference that, according to British engineers, puts it ahead: its fluted core. «In a few words, and although it is simplifying it a lot, the smooth bore gives greater penetrating power. This offers a greater shooting distance”, completes Garvi.
Its defenses are also characteristic. The Challenger 2 mounts an armor that offers more resistance than the traditional ones in exchange for increasing the weight: the second generation of the armor Good luck, made up of tile-shaped plates made of tungsten, ceramic materials and depleted uranium. English engineers boast that it resists most ammunition HEAT (high-explosive armor-piercing projectiles) and portable weapons. But, as if that were not enough, it can also be equipped with reactive armor modules and many others with complementary armor. These, in addition to changing their aesthetics, further raise the tonnage up to a third. Of course, it also has the same list of devices as its colleagues: CBRN protection, fire extinguishing systems and infrared detection…
What other advantages does it treasure? The most striking, a turret that can make a full 360 degree turn in just nine seconds; 11 faster than their Soviet equivalents. Where it differs most from its contemporary counterparts is that it has a four-man crew, one more than the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams. The reason is simple: while its competitors have an automatic or semi-automatic charging system, the Challenger 2 is manual, so it needs a charger that will feed it. “Another difference is its characteristic side skirts, which protect the tracks from anti-tank projectiles and impacts from other armored vehicles,” says Garvi. Lastly, it stands out for its mechanical reliability.
So far, the Challenger 2 has given good results. For starters, it has been an active participant in most Western wars. And, according to official sources, only one unit has been destroyed in combat, and by friendly fire. Yes, there have been many cases in which the opponents have disabled one, but it has always been possible to recover it after some simple (or complex) arrangements. The most remembered ones also happened in Iraq. There, in the middle of hostile land, two armored vehicles were hit by improvised explosives and portable anti-tank weapons. Despite severe damage, they held out. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for some members of their crews.
Characteristics, according to the British Army
Weight: 62.5 tons; 75 equipped for combat with all additional armor modules.
Crew: 4 (commander, gunner, loader/operator, driver)
Armadura: Chobham / Dorchester Nivel 2 (secreta)
Main Armament: 120 mm L30A1 rifled gun with 47 rounds
Secondary Armament: L94A1 7.62mm EX-34 coaxial autocannon (chain gun), L37A2 7.62mm operator’s hatch/loader machine gun
Engine: Perkins CV12-6A 26.1-liter V12 diesel, 1200 hp (890 kW)
Suspension: Hydropneumatic suspension
Fuel capacity: 1,592 liters (350 imp gal; 421 US gal)
Operational range: 550 km highway, 250 km cross country
Top speed: 59 km/h on highway, 40 km/h (25 mph) in open field