The United Kingdom did more than any nation to pioneer armored warfare, and its Challenger 2 stands amongst the best tanks in the world. The sixty-two-ton tank established a reputation for exceptional toughness during combat in Iraq. But despite being a newer design than the Leopard or Abrams, the Challenger 2 has not been lavished with the extensive upgrades that its NATO peers have, and is generally perceived as having fallen behind. <\/p>\n
In January 2017, the Ministry of Defense declared it had short-listed competing proposals from BAE Systems and German Rheinmetall for a modest Challenger 2 Life Extension Program (LEP) to improve the vehicles sensors and fire control computers. While the LEP is meant to increase the Challenger 2s service life until 2035, neither proposal addresses the most glaring issues with the vehicle. <\/p>\n
The Challenger 2 entered service only fifteen years after the Challenger 1 in 1983. At the time, it was the first British tank to benefit from state-of-the-art Chobham composite armor, which decisively restored the defensive primacy of modern tanks. However, the Challenger 1 still shared many systems with the preceding Chieftain tank, including a sluggish fire control system. The new tank performed poorly in exercises and suffered from extravagant teething issues. The Ministry of Defense was inspired to sign on to a more thoroughly modernized design in 1989. <\/p>\n
Ironically, the Challenger 1 performed brilliantly under actual combat conditions in the Gulf War, destroying 200 to 300 Iraqi tanks without suffering any losses. The Challenger and Abrams were simply more than the Iraqis could handle. The Iraqi army was fielding older Soviet tanks that could not defeat such formidable armorthey might have had a fighting chance if they had improved ammunition. In return, the 120 millimeter guns on both vehicles could effortlessly pierce opposing armor. A Challenger 1 crew even achieved a record long-range shot during the conflict, destroying an Iraqi tank from 3.2 miles away. <\/p>\n
But the Challenger replacement was already well underway. Despite its similar appearance, the Challenger 2 that entered service in 1998 had very few parts in common with its predecessor. It featured a longer barrel L30A1 cannon with a longer fifty-five-caliber barrel, and an upgraded composite package known as Dorchester armor, mixed with extra Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA) tiles. The latter type of armor involves metal plates sandwiched with explosives that explode outward against incoming projectiles, diminishing or deflecting the blast of shaped-charge warheads. In addition to the main gun, the crew of four can fire machineguns. <\/p>\n
The Leopard 2, Abrams and Challenger are all considered to be broadly similar in capability, but the British design has some distinguishing quirksnotably, it was formerly considered the best armored of the three tanks, but also the slowest with a maximum speed of thirty-seven miles per hour. This latter trait is related to its underpowered 1,200 horsepower engine, compared to 1,500 horsepower powertrains on other top Western tanks. <\/p>\n
The Challenger 2 is also noted for being one of the only modern tank design in its weight class to use a rifled gun. A rifled gun allows for greater accuracy, but the spinning motion it imparts leads to lower muzzle velocity, diminishing penetrating power for the kinetic armor-piercing sabot shells favored by most countrieswhich are quite stable anyway. But British tankers in the 1980s were more interested in their own unique form of ammunition, the High Explosive Squash-Head (HESH) which does not depend on kinetic energy for penetration, but still could benefit from the greater accuracy of a rifled barrel. HESH rounds employ a plastic explosive that generates a shock to the interior vehicle, causing metal to spall. <\/p>\n
The Challenger 2 soldiered on in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, where it once again steamrolled opposing tanks around the city of Basra without suffering any losses to hostile fire. The British tank faced the greatest danger from roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades. One Challenger 2 was allegedly struck by seventy RPGsand emerged with its crew unscratched. Another survived seventeen RPGs and a Milan missile, and despite the battle damage, was back in combat the next day. <\/p>\n
The Challenger 2s reputation for indomitability created somewhat unreasonable expectations. In 2007, it was revealed that a few years back an insurgent using an RPG-29an especially powerful 105 millimeter warheadhad pierced through the belly armor of a Challenger 2 as it crested a dune. The belly armor is one of the weakest points on any tank. The penetrating warhead mauled the drivers footthough the vehicle remained in operational condition and was able to back away from the ambush. Another Challenger 2 was disabled in 2007 by an IED, but restored into operational condition. The only Challenger 2 to be totally destroyed was hit by another Challenger 2 tank by accident. <\/p>\n
The Ministry of Defense was lambasted for having tanks that were not actually indestructible, and slightly more reasonably, that they had covered up the initial incident. Afterwards, the ERA armor on the lower front-hull was replaced with heavier Dorchester composite armor. Presently, the armor packages on the Challengers 2 breaks the scales at around seventy-five tons! <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See more here:<\/p>\n
Britain's Challenger 2 Tank Is One of the Bestbut It Needs Some Serious Help - The National Interest Online (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The United Kingdom did more than any nation to pioneer armored warfare, and its Challenger 2 stands amongst the best tanks in the world. Continue reading