A Ukrainian Challenger 2 tank, giften by Britain, was destroyed near Robotyne.

This is the first confirmed loss of this tank in Ukraine and is also the first one ever destroyed by enemy action.

A video surfaced this Monday showing a Challenger 2 tank, belonging to the 82nd Air Assault Brigade, engulfed in flames. The incident reportedly took place near Robotyne in southern Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Oblast.

Earlier this year, the United Kingdom pledged to send 14 Challenger 2 tanks to aid Ukraine in its war effort. Just days before the loss, the Ukrainian defence ministry released an interview praising the capabilities of the Challenger 2.

In the interview, a trooper from the 82nd Brigade specifically highlighted the tank’s long-range firepower and superior protection as compared to Soviet-era tanks.

The video that circulated online paints a grim scene but also offers a glimpse into the survivability features of the tank. While the Challenger 2 was clearly on fire, the turret was still attached to its hull. This could be an indicator that while the tank was incapacitated, the structure remained largely intact.

While the loss is certainly unfortunate, the fact that the turret remained attached to the hull even after being set ablaze highlights the tank’s design for survivability. Tanks are not just about firepower; their ability to protect their crews and remain intact under hostile conditions is equally important.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also previously worked for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

184 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago

Inevitable unfortunately 🙁

TypewriterMonkey
TypewriterMonkey
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

It hit a mine, apparently, and then destroyed by heavy artillery.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T
Defence thoughts
Defence thoughts
2 months ago

I hope we get a kill rate when this war is over.

I also hope the tank is recovered. Maybe even repaired, depending on the damage. I wonder what got it?

Geo
Geo
2 months ago

That would be interesting to see what took it out as high level of survivability is already proven

Wyrmnax
Wyrmnax
2 months ago

It is in fire, I doubt it is repairable. The expensive stuff inside the tank does not like fire.

BUT being recovered would be great to assess what happened, how serious it was and what needs improvement.

David Lee
David Lee
2 months ago

It went over a mine had no chance against that

Marked
Marked
2 months ago

Was always going to happen in a cauldron like Ukraine, it’s a level above what the UK has ever used them for. Lose a track, engine damage, even a random break down, any number of things could immobilise one leaving it open to eventual destruction, or destruction to prevent capture as the crew abandons it. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was disabled by a mine here. No such thing as an invulnerable tank. A perfect example of why numbers matter, its all very well the crew surviving but its of little military use if they don’t have another tank to… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
2 months ago
Reply to  Marked

A crew can be used in any tank with training! Much better they survive in any event👍

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
2 months ago

Sorry George – having checked the video and found the original on Twitter it does not look like a Chally at all in my view

The video is only fractions of a second long and though it does look like an armoured vehicle of some sort belching smoke, its deffo not a Chally.

RobW
RobW
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

We are talking about the first one shown on the video aren’t we? Looks like a Chally to me. Why don’t you think it is?

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
2 months ago
Reply to  RobW

The first one is obviously belching smoke but that might be a smokescreen. The armoured vehicle at the begining of the clip is unclear. I stand to be corrected but I would want to see clearer, less shaky video before confirming it as a Chally – and the guy taking the vid is very excited

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Vehicle at the begining of the clip is on fire, it’s not a smokescreen. Smokescreens are generally white, and don’t feature flames. It’s clearly a CR2, the TOGS II sighting unit is pretty distinct, and no other vehicle in Ukraine has anything that resembles it. The second vehicle passed is a Russian T variant (probably a T-80 or late model T-72).

peter
peter
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The smoke function is created by injecting diesel into hot exhaust ejector outlets with engine running, the smoke was mainly coming out louvers.

Spartan47
Spartan47
2 months ago
Reply to  RobW

The shape of the turret and optics marks it clearly as a Challenger 2 from what I can see. Hopefully, it can be recovered and some potential lessons learned.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 months ago
Reply to  Spartan47

Did the UK donate any recovery vehicles for these tanks too?

David Lee
David Lee
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yes

BobA
BobA
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The first tank in the video is definitely a Chally 2. You can see the TI box on top of the barrel and the distinctive front end of the turret / plus the shape of the barrel.

The second tank looks more like an updated T72 or similar.

Jacko
Jacko
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Sorry but it’s a Challenger unfortunately!

Billy
Billy
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Ye that’s a Chally alright!

jjsmallpiece
jjsmallpiece
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

The vehicle is clearly a Challenger – the slab sided turret and the sighting/fire control box on top of the turret/barrel. I doubt few tank people would disagree

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I agree with you there I don’t think it’s a challenger either. The scant coverage of the occurrence also bothers me, why so short?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Look at the front end of the barrel in these images and pause the video of the suspected Chally 2 on fire.
https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/Image-2-Challenger-2-Main-Battle-Tank.jpg

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Thanks Nigel.

I concur.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago

On a positive note, it seems the crew survived! Challenger 2 tank hit mine before being targeted by drone The British Challenger 2 tank destroyed in Ukraine was damaged by a mine before it was targeted by Russian munitions, a Western defence source has said. The source told a small group of journalists that the battle tank was first hit by a legacy mine which immobilised it and caused a fire in the rear fuel tank.   The crew evacuated the tank and once dormant in the open with no cover, the Challenger 2 was hit by a Lancet loitering… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Nigel Collins
David Lloyd
David Lloyd
2 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Well, as I said I stand to be corrected – but the end of the smoking tank’s barrel does not look like this to me.Too much smoke around the front of the turret to be sure of the shape or any optics package. There is a small fire around the tracks tho

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I know what you mean mate, I had a few viewings with the same opinion. However, my last viewing, looking even closer, I did see a brief clear glimpse where that exact shape is visible.

Needs a SME on here to properly assess the damage beyond us interested spectators, as I also see a big fire beyond the turret.

BobA
BobA
2 months ago

I used to be in command of anti tank platoon – definitely looks like a Challenger 2 to me

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  BobA

Then that it what it is, sadly.

Hopefully it is recoverable and not a total loss.

David
David
2 months ago

Agreed Daniele. Some of the Leopard 2s that were first reported as knocked out, were in fact recovered and repaired. Not to beat a dead horse but this definitely is a Challenger 2 unfortunately – the TOGS was a clear giveaway. Thoughts and best wishes are with the crew – if they survived, then the Challenger 2 did it’s job. My only concern now is what if the Russians recover it before the Ukrainians do – can they learn anything about the Dorchester armour? This was always my concern sending them to Ukraine in the first place. I know the… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  David

I agree. I was also concerned that they were sent. A mere 14 is a political statement. They can do damage, sure.
And if the Russians get hold of one, even an earlier model.
I think, the way Ukraine are advancing, this is behind the lines and safe from Russia, and that it will be recovered.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 months ago
Reply to  David

I’d imagine it is recoverable. Seeing as a bunch of Ukraine army troops just drove past it in a beat up 4×4 to record the video.
Drag it out of there and hopefully recover and repair. Might be a total loss though.
I hope it gave the Ruskfascists a pounding before succumbing to battlefield damage.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  David

I doubt it will be repaired if it’s on fire. The Leopards that where shown burning are the ones that where written off.

Geoffi
Geoffi
2 months ago
Reply to  David

A Ukranian work colleague told me that the Dorchester armour was removed when transferred.
Not sure about the veracity of his statement.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  David

A lot depends on the term ‘knocked out’. Almost all vehicles can be recovered, the main exception being if the territory has since been overrun by the enemy. The Ukrainians will not have the same capability to repair a CR2 (obvs) as we would have. They should certainly have a tank coy fitter section, but I don’t know what else they have in-country. I also don’t know what spares they have in-country. If the tank is badly damaged (which it probably is – mine strike and Lancet attack and subsequent fire, by all acounts) they won’t have all the spares… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Recover it and send it back to the U.K.

David
David
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Read yesterday that we will not be replacing the lost Challenger 2.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  David

We gave UKR four tanks for Attrition Reserve on top of the 10 for their tank company.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

So the current rumour on the internet is that it was Mobility killed (either mechanically or by artillery) and then denied by it’s crew. Skeptical because people are generally saying it was quite far from the front so, why would you deny a tank that the enemy won’t be capturing, but that’s the rumour.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Yes, I’m sceptical at that too. If it’s true that the UKR Army has the momentum, and the numbers, in that area and is pushing forward with little in tbe wsy of local counterattacks by the Russians to retake ground then why not recover if you can?
What do I know, all speculative.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

Yeah, even in the 3 hours since I posted the narrative is changing. Now I’m reading mobility kill, crew bailed, then Lancet hit. I’d wager there will be more variations as time goes on.
The main thing is, Russia is so desperate for success their foreign embassy has already started leveraging it.

Steve
Steve
2 months ago

If it is recoverable then it’s not the first as ones were made inoperable in Iraq also but were recovered.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Virtually all damaged tanks are recoverable. The big question is whether it is repairable after a mine strike, Lancet attack and subsequent fire at several positions.

Steve
Steve
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Considering they have been cannibalising the fleet for years to keep them in service, I suspect even if it was repairable the parts are probably not available.

Ian Brown
Ian Brown
2 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I’ve served on both Chally 1 and 2. I think that is definitely Chally 2 possibly hit from above by a drone.

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro
2 months ago

I believe Charliy2s were sent to Ukraine deviod of the secret protection devices just an Iron Hull.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

Without TES sets yes, main Armour is as Standard.

David
David
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

I often wondered as to why we didn’t send the TES packages? The only thing I can think of is weight – with TES fitted, it’s a heavy monster!

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  David

The simple reason is the Full TES Kits are very few in number,if there was one available for each Tank then yes they should have been supplied.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

We sent 120 tanks on Op Telic (Gulf War 2) – we would probably not have had more than that number of TES kits.

peter Wait
peter Wait
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

The tanks supplied would have needed some mod’s to fit the TES kit on and you need crane to lift side armor off for servicing running gear .

peter Wait
peter Wait
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Too heavy for mud in Ukraine, makes it nearly 75 t!

andy
andy
2 months ago

it was going to happen, lack of air dominance over the land and lack of infantry protection, as good as chally is it was always a tall order for it especially on it’s own.. let’s be honest nothing has really been done to upgrade or replace it or warrior since the Berlin wall came down,the MOD is the backup piggy bank for every governments failures, resulting in cuts left right and center,and to even consider trying to get back to a level to pre cold war would cost trillions, it’s never going to happen, especially when we are invaded daily… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  andy

Was there a lack of infantry protection? Surely UKR is smarter than the Russians and actually do Combined Arms operations? Anyway I doubt Inf could have saved this tank – it reportedly hit a mine and was then attacked from a drone.

Andy
Andy
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

there is a video circulating on social media showing it being hit with a atgm then artillery hitting the position later on, but how truthful the video is i would not like to say.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy

Thanks Andy. There are always so many theories circulating.

George Lewis
George Lewis
2 months ago

Rafael just released this 2 hours ago… a coincidence?

https://youtu.be/l1PX-pdyiTw?si=GDnXG3BRw7c9BX5H

Last edited 2 months ago by George Lewis
AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  George Lewis

Interesting, thanks.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
2 months ago

It would be interesting to know what knocked it out.

There does not appear to be a lot of tank vs. tank battles happening so I assume artillery or a drone.

I just hope it is recoverable, I would hate to see Russia capture a Challenger 2

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago

I believe that area is firmly in UKR hands, with them on the offensive and Russia hanging on to their defence lines, so I don’t see them pushing back there to the point it is recovered.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago

A Drone or an Anti Tank Mine likely.

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Can be artillery too.

Dragonwight
Dragonwight
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Or both. The mudguard is blown off and the external black acrid smoke is suggestive of diesel burning. Hit a mine and then hit by a drone which probably set the diesel alight. It looks structurally intact.

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

Russian’s said it was hit with a Konkurs ATGM

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Denys Davydov seems to confirm this on his vlog today. He infers it hit the tank in the side near the engine. Wondering if some extra Dorchester armour (as fitted to CH2 in Iraq) would have saved it.

David Barry
David Barry
2 months ago

The Times and Telegraph podcasts have experienced Brit talkies reporting that the UKR used them as long range snipers – hence no tank on tank.

However, even Rus v Ukr Tk on Tk is limited as many Rus Tks are killed before engaging. Difficult war for the analysts.

DC647
DC647
2 months ago

They should never have been sent there. They are still a prize the Russian would love to get their hands on, since most of the body will be included in the Challenger 3 upgrade. This is another decision by the government against the advice of the military. We even refused the Americans them in the past because of the top secret armour which is still classified today. One more decision made to impress without concern of the consequences. I just hope it is recoverable and repairable, if not it needs to be totally destroyed hope there is a UKSF unit… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

As has been discussed on here CR2 tech is not modern although still good enough for the task the Ukr has! The armour on CR3 is upgraded from Dorchester to Epsom in the hull and turret and internally to Farnham standard so even if the Orcs did get hands on one CR3 won’t be compromised. If it’s mine damage as Farouk has indicated if the hull hasn’t been breached it’s probably recoverable so hopefully on its way back to the rear already🤞

DC647
DC647
2 months ago
Reply to  Jacko

The problem been it will still give the Russians a possible work around into the manufacturing techniques and installation techniques of the armour. No matter which version. That is why the military were dead set on not supplying CH2 to UKRAINE even though the Ukrainians gave assurances they would not fall into Russians hands.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

Well, it does give us some insight and comparison into how CH2 copes in a modern battlefield that appears to be dominated by drones and artillery.

It would be interesting to see how well CH2 would do tank to tank, CH2 was designed to face T-72 and T80s (possibly early T-90s). Wondering how it would fair toe to toe with a T90M

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 months ago

Eat them up. I will assume 5 kills minimum for each challenger in a big event.
Training as ever is what sets the tank skill.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

We can probably assume that Russia if it wanted to know about modern western tanks has already gathered information. It’s been in service for 20+ Years.

DC647
DC647
2 months ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Gathering information is like reading a cook book doesn’t mean you can cook. Information is one thing actually having one is completely different.

farouk
farouk
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

DC647 wrote: “”We even refused the Americans them in the past because of the top secret armour which is still classified today. “” US General W. R Desobry visited in 1972 the British fighting vehicles research and development establishment (FVRDE) and learnt of the development there of a new type of armour called “Chobham” armour (after its location) which was much more efficient against shaped charge weapons than steel armour This led to the adoption of Chobham armour by the US army and a visit to FVRDE in 1973 by Chrysler and general motor engineers who subsequently modified their protypes of the XM1to incorporate… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

Did our armed forces object to the gifting of CR2? I had not heard that before.

We gave the secret of Chobham armour to the US who fielded it (on M1 Abrams) before we did!
We happily sold CR2 to Oman.

Surely UKSF are not operating in UKR – if they are, why would they deny the tank by destroying it? That’s not their usual job. UKR can do this themselves if they feel it is about to be overrun by the enemy and seized by the Russians.

DC647
DC647
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes the military did raise objections but they where ignored. We did refuse the US challenger tanks (UK Specs)Cobham armour was a UK invention in the 60s. Cobham armour was the main body in addition to that UK challenger 2 had a secondary armour called Dorchester which was not supplied to Omen. The US does the same with their own they have a Domestic kit which is higher Spec than their export tank. As for UKSF. the UK, the US, France and others have sp in UKRAINE approx 50 the largest number is UK which have been in country since… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  DC647

A few points,you keep refering to Cobham Armour but it is called Chobham,of which Dorchester is a later variation, butat the end of the day it’s still Chobham.Would VSEL have gone to the trouble of a complete re-design of CR2 to sell Oman a grand total of 38 Tanks,i think not,they are not ‘ Monkey’ models,they got the same level of protection as the BA examples.The Turret of the knocked out Ukraine CR2 is not intact,far from it it has been hit and no longer sits where it is supposed to.As for UKSF ,they might be in Ukraine for Diplomatic,Embassy… Read more »

Michael S.
Michael S.
2 months ago

According to Forbes, out of the Leopard 2 only 5 so far were lost and around 10 damaged but repairable. And most Crews survived.

Those Challenger and Leopard tanks are not there for Parades. They serve a Job to free Ukraine and to prevent that war is a viable strategy.

It happens. But So far it seems Marder and Challenger form a useful Tandem.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 months ago
Reply to  Michael S.

I don’t know about that but number. I’ve heard 24 leopards visually confirmed hit last time I looked. How many are recovered I don’t have a clue.
About 50 Bradley’s also destroyed. As with all things in the conflict the numbers could be wrong.
Oryx is a great place to look.

farouk
farouk
2 months ago

Comparing the picture of the burning vehicle in question with another of a Challenger 2 with the turret view the same. We can see similarities with the overall shape of the turret especially the angled front, the TOG 2 sight over the barrel, the fume extractor, also the vehicle on fire sports 2 fuel drums at the rear (well one is on the floor) which is how the Challenger 2 carries extra fuel. The rear open hatch seems to corresponds to the position of commander’s hatch and from what I can ascertain, the vehicle appears to have struck a mine… Read more »

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

There’s a reasonable chance all if not most of the smoke is from the burning diesel carried in the extra drums… one of which being on the floor… hatch open means crew likely survived.

I agree it looks like a mine strike. If so it could potentially be recovered.

Time will tell as I’m sure there will be an update from either side in due course.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Quite hard for diesel fuel to catch fire, but not impossible. Need to raise its temp to at least its flashpoint of 52C and provide an ignition source.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Mine dropped the track and damaged the front end immobilising the tank. Lancet drone ignited the external diesel tanks in a subsequent strike once the crew had abandoned the tank.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Thanks mate. The BBC said much the same and also thought all crew had escaped after the mine strike but before the Lancet drone attacked. If there has been a turret fire as well then I am sure it will be a write-off.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

It is seemingly in the engine bay… Turret seemed to be intact other wise I’d expected to have seen smoke from the barrel and open hatch etc.

Who knows… If it’s not recoverable I’d be hitting it with a storm shadow just to be safe.

DH
DH
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Be interested in a Tankers opinion/input /expertise. 🙃 (being an ex sailor) 😉👍

DH
DH
2 months ago
Reply to  DH

Hope the crew survived!👌👍

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  DH

Apparently they did.

DH
DH
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Oh good 👌👍TVM Gavin.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 months ago
Reply to  DH
DH
DH
2 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Yep,tvm Gavin.read/seen it 👌👍.

David
David
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Hi Farouk,

Thank you for the picture comparison – it clearly speaks for itself.

Forgive my stupid question but would a mine strike cause such a fire and bellowing smoke? The engine compartment seems to be alight and smoke appears to be coming from inside the turret. I thought a mine strike might throw a track and perhaps wheel damage but this seems a lot more. Maybe the mine was a big one!

Thank you again Farouk for helping educate those of us who are not.

Jon
Jon
2 months ago
Reply to  David

I think someone earlier in the thread said the spare fuel drums were burning, and I could see how that would explain it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Challenger_2%2C_fuel_tanks.jpg/800px-Challenger_2%2C_fuel_tanks.jpg?20110408214113

farouk
farouk
2 months ago
Reply to  David

David wrote: “”I thought a mine strike might throw a track and perhaps wheel damage but this seems a lot more. Maybe the mine was a big one!”” https://i.postimg.cc/hPv2djhZ/Untitled-2.jpg At the start of the video clip we can clearly see a wheel.(1) to the left of that can be what I can only presume to be track links. 2 is what I can only presume to be where a mine detonated, and something has caught fire (if the hull hasn’t been penetrated, then its whatever they had on the side (extra gear etc) Lubricants (well they have just been recently… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by farouk
Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Poking around elsewhere it has been suggested that although the Turret is still in situ it has been dislodged,and also the Commanders Hatch has taken a Hit.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

If recovered and theoretically repairable, Graham Moore has stated previously that CR2 would have to be shipped to depot in UK for an appropriate determination. If not repairable, presume CR2 hulk would be stripped for any/all serviceable parts? 🤔

May well have been hallucinating, but thought there was an article which stated that RBSL/BAE was contemplating establishing an intermediate level armor repair facility in Poland? 🤔

Jacko
Jacko
2 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

That’s for leopards mate.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
2 months ago
Reply to  Jacko

👍

Andrew D
Andrew D
2 months ago
Reply to  David

The Russians tend to lay mines on top of other mines for a sure kill this could of been done 2-3 or even 4 mines.

Joe16
Joe16
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

In many ways, I hope it was a mine strike as it’d be pretty survivable for the crew and tank- although the area did seem to be under Russian fire in the video. The whole area that the recording vehicle was moving through seemed to have been hit by artillery or similar in the very recent past. I did wonder if it might be an attack helicopter that did it, they’ve got the latest version of the KA-52 with newer ATGMs. I don’t know if they’d do the job, but if any Russian missile would I guess it’d be an… Read more »

NP
NP
2 months ago

That rear of the challenger doesn’t look right. The turret maybe.
Highly questionable video. I’d wait for the official report before publishing this article. Especially given that the information is coming from Twitter, of all places.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
2 months ago

If it is a Challenger and they can recover it, then it needs to be brought home for analysis and repaired if possible. We need to understand what did the damage and its vulnerabilities. I have read that the Russians are sticking AT Mines up to 4 deep, if true then god knows how you avoid major damage.
Meanwhile send them a replacement and help them to help us.

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Certainly the MOD would very much like to view the wreckage I am sure, lessons potentially to read over into Chally 3

Joe16
Joe16
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Also worth bearing in mind the Russians are also operating their newer KA-52M helicopters in this area, which have longer range ATGMs.
I could imagine that a heavyweight air-launched ATGM into the engine compartment could do this kind of damage as well. Not sure if they’re good enough to punch through Dorchester with one round, but the number of people who do know that kind of thing are probably not commenting about it on here!
Otherwise, a mobility kill followed up by artillery or other ATGM fire makes sense to me.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Agree. Likely mine caused immobility then hit by other ordance. Possibly a few close artillery rounds. It’s doesn’t look like the structure of the tank has been totally lost just lots of fire damage. Can’t see if the armour has been penetrated or not.

Joe16
Joe16
2 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Since posting I’ve seen a slow-mo version of the video on the BBC website, no obvious smoke coming out of the crew compartment or gun muzzle, so the main compartment may well be intact. Hopefully not terrible damage, but either way I hope we’ll be sending more. I am honestly struggling to understand why we’ve only sent 14…

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16
I too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have been 31 plus some Attrition Reserve
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore
I too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have beenI too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have been 31 plus some Attrition Reserve 31 plus some Attrition Reserve
farouk
farouk
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Joe wrote: “”I could imagine that a heavyweight air-launched ATGM into the engine compartment could do this kind of damage as well. “” From what I can see, the part of the tank which has suffered the strike not only is the side facing away from the enemy, but that side also has the luxury of high ground covering it . As for the KA52M, there is no doubt that its job is to kill tanks, but the main problem it has , is it does not have a fire and forget capability, meaning the gunner has to keep aiming at… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
2 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Yeah, you’re quite right- the cameraman needs to take some lessons in how to properly frame the important elements of a composition! :p True, even with the newest missiles I don’t think they have that capability. But I read that those new types do outrange the mobile SHORAD systems, so they can at least fire them from outside of the Ukrainian defence envelope. Despite their losses, the KA-52s have reportedly been giving the Ukrainians headaches during the counteroffensive at least at first. May be wrong though, air defence missiles obviously come in many flavours, and those truck mounted ASRAAM launchers… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Unlikely to be a lot of Dorchester protecting the engine compartment!

It has louvred covers to let the engine heat out – its not going to be ATGM resistant.

Turret roof does not get a lot of armour protection either.

Joe16
Joe16
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

True, CH2 is already an armoured beast as it is..!

Jim Cowley
Jim Cowley
2 months ago

These tanks are designed to take an awful lot of punishment but the crew survived thanks to its Chobham armour challenger 3 will be a game changer live and learn is what will be the mods main battle tanks will give its crew much more protection
.

Paul T
Paul T
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim Cowley

While CR3 offers many improvements over CR2 i don’t think it will be a Game Changer as such- if an Anti Tank Mine can blow the Tracks off of one it will do the same to the other,i think its an evolutionary upgrade rather than a revolutionary one.

SirBaconCrusader
SirBaconCrusader
2 months ago

Unfortunately you live by the sword !!
Loses are inevitable, what counts is the crew survived.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

Was bound to happen eventually, which is a shame.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
2 months ago

It’s not be lost crew survived and it’s believed the tank will be back in action before long.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago

If its burnt out internally then I doubt is is repairable…and it did look like flames were shooting out of the open turret hatches.

peter Wait
peter Wait
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Beyond economical repair, tanks have been scrapped for cracks around final drive areas, dented or excessive wear to hull floors during EBR program .

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  peter Wait

In wartime, the standards are different. It just needs to be Battleworthy, not Fully Fit.

Andrew D
Andrew D
2 months ago

No doubt in my mind a Chally 2 sadly let’s hope the crew survived 🙏 .And took out some Russian Armour and give them hell 🇺🇦

Mick
Mick
2 months ago

The day of the main battle tank is long over. There is no invincible tank. Money should be spent developing weapons for the modern battlefield like cheap drones and better artillery.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Mick

Agreed on spending money on Arty, but not so much Arty but the projectiles (more smart munitions) disagree about the day of the tank is long over! By that thought process the day of the tracked and wheeled vehicle is also over?

Andrew D
Andrew D
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

👍

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

If the day of the tank is over, why does every Ukrainian and Russian assault seem to be supported by them? Why is Ukraine always asking for more? Why is Russia keen to boost it’s tank production numbers?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Agreed mate, to many people totally misunderstand warfare!!!!!!

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Perhaps because neither side in this conflict has air superiority in combination with air launched anti-armour smart weapons? What happens to armour when the opposing side does have those things? Seems like this has been NATO doctrine since before GW1. Take out the GBAD, take out the opposing air force and control the skies above manpad reach. It will be very difficult to hide ground based assets in such a scenario with today’s persistent drone surveillance capability above manpad height and the likelihood of persistent LEO satellite surveillance sometime in the 2030’s. We might not expect Russia to field such… Read more »

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

Indeed but here’s the thing: After NATO controls the skies what comes along with the ground forces? Tanks.

Leaving aside the whole “Air superiority won’t always be achievable” angle, you still need tanks to support infantry.

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

When you have nothing else to support infantry then a tank will have to do but its not optimal for today’s or future battlefields. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that regardless of what armour the destroyed CH2 might have had, it was still taken out of the battle by a mine and then destroyed by a loitering munition but could as easily have been a smart artillery round if the Russians actually had any. Nothing on CH3 would have prevented losing a track and damaged running gear. Maybe APS would have prevented the hit from a first loitering… Read more »

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

Sorry, but the US lost over 7,000 tanks on the Western Front between 1944 and 1945. Does it follow that the tank was obsolete in 1944? Of course not. One, even many, destroyed tanks mean very little, just as one killed infantry soldier means very little. Losses will happen in war. If you are bothered about an MBT going down, and IFV will definetly go down (oh and btw even a 40mm CTA is not a comperable match for a 120mm). Infantry needs a variety of supports and it’s not a case of 1 size fits all. You will need… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Sorry, but the US lost over 7,000 tanks on the Western Front between 1944 and 1945. Does it follow that the tank was obsolete in 1944? Of course not.

Those tanks were mostly destroyed by other tanks.
The battleship was also not obsolete when also were other battleships destroying it.
If the tanks will be destroyed mostly by other assets then the question needs to be made and answered: for what the 120mm smoothbore gun is necessary.
This do not even mean a vehicle with a gun is not necessary, but will it be the 70t MBT?

Last edited 2 months ago by AlexS
Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

That’s not really true, for starters see the image below, First Army (that’s the army that ended up taking most of the Ardennes Offensive on the chin so probably the most representative for tank on tank losses), lost 900 tanks between Normandy and the end of the War. Of those only half where due to gunfire of all types. That’s tanks, assault guns, and anti-tank gun emplacements. Now the most produced German tank of WWII was the Panzer IV, with about 9,000 produced, on the other hand the most produced towed AT gun, the Pak 75 had about 23,000 produced.… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

You are entirely ignoring the points I’ve already made and introducing a strawman argument. I never stated losing 1, 100, 1,000 or even 10,000 MBTs made tanks obsolete, my point is that there are better ways of supporting infantry today and those will only get better in the near future in defence terms, i.e. next 10-20 years. The clue was me talking about the CH3 replacement. The only reason I advocate for IFVs with 30/40mm is to provide some covering fire/support for dismounts, since you need some type of vehicle to move them. APCs will not be enough on their… Read more »

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

regardless of what armour the destroyed CH2 might have had, it was still taken out of the battle by a mine and then destroyed by a loitering munition It’s not a strawman argument, it’s directly addressing this line of yours. No matter how well protected tanks are, you’ll always loose some. That includes to mines, hand held AT weapons, or artillery, whatever. I wasn’t assuming you where advocating using ATMOS in a DF role, I was pointing out the capability provided by a tank and the issues with using things other than tanks to try and fill the void left… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Its a strawman argument because I never said the loss of a tank made it obsolete. Please quote me where I said it made it obsolete. If we can’t get past this point then I can’t see much point in pursuing the rest of the discussion after this post. You wrote “If you want to use a platform that is meant for indirect fires in a DF line of sight method, you’ll soon find that you’ll have to armour it and before you know it, you’ll have an MBT (which are generally capable of IDF anyway, they’re just not optimized… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Yes, but USA is evidently already drawing conclusions re current battlefield survivability of Abrams, before the first M1A1 arrives in UKR. Article in DefenseNews.com (6 Sep 23) stated M1A2SEPv4 program has been summarily cancelled, and the Army is now proposing a M1E3 version (w/ due R&D and contractor input). Unstated subtext of article would probably include the observation that staff officers are duly alarmed re MBT survivability longer term. Prediction: Enhanced MBT protection will materialize as an AUKUS Pillar 2 program at some point. Imagine everyone would prefer forcefields and phasers, but may be forced to settle for DEWs in… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago

As of this moment, only the Israeli Trophy active protection system (APS) has been proven in combat, to protect the tank against multiple ATGW and RPGs. However, it does have a couple of weaknesses. The first is the number of effector reloads, which have to be replenished from outside of the vehicle. How many reloads does it hold? The original only had one reload per turret, but that has since been upgraded. There will be a line in the sand, where it will run out of effectors. The effectors are similar in effect to how a Claymore works. An explosive… Read more »

Ian M.
Ian M.
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Hi Davey, the CT40 already fires:KE-AB : Kinetic Energy AirburstAir Defence ammunition to defeat aerial threats Leveraging proven Airburst technology, the KE-AB munition delivers a payload of tungsten pellets with a directional terminal effect. It is particularly effective against all aerial threats, as well as certain ground applications such as infantry or blinding vehicle optics or antennas. and: GPR-AB-T : General Purpose Round – Airburst – TracerDefeat behind-cover or dug-in targets Delivers an air-bursting detonation above the target at a range of 60 to 2,500 m. This programmable high-explosive ammunition is optimised for fragmentation effects, providing coverage of up to… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian M.

Hi Ian, cheers, I knew the CTAS40 could fire programable shells, hadn’t realised there were at least two types. I still stand by my conviction, in that the Ajax fitted with an APS which uses radar to detect threats, could be upscaled to become an effective anti-air platform using its CTAS40. Along with the programmable ammo, it could be just as effective as the Gepard in taking out small drones, as well as low flying cruise missiles. Still feel there is a case of developing the CTAS40 to a 57mm calibre. Where it could then use the smart rounds such… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Hi Davey,
The AJAX could already be an effective counter UAS platform. It has very good TI sights, a clever auto detect and tracking system and turret cueing. I would imagine the icing on the cake would be an AESA radar with it’s longer range. If the turret were modified to use the WR AHS which has/had a larger round capacity then more bang! In a fantasy world, a heavily redesigned turret could mount 2 40mm CTA cannons with an AHS each side and radar in the middle👍😎

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian M

Hi Ian, that’s a good point in regards to Ajax’s extant sensors. Though I’d be surprised if they could detect the small toy like drones, until they got really close. Unless the drone is seriously working the battery, it won’t be massively hot for a thermal camera to detect from distance. Whereas, a X-band, Ka/Ku or W band radar will detect these small drones at a minimum a couple of km away. In a fantasy world, I’d also include a vertically mounted container on the rear of the vehicle. It would contain at least 8 vertically launched “Starstreak 3”. These… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Good points to make on APS Davey. Based on past comments I’ve seen, I suspect some look on APS as providing a “cloak of invulnerability” when it should really be considered as a mitigation, with hopefully a very high if not 100% protection against the first on target weapon (except for APFSDS), with reducing probability of protection for subsequent on target weapons due to sensor shrapnel damage. But that still raises the bar significantly for an enemy to achieve either a kill or disablement/mission kill by requiring multiple on target hits and perhaps restricted to only one segment/quadrant of the… Read more »

jon
jon
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

still fighting a cold war.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  jon

It’s definitely not a cold war.

Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Mick

Well it would seem that Ukraine and Russia both disagree as they are pretty much using their armour all the time…im sure if you told the Ukrainian army they did not need armour they would tell you otherwise. Artillery can deny ground and prevent movement, but it cannot take ground or generate movement..it’s the same with drones.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The other thing is there never was an invincible tank. As early as 1917 there where anti-tank defences that would, and did, frequently knock out tanks.

It’s like if I posted a video of a bunch of grunts dead in a trench and everyone went “Infantry is obsolete.” Nope. Sometimes one side gets an advantage over the other and knocks out some of their blokes and equipment.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dern
Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Indeed war is not a game, armed forces are using every skill and ability the have to kill or destroy the opponent…it’s a bit of modern western hubris that had lead to this whole invincibility thing…we did not have that until the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the fall of Iraq with very few losses. Before that we always knew that any war was going to be bloody…essentially however awful it sounds now it was alway assumed that in the case of a war with the Soviet Union we were not getting the BAOR back…it did not make… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I recall that the whole point of BAOR and its allies in a hot war was to fight a withdrawal in contact for as long as it took politicians to decide to press the nuclear button. They needed plenty of thinking time.

Tanks are the best protected weapons systems on the battle field, so why do people say lets get rid of our most potent and survivable direct fire equipment?

Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

From everything I read Graham the expectation was that all of the armies on the IGB would end up being shattered with the soul purpose to give time and hopefully some small option to get Russia to blink before the wests nuclear button was pressed. Also the level of forces ensured the Soviet Union had to make a maximum effort and not allow the nibbling away of territory or less than maximum effort…it was effectively a strategic defence based around creating a mutual blood bath of armies followed by mutual assured destruction…of course part of that would be the use… Read more »

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A point of interest, I’d recommend the book “Horsemen in No Man’s Land” which takes a deep dive into the British Cavalry in WW1, using their casualty statistics, regimental diaries, and, where available, the same from the German side, to actually look at their actions. Paints a pretty interesting picture of a capability that was actually far from obsolete, and was done over by popluar narrative, badly recalled eyewitness testimonies from 20 years later and internal MoD politics.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Interesting post. Back to BAOR days – I believe we may have used the term ‘delaying battle’ back in the day. Certainly NORTHAG and CENTAG in a hot war would have traded space for time by fighting delaying battle(s) to buy the politicians time to have a lovely chat and finally decide to approve release of Tactical Nuclear Weapons. That would have happened well before we were rolled back to the Franco-German border. What would have happened after release of tac nukes (air and ground launched) is anyone’s guess! I don’t see a drive for the Infantry to one day… Read more »

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Nobody really suggests a credible alternative. It’s always “lightly armoured faster moving vehicles” as if Tanks weren’t fast moving, and the answer to accurate guided weapons is… less protection, or IDF (because Artillery is a substitute for direct fires apparently, or Artillery that can moonlight in a direct fire role, so a much worse tank). Honestly I think it’s a deep set desire to be the next wave of people smugly pointing out how obsolete Battleships where in WW2 (even though Battleships were not obsolete in WW2 and continued to provide an important role throughout but that sort of nuance… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Yep the battle ship was never obsolete they Simply became to expensive for what they provided. Armoured gun armed warships were still a thing right up until the last quarter of the 20C…after all then General B was sent to the bottom not because it was pointless but because it would have shredded any RN frigate or destroyer that it got within range of….the sverdlovs were considered a realistic threat until the end of the Cold War. The mighty Mo as the last battleship would have been essentially immune to anything other than heavy weight torpedoes If supported by an… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

It’s like if I posted a video of a bunch of grunts dead in a trench and everyone went “Infantry is obsolete.” 

That is the incorrect way of thinking.
For something to be obsolete there is need something better to exist that replaces it.
Until battlefield robots appear there is no alternative to the human infantry.

You can have a causality rate of 40% for some device and if there is no better alternative it will still be the best option.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

That’s an incorrect way of thinking? No shit? It’s almost like I was holding up something that was wrong and comparing it to the way people are treating MBTs.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Mick

There is no invincible IFV, APC, SPG, truck, helicopter, trench, dismounted soldier… and never has been.
Why don’t we scrap the entire army?

The tank remains the best protected vehicle on the battlefield. Everything else has less protection.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
2 months ago
Reply to  Mick

I am not convinced. You could have argued that the day of the surface warships was over given the numbers that were sunk and damaged during the Falklands War, instead the UK upped its air defence technology and procedures. It is the continuous cycle of measure/countermeasure. along with the evolution of tactics and training. I imagine right now various NATO countries are devising new anti-drone / counter artillery / along with de-mining technology and practices. Looking at the info here it appears something quite heavy took out the CH2 possibly a stacked AT mine or a heavy ATGM fired from… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Bringer of facts
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago

Romania acquires Korean K-2 Black Panther MBTs and K-9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers It’s reassuring to see that countries are still prepared to invest in MBTs and increase their defence spending. “On July 7, 2023, during a conference on industrial defense cooperation between Romania and South Korea, General Teodor Incicaș, the head of the Romanian Directorate General for Armaments, made a significant announcement. He revealed Romania’s intention to further advance its military modernization by acquiring approximately 300 new combat tanks. Romania demonstrates unwavering determination by increasing its military capabilities with projected defense expenditures reaching 2.5% of its GDP in 2023. This… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Nigel Collins
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago

Sad news. Hope the crew got out safely. Certainly looks like a CR2 to me. Clearly we did not supply the tanks with TES Kit probably because we did not have enough to spare. AFAIK the British Army has not lost a tank to enemy action since we lost 5 tanks in the Korean War – so a great shame that a British tank in UKR hands has been lost. No reason why this tank cannot be recovered – we supplied UKR with 2 CRARRVs and the UKR crews were well trained in the UK. Just need the tank to… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Graham Moore
Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
2 months ago

Will (can?) the UK MOD replace CR2’s lost in combat by Ukraine is now a valid question. We only supplied 12 and presumably 1 or 2 will be reserved for training purposes and 1 or 2 more will be in the workshops. So at best 82nd Air Assault Brigade has one weak tank company with 9, now 8, operational CR2s. A few more losses and that company will be hors de combat. Without replacements, the CR2 isn’t going to have a long service life in the Ukrainian Army – less than a year? But maybe that is okay, the donation has served its purpose… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Beedall
Jonathan
Jonathan
2 months ago

Indeed the purpose was to lead the way and make a political statement, to state the ball rolling on getting the leapard 2s not knocking the challenge ( as it’s a a very good tank) but a handful of a lots of types of tanks is not what you need, what Ukraine needs is lots of easy to maintain and manage leapard 2 tanks…the mix of different western hulls and legacy soviet hulls must be a nightmare for logistics. What would be ideal is enough leapard 2s so alll the Soviet and other hulls can be retired into reserves.

Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
2 months ago

Apologies, my numbers are wrong. The UK donated 14 not 12 CR2’s.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago

I believe Grant Schnapps has gone on record as saying he won’t replace it.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago

We supplied 14 CR2s (Qty 10 for the AB unit’s tank company (that is their Orbat figure, unlike our 14 figure for a tank sqn) and 4 Attrition Reserve) and 2 CRARRVs. None will be in UKR in a trg role – their guys got trained in the UK beforehand. The UKR tank coy has lost one out of their 10 and will draw a replacement from the 4 Attrition Resrve tanks. So no need for UK to supply any more at the moent, although we were stingy to only give them 14 in the first place. No-one expects any… Read more »

PhilWestMids
PhilWestMids
2 months ago

There is always losses in war unfortunately, a pack of hyenas can take out an outnumbered lion. Hopefully the crew survived to fight another day, I’m sure the remaining challenger 2’s will take out more russian tanks than the 14 that was sent.

David Barry
David Barry
2 months ago

Q. Are crews taught to close the hatches as they escape?

Just thinking of all the bombs dropped down open hatches.

Wayne
Wayne
2 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

No they’re not but that is a useful lesson that has come out of Ukraine

David Barry
David Barry
2 months ago
Reply to  Wayne

Felt a bit of a numpty for asking the question, thxs for answering.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

Not a numpty. There’s no such thing as a stupid question, unless it’s rhetorical (something I’m occasionally guilty of).

Jacko
Jacko
2 months ago
Reply to  Wayne

I would think closing hatches is the last thing on the crews mind as they try to get away from a vehicle that can go bang very spectacularly!

David Barry
David Barry
2 months ago
Reply to  Jacko

Running towards a potential contact was the last thing on my mind, especially as they probably had 5*AKs and I had a Browning High Power with 10 rounds.

I did what I was trained to do. I advanced.

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

It does sound non-sensical that advancing to contact is safer than falling back. But it has been proved correct time and time again. You cannot allow the enemy time to plan, otherwise you can be outflanked. You must take the initiative away from the enemy aggressively and outfight them. As Gunny Highway said: “Show me your war face!” Its disturbing looking back on “one’s” tours and thinking how the feck did I get out of that? Training, training and more training. Knowing that your mates would stand by your shoulder and have your back, was I think the crucial factor… Read more »

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
2 months ago

If it isn’t recoverable I’d be hitting it with a storm shadow or LGB to avoid it ending up in Russian hands.

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Apparently it’s well back from the front line.

Mark
Mark
2 months ago

The tanks we send to Ukraine have no air support to speak of and no NATO country would have attempted any of the tank operations now ongoing

It we need to be critical let’s bear this in mind

Luke Rogers
Luke Rogers
2 months ago

Regarding the obsolescence of MBTs, who would pick to be in the army with no tanks fighting against the army with tanks?

Dern
Dern
2 months ago
Reply to  Luke Rogers

To add to your equation:
If your the army with no tanks, you’ll need every section to have some kind of AT capability, such as an NLAW. You’ll also need your Battalions to have Javelin analogue sections.
Meanwhile the infantry boys in the army with tanks can leave their ATGM’s at home, and instead carry more ammunition into the fire fight. Or lighter Anti-Structure munitions and ammunition. Or leave both behind and fight with the same amount of ammunition as their opponents but be lighter on their feet.
Decisions have weird second and third order effects.

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

It would be a similar situation to the First Wold War, how do you assault heavily defended fortifications protected by barbed wire, trenches and machine guns that are set up for enfilade etc? As per the First World War where the artillery couldn’t destroy the barbed wire, or suppress trench lines long enough. An armoured vehicle is required, preferably with tracks, as that means it can cross a trench. Hmm, it could do with a gun to either defeat or suppress the enemy, thereby allowing the following infantry a better chance of at least reaching and dealing with the fortifications.… Read more »

taffybadger
taffybadger
2 months ago

I wonder if the upcoming Trophy APS on C3 will be able to shoot down things like Lancet….they seem to be configured for laterally approaching missiles. Lancet has been the only real decent kit to come out of RuZZia in this war, they are already developing mass launchers for these things, I hope the west defence industries and research is working on ways to nullify this threat.

Last edited 2 months ago by taffybadger
DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  taffybadger

Trophy was designed to deal with specifically ambush attacks in built up areas. Whereby the enemy would fire down on to the tank’s turret from above with RPGs. When Israel introduced the Merkava 4, they had an over border incursion against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (2006). They lost around 8 or more “brand new” tanks to these types of ambush along with the crews. They did also loose a few to standard ATGW hitting the tank, but the crews managed to get out with minor injuries and the tanks were later recovered. This led to an urgent requirement of a… Read more »

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

if you bare in mind that ukraine is under strict orders that IF a Chally gets made immobile and they cannot recover, there are to destroy. funny how the T up the road is intact. all guessing at how.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
2 months ago

Correction George, from the looks of the more recent video it has indeed tossed its turret.