Ukrainian tank crews have now finished Challenger 2 training in the UK and are returning home to combat Russia’s invasion.

Challenger 2 tanks will shortly be in the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

According to the Ministry of Defence:

“The training began shortly after the announcement in January that the UK would donate 14 Challenger 2 tanks and accompanying ammunition and spare parts to aid Ukraine. UK military trainers spent several weeks training Ukrainian personnel how to operate and fight with the tanks. Instruction included how to command, drive and work together as a Challenger 2 tank crew and effectively identify and engage targets.

The Challenger 2 tank marks a step change in capability for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, ensuring they are better able to protect their crews and offering them some of the most modern and sophisticated gunnery systems in the world.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“It is truly inspiring to witness the determination of Ukrainian soldiers having completed their training on British Challenger 2 tanks on British soil. They return to their homeland better equipped, but to no less danger. We will continue to stand by them and do all we can to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

Lieutenant Colonel John Stone, who oversaw the training mission said:

“It has been a privilege for the Combat Manoeuvre Centre team to deliver this training to our Ukrainian partners. We have all been hugely impressed with the level of competence displayed and have no doubt that that our friends will use the Challenger 2 tanks most effectively in the battles to come as they fight to defend their homeland.”

I fight for my future, for future of my country and for future of my family. We will fight. This tank for us is like a diamond, I think it is the best tank in the world.

George Allison
George Allison
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. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

87 COMMENTS

    • It seems likely the offensive will come at a time of the Ukrainian’s choosing i.e. when they are good and ready. Russia seems to be using up serious quantities of resources just to stay still. Russia needs a peace deal quickly. The sensible move would be to move back to Russia and call a cease fire. It would be better for China and Russia in the long run & might just help Putin cling to power.

      • Remember Bosnia. That would leave the people of Donetsk and Luhansk at the mercy of their Ukrainian enemies. Any ceasefire or peace deal, needs to avoid genocide.

        • On the contrary George. That area would be the focus of attention for the entire world & all sides would know it. If someone dropped litter it would be difficult to avoid detection. Ukraine & Russia will need help after this fiasco and they are unlikely to get it if they do not behave impecably.

          • Indeed and it is yet to be shown what percentage of those from that region are pro Russian certainly since the invasion. Certainly far from all and some are high up in the Ukrainian Govt and military indeed so a UN organised referendum needs to be organised but only when all have the opportunity to return.

  3. Good job they are fitted with CBRN filters to keep out all of the nuclear radioactive atomic shell dust that the MSM and certain shrills are harping on about!

    • The irony of a dictator who spread Polonium around Central London and Novichok around Salisbury complaining about depleted uranium shells is quite frankly Pythonesque 🤷🏻‍♂️

      • Agree. It tickled me that Mad Vlad mentioned the DU rounds when he has authorised much more dangerous episodes of chemical warfare against Russian dissidents in the UK. He really is a cretin.

        • I am surprised and saddened that you regard the targeting of 3 people leading to the death of 1, plus a possible bystander, as much more dangerous than the use of DU rounds. Have you not read of the toxic effect of the release of DU nano particles? Or the pictures out of Fallujah showing the effects on humans of said particles?

          • Have you read of the effects of Russian helicopters and fighter bombers dropping Chlorine bombs in Syria Johnski?
            Much worse that the DU toxic effect. I think several hundred people died in Syria due to chemical barrel bombs.

          • or the various chlorine and sarin attacks on Aleppo or Ghouta which are estimated to have killed hundreds. Syria is known to have been supplied with these weapons from your Mother Russia Johnski- I guess you must be very proud.

          • If you don’t believe me just google Douma chemical weapons attack- 41-50 people killed 100-650 injured
            If they allow you to have a free search engine from the cellar in the Kremlin that is? Be careful you don’t get shot in the back of the head by your minder as well Johnski.

          • Hmm…

            supposed harm of DU rounds versus the proven harm of allowing orcs to live?

            No contest really 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • I’m surprised by your concern about DU rounds but no concern for the thousands of dead in Ukraine.
            Oh here’s a cracker. Russia uses DU rounds aswell! Still that’s ok isn’t it. Only U.K. DU rounds do the damage.

          • Depleted Uranium is used in many civil aircraft for control surface balancing weights. They can be handled with bare hands without any problem. They are probably fitted to many of your Russian civil aircraft also. One thing is for certain; DU is much safer than polonium and Novichok!

          • Yet more whataboutery from the resident Russian shill.

            Russia uses depleted uranium ammunition. It’s Russia that uses thermobaric weapons against civilian targets. It’s Russia that deployed chemical and radiological weapons on Nato territory. It’s Russia who is engaged in nuclear blackmail.

            Crawl back under your rock.

          • Oh give yourself a tea break you nob jockey. DU rounds are only harmful if you swallow it or rub it on your skin for an extended period of time! Your pro-active defence of anything Russian or Putin related is so obvious it becomes a sad joke! But I’m sure, as a sad old 76 year old from MK, who has never served in the military but is a fantastic follower of the illegal Crimean occupation by Russia from 2014 onwards, your info regarding DU rounds is second and third hand, from what your selected sources state yes? Or, are you just pushing more Nazi propaganda! Any condemnation yet johnskie my old troll? You know, of Russian illegal invasion of Ukraine, murder, rape, torture? That will be a big fat NO then……

          • OK so no-one disputing the evil side effects I mention, just putting up red herrings to divert attention.

            The Russians developed DU ammo at the same time we did. I can’t find any evidence that they have used it since.

          • A DU round is used just like any other! Do they have to report it to the Atomic Commission on every round fired? You really are going all out now aren’t you comrade🙄 perhaps on this thread you would like to explain how well the T62s are doing in Ukraine after telling me that not a lot had been lost! Go on give everyone a good laugh this morning!

          • Of course it is, DU shells are much the same as any other until they impact. Then everything changes, for the worse.

            That’s when the cloud of nano particles is released and anyone who breathes it in, then or later after it has been stirred up from the ground, is in deep trouble.

            You lot may ignore it but I suppose with a bunch of ex military men it is not in your interests or psyche to accept the side effect consequences of what you do.

          • Do your research nob head it is alpha particles that are released NOT Gamma so you are not going to glow in the dark🙄

          • If it was a tungsten penetrator…exactly the same issues…but tungsten isnt associated with bogey man nuclear!

            As I said wood dust will mess you up. Ask a chippy …

          • Don’t know personally the answer to this, but I note it has been argued by some in the war zone that Russia has already used DU rounds. Indeed logic would suggest that as they have, as recently boasted, numerous quantities of these rounds and as standard ammunition has at times been in decidedly short supply at the front, as again Russian sources have often intimated, that not exploiting them would be uncharacteristically noble of this regime. Hopefully for the sake of historical accuracy we can obtain more evidence one way or the other.

          • And boom, Jacko and Farouk shoots and scores and we have a troll down, troll down, troll down in the city….

          • These are DU rods that most often go straight through plating. Most of the Russian stuff by now is the T54’s and T55’s or other scrapings of their inventory so likely there wont be too much messing about with the rods disintegrating.

          • Not many T62s have been lost… hmm to paraphrase the old advert there’s a site for that.

          • Pot and kettle John the environmental damage alone that Ukraine has suffered from Russia exploiting many deadly chemicals and contaminants, not to mention phosphorous rain which was a new one on me I have to admit, has and will kill quickly or slowly many thousands in Ukraine that will take decades to recover from. So let’s not be the hypocrite for once. Or do we simply get into who’s herrings are redder?

          • Maybe re read my post, DU rounds hanging about don’t cause ill-effects. But I suppose in your Russian controled mindset, the DU rounds that are operated by Russia since 2016 are actually healthy, full of vitamins and one of your five a day! You nob jockey!

          • I’m sure they haven’t, probably sold off so the head sheds could by a car or a washing machine. But now they can just steal those said items from Ukrainian civvies. But, thinking about it, the amount of T series rape wagons that have been brewed up, if they contained DU penetrators then you will have to blame your rapist tank crews for having them, and contaminating Ukrainian soil.

          • John, John, John…The report states that DU COULD be a contributing factor. Its not definite. The exposure to DU is more to do with DU being a heavy metal than it being a little bit more radioactive than background. You would have the same issues with tungsten or lead… I have handled DU rounds ( Phalanx) and its not an issue unless its in a fine particle form. But that is the same for any heavy metal element or substance.
            You dont want to breath it in .
            Wood dust is carcinogenic. Good job we dont make APFSDS rounds out of that eh?

            It could be a myriad of hazardous and toxic substances released from burning buildings, damaged electrical equipment, damaged street lights, lead exposure…it could just be down to genetic ” S**t happens”

            Mercury street lamps are a big hazard as are Sodium street lights. Not just for the elements in the title but also because they contain Thallium and you dont need a lot of that, trace amounts in fact, to mess you up.
            PCB in transformers.
            PVC Wiring burning.
            It could be exposure to pesticides and poisons used to control vermin and insects.

          • Ah, right on time and never failing to deliver.

            Of course you would take exception to such a comparison. How *dare* someone even suggest that Putin is an evil, hypocritical, little shit!

  4. I think talk of obsolescence might be a bit over the top with C2. Has it dropped behind the Abrahams and leopard in terms of sighting etc? Yes. Does it out class the junk Russia has in the field? Huge yes.

    Hopefully used well these monsters will make mincemeat out of any orcs they encounter.

    The number being converted to C3 is still to low though regardless how good they may be!

    • It is presumptuous to say the Chally is better than anything Russia is fielding. This will be the Chally’s first real test, for the Leopard’s as well! Gulf War Part 2 to be brutally honest, was against old T55s, T62s and modified T72s. Oh wait, hang on a moment! Seriously though it remains to be seen how Chally will do against Russian modified T72s and T80s, let alone facing up against a T90M.

      The assumption is that after the T80 that was acquired and examined. The Chally’s L30 gun’s sabot rounds, such as the tungsten based L28A2 and the DU based L29A1 should still be capable of penetrating the tank. If they weren’t, there would have been an urgent operational requirement (UOR) for BAe/DSTL to produce improved rounds. So far I have heard nothing about new rounds for the L30 gun. You have to remember that the T80 has better base armour than the T72s and was the armour that the T90M was based on.

      If the L28 or L29 rounds do not perform as expected, I’m positive that a UOR for improved rounds to be manufactured and sent out to Ukraine will be a top priority. The Army/MoD will be monitoring the Chally’s performance very carefully. As it will affect the UK’s tank fleet as well.

      Totally agree 148 Chally 3s is too few. At least 200 should be upgraded, if not the whole fleet. As that would give the Army an attritional reserve. Which the Ukraine War has shown to be just as important as having tanks in the first place.

      • It is more than sabots and sights it is how the whole package and training integrate to use it to maximum effect.

        What range can it hit with a high kill probability?

        How can it support other forces?

        How can other forces support it?

        Where can target information feeds come from?

        Where can its sensors send data to?

        Looking at Lone Ranger tank against tank doesn’t really mean much in an increasingly 5th Gen digital land battle space?

        • I would like to agree, but at the end of the day the main weapon’s lethality is still key to winning a fight. If you were expecting to take out a tank at 1500m. But find that the sabot can only do it at 1200m, then that’s a major problem. As your tank is now within the enemy tanks envelope and you can expect accurate return fire. Which may not penetrate the tank, but is enough to damage the sights, track etc.

          Hopefully the Ukrainians won’t be using the Challys as singletons. But keeping them together as a formed unit. Where they can then play to their strengths.

          It will interesting to see what equipment is kept and what is taken out? I’m pretty sure the friendly force tracker (FFT) will be removed, as Ukraine’s other vehicles don’t have it. But it does aid unit identification and targeting. Will it keep Bowman or swap it for something Ukraine uses. Bowman does have the advantage of being clear or secure, plus it can send data. But it’s crypto is UK secret, so not sure how they’d get around that! Another important bit of kit that should be sent is the additional appliqué armour, especially for the lower glacis. If Ukraine are expecting the Challengers to be a spearhead for the counter attack. Then they will need the extra armour.

          I agree, one thing the tank course hasn’t had time to teach them. Is how to coordinate with other assets such SPG, IFVs, UAVs etc. Sadly I don’t think they had the time. Unless they do an exercise or two in Western Ukraine. Again do they have the time?

          The crews that were sent, were predominantly all experienced tankers, barring the loaders. The Commanders were apparently very keen to see how the Challenger performed. I know they were very impressed with the gunnery down at Lulworth.

          One immediate advantage Challenger has, is the ability to fight at night. Only the T90M has comparable thermal imaging (TI), thanks to the French. All other Russian tanks have a lower generation TI. So it should be able to detect, identify and fire on targets before it has been seen.

          In the next few weeks we will likely find out. Slava Ukraini!

          • I thought the French based thermal sights were being replaced by a Russian derived alternative that has in reality failed to perform satisfactory. Certainly I read that the tank captured intact had an even earlier sight that was next to useless. Though that may not be the norm granted.

    • I don’t accept the obsolescence argument when talking about CH2. The tank any CH2 is most likely to face off with is any variant of a T-72, It has also been proven by the Ukrainians that the T-80 is not much better and is still prone to ammo detonation Maybe T-90M would be a match, but there are not many of them in the current Russian inventory.

      Some interesting tank links from the Wavell Room :

      https://wavellroom.com/2023/03/10/t90m-are-appearing-on-the-eastern-front/

      https://wavellroom.com/2023/02/10/armata-the-story-is-over/

      https://wavellroom.com/2022/09/22/russian-tank-graveyard/

    • I don’t accept the obsolescence argument when talking about CH2. The tank any CH2 is most likely to face off with is a variant of a T-72.

      It has also been proven by the Ukrainians that the T-80 is not much better and is still prone to ammo detonation.
      Maybe T-90M would be a match, but there are not many of them in the current Russian inventory.

      There are some interesting articles on this topic on the Wavell Room website.

      • Lost at least three of those too, and the one captured intact tends to show they don’t have the claimed sights in the original specs. It appears Russian designed items have failed to reliably materialise in production models.

  5. So long as the Ukrainians can use them en-masse, something they seem to have had trouble with before (see Small Wars Journal).

    That said, Russian [lack of] progress down south indicates that they aren’t any better…….

  7. Although 14 C2s are going to prove very useful they won’t win the war. Ukraine needs a modern fleet of several hundred Western MBTs supported by adequate combined arms to do that.
    I’m sure the gifted C2s will make an impression. Let’s hope they cause disproportionate casualties. Any Russian armoured vehicle within range is likely to have a very bad day.

    • Hope so- and ERA as well as automated turret mounted machine guns hopefully in 7.62/ 12.75mm calibres for drone defence duties.

    • It was said on another thread that there wasn’t that many full kits of TES out there. The standard armour is superior to Leopard 2 A4 as it stands so I know which one I would rather be in! Leo 1 which is on offer the less said about armour the better😳

      • Just had a look around, According to @Gabriel64869839 on Twitter only 22 TES kits were bought and I’d have though most would be with the tanks on CABRIT

      • I hope you are right but the YouTube video I watched yesterday claimed Chally armour is inferior to both Leopard 2 and Abrams. That shocked me as I assumed all that extra weight was because of its superior armour. Its actual plus points seem to be more its superior rough ground performance compared to those others.

        • I stand to be corrected of course but the armour on M1A1 is a variant of our CR1 Chobham armour which we shared with the cousins. Leo 2 is basically the same hull as when first introduced the upgraded armour on them is mainly extra bolted on to the turrets from A5 onwards and thicker armour on the first front side skirts.CR 2 is built with Chobham and Dorchester armour included in the build process from the start. I know it’s an old claim but nevertheless this armour has only been penetrated by another CR2 at close range.

          • The CR2 loss in GW2 didn’t penetrate any Armour – the round clipped an open Turret Hatch and the resulting explosion and debris went downwards into the Tank and ignited the stored rounds.

  10. So in addition to the 14 CR2s I believe we are sending Ukraine 24 AS90 and 20 Bulldog APCs + Spartan and Stormer. Look forward to seeing how these assets are deployed by their trained crews 👍

      • Yes, indeed the package we have supplied is coherent. I see the press are reporting today that the German Leopard 2s (18 off) supplemented by 10 from Sweden and 3 from Portugal have arrived in Ukraine – to make a Ukrainian army battalion (31). So we have supplied what we term a squadron. I would have thought another was in order. There was some talk of that.

    • Ukraine have been using Stormer successfully now for a few months. Sadly at least one has been lost due to a suicide drone.

  11. When Challenger 3 comes along, how are we going to handle spares and attrition losses? There are only 227 Challenger 2s and we’re giving 14 to Ukraine (happy hunting by the way!!), which leaves 213 and 148 of those will be upgraded to Challenger 3.

    That leaves merely 65 Challenger 2 hulls from which to support 148 Challenger 3s? I understand the turret is completely new – fine – but the hull is not changing aside from an improved suspension and powerpack.

    My question is what do we do when the 65 Challenger 2 hulls are gone? It’s not like we can make more to replace Challenger 3 combat losses….. Is 213 Challenger 3s the max we could ever have? Ukraine has shown this is nowhere near adequate!

    Maybe I am missing something here and I am happy to be corrected but it’s not like there is an active line running to make more to replace losses. New turrets are of no use if we don’t have hulls to put them on.

    • Having watched one assessment of Challenger 3 by one guy on YouTube I am deeply depressed about the whole process. Seems to me it would be far better to try to get into building Panthers here there seems no real advantage in the costly updating Challengers, it’s not like when they were chosen that it is sustaining a UK National tank design and production facility in anything but perception to the ignorant. If what I watched is substantially true and the Chally is the heaviest, underpowered Western tank with arguably (and this shocked me) the worst armour then even the much hyped electronic sensor suite isn’t exactly going to make it amongst the best in the thirties, is a dead end to future developments and either limits numbers to worrying low levels and indeed likely ever declining levels, or the necessity to introduce a second unrelated type at some stage thus complicating matters and adding costs and maintenance woes.

      If we can build the state of the art Panther here then in reality it would likely enhance chances of developing a future at least partly UK owned fighting vehicle and tank business here rather than milking a fundamentally dead design well past its sell by date while learning little about producing its eventual replacement once the upgrades are completed. Fact is there is a snowball chance in hell that the UK will ever produce another tank other than part of an international programme anyway (that option has long gone) so why not bite the bloody bullet now and get the best product with the best deal available from Rheinmetall in producing it here. Our future is in their pocket anyway in reality. Can’t help but think the MoD just can’t face the idea of us using German tanks because of public perception. Just putting off the reality if so.

      The worst thing I heard from that video was that the only reason we stuck with a rifled barrel was because it was never seen that Challenger 2s would operate as a priority against other tanks (or at least nothing remotely advanced) that it’s main responsibility would be against strong points where Hesh rounds were supreme at the time but thus increasingly compromising its anti tank capability. No wonder the depleted Uranium rounds are so vital for Ukraine. What are others views of these contentions.

      • One guy and one video on YouTube….I suggest we wait to see how they perform in Ukraine. My own thinking is that a well organised ‘squadron’ of Cr2 with depleted uranium shells supported by AS90 artillery and Bradley IFV will cut through Russian defences like a knife through butter.

        • I agree Paul. One has to be careful what one reads/watches online. I think the Army Top Brass will be looking keenly at how well Challenger 2 does in Ukraine. I have read much online about how good the Dorchester armour is and equally how bad it is – now we will see.

          I have also read how much better the Leopard 2A7 armour package is compared to Challenger 2. I for one, am not that convinced. Turkish Leopard 2 A4s did not do great in Syria but granted, not an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison (earlier version, poor tactics, etc.,) but my money is still on Challenger 2.

          Challenger 3 is supposed to be even better armoured than Challenger 2 but nothing is really available to say why this is supposed to be… I guess we will find out later.

          I was worried about Challenger 2 falling into Russian hands and them being able to see what makes Dorchester armour tick but given it’s 25yrs old by now, may armour design has moved on and we are no longer concerned??

  12. The first British Challenger 2 battle tanks have arrived in Ukraine, in a major boost for its armoured forces ahead of a planned spring offensive.

    “Today, I had the honour to try out the newest addition to our armed units, particularly Challengers from the UK,” Oleksii Reznikov, the Ukraine defence minister, said.

    A Challenger 2 was pictured alongside several other recently donated armoured vehicles including an American Stryker infantry carrier and a German Marder.”

    LINK

  14. With more on the way.

    The first shipment of Leopard 2 tanks from Germany has been sent to Ukraine, the German defence ministry says.

    “Eighteen cutting-edge main battle tanks were delivered after Ukrainian crews were trained to use them.

    Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said he was sure the tanks could “make a decisive contribution” on the frontlines of the war.
    Challenger 2 tanks from the UK have also arrived, according to reports from Ukraine.”

    LINK

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2023/03/27/TELEMMGLPICT000330344707_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqUAOGlULnckjkhpLHoSjhRbGP0zfifCqRnut5x499zUk.jpeg

  15. It’s interesting after all the negative comments about Germany being slow to make decisions etc, that the German tanks arrive in Ukraine on the same day as the chally2 and the Bradley’s.

    I argued that it was clearly a coorindated decision by nato and the UK had just announced it first, it now seems that is very likely true.

    • Well if that was the case there wouldn’t have been statements made by Leo users criticising Germany for refusing reexport license’s!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here