Talk:Challenger 2

Armament

The article mentions that the Challenger 2 fires; "Around 50 rounds can be carried from a selection of APFSDS, HESH or smoke." - I was under the impression that APFSDS stood for Armour Piercing, Fin Stabilised, Discarding Sabot - with the main gun being rifled, what exactly is the point of fin stabilising your shell? I thought the whole point of rifling the barrel was to increase the accuracy especially at range? Please forgive my ignorance. 58.7.210.43 07:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

APFSDS is correct. Spin is actually bad for APFSDS rounds (for fairly complex reasons), which is why most other tanks use smoothbore guns. Additionally friction from the rifling reduces the muzzle velocity of the round to 1530 m/s compared with 1700 m/s for most other smoothbore 120 mm APFSDS rounds. The British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them. The rifled APFSDS rounds features some kind of anti-rifling jacket that stops the rounds spinning with the rifling in the barrel - so the rounds leave the barrel with either no spin, or a relatively low rate of spin. Google "APFSDS and Rifled" for more information. Megapixie 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to fire a HEAT round through a rifled barrel as the spinning of the round prevents the penetrative jet from forming when it impacts the target.

I don't understand where you got the figure of 1530m/s from(CR1??), because Challenger2's L30 was designed to be capable of being fired at much higher pressures than that of the old L11(CR1). Infact the performance of L30 is still secret and has never even been released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.54.3 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It has a negative effect on penetration; nevertheless all postwar rifled tank guns had HEAT-rounds developed for them.--MWAK 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, they just put a slip ring around it that will "absorb" most of the spin. Same thing with APFSDS

The reason that HESH rounds need rifling is due to the fact they are centrifugally armed. soldatuk@yahoo.co.uk

The fact that it hasn't got any fins would also be a show-stopper in a smoothbore. The smoothbores now use fin-stabilised HE-rounds, though, so the advantage of having HESH for the rifled is pretty much cancelled out.

It is worth noting that the Challenger 2 has the record distance for destroying an enemy tank in combat - over 5Kms (in the Iraq War). Acorn897 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a Chally 1 using the old L11 gun and associated FCS. In theory C2 should be able to so better, but it doesn't hold the record. Getztashida (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"the British continue to use rifled guns because HESH rounds won't work nearly as well without them" - also because the British Army specifies engagement ranges around twice that of other countries, and the accuracy of a smooth-bore drops-off rapidly at those longer ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.16 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

CRARRV / CHARRV

I have edited the article to reflect the proper terminology for the Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (CRARRV). This is as the official abbreviation for the Challenger 2 is CR2. The CHARRV was the Chieftan ARRV, which still remains in use by some Specialist and Territorial Army Units, but is being gradually phased out. REME_Bod

Moved CRARRV to CR1 page and linked. 13 January 2023

Update for "Operational use"?

Hello, today I found this note in the RPG-29 article, maybe it's worth incorporating:

"In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal explosive reactive armour (ERA) of a top-of-the-line Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29 Link denoted with [2] is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

Maybe some regular contributors to this article might update it if they find it's a noteworthy information.84.166.248.187 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Best protected" ERA-equipped NATO tank penetrated frontally by 105mm DC-HEAT with claimed penetration of only 750mm!! :-o So much for the "chobham invulnerability" myth. Latest generation western armor is soooo overrated. 195.98.64.69 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot. Single Challenger 2 MBTs have taken dozens of hits from RPGs (including the RPG-29) in past engagements and drove off with little damage. Hell one Challenger 2 survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs. An extremely lucky shot that managed to penetrate the ERA and the hull means very little. At worst there is a minor design flaw in the hull resulting in a weak point. Another possible explanation is that there was a flaw in the hull of this specific Challenger. This is just like that time a RPG-7V hit a weak point on the side of an Abrams and penetrated the hull. Notice that since this event no more Challenger 2s have been seriously damaged by RPG-29s. Don't you try to argue that Russian tanks have no weak points because with their production quality we know that is not true. No tank design is ever perfect anyway.

Western armor is not "soooo overrated." Chobham and Dorchester have been proven very effective. There are many examples of the Abrams taking multiple hits from RPGs and recoilless rifles and surviving. It has survived hits from the limited amount of high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had too. Russian armor is junk besides for their heavy ERA which still can be penetrated by the latest HEAT and KE ammo. ERA does not provide protection from multiple hits anyway. --68.118.179.186 22:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Survivability per se (esp. after penetration) has nothing to do with armor quality/effectiveness (!). "...survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs" - so what, there are incidents where elderly T-72s also took multiple RPG hits and survived - it was achieved because of functional (unlike 1st Chechnya campaign) ERA bricks and ammunition limited to carousel only (another western myth says that autoloader is the case of "russian tank exploding on any penetration" - the cause of trouble is not autoloader, but extra ammo stocked in fighting compartment). And even don't mention to me much weaker recoilles rifles.

2. I said only about latest (ie details still being unknown) armor as overrated. See, RPG-29 has only 750mm claimed penetration behind ERA, while Chally lower front hull is generally estimated (by western experts) being 860mm equivalent vs HEAT (and thats at perfect perpendicular angle of engagemet, I bet typical angles would be something like 15-40 degs, making for even stronger protection due to increase in LOS thickness). Plus lower front hull on Challenger 2 is plain simple straight plate without any weak spots, and I seriously doubt about any major flaws in such a simple object, it isn't cast steel armor after all. :-)

3. Btw, side non-penetrating hits don't tell much about armor (sides are weak, and probability of penetration is very angle-dependent in this case). But successful frontal penetration definitely means much. ;-)

4. Please enlighten me, what "high quality 125mm gun ammo the Iraqis had". I bet you mean just anything besides steel penetrators (and the same 1970s old stuff anyway). Modern russian tanks can withstand same iraqi rounds just as fine, but there is nothing to be proud of. And modern "high quality" russian APDSFS rounds are as good as the western ones (except for just a bit stronger US M829A3), and HEAT ammo is even better. And since one Challenger already had succesfully killed another, you can deduce the rest. ;-)

• The C2 that was hit on the blue on blue was at a distance of around 600m, the C2 was hit on the side of the turret, no tank can withstand a hit at this range and tell the tale........

Gee, does it mean that ultra-elite professional western tankers cannot distinguish visually very different newest western tanks and old eastern tanks @ mere 600 meters?! 195.98.64.69 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They surely can. But fail 1 time out of 10000 ;-) B-2Admirer (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Latest ERA is in fact somewhat "reusable" and can withstand a few hits, not just one. By the way, extensive use of ceramics in western armor has its own problems - it's prone to shatter on impact (even non-penetrating one) losing integrity (even though other, non-ceramic, layers will hold it in place), and also must be replaced/repaired in the workshop (if not factory) to restore original protection level. ERA bricks are much easier to "repair". IMO modular armor (ERA in particular) is the future of AFV protection.

6. There is no way to tell exactly what RPGs were fired on the tank, esp. to the crewmen in the heat of battle. And there aren't many RPG-29s in Iraq, only those smuggled across the border, unlike huge local stocks of older RPG-7s (besides British are stationed in calmest parts of the country, Abrams is not as lucky as Challenger). Attributing opponent success only to latest technology (while in the same time bashing same latest tech in case of his older tech failure) is a long tradition in the West - most laughable example which i remember was not long ago when russian sub suddenly popped up out of nowhere in the middle of NATO ASW exercise (!) asking to take care for a crewman suffering appendicitis; Western press of course reported about the undetected sub being latest and quietest Akula class, while in fact it was 1970s era Victor II, long time considered "very noisy, as all other russian junk" by the so-called experts (sorry for the offtopic). :-D 195.98.64.69 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• The RPG-29 Vampire that hit the C2 bounced of the floor and hit the belly of the tank......A lucky shot

You would be very surprised at what a small flaw in some important metal or ceramics could do. Also note how the only part of the article that claims the frontal armor was penetrated was that little side drawing. It may have easily have been the frontal side hull that was penetrated! That news source just seems to have guessed, and you know that the British press loves to bash military equipment right? They will gladly take a minor thing such as this and make it seem huge. Again note how since that date RPG-29s have done nothing serious to other Challenger 2s. In Lebanon despite the propaganda saying that all of the tanks destroyed were Merkava 4s some of the photos acually show those Merkavas being Magach 7s. Also most of the tanks that were disabled or destroyed were hit in the side or rear.

ERA is not reusable, once a panel is hit that panel is gone. While the rest of the ERA is fine and the panel or panels that were hit can be replaced once a panel is detonated it is gone. Yes repeated hits from heavy KE and CE weapons can break the ceramic plates but this problem is not unique to advanced Western composite armors. If the ERA is defeated and the tanks standard armor is hit but not fully penetrated on a Russian tank that armor is also going to need to be repaired to restore the original protection level. This applies to just about any tank although the latest designs with modular armor are easier to repair. These days the Russians rely primarily on heavy ERA for their protection and we rely on advanced composite armor sometimes with additional light ERA for our protection. Both seem impressive and unless World War III begins we won't know which is better.

Ah the Russians can be so stubborn, they think their planes are better, they think they tanks are better, and they think their subs are better among other things. Of course we think the same things about our own equipment unless your the media looking for a good story. That ASW event may have happened but there are plenty of embarrassing Cold War stories on both sides. We made a sport of seeing how long we could follow Russian subs without them noticing. :) 68.118.179.186 15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the least of those embarrassing Cold War stories is a German amateur pilot illegally landing amidst the "impenetrable air defences of Moscow".212.98.170.119 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, "Cold war stories" are about provocation with spy planes disguised as korean airliners and subsequent western media hysteria after they were shot down. But when Rust landed on Red Square, there was a political decision of much softer government not to shoot at him. That bastard Gorby chose to blame his opponents in the army and fire them instead. And then, judjing by 9/11, New-York and even Washington (Penthagon is a Defence Ministry for goodness sake!!) have absolutely NIL air defence, i suppose? 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. There is more info on the net besides that article. And just how many RPG-29s (not RPG-7s) are in Iraq - who knows?

2a. As I wrote, latest generation ERA is reusable. It is not in general service yet, but already thoroughly tested and approved.

2b. Ceramic shatters @ very first, not "repeated" strong hits. Shattering is integral part of "defeating the projectile" process. With ERA, there is a good chance that fixed (& not easy to repair) armor will suffer only light damage (or none). Even more, on some armor schemes found on russian tanks stuck penetrators can actually add to protection level!

3. The problem is, western experts tend to compare the same systems existing on both planes/subs/vehicles/etc (stating that western counterparts are superior), happily omitting those systems which don't have western equivalent. In case of subs, while western sonars and computers may be superior, soviet/russian answer was lurking below kilometer in absolute silence, using trace detectors besides sonar, targeting rocket torpedoes onto unsuspecting gadgetry-filled western sub and be ready to outrun any return-fire torps. ;-) Just a simple example of my point. 195.98.64.69 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One well-known russian "answer" was to target their own unsuspecting Kursk sub with their own torpedoes, and then try to blame it on the British and then Americans so that the whole world could have a good laugh. From time to time the ruskeez still try to do that. Seems like they are born with brains which have the logic parts permanently disabled. If an enemy could sneak into their territorial waters, destroy their best sub so that it didn't even have a chance to fire back, and then escape without being detected and/or leaving any trace of it's presense THEN how long would their fleet last in the event of an all out war with NATO? Probably just enough for a russian sailor to drink his last gallon of vodka :-) So please, sheesh about your subs. We've already seen it.B-2Admirer (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, was it official or i missed something? Even then it makes more sense than ramming own Defence Ministry with a drone plane (pretending it's "being boeing") and making it (another) feeble excuse to start killing "for democracy". :D

And of course i'm not going to question superb capabilities of US submarine and especially ASW forces; in fact, americans themselves are soooo confident in them - to the point of scrambling just Prowlers (!) for "interception" (LOL!!) when surprised (yet again) by buzzing russian strike planes - like those Kitty Hawk dudes did! Hence i'm pretty darn sure that "mighty US carriers" will definitely last longer in real conflict than "crappy russian subs"... yeah, much longer - for a whole two seconds perhaps!! :D 195.218.210.188 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you aren't smart enought to understand what was said. There are hardly any doubts that the sub in question sank because of accident, but the fact is that some Russian journalists and even high-ranking military personel instead of just saying "shit happens" tried to put the blame on a mysterious foreing vessel which allegedly accidentaly collided with or deliberately sunk Kursk, thinking this would save the pride of Russian military, while in fact it would make them positively pathetic. As for the rest of your post, I'm sure here is a wrong place to discuss it, the right would be a good asylum. 212.98.170.119 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Like WHAT was said? "TARGETED by own torpedoes"? And "journalists" - don't make me laugh; as for "high ranking military personnel", they only said there WAS foreign vessel which interfered illegally into the course of the moves - and no more. But most possible base for more sensational rumours perhaps was strange political activity right after the incident - like closed negotiations of unknown subject and US government giving Russia a very generous "loan" after that (and much later it turned out that this loan was effectively forfeit and probably never supposed to be paid back). 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you trust everything on the internet? The basic design of ERA involves an explosive being detonated which is sort of a one shot deal. Unless you can stack several panels it is not really reusable. About the ceramics shattering it really depends on what is hitting the Chobham armor. A heavy KE penetrator will damage or break several ceramic tiles but you would need several hits in the same area before it becomes a real problem. Generally Chobham armor is more effective against CE weapons and when stopping those you don't have to worry about the ceramic tiles breaking. While a hit from a good sized APFSDS on Chobham armor does take plenty of time to repair new modular armor will make repairing and replacing the armor much easier in future designs and will provide other advantages. I don't know about Dorchester armor but other western armor such as that on the Leopard 2 is very effective against KE threats and can take many hits without the armor being weakened to any major extent.

One of the problems with relying on ERA for most of your tanks defense is that while it may normally stop a certain weapon there is a chance that it will fail and let that threat get by without much trouble. Then, if that tank's other armor is not up to the task you will lose an expensive MBT.

I don't feel like talking about subs right now but I think you are underestimating NATO submarine tactics. 68.118.179.186 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone here claimed that Challenger2 took 60 something or 30 something RPGs??? Where is evidence? One RPG-27 will not penetrate Challenger 2, that is trustworthy, but the only evidence of engagement of RPG-29 and Challenger 2 we have is the one when Challenger 2 came out penetrated. So, let's please not brag about how Dorchester and Chobhham proved itself? 1989 weapon penetrated 1993 newest british tank.

"Don't be an idiot. Single Challenger 2 MBTs have taken dozens of hits from RPGs (including the RPG-29) in past engagements and drove off with little damage. Hell one Challenger 2 survived over 60 hits from mixed types of RPGs."

We have yet to see proof of this.

The reference is in the article. I suggest you read it. And while advising people not to brag, it might be best if you withheld from bragging yourself? Just a thought. Geoff B 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Really When does the argueeing stop? Its like debating anything pointed out the flaws and advantages. No one is right. No one tank is THE best. Uber555 16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How can EXPLOSIVE Reactive Armour (ERA) be reusable? It explodes! Acorn897 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs here, but one guy lost his leg in April 2007, it was amputated above the knee. Is this the "toes" incident which is mentioned? But I believe this should be included or the "toes" thing changed to leg. Sources:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2562528/Back-to-war-on-just-1-leg.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/my-son-is-a-casualty-of-war-326294

If this is the wrong place and I sould have opened a new topic for it, feel free to move it wherever it is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.227.216 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Challenger 2 operational history apparently not correct

One guy lost his leg in April 2007, it was amputated above the knee. Sources:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/my-son-is-a-casualty-of-war-326294 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2562528/Back-to-war-on-just-1-leg.html

Another one lost his toes in August 2006:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

The german wikipedia mentions both events, I guess the english should, too. I guess the toes incident mentioned for April 2007 is a mixup of those two events.

Poster of the above comment is entirely right, the mixup of injuries from the 2006 and 2007 incidents was introduced in an edit on 7 April, 2012 and the discrepancy with other languages was annoying. I've taken upon myself to get it fixed. It's better now I hope. Trapiella (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Maximum range?

What is the max range of the Main L30 gun?

It depends. The maximum effective range of the L30 depends on the targeting system (ie it has to be good enough to get the round on-target with a sufficient probability of a 'kill') and also on the type of ammunition used. As the main tank gun of the Challenger 2 and using a HESH (high explosive squach head) round, Janes' Fighting Vehicles puts the range at @8,000 metres. However modern tactics tend to assume a battlefield range of between 1,500 to 4,000 metres. Anything below 1,000 metres and even the old 100mm gun on a T55 would stand a fair-to-middling chance of penetrating a modern western MBT; at such ranges the standard procedure within the (British) Army is to open the range in favour of the L30, if necessary by giving up ground. Very rarely on the modern battlefield would a battlefield weapon such as a main tank gun or an air delivered anti-tank missile be used to its maximum range, for the simple reason that such weapons' ability to kill far exceeds the ranges at which a target can be properly identified.

Andy Loates — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:63:140:59BA:4592:AD5F:7BE0 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The effective range of a gun depends on the armour thickness to be penetrated so maximum range is pretty much a pointless figure but for some indication of how powerful a tank gun can be the 120 mm L11 used on the Chieftain when firing APDS had a Range Danger Area in front of the gun extending out to 19 miles (30.5 km).

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)== Possible confusion with wording ==

"The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions"… this made me think there was physical harm to the driver's body/face before finishing the sentence, because I don't know anything about tanks or tank terminology. Is it possible to reword without making it awkward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 05:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Successor ?

Some time back there was discussion about the successor being a smaller, lighter "tankette" version more suited to air transport. Recently nothing. The article currently states no successor is intended due to lack of perceived threat. I feel this article should discuss the issue in some depth. Britain will continue to be engaged in power projection as part of its international commitments. Only the tank can survive and advance in the open under heavy fire, and this is likely to remain the case for some time. So how does Britain intend to project force on the open battlefield when the Challenger 2s wear out ? Rcbutcher (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Forces TV clip on Challenger 2 Mk 2 "Black Night" here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Challenger 2 programme is being extended to 2035. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214142612/http://www.janes.com:80/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

CRARRV

What idiot could not understand the part where it says "based on the Challenger 1 hull"? 217.248.6.37 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved CRARRV to CR1 page and linked. 13 January 2023 Atomix330 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/54672/dsei-2015-british-army-considers-new-mbt-in-response-to-russia-s-armata
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403214407/http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf to http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17646831/body_mm08116_Enforcer_II_RWS_LQ_.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0%2C%2C931139%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608011154/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C2384518-7EBA-4CFF-B127-E87871E41B51/0/boi_challenger2_25mar03.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdi/jdi050518_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Challenger 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101119164824/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf to http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://mc.nstl.gov.cn/pages/2009/86/01/%282%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Challenger 2 doctrine

I've been trying to find information on challenger 2 doctrine, I know the doctrine for the challenger 2 is classified but there was a post of someone saying and talking about BAOR doctrine back in the late 80s and late 90s, I mainly want to know how the challenger 2 engages a enemy tank,I heard about how the challenger 2 was supposed to counter the soviet threat and would primarily hull down and engage one at a time. Hopefully someone can give me a link or info on this topic,thanks Irishbeast241 (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Classified specs leak

Apparently, the AESP documentation for the Challenger 2 was leaked online recently. Is this sort of incident notable enough to be included, considering how long the vehicle's specs have been closely-guarded secrets? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

not at the moment. the extent and significance of the "leak" is yet to be known and currently seems non-notable. give it a bit and see what happens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please leave the citations alone! 91.98.179.128 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

this is basically just a paragraph of two sentences. one cite alone would cover it. more cites do not make the text any more referenced - they are all working from same material GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

the excerpts of themselves (as opposed to within a news article discussing them) would also fall under the proscription against linking to copyright violations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine

14 vehicles have been promised to Ukraine. They have not yet been handed over or deployed at time of writing. Until then, it is inappropriate to confirm that they have been used in the current war or are being used by the AFU. Atomix330 (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Resolved now tanks have been delivered to Ukraine. Atomix330 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Deployed at least for the present. In the video, it's on fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3MRfjUmTQ Halfcookie (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Imperial hull, metric turret

There's a comment in the Telegraph in relation to shipping some to Ukraine that maintenance is complicated by the way that - because of its origins in the Challenger 1 design? - the hull needs a toolkit with imperial (inches) sizes, but the turret needs a toolkit with metric sizes. Any better sources for that? Lovingboth (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph (unpaywalled version)should be good enough per WP:RSP. Of course it would be better to have another source confirm. Schierbecker (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Engine

The Challenger 2 has always had the Rolls Royce CV 12 engine and not Perkins. I used to do second line repair on the Power Packs. 2003:CB:9F4A:2900:5489:EC37:C8A5:FF75 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Claim of 70 RPG Hits?

The 'Operational history' section describes an incident during the 2003 Iraq invasion where a Challenger 2 tank was subject to 70 HITS by RPG type weapons. It uses a BBC (UK government sponsored media) which quotes a Mr. Tusa, who is a editor at Defence Analysis, who provides no evidence or verification of this event, and appears to be regurgitating some information that he obtained second hand. This is often how erroneous folklore is born.

It's hard to imagine a human CONVEYOR BELT of 70 Iraqi RPG gunners (assuming there weren't more, since 70 hits on the vehicle is the claim, and not 70 gunners, which would imply the Iraqis had a 100% accuracy rate, or there were substantially more RPG gunners, some of whom did not score hits), lining up and taking shots at the vehicle from a single aspect (again, we are not told anything about the extent of the damage or placement of hits). It's also hard to even imagine the 70 Iraqi RPG gunners hitting the same spot, over and over again, without any results, as the article implies. Any proficient gunner would soon realize that hitting other aspects of the vehicle, such as the flanks or rear, which are easily penetrated by even older generations of RPG-7 warheads was futile, and seek a better shot.

In short, the entire claim strains credulity, does not hold up to even basic scrutiny and the realities of combat. Since this is merely a second-hand claim by a third party private industry analyst, and the MoD has never revealed the affected vehicle nor displayed any information about the damage sustained, I think we are safe to disqualify this claim as simply "made up" or badly distorted hearsay that was played up by UK national media to helo foment the myth of their property's battlefield durability. As such I recommend removal of this claim, or insertion of a statement that challenges this narrative. Podlesok86 (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a section in the operational history that i find questionable

> In September 2023, Ukrainian Air Assault Forces Command published a video interview with a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew member who stated that the tank was a "sniper rifle among tanks" due to its accuracy. The anonymous crew member also praised the tank's protection which was more favourable than that of the T-62, T-72, and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed.

I think this statement should be removed, the source is a propaganda video so it should be scrutinized and there is a lot to scrutiny here

First of all what does it mean by "T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks which he had previously crewed", as far as i know Ukraine does not use any T-62s besides a few T-62M tanks in use by territorial defense units, and what T-72 and T-80 tanks is he specifically talking about? A T-72AV and T-72AMT zr 2022 are going to be a comically huge difference

Also the "sniper rifle among tanks" statement is just blatantly stupid, this implies that the challenger 2 is one of the most accurate tanks in the world, but, correct me if i am wrong, as far as i know it's FCS is not that impressive, the tank hasn't received major FCS changes since the 90s, i would be very highly surprised if it is more accurate than the T-72B3 or T-64BV zr 2017

Also the statement on the challenger 2 having good armor is also pretty questionable to me, i know that it's a heavily armored tank but it hasn't received major armor upgrades since the Gulf war not counting ERA, right? I doubt it has impressive armor by 2023 standards, i would rather be inside an M1A2 SEP 3 or Leopard 2A6 D1d2d3d29 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So you reject a source for your own anecdote or opinion? Its fine so long as the paragraph clearly indicates the source. Atomix330 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, this is not my opinion, i think it's an objective fact that the challenger 2 does not have an impressive FCS and this article doesn't contradict that, so a statement that implies the opposite is clearly sus and should be either removed or changed so that it's not so prominent D1d2d3d29 (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Loss in Ukraine

I find the recent changes highly dubious. The first video of the loss that appeared in September 2023 showed the tank disabled and smoking, but the turret was still in place and nobody spoke of "Kornet" back then, even the Forbes article at https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/09/05/ukraine-has-lost-its-first-challenger-2-tank/ stated "Challenger 2’s turret still is attached to its hull, mostly" (in contrast to the Soviet tanks). Now, months later, we're shown another video of the same tank, now completely wrecked and suddenly everybody "knows" it was a "Kornet" ATGM, apparently repeating one unreliable source. Looks like a PsyOps action to me. More likely, the long-ago disabled and abandoned tank was repeatedly hit with something that eventually dislodged the turret and someone conjured up a story of success for "Kornet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:A521:8801:B06D:5ADF:F2DA:2C6A (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Furthermore, we know that the crew of the tank survived - something which would be very unlikely in the scenario that the recent changes describe. The far more likely outcome is that it was immobilised by a hit to the tracks, abandoned by the crew, and then destroyed by artillery. Hell, the crew may even have done it themselves to avoid it falling into Russian hands. 2A00:23C6:549D:B101:4D55:D294:E6BF:B683 (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If the crew did it themselves to avoid it being captured then they are a very incompetent crew given that the tank was fairly far from Russian lines and in no danger of being captured, the fact that you even suggested this as a possibility at all makes me doubt everything you said

And a tank crew could survive an ammunition cook-off D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph should be removed but for fairly different reasons, as far as i know there is no evidence that a kornet was responsible for it's destruction and in general i don't think enough is known about that event to make such detailed step by step descriptions of events D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

From the Forbes article speculating about Kornets and armor: It seems the Challenger 2 struck a mine while shifting positions from outside Robotyne to outside Verbove.... Immobilized by the mine strike, the Challenger 2 was an easy target....The Russians hit it twice in exactly the right spots: first striking the tracks with a mine and immobilizing the vehicle, then striking the turret top where the protection is minimal.

Clearly, the article is all speculation and guesswork, but while still somehow acceptable as a reliable source, there is no mention of the tank being disabled by a mine first, nowhere in the article.

If guesswork is acceptable, at least copy all of it.

Otherwise, this entire entry is nothing more than Russian propaganda about wonders of Kornets and woes of Challengers.109.175.106.75 (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh and, one more thing... David Axe, a journalist, author and filmmaker based in Columbia, South Carolina - clearly has no experience to be a military analyst.

This is his understanding of Kornet 9M133: "The four-foot Kornet packs a 10-pound tandem warhead. Basically, the first warhead punches a hole in a vehicle’s outer armor. The second warhead explodes inside the vehicle."

He literally assumes that both stages of a tandem charge are at least equal, both being capable of penetrating tank armor. Meaning that his "expertise" is lesser that that of someone looking up "tandem charge" on wikipedia.

Besides that, concerning Kornets - he is completely, utterly, WRONG. First stage is tiny. Designed to penetrate ERA. Further, secondary charge on Kornets has to go through its own propellant - which is placed in front of the explosive - DEFLECTING THE PLASMA CHARGE. Kornets essentially carry their own anti-Kornet charge.

https://en.missilery.info/missile/cornet/shema

It is a poor design. They had to separate the guidance in the front from the laser beam sensor in the back, for it to be laser guided. Leaving the middle for the fuel and explosives - one of which gets spent during the flight, making the rocket light on that end. Thus, they had to put the fuel in the middle of the rocket, to keep it balanced - but blocking the main charge.

Entire Forbes article section should be scrapped, or anything by David Axe. He is not a reliable source.

He's just some guy incapable of even googling the things he writes about. 109.175.106.75 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sniper among tanks"

I find the claim that the challegner 2 is apparently "a sniper among tanks" fairly dubious, hasn't the tank not received major FCS modernizations since the early 2000s? Not to mention the fact that as far as i know the reputation of it's FCS is fairly poor when compared to contemporaries like abrams, leopard 2 and leclerc.

Also the statement about it having superior armor to the T-64/T-72/T-80 is vague to the point of uselessness, there are more T-64/T-72/T-80 versions than people in some villages and their armor can vary wildly, i somewhat doubt a T-64BM bulat, T-80BVM or T-72B3 can be lumped into the same category as a T-72A, T-80B or T-64B armor wise, in fact i would be highly surprised if the armor of the T-64BM or T-72B3 is universally worse than a challenger 2, making such generalized statements about the T-series is fairly unacademic. D1d2d3d29 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)