First CR2 lost

[ivan-o]

First one lost to enemy action unfortunately!

 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-ever-challenger-2-tank-lost-in-combat/

 

had to happen though.

[Mippie]

Saw that. First vehicle ever lost to enemy fire. Would be interested to learn more about the circumstances

[PeteH1969]

Until it is categorically confirmed buy the UK Army or the Tank Museum there is no proof that this is true, that video cold be of a burning Leopard it's not a clear and concise video.

[ivan-o]

13 minutes ago, PeteH1969 said:

Until it is categorically confirmed buy the UK Army or the Tank Museum there is no proof that this is true, that video cold be of a burning Leopard it's not a clear and concise video.

Don’t get your hopes up mate that is defo a Chally 

[Mippie]

18 minutes ago, PeteH1969 said:

Until it is categorically confirmed buy the UK Army or the Tank Museum there is no proof that this is true, that video cold be of a burning Leopard it's not a clear and concise video.

It is both clear and concise....The fuel tanks on the rear, the turret front angle, the bore extractor and the TOGs unit above the barrel...those are all unique to the Challie 2

[AntPhillips]

I've seen reports that the crew were able to extricate themselves, 

[Bozothenutter]

On twitter somewhere:

Initially disabled by mines

Not easily recoverable (saw 2 reasons  either arty or ongoing firefight)

Crew abandoned it, and later destroyed by ru.

Not sure about any of this, so treat as hearsay!

[spruecutter96]

The Challenger 2 is a very robust tank, but is not invulnerable on a modern battle-field. There are so many weapons floating around, designed to kill modern AFV's. A tank is a very dangerous place to be.  

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

[nheather]

No tank is invulnerable - the survivability depends on how it is used.  Britain hasn’t lost any Challengers to date but this is probably down to how they have been used and crew training.

 

Britain will have used them in Iraq as part of a combined force including air, sea, artillery, infantry, intelligence and other nations.  Every unit would have been supported by others and the tank crews and other personnel would have been highly trained.

 

By comparison, in the Ukraine we have small numbers of tanks, possibly working individually, crews with less training (and minimal on the Challenger specifically), possibly charging in gung-ho, imagining they were invincible in a western tank.  Plus they we’re up against Russians not Iraqis.

 

As someone above mentioned, could have driven into a minefield, disabled, crew bailed and then the Russians finished it off - or maybe even destroyed by the abandoning crew so as not to fall into enemy hands.

 

All we know for certain is that it is a destroyed Challenger in Ukraine.

[cerperal]

8 hours ago, nheather said:

By comparison, in the Ukraine we have small numbers of tanks, possibly working individually, crews with less training (and minimal on the Challenger specifically), possibly charging in gung-ho, imagining they were invincible in a western tank.  Plus they we’re up against Russians not Iraqis.

I agree with everything you've said bar this. I don't like this rhetoric that's appeared, originally from Vatniks that has seemingly spread into Western circles, that somehow the Ukrainians don't know how to use their tanks. It was especially prevalent when the first images of the Leopards knocked out appeared. It's just categorically not true, according to Western sources and the Ukrainians themselves they're being particularly careful with Western equipment and I think the idea of them charging mindlessly towards the Russian border is frankly an insult to the Ukrainian forces. I suspect a similar thing will occur here as with the Leopards - wild speculation, criticism of Ukrainian use, and then the truth that it was hit by a mine and then focused by artillery will come out. The crews and tacticians aren't idiots, losses will occur as we all know. But the fact 1 Challenger has been lost while spearheading the counterattack at Rotodyne should be less of a focus than the 13 that haven't

[nheather]

3 hours ago, cerperal said:

I agree with everything you've said bar this. I don't like this rhetoric that's appeared, originally from Vatniks that has seemingly spread into Western circles, that somehow the Ukrainians don't know how to use their tanks. It was especially prevalent when the first images of the Leopards knocked out appeared. It's just categorically not true, according to Western sources and the Ukrainians themselves they're being particularly careful with Western equipment and I think the idea of them charging mindlessly towards the Russian border is frankly an insult to the Ukrainian forces. I suspect a similar thing will occur here as with the Leopards - wild speculation, criticism of Ukrainian use, and then the truth that it was hit by a mine and then focused by artillery will come out. The crews and tacticians aren't idiots, losses will occur as we all know. But the fact 1 Challenger has been lost while spearheading the counterattack at Rotodyne should be less of a focus than the 13 that haven't

 

Admit that I worded that badly.  What I was trying to convey is the different in tactics when you have 12 Challengers in Ukraine compared with 180 in Iraq (not to mention the hundreds of Abrams fighting alongside them).  I suspect the tactics are much faster and fluid when you have a smaller number of tanks.  Plus the western allies will fight with a much more cautious technique - generally they'd know there is a risk of mines so would proceed very carefully headed up with mine clearing equipment.

 

So not saying that the Ukrainians are reckless as such (admit I used poor words) just that they have to fight in a different way to reflect the variety and number of combined arms that they have.  And that fighting technique is more likely to get Challengers killed than the technique used in Iraq.

[PLC1966]

It's a war, stuff gets blown up, thats part of it.  Most important is the crew got out alive. 

[Jochen Barett]

"the technique used in Iraq" ... I'm having trouble with my memory, I can't quite remember, but did Saddam('s forces) have air superiority and Su 25 Frogfoots? Did Saddam have ground attack helicopters firing guided-anti-tank-missiles from well out of the range of Stingers or Gepards? Did Saddam have a gazillion of drones guiding his (barrelled and MLRS) artillery? Did Saddam have systems for remote deployment of mines? Did Saddam have 2K25 Krasnopol (or similar) laser guided precison ammunition?

I'm pretty sure he had RPG-7s, mines, and 9K111 Fagots, and maybe even some tanks.

 

Try to put me in a tank (no matter what model and origin) in that area and I might be inclined to ask for some close and medium range anti aircraft, anti helicopter, and anti drone help (air to air and ground to air).

I think there was some mine clearing effort taken and accompanying infantry present to protect the flanks and "6" against ATGMs (in order to be better than the Turkish losing Leopards in some instances) in the current events.

[neil5208]

Confirmed by various online videos that the CR2 was disabled by mine strike, crew all survived, vehicle abandoned due to incoming artillery fire, Russian then brought up kornet atgm which started a fire that resulted in the final state. Unsure if it repairable from grainy images 

[Kingsman]

The vehicle is unlikely to be repairable because of the damage, and because the necessary spare parts and facilities are unlikely to be available.  If it is even viable, that will be a Level 4 - factory - rebuild back in the UK.  Russian forces were clearly trying to deny any possibility of recovery.

 

In a war, tanks are disposable assets.  They will be lost and that must be accepted by commanders, treasuries and politicians.  And fans.

 

But Ukraine might as well make best and most aggressive use of the token 14 Challengers as they can while they can.  Once the very limited supply of munitions runs out they will be out of action.  One of several reasons for the small number.  We gave them all we dare, including remaining DU rounds we would no longer use.  The ammunition hasn't been made for a while and the line is dismantled while our own stocks are running down through training while keeping a warstock reserve.  Whether the line can be restarted I do not know.  But with CR3 not due to be operational until 2027, with efforts underway to bring that forward to 2025, we might be getting worried about ammunition stock levels in the current climate.  There is still some talk of more CR3 conversions being authorised for a 4th Regiment, which would leave no more to hand over.  A handful, maybe.

 

Having the Challengers converted to what would be CR2.5 with the 120 smoothbore gun could be a possibility.  It has been done before, maybe 20 years ago, as a trial.  Converting the ammunition stowage from 2-part to monobloc was actually the most intractable problem.  But what about a 125mm conversion???  That uses 2-part ammunition which Ukraine manufactures along with the weapon.

[Bozothenutter]

2 hours ago, Kingsman said:

The vehicle is unlikely to be repairable because of the damage, and because the necessary spare parts and facilities are unlikely to be available.  If it is even viable, that will be a Level 4 - factory - rebuild back in the UK.  Russian forces were clearly trying to deny any possibility of recovery.

 

In a war, tanks are disposable assets.  They will be lost and that must be accepted by commanders, treasuries and politicians.  And fans.

 

But Ukraine might as well make best and most aggressive use of the token 14 Challengers as they can while they can.  Once the very limited supply of munitions runs out they will be out of action.  One of several reasons for the small number.  We gave them all we dare, including remaining DU rounds we would no longer use.  The ammunition hasn't been made for a while and the line is dismantled while our own stocks are running down through training while keeping a warstock reserve.  Whether the line can be restarted I do not know.  But with CR3 not due to be operational until 2027, with efforts underway to bring that forward to 2025, we might be getting worried about ammunition stock levels in the current climate.  There is still some talk of more CR3 conversions being authorised for a 4th Regiment, which would leave no more to hand over.  A handful, maybe.

 

Having the Challengers converted to what would be CR2.5 with the 120 smoothbore gun could be a possibility.  It has been done before, maybe 20 years ago, as a trial.  Converting the ammunition stowage from 2-part to monobloc was actually the most intractable problem.  But what about a 125mm conversion???  That uses 2-part ammunition which Ukraine manufactures along with the weapon.

Doesn't the lack of a level 4 depot within reasonable distance actually make the Leo2 or Abrams a 'better' choice for UA?

Poland has said its depots are available to UA, and much closer.

How much repair work could Ukraine actually undertake?

The epithet 'sniper rifle' for the Chally is kinda cool though....

[Kingsman]

Yes it does, at least for Leos.  Not so much for M1s.  UA Leos are being repaired in Poland (A4s) and in Germany (A5+).  However, there is no deep repair facility for M1s in Europe, only in the US.  Saudi tanks are being returned to the US for re-work.  Best in Europe, probably at Baumholder, is Level 3.  No news on where the 200+ Leo 1s pledged will be repaired.  As this is a Dutch-German initiative I would assume Germany as no-one in Europe has run Leo 1s for some years so the expertise probaly lies with KMW.

 

For the uninitiated, Level 1 is something the crew can do with tools and spares they carry.  Level 2 is something that unit or formation specialists can do with tools and spares at their disposal: field workshop.  Level 3 would be rear-area base workshop.  Level 4 is factory-level.

 

Ammunition-wise, CR2 was always going to be incompatible with anything else.  Leo 1 is ammunition-incompatible with anything else, but at least 105mm L7/M68 ammunition is still widely available.  Which UK rifled 120mm never was.  Mechanically and systems-wise - the stuff that breaks down - Leo 1, Leo2, M1 and CR2 are completely incompatible.  UA is lumbered with a support nightmare.  And that's just tanks, never mind APCs, SPGs etc.

 

Another problem for UA is ARVs and workshops.  It was assumed that when Soviet-era kit - everything they had before the war notwithstanding their own improvements like the T64 Bulats and T84s - was hit it would be destroyed and the crew lost.  Which has been proved true on both sides.  However, the Western kit supplied is proving to be more survivable so that there are more repairable casualty vehicles to be recovered and repaired and fewer personnel casualties.  Which means that trained experienced personnel are not being lost at the rate they are among Russian forces, who have begun recruiting in neighbouring former Soviet states.  But these now non-casualties need new vehicles to get back in the fight.  And that needs ARVs and repair facilities that UA doesn't have.  ARVs are being sought and supplied, but probably not enough.  Mothballed ARVs are being regenerated and captured Russian ones pressed into use. 

 

UA's main AFV factories are around Kharkiv, well within range of Russian air attack and very nearly over-run in the early weeks of the war.  Facilities need to be created in the West, closer to the Polish border than the Russian.  There has been talk of establishing Western tank production in UA, Leo 2s and now K2s.  Poland will be building K2s but will doubtless be fulfilling their own need for 1,000 before considering exports.  K2s would certainly give UA an edge.  Maybe not the best, but better: overmatch.  Once Poland has its 1.000 K2s, which will take a few years, that begs the question about their current Leo A4s and the promised M1s: 250 M1A2SEPv3/4 and 100 M1A1.  I imagine the Leo2s will go to UA but I can't see Poland wanting to run on the M1s alongside the K2s with the support complications that entails.  Would the US agree to their transfer to UA?  But all this will take time: years. 

 

There are no quick fixes short of supporting nations handing over their own current front line capability and waiting those same years for it to be replaced.  Which is what happens when you only have 1 tank factory in Europe and new ones cost £/$/€ hundreds of millions and take years to build and equip.  Poland will be regenerating an existing factory fortunately not demolished and sold for redevelopment as most in Western Europe have been.  And then there is the expansion of the supply chains to provide systems and components, most of which also does not exist or is running at a low ebb.  Not to mention recruiting and training staff in skills we haven't used in decades.  And AFVs are so much more complex now.  In WW2 we could give them to railway and automotive companies to build.  But now we can't.  Not that there are many of those around these days either, certainly not in the UK.  Before WW2 the Air Ministry invested in the Shadow Factory Scheme while the War Office buried its head in the sand and paid the price.

[neil5208]

Poland use of M1's was only ever a stop gap until polish production on the licence built K2 klp was well underway but that won't be until 2026 unless they can begin sooner

[Mippie]

On 09/09/2023 at 20:59, Bozothenutter said:

Doesn't the lack of a level 4 depot within reasonable distance actually make the Leo2 or Abrams a 'better' choice for UA?

Poland has said its depots are available to UA, and much closer.

How much repair work could Ukraine actually undertake?

The epithet 'sniper rifle' for the Chally is kinda cool though....

Thing is, with any sort of armour my understanding is that mass matters. Being able to concentrate and allocate enough mass to allow the vehicles to do their job (by mass i mean numbers ultimately). The problem for the Ukrainians is that what they are encountering in the South of Ukraine is so far outside the expectation and planning from a NATO standpoint that they simply cannot amass all their armour in a single spot (like say the West would want to do). I think this is partly because of the conditions that the operations are happening in, but also because Ukraine has received a real patch work of highly varying capabilities. For example, in the early stages of the counter offensive the AMX 10RC was used as a more frontline support vehicle and the weaknesses in it's armour were exposed, now it hangs back and provides fire support, it was used like that, because that is what they had available.

I don't know if ammo is necessarily the main reason for the low number of challies sent, the numbers that are even ready for service aren't great to begin with and the UK needs to maintain a set number for our own formations. I personally don't see the UK commitment as "here are tanks have at it" I see the 14 challies (which were the first true Western MBTs to be pledged) as a way of unblocking reluctance in other countries. Same as how following the UK sending Storm Shadow, France sent Scalp and Germany and the US are now considering Taurus/ATACAMs respectively.

What I am surprised about is that the Jordainian Challenger 1s havent been looked at or considered for purchase and sending, as they used the same rifled 120mm ammo (I know the challenger 2 has a stronger breach and different charges etc, but the HESH is the same for example).

[cerperal]

6 hours ago, Mippie said:

  What I am surprised about is that the Jordainian Challenger 1s havent been looked at or considered for purchase and sending, as they used the same rifled 120mm ammo (I know the challenger 2 has a stronger breach and different charges etc, but the HESH is the same for example).

Last I heard those Challengers were basically left to rot in storage and would take significant work to get operational. Purely rumours I must admit, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're true.

 

As an aside for previous replies - I believe the Rh120 is able to be fitted into Challenger 2 with relatively few modifications, so I wouldn't expect ammunition to be the issue given the Ukrainian track record of bodging things. CR3 entering service in 2025 currently is still a pipe dream, not that she wouldn't be ready but because the MoD have actually pulled their fingers out and allowed for proper testing. 2026 maybe - the program is ahead of schedule and I've personally seen her several times down at Bovvy. But I also think we'll see an increase in the number produced, decreasing the number available to Ukraine. Or that would be the case if the CR3s weren't mainly being built from CR2s in storage in Germany. 

[neil5208]

19 hours ago, cerperal said:

Last I heard those Challengers were basically left to rot in storage and would take significant work to get operational. Purely rumours I must admit, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're true.

 

As an aside for previous replies - I believe the Rh120 is able to be fitted into Challenger 2 with relatively few modifications, so I wouldn't expect ammunition to be the issue given the Ukrainian track record of bodging things. CR3 entering service in 2025 currently is still a pipe dream, not that she wouldn't be ready but because the MoD have actually pulled their fingers out and allowed for proper testing. 2026 maybe - the program is ahead of schedule and I've personally seen her several times down at Bovvy. But I also think we'll see an increase in the number produced, decreasing the number available to Ukraine. Or that would be the case if the CR3s weren't mainly being built from CR2s in storage in Germany. 

Would probably have had the armour packs removed from those cr1, as for the smooth bore cr2 it was first fitted and tested back in the mid 2000's in a modified cr2 vehicle with just the gun from a leopard 2 everything else was standard cr2 less gun control software 

[Kingsman]

On 9/11/2023 at 9:37 AM, Mippie said:

What I am surprised about is that the Jordainian Challenger 1s havent been looked at or considered for purchase and sending, as they used the same rifled 120mm ammo (I know the challenger 2 has a stronger breach and different charges etc, but the HESH is the same for example).

Jordan also still has all the 380 or so Khalids.  Khalid and CR1 are ammunition-compatible and have a common engine (and gearbox?) and other parts like tracks.  But they cannot fire CR2 ammunition, although CR2 can fire the older ammunition.  But that ammunition went out of production long before even the CR2 ammunition.  We had stopped using it by the late 90's.  Jordan prototyped and displayed a new locally-built turret with a 120 smoothbore for retrofit to its CR1s but decided not to pursue it.  The CRs were parked up and a smaller number of 2nd-hand Leclercs bought instead to run alongside the M60s that Jordan also still uses.  So CR1 and Khalid are not viable options without re-arming them.  And they have been in storage for years and may not have been properly prepared for storage for re-use.  Potentially the prototype turret could be resurrected and it might even be compatible with Khalid as well as CR1.  But we are talking years and probably several billion $ to resurrect it and convert and regenerate nearly 700 tanks - if both were done.

 

But Jordan is keeping out of it, as is Israel - who have hundreds of older Merkavas parked up but doubtless now in very poor condition, having essentially been left to rust away.  Jordan will doubtless be mindful of the Russian presence in Syria and Iranian support for Russia.  Supplying Ukraine will be taking sides.  Even shipping tanks to Ukraine from Jordan will be a challenge as they can only go via Poland.

 

And yes, ammunition was the major factor in the number of CR2s.  We have stopped making it and may be unable to re-start making it.  And we must preserve an adequate warstock of ammunition for ourselves in the meantime as we will not see operational CR3s for nearly another 4 years on current plans.

 

Also, with the 147/148/150 (depending who you believe) being converted to CR3 over the next few years. a "swap fleet" is necessary to keep operational strength up, essentially a Regiment's worth.  Those will not be freed-up until the end of the programme unless the current 4th regiment is disbanded early.  And there are still whispers that we might actually get a 4th regiment of CR3 and keep the current 4 regiments.

 

And yes it was a token to stimulate others like Spain who were dithering - although very few of Spain's spare Leo 2s were actually in a fit state to send anyway.

 

But the bottom line is that digging diminishingly small numbers of old tanks out of storage is a sticking plaster fix.  Noting that Russia is apparently doing that too with T-62s and possibly even T-55s.  What Ukraine needs are modern tanks in decent numbers, which essentially means Leo 2, Panther, Lynx or K2/Altay as the only tanks in production or ready for production outside the enemy and enemy-leaning bloc.  Lynx is probably too lightly protected.  Panther is essentially Leo 3.  Altay is a Turkish-built modified K2, but has yet to enter series production.  IIRC only 2 are expected to be built in 2023.  Turkey has supplied other equipment to Ukraine, notably drones.  Might they supply tanks?

[Mippie]

6 hours ago, Kingsman said:

But the bottom line is that digging diminishingly small numbers of old tanks out of storage is a sticking plaster fix.  Noting that Russia is apparently doing that too with T-62s and possibly even T-55s.  What Ukraine needs are modern tanks in decent numbers, which essentially means Leo 2, Panther, Lynx or K2/Altay as the only tanks in production or ready for production outside the enemy and enemy-leaning bloc.  Lynx is probably too lightly protected.  Panther is essentially Leo 3.  Altay is a Turkish-built modified K2, but has yet to enter series production.  IIRC only 2 are expected to be built in 2023.  Turkey has supplied other equipment to Ukraine, notably drones.  Might they supply tanks?

This is the key thing imho myself and many others mocked Russia for digging out T54/55 and t-62, but then people sagely nodded and applauded a great idea when it was annouced that Leo1a5's would be sent....a tank that was essentially rendered obsolete by T64 onwards. That is why I thought of the Jordainian Challie 1's, whilst I didn't know the ammo status or the hull status they are vehicles which were designed to fight and win against the T series opponents.

At tis point in time, the only *real* option when it comes to modern tanks is the Leo2, there are hundreds out there and Germany clearly has stocks given they are doing their ringschtag (sorry can't remember the actual spelling). The panther is a hypothetical pipedream with the 130mm gun. The other potential challenger (heh) would be the Polish licensed K2, but that is up to 5 years away before it is able to be produced in sufficient numbers.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Mippie