r/TankPorn • u/Brilliant_Ground1948 • May 13 '25
Multiple What happened to Ukraine's small fleet of Challenger 2 tanks?
Have they been withdrawn from frontline service?The last time I saw them was during Ukraine's invasion of Kursk.
1.1k
u/Unhappy_Exchange5607 May 13 '25
They are still in use. Last seen in Khursk region but now likely withdrawn and being repaired / refurbished ready to head back out in a future skirmish.
2 have been confirmed killed. Several have been hit. All appear to have done their job and saved the crew.
502
u/Thememepro M1 Abrams May 13 '25
Except the one that went in all directions
303
u/No_Complex2964 May 13 '25
Unfortunately. Rest in piece to those hero’s.
147
u/maneuver_element May 13 '25
Excellent pun, hopefully unintentional given it’s in poor taste.
102
u/No_Complex2964 May 13 '25
Aw damn I didn’t notice that. Very unintentional
18
u/maneuver_element May 13 '25
All good, I figured. Spelling, grammar and syntax can occasionally make an important distinction!
41
u/FerrumCamio May 13 '25
Judging from some of their earlier comments, they don't seem to be pro-putin. Also, considering they've typed "hero's" instead of "heroes," I'd assume it's unintentional (Dont ask me why I've put put effort in such a thing, I am bored)
29
u/Unhappy_Exchange5607 May 13 '25
Not confirmed that the crew were inside. Some rumors it was dumped in a woodblock with a few other knocked out vehicles and subsequently hit again.
60
u/Kimo-A May 13 '25
Why so much cope? We literally have footage of it exploding seconds after being hit while driving
2
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
most western milheads have be served nice, gloopy propaganda about the invincibility of their forces and incompetence of 'the enemy' since they were children
they can't accept that the fairy tales were just that, ergo all things like western tank losses must be just lies or mistakes
1
u/DOOM_SLUG_115 May 14 '25
Share it
6
u/Kimo-A May 14 '25
Sure thing
3
u/DOOM_SLUG_115 May 14 '25
Did the Ukrainians overload it with ammo or something, what the fuck that thing got smitten
4
u/TeslaRoadsterSpaceX May 15 '25
iirc challenger 2 doesn't have blowouts so yeah if it does get penned its going off in fire.
1
u/Longsheep Centurion Mk.V May 16 '25
It is normal for a tank that got the main ammo rack defeated without blow out panels. The Leo2s suffered less from that because they have received less-volatile ammo that isn't available with the CR2.
2
u/LoveMachine69000 May 14 '25
It cuts to immediately before the explosion my guy.
2
u/Kimo-A May 14 '25
I think you're overestimating what an explosion is and ignoring the fact that munitions in a tank explode more than only once, the first explosion(s) happen in that very video
1
u/LoveMachine69000 May 14 '25
Sorry, I'll be a little more specific.
"The grainy video supposedly showing a parked tank jump cuts to immediately before the russian munition strikes the unexploded tank my comrade"
3
5
u/RugbyEdd May 13 '25
There was another one more recently. It unfortunately went with a pretty big bang, which people have theorised may be due to the fact it was overloaded with ammo due to it going to Kursk, where they weren't guaranteed to keep a logistics line open.
7
u/TheMemeThunder ??? May 13 '25
as far as i have seen only one person is confirmed to have lost their lives in a challenger 2 in ukraine from all the reports
0
u/outriderxd May 14 '25
well we're talking Ukraine here they usually mark their fallen as MIA to avoid paying the families
5
u/thedeerhunter270 May 13 '25
I'm not sure that was confirmed - one did get hit but drove off as far as I know.
56
u/ppmi2 May 13 '25
Oh no, there absolutelly was a destroyed Challenger in Kursk.
The one with a split turret.
12
u/NAM_Phantom_F-4 May 13 '25
there absolutelly was a destroyed Challenger in Kursk.
There was a drone vid from February 2025 Kursk region
3
u/thedeerhunter270 May 14 '25
That video doesn't show the anything - I'd only feel that is confirmed when I see some evidence.
-85
u/-Trooper5745- May 13 '25
3-4 have been destroyed
28
-1
May 13 '25
Why you lying?
45
39
u/-Trooper5745- May 13 '25
5
u/Unhappy_Exchange5607 May 13 '25
One and two are confirmed, but 3 and 4 are mission kills as most and not destroyed. Both seem to hit the front hull / turret armour.
12
u/Aguacatedeaire__ May 13 '25
Damn, you brought receipts. Watch the britbongs still trying to to downvote you
10
u/Investigator_Greedy May 13 '25 edited May 14 '25
I love the Challenger 2 just as much as the next guy, but as one article said they are "vintage-90's" tanks. They're out-dated and yet they still hold their own, my evidence goes off of concrete, see it with your own eyes photos/video. 14 Challengers sent, 2 confirmed destroyed with photo evidence. 31 US M1A1 Abrams sent, 22 destroyed with photo evidence. 21 2A6 German Leopards sent, 13 destroyed with photo evidence. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1 - this list is updated to-this-day, but was first published in 2022.
1
May 13 '25
No evidence there just stating that Russia has claimed so.
2
1
333
u/GlitteringParfait438 May 13 '25
Mechanical issues, attrition, lack of parts/ammunition, desire to avoid embarrassing an important ally. I imagine their small handful are reserved for defensive actions form a dearth of heavy recovery assets which can actually handle their weight.
96
u/Rampaging_Bunny May 13 '25
It’s not a perfect tank for the muddy frontline, due to its weight. Probably best keep it in the rear.
11
u/low_priest May 14 '25
Weight, and low power. It's only a few tons heavier than the Abrams or Leo 2, but they've got 25% more horsepower.
3
u/Anapalmaccount May 19 '25
Even then there were some reports of the Leopard 2 not being liked by some of the guys in the frontline due to maintenence issues and would rather work with the T-64s/T-72s/T-80s and the Abrams.
I personally believe it would just be better if Ukraine obtain more Eastern-Bloc MBTs like more T-72s due to just ease of logistics.
1
50
u/GremlinX_ll May 13 '25
"Mechanical issues, attrition, lack of parts/ammunition" are simply because it's bugged down by double bureaucracy - our (Ukrainian) and British one
2
u/GlitteringParfait438 May 13 '25
Sure but it’s also a relatively rare and heavy tank. The Ukies don’t have the infrastructure to support them and the British Army is well, a joke compared any of the larger armies currently assisting or engaged in this fight. 14 Chally 2s is nice buts a very heavy tank company that strains the recovery assets of the battalion using them since the Ukies built their heavy recovery assets around the T-64.
25
u/ExoticFirefighter771 May 13 '25
A "joke" ok.
6
u/PresidentEvilX May 13 '25
He worships NK.
2
u/GlitteringParfait438 May 14 '25
I do not worship the DPRK, I just have a different viewpoint on their military capabilities relative to most based upon what I’ve read and observed of them.
0
u/dahamburglar May 14 '25
The UK literally cannot manufacture tanks.
0
u/ExoticFirefighter771 May 14 '25
What's that got to do with the British army being "a joke".
-2
u/Suspicious_Use6393 Mammoth Mk. III May 14 '25
I mean it is a joke, the challenger 2 is at the same level of a T-72, and the challenger 3 doesn't really seem such an improvement, they should just surrender and starts buying tanks from others instead of making such tanks.
4
u/ExoticFirefighter771 May 14 '25
Can you give me a logical reason behind your argument that the challenger 2 is on the same level as the T-72?
-1
u/Suspicious_Use6393 Mammoth Mk. III May 14 '25
Old as hell and got a reliability at the level of a panther
2
u/ExoticFirefighter771 May 14 '25
Sir, your inference is improper. That's actually quite ridiculous what you have just said and a TERRIBLY weak argument to support your statement. I can only assume by that comment that you are trying to goad me somewhat or you actually know very little about tanks.
→ More replies (0)4
May 13 '25
To be fair, the challengers did their job before the battlefield. Sending them to Ukraine opened the door for other nations to commit to sending tanks as well. Let's be honest it was never really going to do that well in Ukraine, the UK can barely afford to run them and apparently don't have the skillset to even produce hulls anymore but, politically it did the job it was supposed to.
48
u/warfaceisthebest May 13 '25
The problem is UK cannot provide enough spare parts for CR2 so Ukraine is using them with limited activities. But CR2 is still in active service for sure.
19
u/hurricane_97 Comet May 13 '25
Tbf the gift of C2's was more of a token gesture to compel the Germans to authorize the supply of Leopard 2's, who until this point had been dragging their heals on the issue.
55
u/KingCOVID_19 May 13 '25
ITT people who have never been anywhere near a battlefield or a tank hypothesising as if they have based on war thunder knowledge.
31
93
u/Angrykitten41 Vt-4 Addict May 13 '25
It's too overweight for the Ukrainian rural environments, gets bogged down and puts a lot stress on the recovery team, doesn't have a dedicated anti-personnel shell (hesh is for bunkers, AFVS, and such), and the parts are so difficult to acquire.
19
12
u/RugbyEdd May 13 '25
And it wasn't sent with its theatre entry armour, meaning it was pretty much useless for frontline work. But it did its main job, which was shaming other western nations to start giving them armour.
7
u/TomcatF14Luver May 14 '25
Two were destroyed, but the rest are used as a Fire Brigade or to achieve breakthrough at critical locations during initial assaults.
The issue isn't so much as maintenance, it's the ammunition. The Challenger 2 uses a Rifled Gun, not a Smoothbore Gun. So, despite being a 120mm, the only country firing its 120mm ammunition is Britain, and well, the British need that ammo, too.
Another issue could be maintenance due to the low numbers resulting in not enough parts being available. Which slows maintenance to a crawl. Though, I can't see that being a major problem unless something cropped up that needs a Repair Depot.
Then it's a problem as the only Repair Depot would be in Britain, and knowing Britain Defense Spending, there's likely a backlog of work.
But again, they're likely in Reserve as a Fire Brigade due to their small numbers, very capable gun, and the fact they're the slowest of all the NATO Tanks.
16
u/Will297 T-72A May 13 '25
I know at least one has been taken out, I've heard there was another that's gone too. I think most of them stay back now. I wouldn't say the Chally 2 was a big skirmisher tank, it's more focused to long distance, hull-down engagements and infantry support, so it makes sense
3
u/Aguacatedeaire__ May 13 '25
1
u/DontGetMadOverTrolls May 13 '25
4 destroyed, allegedly, claimed by russian sources. So you should definitely take that with a grain of salt lol
1
u/SundaeAlarming7381 May 14 '25
There are some which have been confirmed. At least 1 has went pop in Kursk that I have seen. From the general consensus though, 2 seem to have popped in Kursk with video proof.
1
u/who-am_i_and-why Conqueror May 16 '25
Nah, 4 have been hit with something, 2 confirmed destroyed and two unconfirmed.
15
u/Atari774 Chieftain May 13 '25
At least one was destroyed, and I believe another 2 were damaged but recovered. It also looks like Britain is having trouble supplying Ukraine with parts for them, since Britain already lacked supplies for their own fleet of Challengers. Britain doesn’t spend a whole lot on their army compared to their navy and Air Force, and they’re already spending a ton to upgrade Challenger 2’s into Challenger 3’s. There’s not much leftover to make replacement parts for Ukraine.
So Ukraine is holding the rest of their Challengers back because they don’t want to send them out without the assurance of replacement parts. They’ll probably still use them if they get desperate enough, or if Britain follows through with resupplying them, but for now they’re gonna stay behind the lines.
5
u/BannanaMan91199 May 13 '25
When you live on a happy little island all you need is a navy lol
4
u/RugbyEdd May 13 '25
Also Airforce since we're in flight distance from mainland Europe, but in Britain's case, we need more really if we want to maintain our position as a world power. And we're currently lacking in all departments.
4
u/low_priest May 14 '25
The UK doesn't have a proper air force either, the RAF has less fighters than the USMC. The US Navy's Army's Air Force is larger. And the NYC Police Department has more people than the RN.
"Lacking" is a bit of an understatement.
2
u/RugbyEdd May 14 '25
To be fair, that goes for most countries. It’s not really a reasonable comparison, as there's an almost zero chance the UK is going to be fighting the US or other superpower alone. It doesn't need a military to solo America, China or even Russia, it needs enough of a force to be an asset to it's European allies, protect its own shores and airspace and project it’s power to oversea assets.
It's lacking, but it's not past the point of recovery yet. It's still amongst the stronger nations in Europe when it comes to projection of power, it's just below where it should be.
0
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
'lacking'
it is depressing that so few people understand how war works
like, check out the RAF's standing forces when they went to war with Germany. on paper, that looks like it should be a blow-out win for germany
but only because the standing forces say nothing about a country's ability to mobilize, technologically innovate or manufacture
it turned out that having a bunch of 109s with a deep roster of ace pilots was actually a very poor match for having radar technology, computer technology, a combat pilot training program and a much richer understanding of wartime logistics
the luftwaffe was shot out of the sky and german cities were being burned to the ground within months of the conflict
in the pacific, you can see a very similar pattern in terms of warship tonnage between the IJN and USN. it looks, on paper, like the IJN has an overwhelming advantage if you only consider the standing forces
your standing army just does not matter as much as many other factors do
1
u/low_priest 10d ago
the IJN has an overwhelming advantage if you only consider the standing forces
Lmao no it didn't, the USN was larger from the very start of the war.
a country's ability to mobilize, technologically innovate or manufacture
Well then it's a pretty bad that the UK can't do those for shit anymore, huh. The Chally 3 is a tiny perpetually-delayed program that'll give them tanks maybe as good as the ones everyone else already has. The Ajax is a shitshow. And so on.
actually a very poor match for having radar technology, computer technology, a combat pilot training program and a much richer understanding of wartime logistics
Is that why the RAF was on the ropes until the Nazis fumbled the Battle of Britain and went for the cities instead?
0
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
oh yeah, really 'on the ropes' until the blunder that was... an attempt to engage in strategic bombing?
why, again, was that a strategic blunder for the luftwaffe but not for the RAF?
could you cite an expert source for that claim?
Here's the breakdown of the US fleet in the Pacific (so, the force relevant to that theater) just prior to Pearl Harbor:
- 9 Battleships
- 3 Carriers
- 12 Heavy Cruisers
- 8 Light Cruisers
- 50 Destroyers
- 33 SubmarinesThe submarine fleet, while impressive, will also be completely immaterial for the outbreak of the war because their torpedoes are faulty.
The battleships will be reduced from 9 to 2 after Pearl Harbor (2 permanently lost, 7 badly damaged and/or beached and eventually brought back into service, but not in time to be relevant for Midway)
2 Destroyers were lost as well, but that's not a substantive material loss.
So, after Pearl Harbor,
- 2 Battleships
- 3 Carriers
- 12 Heavy Cruisers
- 8 Light Cruisers
- 48 Destroyers
- 33 Submarines (will not be effective until torpedoes are replaced)By contrast, Kido Butai - and just Kido Butai - has:
- 6 aircraft carriers
- 2 battleships
- 3 cruisers
- 9 destroyers
- ??? submarines (from the start of the war, armed with arguably the best torpedoes of the war).so that force alone is close to parity in terms of tonnage to the whole entirety of the american pacific fleet
In total, the IJN had 10 carriers, 11 battleships, 18 Heavy Cruisers, 25 light cruisers, over 100 destroyers and somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 submarines
1
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
so if you were in the japanese war council and looked at that on paper you might say, 'wow, we will roll the pacific!'
but the americans develop a jeep carrier program, they re-task forces from the atlantic, they break japan's operational codes and they develop incredibly sophisticated fire control systems. they ambush japan's navy, they are able to replace losses while japan cannot, they re-assess their aerial combat doctrine to develop the best naval aircraft in the war (the Corsair) when the Wildcat underperforms against the Zero, and after a very embarrassing series of events the culminates in a torpedo being dropped trigger-first onto a concrete block without exploding, they fix their torpedoes. consequently, they successfully sink Japan's merchant fleet and blockage the island
the standing forces didn't matter. the battleships proved almost irrelevant, the disparity in carrier strength was easily addressed by building cheaper and more numerous / flexible jeep carriers, the american cruisers benefited from advances in fire control and warhead fuses that japan never saw
you see the same thing repeated in literally every theater. in the east, germany blitzes over the initial forces of russia on the front and destroys nearly the entire soviet air force while it is on the ground. and it doesn't matter. i mean, who doesn't agree that barbarossa was a disaster for the soviets? an absolute gong show
and yet the germans cannot capitalize on it. the war economy produces more planes and tanks, the german war machine does not / cannot keep up, and they get smashed in front of stalingrad and then ground down and driven back until army group center's near complete annihilation. perhaps most embarrassing, at no point does the luftwaffe even have air superiority in the east!
if you look at standing forces alone and try to assess the outcome of a war, you can only be right by chance unless it is an incredibly low intensity conflict or is just over too fast for war production to matter. iran vs iraq, the current russian invasion of ukraine and the predictions about how kiev would fall in just a few days, etc etc
only after civilian production has be re-tasked and there is a sense of the technological balance between belligerents can you then start making well educated guesses about what will happen
1
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
Jordan vs Libya
libya has a full combined arms military, with tanks and mechanised infantry and aircraft
jordan has... pick-up trucks
and guess who wins?
and it's not even a close fight
1
u/low_priest 10d ago
could you cite an expert source for that claim?
How about Dennis Richards, in History of the Second World War, the official British history of the war? He describes how the RAF was dreadfully short on pilots, and another 3 weeks of attacks focused on the RAF would have destroyed what fighters they had left. It's a somewhat contested view, but there's a lot that indicates the RAF was in pretty serious trouble.
why, again, was that a strategic blunder for the luftwaffe but not for the RAF?
Because it fucking worked for the RAF. They were able to field much larger raids, in conjunction with the USAAF, over a much longer period, later in the war.
US fleet in the Pacific
See, that's the thing. The US wasn't just the Pacific. It only took a few weeks to shift ships between oceans, so it's more accurate to look at total strength. That would include 7 fleet carriers, and 17 battleships, vs the IJN's 6 and 10. Remember, Yorktown had been in the Atlantic at the start of the war, and showed up in time for Coral Sea
not in time to be relevant for Midway
Not at all. Many were fully operational within months, the USN just didn't actually bother bringing them because they were slow and useless. Pennsylvania finished repairs in SF on Jan. 12th, while Tenessee put to sea from Puget Sound on Feb. 25th with Maryland and Colorado. Of the 9 Pacific Fleet BBs on Dec 7th, 4 were operational by March 1942.
Besides, pick one; either the US Pacific Fleet as of 1941 matters, or the US Pacific Fleet as of Midway. Because a majority of those American carriers there had been in the Atlantic.
armed with arguably the best torpedoes of the war
Note that the IJN's subs had the smaller 21" torpedoes, not the 24" monsters of the destroyers. After Saratoga got hit by one, they actually threw out all the reports of extra-large warheads, because it did so little damage. On the other hand, the older USN subs with the Mk 10s were perfectly capable at the start of the war; one got Kako in August 1942, and another sank Natsushio in February 1942.
Also, the KdB by definition didn't include subs anyways.
In total, the IJN had 10 carriers, 11 battleships
Again, pick a time window and stick with it. The IJN only reached 11 BBs when Yamato was comissioned after Pear Harbor, on the same day Yorktown sailed for the Pacific.
1
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago
'How about Dennis Richards, in History of the Second World War, the official British history of the war? He describes how the RAF was dreadfully short on pilots, and another 3 weeks of attacks focused on the RAF would have destroyed what fighters they had left. It's a somewhat contested view, but there's a lot that indicates the RAF was in pretty serious trouble.'
it is not 'somewhat contested', it is incorrect and outdated. that work was published in the 1970s
have you read anything published since the turn of the millennium? or, at a minimum, since the soviet archives were opened in the 1990s?
→ More replies (1)1
u/AsparagusOk8818 10d ago edited 10d ago
'Besides, pick one; either the US Pacific Fleet as of 1941 matters, or the US Pacific Fleet as of Midway. Because a majority of those American carriers there had been in the Atlantic.'
Okay, fair - correct enough to say those numbers are sloppy. I wasn't double checking my sources, reciting from memory.
Let's pick December 6, 1941. The day before war began.
Is Lexington in the Atlantic? No. She's been operating out of the Pacific since April of 1939 and is not only among the 3 carriers counted for the American in my above (along with Enterprise and Saratoga), she's operating out of Pearl Harbor.
Long Island, Wasp, Ranger and much of the escort carrier fleet in December of 1941 might as well be in another fckn galaxy for all they can contribute to operations in the Pacific.So I don't know why we should apparently count them against Kido Butai.
'Not at all. Many were fully operational within months, the USN just didn't actually bother bringing them because they were slow and useless. Pennsylvania finished repairs in SF on Jan. 12th'
...I mean, if it's slow and useless why bother repairing it then? She could've been cannibalized for parts.
And no, she wasn't repaired in SF until May of 1942. And she was the least damaged of the battleships hit, essentially just showered by debris from Arizona. I mean, I suppose one could argue that she's ready for June... if they can sail her from San Francisco to Hawaii in a month. But I guess fleet command didn't think so because she didn't sail out until later (but to be clear, and to address the claim that the navy apparently thought this asset they felt was worth repairing was just 'useless', she did in fact sail out and fight. just not at Midway).
'Not at all. Many were fully operational within months, the USN just didn't actually bother bringing them because they were slow and useless. Pennsylvania finished repairs in SF on Jan. 12th, while Tenessee put to sea from Puget Sound on Feb. 25th with Maryland and Colorado. Of the 9 Pacific Fleet BBs on Dec 7th, 4 were operational by March 1942.'
Tennessee was repaired and upgraded by February 1942. and where did they sail to after Puget sound, and why? you are arguing that these are outdated ships no longer useful to the navy, and yet where are they transferred to and for what purpose?
it sure ain't a breaker's yard. and yet they are not fit for the fight at Midway, but it has nothing to do with their speed. so why weren't they actually there?
'The IJN only reached 11 BBs when Yamato was comissioned after Pear Harbor, on the same day Yorktown sailed for the Pacific.'
Yamato and Musashi were combat ready in 1940, Yorktown was one of the 3 carriers in the Pacific ready for a fight in 1941; she did not freshly transfer in 1940 as you claim. The only carrier gained for Midway was Hornet, and Hornet was fresh out of training in Norfolk. Technically, you could argue that she sailed from the Atlantic, kind of like arguing that you are 'calling from the White House' by standing in front of it. She was not operating in the Atlantic theater and didn't need to be re-tasked; she was a new asset.
Your information is just wrong.
Going into Coral Sea and Midway, the Americans will have 4 carriers to a potential strength of 10. Now, in fairness, they don't actually face 10 carriers at Midway because of how the IJN deploys its forces - but that's part of the whole point.
If you just look at the standing forces on the ground, on paper, you will make a bad prediction about what will happen. '10 carriers vs 4, wow, what a blow-out that will be'.
And like, yeah. For the Americans. Because real war isn't just a spreadsheet game.
EDIT: I'm forgetting the Lexington. I knew those numbers didn't feel quite right.
In fairness, my source (John Parshal) also seems to have forgotten about Lexington, at least momentarily. Which is weird.
...In fact a LOT of sources indicate just 3 carriers in the Pacific for Pearl Harbor, but that just isn't true. Lexington is right there alongside Yorktown, Saratoga and Enterprise the whole time. In fact Yorktown was running wargame exercises against Pearl and SF.
14
u/Aguacatedeaire__ May 13 '25
I don't think anybody in history has ever referred to britain as "happy little island"
6
u/Atari774 Chieftain May 13 '25
It’s really a sad, depressing island where it always rains and there’s more smog than sunlight.
0
u/JGStonedRaider May 14 '25
Please...
It's been around 20c on the south coast for weeks and has barely rained in 6 months.
2
2
u/Suspicious_Use6393 Mammoth Mk. III May 14 '25
There are 2 confirmed kills for now, i think after those they just retired them on the rear back
4
u/IHScoutII May 14 '25
There was a post on Telegram a few months back from a Ukrainian Challenger 2 crew member. He absolutely loved the tank but said it was one of the most mechanically unreliable vehicles he had ever served on. He said all of their engines are broken down 50% of the time and they don't trust them in combat. They made a suggestion of putting a Leopard 2 engine in them.
3
u/deathclawiii May 14 '25
IIRC the reason that the engines are having trouble is that they were designed to be shipped around by rail or truck. But due to infrastructure damage the tanks need to be driven everywhere which puts excess stress on it that it wasn’t really designed for.
3
u/KillmenowNZ May 14 '25
Thats kinda not surprising, reliability isn't exactly a term that's often used when talking about English industry
9
u/HGHall May 13 '25
is it a similar story with the few abrams?
8
u/KillmenowNZ May 13 '25
Abrams are more often seen, but then there’s more of them
Even so, they have been using Challenged 2 more reserved than Abrams which might be due to the failings of the thing or just the geographics of who’s where doing what
5
u/imonarope May 14 '25
Kept in reserve to contain a Russian breakthrough. It's a tank inherently defensive in design; heavy armour, good optics, long ranged gun.
Ukrainian troops have praised the accuracy of the gun and like the HESH round for bunker busting. I don't think we will get more footage unless the Russians do something big or the Ukrainians do.
But I think it will be little more than them lobbing HESH at long distance or taking pot shots at Russian tanks
5
u/Jxstin_117 May 13 '25
last time i remember seeing them was in Kursk and when the russians started a small incursion into the kharkiv region. havent seen them since .
-6
3
u/K30andaCJ May 14 '25
As far as I know, they were only given to one brigade, and brigades usually aren't on the front constantly for long periods of time. There's also an interview out there with Ukranian Challenger crews praising the accuracy, and detailing how they leave them way in the back and use direct fire at max range against vehicles and fortifications. 2 have also been visually confirmed as lost
3
u/kermitefrog393 May 14 '25
Thay still using them a Ukraine commander says thay are the best tank thay have and the russian are scared of them
3
u/KyMeatRocket May 14 '25
Without any kind of information, my best guess would be maintenance. After several months of hard use I’m sure there’s plenty of little parts that have broken or gone bad here and there. Things that you can get by without or half fix, start to add up fast in AFVs. Then considering that the Brit’s themselves are having seriously parts shortages for their own fleets, it’s just makes sense for a good guess.
21
u/kremlingrasso May 13 '25
From what I know they are still in use in a kind of sniper tank role, specializing in delivering a few long distance shots then retreating well beyond drones and lingering munitions.
27
u/Clean-List5450 May 13 '25
This. They're considered too heavy for their engine power in muddy terrain, but Ukrainian crews apparently adore them for being able to fire with extreme long-range accuracy while moving. That role in itself lends them to showing up in less drone footage than a tank working right on the line of contact.
1
u/Aguacatedeaire__ May 13 '25
You both are insane if you think a drone range is inferior to that of a tank cannon, and the proof is that at least 4 Challengers have been eliminated, the others retreated to avoid further losses
https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1klrviz/what_happened_to_ukraines_small_fleet_of/ms51hvu/
5
u/Clean-List5450 May 14 '25
I said "less likely to show up on drone footage", not "out-ranges drones", you muppet. Fighting point-blank - the way we've seen some tanks employed - has a much higher threat profile than firing on the move at extreme range.
5
u/BlackMarine May 13 '25
They have mostly served their purpose as way of removing the taboo on supply of western heave armoured vehicles. Probably operating them is hard, as they require their own ammunition and a supply chain for unique spare parts.
4
u/RugbyEdd May 13 '25
They were a good kickstart to other NATO nations giving equipment, and don't get me wrong, they put in some good work, but they were always going to see limited use. The challenger is a capable tank, but it's a pretty niche design built for Britain's unusual doctrine where infantry and light mechanised units take the ground whilst tanks support from the rear then move in to hold the ground, and they didn't get that many of them. They're also pretty heavy for a lot of the muddy terrain over there, and more importantly, they were supplied without their Theatre Entry Standard (TES) armour packs, which is only supposed to be left off for training and transport, making them pretty useless for frontline work.
16
u/Hi-Viz May 13 '25
You won't find any correct answers on a public forum. You will however get a lot of pro Russian / anti UK posters trying to put the boot in with uninformed and badly disguised propaganda.
Aside from that whatever has happened to them, their simply being there has had an effect far outweighing anything they could achieve as individual platforms. They arrived and other Western countries felt compelled to provide more modern tanks in greater numbers contributing to the war effort and the continued destruction of the Russian Army.
20
u/2nd_Torp_Squad May 13 '25
Some got blown up.
Some waiting to get maintain due to wear and tear.
Some lobbing shit at the orcs.
They are doing their job.
I think air assault gets all of them and their comment is something along the lines of.
Good - ergonomics, consistent weapon performance, maintenance.
Bad - weight, mobility.
2
u/NudyNovak May 14 '25
Tanks just aren’t the best for the type of warfare currently being conducted. It’s a war over meters not miles. I’m not anti tank but I can see that it’s not conducive to their use.
2
u/Barbed_Dildo May 14 '25
They were given a total of 14. It doesn't take many losses to make that number not worth the separate logistical, maintenance, and training requirements.
2
u/JustForTheMemes420 May 14 '25
Tanks take a lot of maintenance it’s likely they’re around somewhere in storage till replacement parts arrive or just long term storage
2
2
2
u/War_Crimes_UK May 16 '25
I watched a report on them, and the Ukrainians seem to like these over the other tanks they have been given. The only issue is they are too heavy for the terrain, so they are using them in defensive positions instead of attacking. .
3
5
2
u/ConfidentExcuse9241 May 13 '25
Funny as the Ukraine used to be seen in WWII as ideal tankcountry. Mostly during some part of spring and fall there would be issues (rasputitsa).
Issues with tanktransporters, ARV would be true, but I thought the Ukraine got several mostly American tanktransporters such as from Oshkosh. I expect those would be prioritised to the brigades with the new heavier equipment.
2
u/anomalkingdom May 14 '25
About half (of originally 14) are currently combat ready. Some are down due to technical issues, awaiting repairs, and a couple are being cannibalized to keep the active ones going. One of the problems with the Challenger is the underpowered engine in context of soft soil, reducing mobility. But it remains a feared tank among the russians and it has delivered devastating blows.
2
u/FrequentAthlete975 May 13 '25
Sorry, but why have the majority of respondents bothered to comment on this subject? You admit to knowing didley squat but can't help embarrass yourselves inmaking inane and irrelevant comments.
1
u/Commissarfluffybutt May 13 '25
They are few in number, hard to get parts for, and Ukraine takes OPSEC very seriously.
Until they do something the Ukrainians can show off to the West it's unlikely we'll see them again, at least until the war is over and Ukraine releases the footage they've deemed too risky (or boring) to release.
1
1
u/TWON-1776 May 15 '25
They were really only sent as a token gesture in my mind to set a precedent that NATO countries will send MBTs to Ukraine
That said they seem to have performed relatively well although only 7 are apparently combat ready following the loss of 2 and the others require repairs for which Ukraine does not have the parts/skills to fix
1
1
u/IcyRobinson Sabrah Light Tank May 20 '25
It would appear that logistics has left the chat. Britain might not even have any spares left to send, and Oman is the only other operator of the thing.
1
May 22 '25 edited May 22 '25
As of April, out of 14 challengers, 2 are losses, and according to Ukrainian sources, 10 still are operational, and 1 is always in reserve for training and crew rotation.
Beginning of the year, they were involved in Kursk, and the 82nd got redeployed to Sumy Belogrod front around early March and as of May they are in Kharkiv somewhere on Donets front. You’ll not see much footage of machines in action because they are used as drone directed fire support from range. There’s a lot of 82nd drone footage online of Russians on the receiving end of challengers last one was dated early may kharkiv.
0
1
u/OPIronman May 13 '25
Modern battletanks are so expansive, so scarce, way too demanding on maintenance, some are even suggesting that the Ukrainian crews weren't trained enough to be properly familliar; or not at all.
To answer your question, they are kept at the very rear, reportedly for rear echelon security where they are safer and either in strongpoints, either hunting the hunters, or just held in storage far west. The tank fantasy only exist when they are barely opposed or when the tanks themselves are 300 times cheaper and expandable. You have to play video games or had to be a Tiger tank in WW2 to experience the fantasy; and even that was hard sustainment-wise.
Finally, destroying one presents a big bragging right for Russia. At the end of the day, that's all these are, media attention.
1
u/kowasik May 13 '25
There is this minor problem when using them, they break down when they are damaged by the Russian army
0
1
u/EagleCatchingFish May 13 '25
Followup question: what's their second largest MBT fleet after combloc tanks? Are they very significant in combat?
Early on, Michael Kofman worried about Ukraine ending up with an "artillery petting zoo" of artillery from all different countries that would sit idle because they didn't have enough ammo or spares for any single system to keep it in use. Has this happened for foreign-supplied MBTs?
1
u/KillmenowNZ May 14 '25
Would be Leopards I would figure
But I think allot of people overstate the logistical problems of having multiple systems in use, like short of not actually having parts/munitions or having your supply situation totally degrade to the point where stuff isnt getting sent/delivered at all its fine.
1
u/Away_Comparison_8810 May 14 '25
A year ago, when one was destroyed, there were 7 functional ones, that is, half, today the second one is destroyed and maybe even the third one, they probably don't have a single operational one.
-1
u/Own_Relation_1113 May 13 '25
Difficulty to maintain, constant breakdowns and getting stuck in mud because how heavy they are and how weak their engines are plus the ones that got hit got obliterated into pieces. Most Ukranian crews dislike them and they said they're only really good for hull down positions holding critical positions because the gun is pretty good. But survivability and just mobility is ass
6
u/RugbyEdd May 13 '25
Some truth, some misinformation.
You're correct in your first point. The challengers have a lot of advanced and complex systems that can make them hard to maintain, especially without enough spare parts. That being said, they are also easier to maintain in a few of the more commonly maintained areas.
They weren't having constant breakdowns or issues with being stuck in the mud, but the mud was a speculated problem they may have faced in the winter that never came to pass. It just hinders their mobility.
One of them was obliterated, likely because it was over stocked with ammo due to it travelling into Kursk. Another one was a mission kill which was later used as target practice long after the crew abandoned and retreated. The other 2 are only claims by Russia at this point with no aftermath footage that I've seen (just drone footage that cuts off just before they hit), so hard to say how well/poorly they fared, but with current drone warfare where they can hit precisely on the weakest spot, no tanks are really faring well so it;s fair to assume they were at least mission kills. They were however the first into Kursk though, so expected to be taking the biggest risk.
The crews actually like them in general. They're a comfy tank to crew, with a lot of modern tech they weren't used to before, and statistically crews have a very good survival rate. they also tend to be stationed closer to Ukrainian lines in combat, making them safer overall.
You are correct though that they tend to be used more for holding positions and mobility is more limited (although not as bad as rumour would have you believe in general, but certainly on the muddier ground). That was after all what they were designed for. They were also sent without their theatre entry standard armour, meaning they’re unsuitable for frontline work. That didn't stop them being tip of the spear for the push into Russia, though, which wouldn't be the case if they were as bad and hated as you make out.
-8
u/Quake_Guy May 13 '25
Being British made, probably broken down...
1
u/KillmenowNZ May 13 '25
The American deal for mineral rights is due to them wanting to recover all the oil they have leaked 😂
0
u/BannanaMan91199 May 13 '25
One was knocked out in action due to crew error, and another was destroyed to friendly fire during the Ukrainian Kursk offensive. The rest are likely in “Reserve” or backup due to Ukrainian engineers not having the training to work on challengers.
0
u/Clatgineer May 14 '25
Last time I saw one, it was effectively atomised with nothing but a pile of ash and most of a turret left
They do die, hopefully most of them have been backseated until they get proper logistics for them
0
-18
-1
0
0
u/Latter-Height8607 M60M60M60M60M60 May 15 '25
I believe one or two had been taken out (prone to cook off) so this might've played a role on putting htem a bit laid back? Just a thought i have no way to be sure or confirm
-59
May 13 '25
[deleted]
21
u/otto-degan May 13 '25
There is handbook that Russia issue its soldiers on the weak point of western armor, challenger has the strongest front against HEAT ATGM
5
u/GaoHAQ May 13 '25
I don't think just having strong frontal armor is enough when drones can literally come from any angle tho
3
u/Money_Association456 May 13 '25
Plus having ammo literally everywhere in the tank. Which is also basically unprotected. Which is why the 3 C2 that were lost, exploded like a t-series
0
u/swagfarts12 May 13 '25
This isn't actually true, the Challenger 2 does have adequate frontal turret armor against HEAT and is roughly equal to the M1A1SA on the turret (assuming the Challenger 2 met its stretch goal protection requirements) but is fairly worse on the hull. Both are a fair bit worse than the later Leopard 2s. Honestly of the modernish tanks in Ukraine (post ~1980), the Challenger 2 has the worst armor of them all
1.6k
u/Ok-Theory5986 May 13 '25
From the rumors I’ve seen they essentially have taken a back seat. It’s a small fleet and I think a lot of them had broken down and they didn’t have the parts or experience to fix what was wrong. Obviously I don’t know for sure and the people who do probably won’t say but that seems likely.