Last January a former crew member of Challenger 2 accepted an interview for my blog. M. served for almost a decade in the Royal Tank Regiment, and did several tours in Afghanistan.
Hello M., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide us an overview of your career in the British Army?
I was in the Royal Tank Regiment for almost ten years, from March 2007 until November 2016. During that time the regiment had a broad range of commitments, mostly as a result of the ongoing debate about whether or not MBTs have a place in an army looking towards the future and a rapid reaction structure.
The RTR pride themselves on the fact that we are ‘experts in mounted close combat’ and that we have been, since the inception of the tank in WW1, a highly adaptable and innovative force.
I spent the first year in the regiment doing CBRN. At the time, the majority of 1RTR provided the armies commitment to the joint CBRN capability.
I then spent a few years in Warminster on Challenger 2. At the time A Sqn was the MBT element of the land warfare centres battlegroup; we provided training to all new tank commanders and battlegroup commanders, so we spent most of the year out on Salisbury plain on exercise.
I then went over to our sister regiment, 2RTR for a few years, including my first trip to Afghanistan.
The British Army did not take Challenger 2 to Afghan; it was decided that the logistical nightmare of moving and maintaining MBT did not warrant the benefits. Simply, why send a MBT, which is designed to engage and destroy enemy armour, to fight farmers with AKs and RPGS? However, in keeping with the ‘mounted close combat’ ethos, we deployed on Mastiff and provided an infantry battlegroup with both intimate support and an armoured lift capacity.
Following a proper frontline fighting tour, I had two ‘sunshine’ tours in camp Bastion, passing on my experience and teaching new drivers and commanders on mastiff, its variants and the new Foxhound platform.
Then it was back to Challenger for a few more years and the familiarity of Salisbury plain, Castlemartin ranges in wales and my 4th trip to the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS).
I also spent a month out in Germany, as part of an American led NATO division exercise, as an advisor on combined arms manoeuvre to the British Battle Group commander.
What was your impression of the Challenger 2 tank. What do you think were the strong and weak points?
I might be a little bias, but I think challenger 2 is the best MBT in the world; its battle proven in multiple theatres and we’ve never lost a single one to enemy fire. It appears to be a near perfect balance of the three tenants that make a MBT; firepower, protection and mobility.
I think when you live off of a vehicle for an extended period of time, as any tank crew does, you start to think of the vehicle as home and it becomes hard to fault; you learn to live with the little problems that your particular tank throws at you and it gains a character or personality.
That being said, challenger 2 is getting on a bit and there are a number of capability upgrades that it really need in order to continue to compete at the top.
When training, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?
I can’t divulge the specific capabilities of Challenger 2, but its common knowledge that the tank can comfortably hit 25-30mph cross country and the stabilisation and fire control computer are brilliant. You can comfortably and consistently put rounds through the centre of mass of targets a few KMs away, whilst the tank is at full speed and the gun is ‘over the side’
Challenger tanks use a human autoloader. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved when firing in the move and static?
It doesn’t actually make a great deal if difference to loading speed whether you’re moving or static. The only real consideration is which charge bins are available, which is dependent on the turret position.
A decent, experienced loader can load one round every 3-4seconds, although this cannot be maintained for more than a few mins at a time.
Challenger 2 kept a rifled gun. Do you think it was a good idea?
I think that when the platform was design and built, the rifled gun had greater accuracy and reliability, not to mention we had been using rifled guns for a while. However, that was a long time ago and ammunition advancements for smoothbore have more than compensated.
I don’t think its a question about which is better; I think everyone accepts that a smoothbore gun is better in terms of capability and versatility of ammunition. The question is about the benefit of changing challenger to smoothbore vs the cost, all the while considering whether or not MBTs have a place on the modern battlefield.
That being said, we have fit smoothbore guns to Challenger 2 before, for the purpose of testing. The issue hasn’t been so much about swapping the gun, its about where to store the ammo; challengers turret is designed for two piece ammunition (separate rounds and charges) and cannot accommodate the larger single piece ammo of a smoothbore gun. Both BAE and Rheinmetall have recently demonstrated concepts for a smoothbore challenger, from a complete internal redesign to a completely new turret.
In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?
I wouldn’t say anything was particularly delicate or fragile, but we did change the model of the Generator Unit Engine (GUE) used to produce the electrical power; I remember having persistent issues with them over the years.
The platform is very hard wearing, despite its age. The mass majority of problems are caused by user error; mostly involving something like a round or a crew guard (helmet) getting into the traverse.
What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?
That figure varied greatly depending on the purpose of the exercise, but I will say that as ‘fleet management’ took over, track mileage was reduced again and again, in the name of saving money by reducing maintenance. In my opinion, to a fault, where it became detrimental to the soldiers training.
Challenger used a hydropneumatic suspension, while other tanks of its era used torsion bars. What is your opinion on its advantages and disadvantages?
Its bloody fantastic; the faster you go, the smoother the ride. Other platforms that we work closely with, like Warrior IFVs and CVRTs simply cannot match challengers cross country capability, and a large contributing factor is that they have torsion bar suspension.
The only caveat is that in the morning its cold in the morning, so the tanks sits lower down and the ride is much rougher. When you’ve been on the move a while and its warmed up, its brilliant.
In Challenger 2E Vickers Defence System installed a a EuroPowerPack with MTU MT883 diesel engine coupled to a Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. Do you think this configuration would have been better for the British Army?
Other than a few old tanks with a lot of mileage that I encountered out in Canada, which lacked a little power, I never thought that the power pack required any improvement; the maintenance was straightforward for the junior soldiers, the reliability was generally good (minus the aforementioned GUE drama) and swapping power packs in the field was an easy enough task.
Challenger 2 is equipped with thermal sights. Can you comment on the use, especially in night conditions? Did you also use it during the day? At what distances you could detect and identify vehicles and personnel?
Again, specific capabilities are still classified, however the TI on challenger is very similar to that of Abram. We do use it during the day, as well as at night, to pick up targets, particularly well camouflaged targets in wood lines.
The thermal camera for the gunner is placed on top of the mantlet and uses the gun stabilization. Do you think this configuration is a disadvantage against independently stabilised sights?
It is absolutely a disadvantage and one that is has been addressed on the new concepts, along with the smoothbore gun. The main reason being that you lose the hunter-killer capability that you have during the day; the commander picking up targets and handing them off to the gunner, while the commander continues scanning.
Again, I think its another sign of the platforms age and something that is high on the list of things to upgrade.
When operating at night the commander has to rely on the monitor feeding the gunner picture. How much of an issue was this?
Its not so much of an issue; most gunners are given authority to give fire orders and engage; commanders tend to be busy with a multitude of other tasks, but its easy enough to look up from your map and see what the gunner is looking at.
Again, the only glaring issue is the lack of hunter-killer capability that the platform has during the day, with independent sights
Did you practise NBC situations? What was the approach?
Whenever you’re firing the NBC pack, I suppose we should call it a CBRN pack now, is turned on to create overpressure and ensure the fumes from the breach don’t come back into the turret.
We do conduct drills in which we wear respirators whilst operating the vehicle.
Did you have the opportunity to train with other countries (NATO for example)? What was your impression about their training and equipment? Any tank (or other weapon) you liked or disliked?
In terms of actual vehicles, I was fortunate enough to have a look around US Abrams and Danish leopards in afghan. Both very impressive platforms. Tbh, Abram, leopard and challenger were all conceived at the same time, with the same basic mission profile; although there are differences, they’re all very similar.
In terms of how different nations use their particular MBTs, again, general strategy tactics are pretty similar. In Germany we had a US recce troop attached to the British battle group and I found them to be very capable and impressively adaptive as we experimented with various ways of deploying an armoured battlegroup.
Did you receive intelligence on potential threats (T-72, AT missiles, IEDs)? If so, how accurate was it once you got access to the weapon?
All Challenger 2 gunners and commanders have to pass an AFV recognition test, looking at vehicles in day and TI sights, so you get a pretty good idea about general specification of allied and potential enemy platforms.
Over time, through various exercises and deployments, you broaden your knowledge of the offensive and defensive capabilities of our enemies; IEDs for example are very theatre specific, even specific to your particular area of operations. I was amazed at the ingenuity of the afghan insurgency to build effective weapons out of what we would call rubbish; discarded batteries, plastic bottles, cooking pots…etc.
Although none of that would have damaged a Challenger 2, I’ve always been fascinated with how a poorly equipped insurgency can combat armour.
What is your opinion on turbines and autoloaders?
I don’t really have a personal opinion or experience of them, but the Russians have been using them for a long time and I hear they’ll load anything that you put in front of them, including body parts.
I was always told that the British army prefer a human loader because autoloaders are unreliable, and a human loader can ‘fight the tank’ and potentially deal with issues, whereas that’s far more difficult with an auto loader or turbine/carousel
Do you think there is room for improving the Challenger 2 or is better to go straight into concepts like MGCS (Main Ground Combat System)?
I think it would be a mistake to discard a battle proven platform like challenger 2. That being said, we’ve mentioned a number of significant capability shortfalls that have resulted from its age. Generally, in terms of the capability of the main armament and its ammunition, having independent day and night capability for the gunner and commander, how far you can push an aging platform in terms broader integration of data infrastructure across a battle group, with supporting elements and allies…etc.
Beyond that, the whole idea of a main battle tank is in a very tenuous position, with the persistent question of whether or not they have a place on the modern battlefield or within a force that’s being restructured for rapid deployment.
Generally, my opinion is that main battle tanks are irreplaceable in conventional and asymmetric conflict; critically they can hold ground, almost indefinitely; drones, fast air and attack helicopters have a devastating strike capability, but they cannot stay on station and they cannot hold ground. Equally, main battle tanks are designed to engage enemy armour; portable AT weapons are impressive, but any tankie who has taken part in an exercise against a dismounted AT matrix will tell you that you can see them a long time before they see you.
Technological advancements in weapons and vehicles have substituted the role of the main battle tank over the years, but none have superseded it.
The question is not should we keep MBTs, the question is, is there a cheaper and potentially more versatile option, perhaps one that would better fit into the future of the British army?
There are alternatives, but whenever you start exploring the options, things like medium tanks, you always end up sacrificing at least one of the fundamentals: firepower, protection and mobility. You only get all 3 in abundance with a MBT like challenger 2.
All that being said, it will always come down to politicians sitting around a table talking about cost, and in that conversation, today more than ever, it’s difficult to justify the cost of updating an aging main battle tank.
What is your opinion on the Armata concept?
As a concept its impressive. Its stated offensive and defensive capabilities are very impressive, as is the unorthodox crew positions and the protection that offers, but it is an untested platform and fully automated turret sounds like a nightmare to me; tanks are designed to survive in the most austere environments, take a beating and keep fighting. Part of that equation is the crews ability to operate the vehicle and overcome problems that arise on the battlefield; how are you going to clear a stoppage when you’re not even in the turret or deal with a jammed breach?!
I don’t actually think NATO will follow suit, in terms of a radical new direction for tanks or a new generation of MBTs, I think we would look at Armata and say ‘why have the crew at all’?
I think Challenger 2, Abram and Leopard have another decade or so left in them, with life extension programs and upgrades along the way, but ultimately, I think the punch on the battlefield will come from drones, sooner rather than later, and if you don’t have to worry about the meaty sacks staying alive inside the platform, that changes the whole concept.
I think the best way to think about Armata is, it’s a good concept, an interesting experiment into the potential future of MBTs, but if I had to take a tank into battle, it would still be a challenger 2. Without hesitation.
