UK’s Challenger II Tanks “Outperform” U.S. Abrams In Ukraine War: Ukrainian Tank Commander

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/uks-challenger-ii-tanks-outperform-u-s-abram/

by jonfla

21 comments

  1. Great news send 500 more

    Wait we only have 200.

  2. To be fair, it’s not really a completely fair comparison.

    The Abrams they have is an export variant designed to not give the Russians anything to learn from it, and we know that the armour package has been downgraded, and it’s unlikely to be using the best equipment possible for sensors etc.

    The Challenger 2 on the other hand doesn’t have *any* downgrades and is pretty certainly going to be the most capable tank the Ukrainians have, with the only real competitor being the Leopard 2 A6. Which is basically the same firepower, but with the emphasis on sacrificing armour for mobility.

  3. It would be more useful with a NATO-standard gun, like Challenger 3 will have.

  4. Good to know that the UK can sort something out when it needs to. Examples of this are becoming harder to find.

  5. The argument for Abrams was never “they’re empirically the best for the Ukraine theater”. The logistical challenges were always there.

    The argument was “we have a whole bunch in surplus”, which doesn’t apply to quite a few other things Ukraine needs.

    One Challenger may be more useful to Ukraine than one Abrams, but I suspect they’d take 500 Abrams over 100 Challengers.

  6. It’s my understanding that all tanks are obsolete because as soon as you bring them out of cover, 62 drone make short work of it

  7. Challengers were not export spec. They were designed for defensive battle in European terrain.

  9. Not surprised. The Abrams is a tank platform that is really only useful with the massive logistics system that is the U.S Military. 

    They need much more maintenance, and the maintenance needs to be done by techs trained to operate on its unique engine. Not really the best fit for Ukraine atm

  10. The obvious response to this is to send Ukraine better weapons in greater numbers.

  11. Good to know. Send them lots more Abrams anyway!

  12. Base cost for a Challenger 2 is also more than twice that of an Abrams 1.

  13. Wow, first Storm Shadow then this, Britain is having a moment!

  14. Bigger question: why do maritime powers like UK and USA have better tanks than land powers like Germany and France?

  15. I heard that Ukrainan soldiers think that the Challengers engine needs “too much maintenance”

  16. I’ll bat for the Chally any day but the fact remains there’s thousands of Abrams and only a few hundred challenger 2s in the world.

    Wish the Tories hadn’t hobbled our army, then we might have more to spare.

  17. Not really a surprise. Abrahams is large and heavy and difficult to maintain. Plus it’s extremely thirsty which doesn’t help with the logistics.

  19. Who cares, if they are 1000% better than russian tanks or 1010% .. sent more, because its not enough

  20. I’d sure as hell hope so, the Abrams the US gave were old as hell and stripped of their best options.

Comments are closed.