The British Army has sought to address several obsolescence issues and modernize its vehicle fleets. Attention turned to the venerable but aging Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT), which has been in service since 1998 and now needs either an upgrade or outright replacement.
M1A2 vs. Challenger 3
Oregon Army National Guard M1A2 Abrams battle tank with Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 116th Cavalry Regiment, engages a target at a firing range during annual training at the Orchard Combat Tranining Center near Boise, ID, June 19, 2021. Soldiers trained in their military occupational specialties during annual training. (National Guard photo by Spc. Dominic Trujillo, 115th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)
Most problematic was the uniqueness of the Challenger 2’s main gun, a rifled L30A1 that no other NATO military force operated. The solution was to bring Rheinmetall’s L55A1 120mm smoothbore gun into service, which has become ubiquitous throughout the Alliance.
Challenger 3 Is Born
In May 2021, Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) was awarded an £800m ($995.9m) contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to upgrade 148 Challenger 3 (CR3) MBTs for the British Army.
The Challenger 3 main battle tank represents a giant leap forward in military technology. It boasts advanced armor, active protection, and a powerful new 120mm smoothbore cannon.
UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said: “In a more dangerous world, the need for vehicles such as the Challenger 3 is imperative, as the threats facing the UK evolve. This tank will be at the heart of the British Army’s warfighting capabilities and will be integral to the UK’s deterrence.”
The Challenger 3 will be powered with the same 1200 horsepower as the Challenger 2 model. This engine is a step down from the 1500 horsepower power packs of the Leopard and Abrams. For its size, it is underpowered.
An M1 Abrams Tank fires off a round as a demonstration during 1st Tank Battalion’s Jane Wayne Spouse Appreciation Day aboard the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, Calif., April 3, 2018. The purpose of the event is to build resiliency in spiritual well being, the will to fight and a strong home life for the 1st Tanks Marines and their families. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Rachel K. Porter)
The most significant limiting factor for the Challenger is its numbers. The British Army is only expected to build 148 of these tanks.
The tank is undoubtedly designed to support NATO efforts in deterring Russia in the event of war. But how does the Challenger 3 compare to the US Army’s M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams MBT?
The M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams, America’s Workhorse
The Abrams has been the backbone of the US Armored forces for more than 40 years, and they aren’t going anywhere. The new version offers enhanced protection, survivability, and higher lethality than its predecessors.
The tank also features various technological advancements, including improved armor, communications, reliability, sustainment, and fuel efficiency.
The main gun fitted on the MBT is an M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, which can fire M829A4 advanced kinetic energy and advanced multi-purpose (AMP) rounds to defend armored vehicles, personnel, and low-flying aircraft.
Challenger 3 Tank. Image Credit: British Government.
The tank features a low-profile Common Remotely Operated Weapon System (CROWS) with a .50 caliber machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially with the main gun.
The M1A2 SEPv3 is powered by a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine, which produces 1,500 hp of power.
The M-1A2 SEPv3 has integrated the line-replaceable module technology to enable easier fleet maintenance.
Which Tank Tips The Scales As The Better Main Battle Tank?
Regarding armor protection, the new Challenger 3 gets the nod here, but only in the turret area. The Challenger 3’s hull is vulnerable, while the front hull plate, directly in front of the driver, is flat with no angle whatsoever. The design of where to put the ready rack of main gun ammunition was positioned right behind the front glacis plate. It was a curious position, but it is what it is.
The M1A2 is much more mobile, and, as we wrote earlier, the Challenger 3 is slightly underpowered. When all the upgrades are installed, it weighs 75 tons. The Abrams AGT 1500 adds some zip to the Abrams, but it is a gas guzzler. The Challenger 3, with its diesel engine, is much more fuel efficient.
The Challenger 3 is armed with the 120mm L55 gun, which is longer and more accurate than the US M256. The Challenger CR3 uses third-generation CITV thermal sights, which the US has upgraded on the SEPv3.
A Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank of the Royal Welsh Battle Group on Exercise Prairie Storm at the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Canada.
The prairie of Alberta has provided an excellent opportunity for the British Army to train on a large scale since 1972. The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) is an organisation situated on one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Alberta plain.
BATUS is equipped with in excess of 1000 vehicles including a full complement of Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Each year a Regiment is sent there for six months to take the part of the ‘enemy’ for the other Regiments that are there to train each year.
Australian Army Warrant Officer Class One (WO1) Bernie Maus, part of Land Systems Division, said the SEPv3’s most significant upgrade was a commander’s independent thermal viewer. This sighting system operates separately from the turret.
“If my main gun is facing 3 o’clock, I can scan in another direction and quickly bring the main gun on target without needing to direct the gunner,” Maus said.
“That’s a huge upgrade to the system.”
Overall, the M1A2 SEPv3 gets the nod over the Challenger 3, but the new tank is a big step up for the British, who need more than the 148 planned. As it is right now, they’ll need support from their NATO allies if war with Russia ever commences.
About the Author:
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications
George Gordon Byron
April 24, 2025 at 1:12 am
Two phrases that are incompatible in terms of numbers and logic:
1.) “The British Army is expected to build only 148 of these tanks,” and
2.) “The tank is undoubtedly intended to support NATO efforts to contain Russia in the event of war.”
Based on the paltry figure of 148 tanks and the logic of 1.) and 2.), Great Britain is not going to war. At all.
Ashley Thorne
April 24, 2025 at 8:22 am
Obviously not a tankie when even the Chally 2 is preferred over the Abraham Most tank action takes place off road where Chally is better and longer fuel range
Brian Simpson
April 24, 2025 at 10:57 am
Both of these tanks look awesome on parade, or pacifying 3rd world countries. Neither are designed for a modern battlefield against any peer enemy our leaders choose to threaten.
Jim
April 24, 2025 at 11:00 am
Hmmmm, didn’t USA withdraw all their Abrams in Ukraine as half of got destroyed in 2 months flat? Whereas the Challenger 2s are still going (- the 2 that were destroyed)
Terry Price ex- REME WO.
April 24, 2025 at 12:51 pm
I was a Warrant officer in the British Army when Challanger 1 was introduced. Each country will sing the praises of the Tanks that they use. So let us turn to Ukraine.
Ukraine has used all 3 of the main NATO fleet of Tanks. Speak to any Tankie in the Ukrainian armoured units. Especially with the mixed Tanks used in combat. All the Ukrainian Tankies will say the same. Apart from the weight disadvantage the Challanger 2 out fires the other two Tanks. For both accuracy and distance, but these are using the rifled 120mm barrel. And as for survivability the Chally 2 comes out in front again. The Leopard is an excellent Tank. The Abrahams is pretty good as well. But currently, and I don’t wish to pee on your bonfire but the Challanger comes out better in combat for real. Not in cartoon animation.
James
April 24, 2025 at 2:08 pm
The Abrams that Ukraine received were very old and few in number. The Russians put a reward out for their destruction, and they were never used properly. They are not infantry support vehicles and the US Army wouldn’t use them as such. So all in all, not a great representation of what this awesome tank can accomplish. One shouldn’t forget Desert Storm, where they were used as they were meant to be used – en mass, moving fast, firing on the move and punching into the enemies rear. The Iraqi tanks couldn’t even see them or get a shot on them. No losses from enemy tank fire. Not saying they are better or worse than other MBTs out there, just that they are an awesome killing machine when used properly.
Andy Loates
April 24, 2025 at 2:22 pm
This article is full of factual errors, both about the Challenger 3 and it’s predecessor the Challenger 2.
However, I’ll look at one component, the challengers alleged issue regarding mobility. There was a video around 7 months ago featuring the Ukrainian Challengers, where the crews were saying the vehicle was getting stuck in the mud due to mud getting compacted between the rubber track pads and the steel tracks.
I take it no one has told them the rubber pads should have been removed prior to combat; they are fitted solely for peacetime use to prevent the tank from damaging civilian roads!
Secondly while staying the challengers powerpavk produced lesss HP thank that of the Leopard 2 or Abrams, it is worth pointing out that it is the transmission that counts as much as raw horsepower, and the transmission of the C3 sends as much power to the drive sprocket as the Abrams or Leopard.
K
April 24, 2025 at 2:25 pm
Ah an article written by an American who doesn’t seem to know much about the Challenger 3 upgrade. First of all the hull frontal armour is not flat, the lower part admittedly like the Abrahams and almost every MBT is only slightly sloped.
The ready rack isn’t placed directly behind the glacier plate, which as it happens is likely the thickest armour on the tank, it is below the turret ring.
The Challenger 3 commanders sight also has thermal.
The Abrahams is unlikely to beat the Challenger for fire control, if it does it will be a negligible amount. If the Challengers fire control works as per the demonstrator then it literally takes all of the skill out of gunnery, I cant go into details as I haven’t seen the basic details in a public place, but it is incredible what it can do. If you ignore having to learn the VP and maint, then it’s that good and removes all skill that you could train someone to use it and pass the gunnery test in under an hour, probably even far quicker.
K
April 24, 2025 at 2:32 pm
I forgot to mention the engine on Challenger 3, a new exhaust system is being fitted so that the engine can now use 1000hp of its 1200hp without melting the exhaust system. I haven’t heard any official figures for speed, but a military official did state 60mph once. I would be amazed if that were true, also I doubt I’d ever drive at that speed, it would be terrifying! However it’s speed has been increased, I personally doubt it would be faster than Abrahams, but I personally don’t see a need to go above 40mph.
The Challengers engine is also far more reliable and requires far less maintenance than the Abrahams.
Overall they are both very good tanks, but as with Challenger 2 it surpasses Abrahams in almost all areas, mostly by a small margin, except in armour where nothing comes close.
Andybuzz
April 24, 2025 at 2:36 pm
You do realise that the challenger 2 and the challenger 3 both have a dual targeting system targets can be picked by the gunner and the commander who both have separate target sights the challenger 3 also has a automatic targeting system.
The challenger 2 systems are
Hunter-Killer System:
The commander designates targets while the gunner engages the primary target. Once the primary target is destroyed, the turret automatically turns to the designated target, and the process continues.
TOGS II:
This system provides both night vision and thermal imaging capabilities, displayed on the commander’s and gunner’s monitors.
Digital Fire Control Computer:
A digital fire control computer controls all the sighting instruments, including the laser rangefinder and gyro-stabilized sights.
Sights:
The commander and gunner both have primary sights that can switch between day and thermal imaging channels.
Periscopes:
The commander’s cupola is equipped with eight periscopes for 360° vision, while the gunner has a periscope for traversing the turret while the vehicle is on the move.
So I would say that makes them pretty even plus the challenger 2 and 3 Burns fuel like a large American sedan not like a hypersports car like the Abraham does so very good having a powerful engine that pointless if it runs out of fuel 60 to 70 miles before the challenger 2 does. The challenger 2’s was also designed as a defensive tank built to drive to our location hideand then take out the enemy before the enemy even get with in range then move off to another place to hide exactly like the ukraines are using it it’s basically a sniper rifle in the form of a tank they’ve added a kilometer to the range of the gun on the challenger 3 so considering the challenge one holds the record for the longest ever kill in history tank on tank the challenger 3 is gonna be one deadly weapon and as for the order of 148 challenger 3s the British army originally only ordered 140 challenger 2s in 1991 that number was then increased by another 268 3 years later so just because we’ve ordered 148 doesn’t necessarily mean we will stick with 148.
GhostTomahawk
April 25, 2025 at 12:00 am
If you add the number of tanks in the British army and the number of fighting ships in their navy… you might have as many admirals they have. The once mighty British military couldn’t beat my 5 year old in a nerf gun war
Shawn
April 25, 2025 at 8:34 am
Tanks like helicopters are obsolete. They can be taken out by a shoulder mounted missile that cost less than $50k or even an iranian drone. Those days are over.
James
April 25, 2025 at 12:41 pm
SHAWN-Tanks when used properly are still the most fearsome weapon on the battlefield. We have not seen the proper use of tanks in this current Russian/Ukrainian war. Unsupported, tanks are sitting ducks, but when used in combined arm attacks like they were in Desert Storm, they can punch through enemy lines at a fearsome rate of speed and firepower. I would not want to be on the receiving end of any modern MBT when used properly
.