T-90 vs. Challenger 3: Which Tank Would Dominate?
The British Army’s Challenger 3 is an iterative advancement of the Challenger 2 design. It differs from its predecessor in several respects.
The Challenger 3 is, in essence, a rebuilt Challenger 2. In fact, the Challenger 3s are refurbished and up-armored Challenger 2 hulls mated to a redesigned turret. Though not a purely new design, virtually all its systems are replaced or redesigned. The Challenger 3 incorporates a new hunter-killer ability that allows the commander to scan for new targets while the gunner engages previously identified targets.
In addition to modular armor, the Challenger 3 will incorporate an active protection system, similar to the Trophy or Iron Fist APSs. Its power pack is also upgraded with a more advanced iteration of the Challenger 2’s engine that likely affords an additional 300 horsepower.
But by far, the biggest change implemented on the Challenger 3 platform is switching out the Challenger 2’s 120mm rifled barrel, a long mainstay of British tanks, for a 120mm smoothbore barrel. While seemingly a small change, it is a significant break with decades of British tank design.
British tanks have, for many years, favored HESH rounds, a flexible munition that could be leveraged against both fortifications and armored vehicles and relies on barrel rifling to achieve its highest potency. However, with the transition to steel-and-composite armoring rather than purely steel, the efficacy of HESH rounds has diminished considerably.
Commonality with NATO-standard 120mm smoothbore ammunition is a boon for the Challenger 3, streamlining logistics between the United Kingdom and other NATO members. One of the only drawbacks of the Challenger 3, however, is its paltry acquisition numbers—the British Army will acquire a mere 148 Challenger 3s, putting their tank fleet on precarious footing should large-scale war break out in Europe.
It should be remembered that tanks do not operate individually on the battlefield but in tandem with other tanks, armored vehicles, and infantry. But the Challenger 3’s low numbers could prove to be an enormous detriment.
The Royal United Services Institute, the United Kingdom’s preeminent defense and security think tank, commented on Challenger 3’s plight and its implications for the British Army. It was not a sterling assessment.
“Similarly, when RUSI analysts last looked at the Army, and the combat division the UK claims to have, it measured the number of main battle tanks and self-propelled artillery in the UK’s inventory and found the numbers wanting when set against a ‘credible’ armoured division of anywhere from 170 to over 300 tanks and around 110 to 220 artillery pieces. The numbers have not improved in the subsequent four years: under the Challenger 3 programme the UK will have a total of 148 main battle tanks (in 2030).”
“Meanwhile, the UK has essentially removed the AS90 artillery from service by donating 32 to Ukraine, replacing them with 14 Archer guns until such time as the ‘Mobile Fires Platform’ is procured (some time ‘this decade’). The Challenger 3 may be the ‘most lethal tank’ ever fielded by the British Army, but it is going to be available in such limited numbers that it will have to perform heroically in the face of a notional foe in the form of Russian ground forces, such as a Combined Arms Army.”
Russia’s T-90 Main Battle Tank
One of the T-90’s more formidable aspects, along with other main battle tanks in Russian service, is its 125mm main gun. This powerful weapon system dwarfs its counterparts in NATO, which utilize a 120mm main gun from a purely physical standpoint.
In keeping with Soviet — now Russian — tank doctrine, the T-90 has a crew of just three: commander, gunner, and driver. In contrast, the United States Army has long maintained tank crews of four, adding one person to serve as the loader. Russian tanks, in contrast, rely on an autoloader. The design has both pros and cons.
T-90M. Image Credit: Russian State Media.
On the one hand, Soviet-Russian tanks like the T-90 and its predecessors weigh less than, say, the American M1 Abrams, which tips the scales at over 70 tons, depending on the variant. The T-90, in contrast, weighs a seemingly light 46 to 48 tons, depending on the variant. The T series are also much more squat, with a lower maximum height. This presents enemy tankers with a smaller target, which, especially at farther distances, is more difficult to hit.
One drawback to a three-man crew, however, is that there is literally less manpower available to perform routine maintenance and repairs. Changing drive sprockets, repairing tracks, and barrel sighting are all made easier with a fourth crewman.
Disco Head
Though a formidable platform, Russia’s T-90s have seemingly suffered from an unexplained glitch that one former tank commander called “disco head,” an odd incident that saw a T-90’s turret spinning wildly out of control after absorbing several hits.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin once dubbed the T-90 the best tank in the world, it seems now clear that the tank—though certainly a formidable platform—suffers from technical or operator issues.
Russian T-90 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Speaking to The Telegraph, a British newspaper, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly a tank commander with the British Army, said the issue is “likely be a combination between inexperienced crews and poor electronics.”
De Bretton-Gordon added, “It’s very easy for inexperienced people to become very disoriented in a tank, because a tank’s hull can move in one direction, the turret could be in another direction and the commander’s sight could be in a completely other direction, which is why we get the term’ disco head’ because people can easily become disoriented and the tank spins out of control.”
“It could also be an electronics failure,” he said. “Western tanks have a quite sophisticated fire control system, and the Russians don’t appear to have got it right.”
Despite the T-90’s advanced features, capable main gun, and potent secondary armaments, it is far from invulnerable. Oryx, an open-source website that tracks Ukrainian and Russian losses, tallies 187 T-90 losses — almost assuredly a conservative estimate, given that there will inevitably be visually undocumented losses.
Challenger 3 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Which Tank Wins?
Still, the T-90 has one advantage over a platform like the British Army’s Challenger 3: its real-world battle experience. Though the Russian tank has indeed suffered a number of losses in Ukraine, learning from those losses to improve future Russian tank design is a real possibility—and one advantage over other Western platforms that have not been battle-tested.
About the Author: Caleb Larson
Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.
