The British are proud of their upgrade program for the new Challenger 3 main battle tank (MBT) standard. This MBT has many new attributes. The gun is updated to a 120mm smoothbore model to make it interoperable with NATO allies. There are new thermal imagery systems for tank commanders and gunners. The armor has been improved for enhanced survivability, and the third-generation hydro-gas suspension will provide a smoother ride.
However, there is one significant problem: the fleet will only comprise 148 Challenger 3 tanks.
Challenger 3 Tank. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
War and Peace with the Challenger 3
This is a serious issue with war raging in Europe. The Challenger 3 may not have the numbers to match the Russians in times of war or peace. The British have already volunteered to lead a peacekeeping force to enforce an armistice and a demilitarized zone (DMZ) between Russia and Ukraine, should that be agreed upon by the warring nations.
There is another issue. The Challenger 3 is likely to be ready by 2030. That means Britain will have to rely on the older Challenger 2 during a peace-keeping operation or in all-out warfare.
NATO Could Be Attacked
But what if Russia breaks the peace agreement (should it be negotiated) and decides to attack a NATO ally someday? This would trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. That means an attack on one member is an attack on all partners. This could spark a larger war, one in which the British would have to deploy a force of Challenger 2s and, hopefully, the newer Challenger 3s.
The Russians Love Their Numerical Advantage
The powerful gun and new turret would enhance the capabilities of the new tank. Plus, the improved armor could turn the tide during a mechanized battle. However, 148 Challenger 3 MBTs are not enough to counter the Russian hordes.
Russia continues to pump out additional tanks. New T-90s are already appearing on the battlefield. Additionally, the Russians are producing the T-72B3M MBT, which features the next-generation Arena-M active protection system.
The vaunted T-14 Armata will continue to be made. Give Russia credit for keeping the production lines going despite huge tank losses during the war.
The British may not have enough tanks to keep up. The Challenger 3 will likely be excellent in combat, but Russia could throw a couple of thousand tanks in battle against NATO allies and not even blink. The Germans (hundreds of Leopard 2s) and Americans (thousands of M1 Abrams) would be fighting too, and that would help the British.
The Drones and Anti-Tank Weapons Would Be a Difference Maker
However, the Russian anti-tank weapons and drones could take a toll on British Challenger 2 and 3 tanks in Europe. The Challenger 3, while having much improved active armor, may not be ready for the loitering drones and anti-tank missiles that Russia could employ.
Challenger 3 Image Credit: BAE Systems.
Additionally, the British would require a substantial force of dismounted infantry equipped with their anti-tank systems and unmanned craft to counter the Russian mechanized force. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom is preparing for all-out armored maneuver warfare against Vladimir Putin’s army, which boasts a large number of tanks.
How Can the British Deploy Such a Huge Armored Force?
And the British would need hundreds of artillery pieces. How about employing this armored force? Can the United Kingdom get all of this armor to the battlefield? This assumes an enhanced joint expeditionary force, similar to what the Americans deploy during a mechanized fight. The British simply do not have the advanced cargo planes and shipping capabilities to transport their personnel and military hardware to the front swiftly.
Russia knows this and is probably not taking the British seriously despite the new Challenger 3s. This fourth-generation tank is supposed to be a deterrent against Russia, but Putin’s generals can do the math. They prefer large numbers in a fight, and the Challenger 3 may find itself lacking the substantial numbers to make a difference.
This means the United Kingdom is back where it started, without the ability to have a large expeditionary force that can serve at a moment’s notice. The Challenger 3 will be a great tank, but 148 is a problem in modern maneuver warfare.
Anti-tank missiles and drones have changed the battlefield. The Challenger 3 could find itself obsolete without more modern protection against these weapons.
Image: Creative Commons.
By 2030, when the Challenger 3 is ready, the Russians could even deploy new, more powerful guns with better armor. The T-90 is a good example of a model that has improved over the years.
However, the Challenger 3 does have the numbers for a peacekeeping force. If there is ever an armistice between Russia and Ukraine, there would be a need for British tanks to patrol some form of a DMZ to keep the two sides from fighting.
This would mean that the tanks and soldiers would already be deployed to Eastern Europe should Putin try to make another move against a NATO ally like Latvia or Estonia for example.
The Challenger 3 Has a Message: A Powerhouse Tank, But Numbers Matter
The Challenger 3 could find itself in a difficult position in an armored fight, though. Testing and evaluation should examine its survivability against anti-tank missiles and loitering munitions.
The new turret, along with active and passive armored measures, will help, but the battlefield will continue to evolve by 2030, when the Challenger 3 is ready.
Let’s hope the British have considered the new tank’s ability to be deployed alongside a larger expeditionary force that requires dismounted infantry and artillery support. The Challenger 3 force could be depleted in a hurry in battle.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
