Key Points and Summary on Challenger 3 Tank – The United Kingdom’s Challenger 3 program is creating a paradox for the British Army: a technologically superior main battle tank that will be too few in number to win a major war.
-While the upgraded tank boasts a new, NATO-standard 120mm smoothbore gun and advanced armor, the decision to produce only 148 units severely limits the UK’s ability to sustain a high-intensity conflict.
-This “unsolvable math problem” means that while the Challenger 3 may be a world-class tank, its small fleet size creates a significant strategic vulnerability for the UK’s armored forces.
Challenger 3 Tank Math Problems Aren’t Going Away
One year ago, on April 18, 2024, the most recent of eight Challenger 3 tank prototypes was rolled out of the Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) factory production line in Telford, United Kingdom.
These eight prototypes were the first of the 148 Challenger 3 Tanks from RBSL to be delivered following the company’s award of an 800 million pound contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (UK MoD) in 2021.
Numerous analysts and military experts have stated that the UK could benefit significantly from having more than 148 Challenger 3 tanks. The upgrade from the Challenger 2 to the Challenger 3 versions represents a generational evolution in performance due to this modernization program.
The Challenger 3 represents a significant technological leap and will measurably enhance British Army capabilities. But there are downsides to this program. The first is that the 148 Challenger 3 models are far fewer than the present Challenger 2 fleet.
Those smaller numbers alone degrade the Royal Army’s overall armored capabilities, especially in the event of prolonged conflict.
Challenger 3 On The Battlefield
The Challenger 3 features an impressive checklist of technological advancements. Nonetheless, it could still face real and unsurmountable issues in combat.
These issues are due almost solely to its less-than-optimal mobility and low numbers. 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 analogs.
Even with the new gun and the addition of the Active Protective System, the tanks could be wiped out very early in any conflict Britain might encounter. This vulnerability is particularly true if the UK armed forces are engaged on their own and without any allied support.
The implications for war planners are that the tank and its capabilities or even the low numbers it is being built at are not the primary issues. What the program and the tank’s performance show is that if pressed into a war, Britain needs its allies now more than ever before.
If Challenger 3 were to be deployed along with the rest of its NATO partner nations’ battlefield systems, the firepower of this tank could be a devastating killing machine. There is no question that it would undoubtedly inflict heavy losses on its enemies.
But looking at the Ukraine war and the high attrition rates suffered by armored vehicles of all types, there is a new calculus on the battlefield. In the case of Chally 3, the reality is—in the long-time famous phrase—“if they are being sent there to fight, there are not enough of them, and if they are being sent to die, there are too many.”
To put it succinctly, the Challenger 3 is equipped to win battles, but Britain will need far more of them to win a war with the Challenger 3 as its MBT.
Design and Program Scheduling
The Challenger 3 is supposed to attain full operating capability in 2030 and then serve as the British MBT until at least 2040. Its design corrects numerous shortcomings of the Challenger 2 configuration and has a few modern modifications of its own.
One of the Challenger 2’s most prevalent weak points was its main gun, the L30A1, which features a rifled barrel. This design gave the tank’s projectiles a more arced trajectory and other ballistic benefits. But it was also a gun that no other NATO nation’s army operated with its MBTs.
Smoothbore tank barrels have become the industry standard, largely due to their flat trajectory, which is advantageous over rifled barrels. This trajectory offers a particular advantage when employing the more state-of-the-art armor-piercing rounds.
In previous generation tanks, rifled barrels were preferred due to their accuracy and suitability with specific categories of ammunition. However, smoothbore main guns often have a longer service life and require less maintenance.
They also provide superior performance with the more recent and far more deadly fin-stabilized projectiles like APFSDS (Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding Sabot).
Challenger 3 will feature a German 120mm smoothbore cannon, which is more compatible with the ammunition types in the inventory of other NATO nations.
This more common ammunition creates a level of interoperability between the UK and other nations that previously did not exist.
Other than being in compliance with newer NATO standards, the new gun will be superior to its predecessor and give the Challenger 3 a level of lethality that comes with penetrating heavier armor from greater distances.
About the Author: Reuben F. Johnson
Reuben F. Johnson has thirty-six years of experience analyzing and reporting on foreign weapons systems, defense technologies, and international arms export policy. Johnson is the Director of Research at the Casimir Pulaski Foundation. He is also a survivor of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. He worked for years in the American defense industry as a foreign technology analyst and later as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, the Departments of the Navy and Air Force, and the governments of the United Kingdom and Australia. In 2022-2023, he won two awards in a row for his defense reporting. He holds a bachelor’s degree from DePauw University and a master’s degree from Miami University in Ohio, specializing in Soviet and Russian studies. He lives in Warsaw.
More Military
The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Crisis Is Real
David
July 19, 2025 at 11:44 pm
Hi Mr Johnson – in the Challenger article you refer to the Royal Army. It’s British Army and Royal Navy – never Royal Army. Lose no sleep at all about this.
Best regards,
David Hirst, Nottingham UK
Peter Wegrzyn
July 20, 2025 at 2:58 am
If Briain will be fighting on its own it will be fight on home turf in the UK.
An enemy will have to cross the channel first. Past the Navy and Airforce.
These tanks serve no real purpose for the UK, they are to defend allies overseas.
Tanks don’t last long on the battlefield. So why waste money on them?
Hence the UK has ordered 600 IFV’s which are the new key armoured vehicle