Talk:Challenger 1

Tank vs Tank Kill Record
As I understand it, the actual range of the record kill was 5142 meters,(5.1km). However, I can't find a suitable online source for reference purposes. JayFrancis 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As no reference has yet been added, I've added a template to the end of that claim, in the hope that eventually someone does find a suitable reference--Topperfalkon (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information in the article and its reference by the Simon Dunstan book are incorrect. I was the gunner on 11B who engaged the target at approx 5100m with a L26A1 APFSDS.  The incident was related to Brig P Cordingley at the time by the CO of SCOTS DG (the Commander of the vehicle) and the Brigadier referenced it in a report by Soldier Magazine, a British Army publication, issue 01 April 1991, Vol 47/7, page 11, Reporter Laurie Manton.  M Smith. Hy2kt82 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The information in the article and its reference by the Simon Dunstan book are incorrect. I was the gunner on 11B who engaged the target at approx 5100m with a L26A1 APFSDS.  The incident was related to Brig P Cordingley at the time by the CO of SCOTS DG (the Commander of the vehicle) and the Brigadier referenced it in a report by Soldier Magazine, a British Army publication, issue 01 April 1991, Vol 47/7, page 11, Reporter Laurie Manton.  M Smith. Hy2kt82 (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Hy2kt82 (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The range was 5100m + but i don't recall the exact distance. The ammunition was APFSDS. The tank callsign 11B CO SCOTS DG. The shot was finelayed onto to target, as after lasing the eliipse had displaced and the autolay was not quite satisfactory. The strike was on the centre of the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith5635 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue with this is that there are competing sources giving different amounts - Soldier magazine says 5100m. National Army Museum says 4100m. The Tank Museum suggests 4600m.

I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on first hand information, even when citing a secondary source.Atomix330 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * The NAM says "One tank, from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, had the distinction of the longest range tank-to-tank kill in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of around 5km (3 miles)." The Tank Musuem Tank Chat Reloaded CH1 references 5100m but quotes the incorrect ammunition, and the Museum also has a video of LtCol Purbrick talking about his own shot of 4700m (which you may be referring to), but does NOT claim the record.  I have contacted the Museum separately about this.  I am unable to contact Simon Dunstan ref his book, but that information is incorrect, despite being published.
 * It is because of all these incorrect versions that i want set the record straight. The fact remains that it was 11B SCOTS DG which engaged the target at around 5100m.  It was witnessed by other vehicles of the Battle Group and relayed to the Brigade Commander by the CO of SCOTS DG at the time, who mentions it in his interview by Soldier Magazine. It is is also part of the regimental history of the SCOTS DG.
 * I would like the page to use this sentence, "One tank, 11B from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, had the distinction of the longest direct fire tank engagement in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of around 5100m with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (L26A1 APFSDS)."
 * This uses the correct callsign, Unit & ammunition from the original entry, but removes the date and corrects the range. It also clarifies the nature of the engagement and differentiates between engagements where tanks are used in an indirect 'artillery' role.  The NAM and Soldier References are used as source material.
 * Thank you for your time with this matter.
 * KR,
 * Hy2kt82 Hy2kt82 (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So as I understand it (for my own clarification as well as for the record):
 * 1. Purbrick on a British Army blog cites 4700m as his distance twice here and here. Importantly, while he claims that the target was a petrol tanker not a tank-on-tank kill, he cites it as the 'longest range direct fire kinetic round kill ever achieved by a tank on the battlefield' - using a L23A1 APFSDS 'Fin' round. Presumably, in being a British Army blog published by the MoD, the MoD are willing to entertain that claim. He also claims a T-55 at 3600m.  However, curiously, in this video produced in collaboration with the Tank Museum, he cites the 4700m kill as a tank.
 * 2. The National Army Museum at the bottom of this page cite a record tank of 'around 5km / 3 miles' - 3 miles is equiv. 4.8km.
 * 3. The Tank Museum - in this 'Tank Chat' at 18:57 cite 2.9 miles (4.67km). But in the later 'reloaded' 'video at 19:50 cite 5100m with a depleted uranium round - L26A1 APFSDS is DU per the wiki page for the L11.
 * 4. Soldier magazine reports the claim a month or two after the event in 1991 that a SCOTS DG tank claims a 5100m kill on an Iraqi tank. Is that journalism that could be regarded as a primary source per wiki rules? Admittedly, same case could be made for Purbrick.
 * 4. War History Online here note the difficulty in establishing the distance and give between 4700 and 5100m.
 * 5. The Scots Dragoons Guards don't seem to mention a claim as far as I can tell on their website.
 * There are two ways to 'safe' ways of circumventing the problem in the absence of written clarification from the museums.
 * 1. Cite the range of distances, all well in excess of the tank's expected operational firing range of 1.2km - would be interesting to know what if any gunnery tests have been conducted. Note that sources conflict.
 * 2. Cite 5100m without attributing the unit - SCOTS DG don't claim it on their website, Cordingley I don't think claims it in the 'reloaded' Tank Chat, the museum curator gives no unit attribution.
 * I would have a preference for option 1. Atomix330 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thank you for your time. The reason Purbrick no longer makes this claim is because I contacted him sometime after the release of his article on the British Army Blog, and he has no doubt discussed the engagement amongst the Officer Cadre of the time. His video at the Tank Museum is very good, and is something to be proud of.
 * 11B's engagement is not mentioned on my regimental website, which would not be very professional and in poor taste, but it is included in regimental journals. I'm giving a first hand account the incident, as a member of the CO SCOTS DG and Battle-group Commanders Tank crew. As the person who engaged the target! How likely do you think it is, that the incident would be related to the Brigade Commander, and then reported in Soldier, if it was baseless?  The embarrassment of a Senior Officer would be intolerable, and have consequences for all involved.
 * You are correct, the engagement was well in excess of the normal firing range. When the target was lased the range was astounding.  Because of this i re-lased the target and the elipse displaced onto the HESH scale.  Due to it not being as perfect as i would like, i released the autolay and fine laid the elipse onto the target, before firing.  The target was struck centrally and destroyed.  The 2IC of the regiment and his vehicle, 22B, was co-located with us and verified the event with Brigade.
 * An important point to note is that in the aftermath of the conflict, there were friendly fire incidents being investigated, including the British Warrior that was engaged by a Challenger, (identity still unknown). Because of these, no-one was in much of a mood to start trumpeting about gunnery, least of all me who was struggling with re-adjusting.  It would not have been very respectful to those Iraqi soldiers who were killed.  We are not talking about "figure 11" targets here but people, who in many cases were very brave but hopelessly outgunned.
 * All this is academic however. The fact remains, despite claims to the contrary and inaccurate publications, that;
 * "One tank, 11B from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, had the distinction of the longest direct fire tank engagement in military history, destroying an Iraqi tank at a range of around 5100m with an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (L26A1 APFSDS)."
 * If that is not enough, then I give up. Wikipedia can have it it's own way.  Thank you. MS Hy2kt82 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have published a solution accounting for your evidence - will need the article title from Soldier. Atomix330 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. The solution is very good.  MS. Hy2kt82 (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Jordan
Would be very helpful to get some more information on Challenger 1 in Jordanian service. Atomix330 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Provision to Ukraine
The source provided doesn't seem to say that any Challenger 1s will be provided. Possibly it will make up part of the "hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles [that] will also be sent", but that isn't specified. 2A02:C7C:44B6:3A00:658D:CE75:3C1B:6943 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hence the use of the word 'speculation'. CR1 derived CRARRV is due to be sent with the Challenger 2 tanks next month. Atomix330 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I was referring to the "future operators" section. The Ben Wallace statement [36] given as the source there doesn't seem to mention Challenger 1 at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.130.174 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As CRARRV is attached to this page - I might spin it off and move it, it seems appropriate to mention. CRARRV are the armoured recovery and repair vehicles Wallace mentions in his statement. Atomix330 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)