Posted on 04/23/2007 2:18:02 PM PDT by knighthawk
A heavily armoured British tank has been badly damaged for the first time by a roadside bomb in Iraq.
The Challenger 2, a 62-ton vehicle which is among the best-protected tanks in the world, was hit by the device during a routine patrol in Basra. Its driver is thought to have lost both legs during the attack and has been flown back to Britain for medical treatment, while another member of the crew suffered minor injuries.
The attack on the tank was followed by the death of another British soldier today in Basra. The soldier from the 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment was killed by small arms fire while providing top cover protection for a Warrior armoured vehicle on a routine patrol in the Al Ashar district of central Basra.
The Challenger 2 was on patrol in the Hyall Shuala area of western Basra when it was struck by the roadside bomb on April 6, the day after four British soldiers were killed when their Warrior armoured vehicle was blown up.
It was damaged by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) laid by insurgents, leaving its driver critically wounded and causing minor injuries to another member of the crew.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed last night: “This was the first successful attack on a Challenger 2, it’s the first bomb to have damaged it.
“A soldier was very seriously injured. He has been returned to the UK and is receiving treatment. We won’t comment on his injuries.
“Of the other three crew, one received minor injuries.”
But the MoD denied the tank had been destroyed and insisted it would return to service. The spokesman said: “The vehicle wasn’t destroyed. It is being repaired.”
He also denied that the Challenger 2, the British Army’s main battle tank, had been damaged by a new type of “shaped charge” IED, which concentrates the force of an explosion.
The spokesman said: “It is not some sort of escalation. We would dispute the fact that it’s a new bomb.
“It was an improved explosive device and the technology is at least 50 or 60 years old.” He added: “No one has ever said the Challenger 2 tank is inpenetrable. We’ve been at pains to point out a big enough bomb will take out any vehicle. A big enough bomb will go through any armour.”
But Professor Michael Clarke, of the Defence Studies department at King’s College London, claimed the damage to the Challenger 2 was “worrying” as its armour is usually “inviolable”.
He said: “Most of the things on a battlefield are not much of a threat to a tank, usually.
“This is worrying, because if there are many of these sorts of very heavy penetrative IEDs around in the area then no vehicle is safe.”
In 2003, two British soldiers in a Challenger 2 were killed in a “friendly fire” incident when their vehicle was hit by shells from another one of the tanks.
An investigation by the Army Prosecuting Authority later ruled that no one acted negligently during the incident in Iraq, which left Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper David Clarke of The Queen’s Royal Lancers dead as well as severely injuring two other soliders.
Ping
ping
Always a good thing to provide recon for your enemy.
Will they be having a coroner's inquest/show trial into the crew members of the other tank involved? Or are these inquests only done into US A-10 pilots who accidentally kill British troops?
GMTA. }:-)
The Pali’s were known to set elaborate traps in order to get the tanks into position.
These are “shaped charges” or anti-tank missles. Hezbola used them against the IDF to win their victory. Probably supplied by Iran but purchased from Russia or China. Its very tough when these get deployed and start wiping out 70 ton armoured vehicles.
‘Will they be having a coroner’s inquest/show trial into the crew members of the other tank involved? Or are these inquests only done into US A-10 pilots who accidentally kill British troops?’
We had one. It was deemed an accident. That may have been the outcome of the A10 friendly fire inquest had uncle sam chosen to attend.
Where is the rest of the tank?
The Pentagon let US personnel attend a “hearing” in a matter which occurred in a combat zone while they were performing their duties under fire and in an official capacity? So they can be possibly charged criminally and not allowed to leave Britain? I’m glad Uncle Sam wouldn’t let them attend (and I say that as a US military officer). Had the roles been reversed, I can guarantee that the investigation would have been handled in military channels and left at that. British pilots wouldn’t have been brought to the US and put through civil investigations. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.