Down near the bottom of the article is the acknowledgement that Russian tanks get stuck in just the same way as the Challengers, Abrams, and Leopards do.
A further segment towards the end of the article speculates that road and bridge infrastructure in the battle areas are being ''challenged'' (pun intended?) by the UK tanks being about 1.5 times heavier than T-72s:
For context to non-Brits, "The Sun" is a trashy UK tabloid, part of News Corp. Infamous for their alleged part in the phone hacking scandal, and for their bullshit coverage of the Hillsborough disaster (so unfathomably offensive it still has them effectively blacklisted in an entire region of the UK decades later.)
"Unstoppable Russian advantage: Challenger tank keeps getting stuck" is the title at time of posting, which is weird given the Russian tanks also apparently get stuck. Hardly unstoppable. And it seems Russia has lost far more Russian tanks than Ukraine has lost Western tanks thus far in the war.
"British tanks are designed for military trade shows but not for the battlefield?" They were designed in the eighties, and have served the British armed forces for roughly three decades. Not without issues, sure, and not designed specifically for Ukraine. But we've not lost many of them.
AFAIK less than a handful of Challenger 2's have been destroyed in operations, and one of them was friendly fire in Basra.
"We should be asking: Why were Western tanks deployed in Ukraine in the first place?"
We've given them to Ukraine for a number of reasons. Not least of which are: "We have them, we have infrastructure to support them, we have experience in them and can train Ukrainians here in them."
They aren't perfect for Ukraine. Heck, it's probably not perfect for us either. Will the Challenger 3 be perfect? But we're all having to do the best with what we have available.
Russia has lost MBTs hand over fist. They've been kept in an inch-by-inch fight for two years. They're absolutely stoppable, if the West gets back to giving Ukraine what it needs. While the Challenger 2 isn't ideal, pretty sure they'd still be glad of more of them.
Absolutely. I originally wrote "And Kim Dotcom is Kim Dotcom." after giving context on The Sun. I deleted it because it just felt like a personal attack on him, but you're not wrong!
He was good at CoD though, back in the day. Close enough?
I don't think that's a personal attack or an ad hominem. It's just wild for any "news" source to give a fuck about that guy's opinion on the matter. I mean, he basically is just a, any twitter user in this regard (I'd argue indeed, actually a bit worse... but that's personal). Someone is writing anything at any point in time on twitter. Unless it's a mathematical proof or thorough logical argument, you can very much ask: Why the fuck should I care?
A further segment towards the end of the article speculates that road and bridge infrastructure in the battle areas are being ''challenged'' (pun intended?) by the UK tanks being about 1.5 times heavier than T-72s:
https://armedforces.eu/compare/tanks_FV4034_Challenger_2_vs_...
but there is no information given as to the designed capacity of those roads and bridges.