Gran Bretaña confirma planes para dar tanques Challenger 2 a Ucrania

This includes the provision of advanced military equipment, such as the Challenger 2 main battle tank and additional artillery systems.

The Challenger 2 is a highly advanced and sophisticated main battle tank that is designed to provide superior performance and protection on the battlefield, and is equipped with a range of advanced features, including a 120mm L30A1 rifled main gun, a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Additionally, the Challenger 2 is outfitted with advanced armour protection and other advanced features, making it one of the most formidable tanks in the world today.

The Prime Minister also acknowledged the recent successes of the Ukrainian military in pushing back Russian troops and highlighted the importance of accelerating global military and diplomatic support at this crucial juncture.

The conversation was confirmed by Downing Street.

"The Prime Minister and President Zelensky welcomed other international commitments in this vein, including Poland's offer to provide a company of Leopard tanks", a Downing Street spokesperson added.

"The Prime Minister stressed that he and the whole UK Government would be working intensively with international partners to rapidly deliver the kind of support which will allow Ukraine to press their advantage, win this war and secure a lasting peace."

Δ

Δ

I have mixed feelings about this. C2 is in desperate need of an upgrade and the logistics needed to support it in the field are hard to justify for twelve tanks.

Well this removes any chance of the cuts in numbers being reversed. I guess the next question is how many are we going to give and will that cut into the active numbers, as we have a bad habbit of cannibalising anything in storage for spares, and then moving to the active gear, to a point where they are useless.

The lead time to have some parts made can be 6 months to a year because the original manufacturer has gone. This means robbing from storage! The Armed forces needs its own engineering facility like it used to have. Babcock scrapped the heavy engineering lathes, mills and gas cutting bed at Bovington as a cheap way of increasing space !

If they had stocks of spare parts (like you would need in a real war situtation) then lead time becomes a non issue, outside extremely unlucky situation where you have loads of breakdowns at once.

Germany has noticed the same thing, they keep the headline numbers of gear up but cut stocks so it looks like everything is ok.

A lot of that has been quietly fixed in the background.

The 80 in storage have been fully reactivated.

With CNC making machined parts isn't as hard as it once was.

3D metal printers I guess? The ability of these machines is amazing and ensures that most old kit can be restored. In regards to CH2, a new future plan is required beyond CH3 to ensure the MBT is retained by the British Army. Strangely, the deployment of CH2 to Ukraine may draw a spotlight on just how few of these MBTs we have. We all know on this site that the CH2 fleet is too small. Another plus point is the chance to identify any shortcomings in the current design in an European war environment, thus ensuring CH3 addresses such… Read more »

In hindsight I wish they’d of followed through with Challenger E but just made~5-10 a year over the past 15 or so years for future sales + spares. Would of been fantastic about now to of had a ghost fleet of around 100 spare challengers!. Imagine Ukraine with that force be in Moscow by the of the week😀.

I think the spotlight is already getting onto the problem. There was a leader in the Times two days ago pointing out that we have very few of these tanks, not enough for a future war. Whether it leads to anything positive happening in the future is another matter.

Well, there is nothing like a major conflict to draw attention to the worthiness of a weapon. We know the CH1 & 2 was a master during both recent Middle Eastern wars and I’m sure it will not disappoint in Ukraine. If it does prove to be a success against Russian armour there could be considerable media emphasis on the UK retaining the MBT. The pure nonsense of the lengthy debate about whether the MBT was obsolete or not basically destroyed the ability of the UK to continue to build its own tanks. This being the case, we need to… Read more »

Whilst I hope British tanks do well in Ukraine, as a civilian with no insights, can't see how we develop our own MBT without strong partners primarily Poland. It's a dead end to go it alone.

We could if the political will and funding was available.

Such a project would pose a number of serious issues but not impossible solutions. The UK could build its own MBTs if it had the will to do so. What I envision is not a ROF Leeds-size factory but something much smaller with an output of ten or so vehicles per year. For example, a small unit based inside COD Donnington, not far from the CH3 plant in Telford so the engineering excellence would be very local. The days of heavy steel castings are gone but the latest computer-aided tooling and milling and welding equipment, enable large components to be… Read more »

Yes, yes, YES! Exactly. Like other key strategic capabilities and resources, I think the UK should go back to undertaking certain critical industrial activities like producing a MBT, and not relying on German, French or the UStates, With Challenger the UK had shown that it was capable of producing possibly the best MBT in the world. To have lost this capability was stupid. Any CH3 future replacement (CH4 or whatever) has to rebuild that capability – particularly design. Small, continuous production and upgrades are the way to go. As for export of a possible CH4 – that is a different… Read more »

Thanks, Albert for backing the idea of a small but important facility to build tanks. As Graham says, we build warships and fighters so why not heavy armour? When CH2 was developed it came with sizable R&D and manufacturing facilities, which today would be seen as excessive and costly. A modest plant based in Telford would draw on the competency of that area, which is rich in military vehicle engineering. This centre could also create specialised variants of CH4 thus keeping it busy throughout its existence.

Far too small a production number. Besides, that form of heavy manufacturing has moved on since milling out huge blocks. It's now possible to perform high speed sintering in additive manufacturing. The UK is leading in that development, a rather good company in Leeds is finalising the process. When you add simulation and embedded metrology, it's possible to deliver a product better, with fewer faults and at a highly reduced cost. We need the British government to protect the technology within the UK and not let it get sold abroad and lost. The production of tanks and other complex heavy… Read more »

MBTs are just an example and we can argue about viable continuous production numbers, but good to hear that industry in Leeds is alive and needs to be in the mix. I would argue for a much wider concept: an agency – independent of the UK MoD – that over-sees and nurtures key, critical, strategic capabilities and resources, military and civilian. I’m not saying Nationalisation of industry, just an agency that has overall responsibility for ensuring a UK focus so that money spent is kept within the UK, or resources (NS Gas) are not squandered on overseas sales. Funding could… Read more »

Albert, don't forget that CR3 is being built in the UK, as are all Boxers apart from the first 117 (I think), as is Ajax and all variants – all by different companies: RBSL, WFEL and GDUK. Perhaps you are being a little pessimistic.

Thinking off of the top of my head, another idea is to give a company like JCB for instance, an incentive to set up a duel use factory, where it produces it's key product lines but could also use it's existing equipment and resources to produce a run of MBT's.

JCB would be a perfect host company to build CH4.

Paul, have you suggested JCB before?There are currently 3 companies building AFVs for the British Army right now – RBSL, WFEL, GDUK. Why entrust AFV design, development, testing and production to a company that has never made them before?

Think about the issues -a theoreticle small production run of a bespoke design with ( probably little ) export potential.Build,Boom and Bust typically happens,no long term sustainment to keep a Factory open indefinately.The solution ,and this is for a new MBT design or a remake of an existing one,and not AFV's in general,get a specialist (RBSL/WFEL/GDUK ) to do the preliminary design and initial works,and get it prototyped and tested.Once testing is complete and the design is ready for production, pass the baton to JCB ,who have the skillset and equipment to produce Heavy Plant,to manufacture and fit out the… Read more »

Paul, You argue your point well and perhaps I too need to think radical thoughts! Has JCB really got the equipment to make nearly 150 x 72-ton tanks or over 500 recce/strike vehicles and all the resources including test track etc?

I am very critical of GDUK as a company (selected from ‘a cast of thousands’ to build the Ajax family) on so many levels and don't even trust them with doing design and initial work in future, let alone production (including QA) and testing.

I have more faith in RBSL, WFEL and LM (turret builders etc).

Also, seeing as RBSL are producing a brand new Turret for CR3, I’m sure manufacturing a new Hull /Chassis cw running gear is not beyond the capability of UK Industry. Strangely enough I live in a Town where some of the first Tanks produced for WW1 were made by the Railway Works – sadly another capability lost as we don't produce Locomotives in the UK any more.

Of course BAE was building tank hulls in c.2002-2004 when they built Titan & Trojan (and a little earlier then CR2 of course). You need some pretty big manipulators (giant jigs) and I am sure that the down hand welding would be done by machine rather than by hand now. Not sure if there is anything like that at RBSL Telford (may be useful if they have to reweld donor CR2 hulls for CR3 project – but not too hard to create the capability. Resources additional to the above would also be required.

Our new MBT is of course CR3 which will be fielded from 2027-2030. CR4 is decades away. I am not sure if our new (military) Land Industrial strategy has come out yet, but it really must insist that AFV design and manufacture capability is kept in the UK, in at least 2 companies.

Oh please don't call it challenger 4😂😂😂 Matilda Stuart Badger Elephant – save that for artillery Dishy rishi deluxe Monty Most big cat names are in use.

rhino ?😀

Producing 10 tanks a year would mean it would take 15 years to produce CR3 – thats far too long for a production run. I am not sure that CR4 should be based on CR3 – I think it would be time for a major change of direction at that time.

We develop our own naval ships of all shapes and sizes. How is it hard to continue to develop MBTs nationally? Many countries achieve this. Anyway we have observor status at the Franco-German future tank project.

The issue, as with naval is drumbeat and stringing out production over a decade makes things very expensive and subject to cash flow fiddling cuts…

The other problem is that tanks and APC production is, in some senses, closer to heavy machinery production. Which isn't so much production line built as you might think.

The thought process gets confused by car production……

In my REME YO period I did a 3-month Industrial attachment at VDS Newcastle in 1980 – they were then building CHARRVs as I recall. Very much a production line, with a great deal of the structure of the vehicle being fabricated on site – they even had a furnace for making castings for the front of MBT turrets. Today as I understand it Ajax is being built on a mere assembly line – I don't think they manufacture very much themselves – even hulls are bought in from GD Spain and turrets from LM. Anyway I suppose my point… Read more »

All true.

Is it the rebound from the over-consolidation of BAE to be a national champion?

BAE were then a monopoly supplier and depending on your point of view either

abused it; or didn't understand some of their own business units.

There was a phrase doing the rounds a few years ago ‘Anyone but BAE’. Not an army view who felt that BAE and the companies it had acquired (GKN, RO plc, Vickers Defence Systems, VSEL, Alvis etc) had produced very acceptable AFVs quickly and at reasonable price over many decades – but a politicians/Treasury view. There had been lingering discontent over the Nimrod AEW project, poor safety case work on Nimrods (crash of R1 over Afghan Sep 06), plus the ‘monopoly’ question. No idea why the Monopolies & Mergers Commission hadn't put a red flag up about some of those… Read more »

We have always designed, developed and built our MBTs (and tk variants and othe AFVs) without strong partners. However if the numbers for the tank after CR3 was very small, then economically we would have to partner. We have Observer status on the Franco-German project.

The very silly debate about whether tanks were obsolete has run for many years, but I don't see that it was that which destroyed the ability of the UK to continue to build its own tanks. That is down to orders for both AFV replacement vehicles and factory-upgrades not being forthcoming for a number of reasons – army policy screw ups and changes, over-focus on Afghanistan ops, defence cuts, etc. In the UK, we are however building CR3 (a re-manufacturing project), Ajax (an assemly shop project), and Boxer – and came close to doing a very major upgrade on Warrior… Read more »

Sadly, the silly debate did hang in the background like an ominous smell and was always touted about whenever the pro-MBT lobby became animated on the issue. My suggestion that CH4 should be based on CH3 chassis was simply to avoid over-engineering the design and limit facility/infrastructure creep. However, the UK may take the option to adopt either the French/German tank or the American M1 replacement in its basic form and then manufacture its vehicles to UK requirements. This plan would enable MBT capability to remain in the UK and offer employment to the Telford plant for some considerable time.… Read more »

Those opposed to tanks seemed to think that they were obsolete merely because anti-tank weapons existed – yet such counters existed from 1916 and ATGM existed from the late 1950s. Everything on the battlefield is vulnerable – you don't scrap everything and start again just because there exists a counter. You can trace an evolutionary line from Centurion (the world's first MBT), through Chieftain and CR1 to CR2 and CR3. I think it will be time to create a tank of revolutionary design with CR4 – if we are serious about having and holding to a Land (equipment) Industrial Strategy… Read more »

We can curenlty field 3 x Type 56 armoured regiments – to reduce to two in future. You are right – that is not much.

REME has only recently started to use 3-D printers. I doubt that they could make anything overly large and heavy.

Beyond CR3 – interesting. [The Navy always looks at and commits money to the frigate after the next one. Army can't seem to be as far-sighted]. UK has observer status on the Franco-German next tank project (which will repace Leclerc and Leo2 – Main Ground Combat System (MGCS). I find that encouraging. I am sure we will also keep an eye on US projects.

Is this for real? 80 is a decent quantity.

So what happened to all the other Challenger 2s that were produced? There were 380+ produced for the British Army and a few dozen supplied to Oman. None have been lost in combat and the vehicles damaged in accidents were repaired.

I think you mean Challenger I production numbers?

There were never as many Chally2 as Chally1.

Graham Moore is the best informed, first hand, on that.

For challenger 3 it's getting new turret and lots of other new stuff. Is it still a massive jump to make new complete tank? The plans for challenger 2 must be kicking about somewhere. Asking for a friend that needs a lot of tanks.

CR2 – 386 for UK, 38 for Jordan.

CR1 – 420 of which 392 were later sold to Jordan in c. 2001-3 under the Al-Hussein Project title. Jordan seemingly abandoned plans to later upgrade these tanks by fitting the unmanned Falcon turret from c.2003. According to Wikipedia, Jordan is now phasing out Al-Husseins to be replaced by 141 ex-Italian Army wheeled B1 Centauro 8×8 which they will run alongside Marders (an interesting wheeled tank/tracked IFV combo!! Bizarre).

Photo of prototype Falcon turret on Al-Hussein:

The information I havefor Challanger 2 is the MoD placed a £520 million order for 127 and 13 driver training vehicles. An order for a further 259 tanks and 9 driver trainers worth £800 million was placed in 1994. Not sure how many were sent to Oman but it could be 40ish.

There were over 400 Chally 1.

If this is wrong please tell me.

386 CR2s produced for British Army (1993-2002) and 38 for Oman (the only export sale – how embarrassing!). Many years ago, possiby 2010 defence review, MoD reduced the number declared as ‘in-service’ to 227 (which is the declared figure today) – this reflected a smaller size army and I think was also called for by the CFE treaty (but not sure). So where are the 159 (386-227)? It is understood that probably 3 tanks were written off including the blue-on-blue casualty (Basra 2003) and the Castlemartin range incident cas (June 2017). Some say that 80 tanks were scrapped but I… Read more »

Here's an MOD document from 2016 itemising CR2 tanks in the BA and status:

https://twitter.com/LozzieDuff/status/1614228741437153285

So, we had 386 CR2 and 22 driver training tanks delivered in total.

What happened to the 72 that were in storage in 2016 "awaiting final disposal action"? (Note: these were in addition to the 227 in service at the time).

Were they actually disposed of? What does that mean? Literally scrapped, melted down and buried in landfill? Surely a scandal if that happened. Or broken up into spares?

Scandalous bordering on treasonous. The loss of the strategically important tank manufacturing plants were the true crimes. Unless we go begging to former enemies, now allies. The nation who invented the tank (WWI Little Willy) and them developed the modern MBT (Centurion), cannot replenish our fleet. God help us if there is a war. But do not worry, no cause for concern. Russia, the CCP, Iran etc are peace-loving teddy bear nations. All using the correct pronouns. We have a cardboard cut-out of Tempest, two aircraft carriers (without airwings) along with the promise of Ajax and Boxer. Phew! For a… Read more »

The army does of course have stocks of spare parts but not for those items that are very rarely used, such as wiring looms. Also, invariably stocks were set to cater for normal peacetime usage and not intense peacetime usage or wartime usage – again, blame the beancounters.

As I have said before.

What should have happened is that a part should still have been ordered from the manufacturer even if a part was robbed from an inactive vehicle – than when the part arrives it should have been ftted to the cannibalised tank. In the real world, that did not happen all of the time – one reason is that a part may no longer be made, as you say. I served in the days when we had significant static REME workshops (later called ABRO, later GOCO operated by Babcock) who provided support to the field force REME. 18 Base Wksp REME… Read more »

Thing is that most of the machine shop would have been, at best, partially digitised. Whereas now it would run fully digitised.

I suspect that the logic was driven by the upgrade costs of the kit and that it is it is increasingly hard to find old school machinists?

You may well be right. For Commercial companies such as Babcock, the ‘bottom line is the driver in decision making, not preparedness for war. IMHO its why MoD should never have contracted out ABRO.

I think the number we could potentially donate is upto 88 C2s until we eat into the proposed C3 (148) numbers. Personally I’d give all of them to Ukraine and order 400+ K2 Black panthers from South Korea with some technological transfer delivering a return to UK tank production. Korea has done this for Turkey (Atlay tank) and agreed to build 880 Polish K2s . The advantage of K2 is Hunter killer mode, active protection system, co-operative engagement and networked interface with other units such as attack helicopters and infantry/ IFVs. Just need to find £3-4 billion to replace the… Read more »

Really depends if the K2 Black Panthers are any good. have they been battle tested for us to be able to judge if they live up to their sales pitch?

Yes it was an option I was considering if a production facility could be arranged here with ongoing development work on tanks, we need some agreement if this type real bad, it would be more flexible and safe than designing a new tank (no chance anyway) in an environment where their whole future is up in the air, though Ukraine wanting them shows they still see a future. But yes how good are they? Our new found cooperation with Poland may help there getting an early assessment in European conditions from the horses mouth as a few have already been… Read more »

‘Designing a new tank’? Were you referring to CR3? Design work was done some time ago. I was working on the project in 2016.

K2 of course was not battle tested.

Few, if any, tanks the British army have bought have been battle tested at the time of purchase!

But your suggesting that we give up our chally 2 tanks which are heavily based on the chally 1, and battle tested in both forms for a tank that looks good on paper.

Im not saying its a bad idea, but the MOD would need to properly test the K2 to ensure it is better than the chally 3, not something that can be done fast, which means we can't give ukraine them all at this stage.

Only after Turkey has opened the Dardanelles to warships other than their own..

Deliver/Sell to/via Turkey as a 3rd party who then on-deliver to Ukraine, flagged and crewed by UK. CAMM, Artisan, Harpoon, some AAW, would all be very useful. Turkey is already building two corvettes for Ukraine so there's a existing relationship there. Understand the Dardanelles are closed.

*flagged,crewed by Ukraine.

Do we really want Turkey anywere near our tech? Ok its a NATO country but polictics there are getting a wee bit extreme and that position could easily change in the future.

Maybe keep the Montrose as a training ship for the RN and donate the Monmouth can get a bit of further fitout in Turkey for Ukraine, if the ships shell is still good. Yes, you’re right. We need to be wary of Turkey. Ol’ Edojan has a bit of an each way bet with the NATO and Russia simultaneously.

Gunbuster, who has personally performed maintenance on HMS Montrose during Gulf deployment, has stated it would require a significant investment of time and funding to restore her to fleet standard, but is theoretically feasible. HMS Monmouth, which is a stripped hulk, may require an order of magnitude more work to refit. Presume someone at Admiralty is pondering the fate of HMS Montrose?

Yes I remember GBs previous comments on both ships. But they both might still have enough life for further service on the Black and Asov seas. The old Harpoons might be useful too and a AAW platform for the donated Sea Kings. If I remember correctly some T22 Broadsword class went to Romania and had a refit (with 76mm added) are still going strong. I think Brazil has one too. Anyway, it's just a suggestion and the powers that be will make their own decisions. As many have mentioned getting any ships to Ukraine could be very problematic anyway. 🇦🇺… Read more »

, *ASW… not AAW… Lol 😁

Agreed, given sufficient funding and time, virtually anything is within the realm of possibility.

Morning Mate. I could be wrong but I think the Brazilians have retired their Type 22 batch 1s?

Afternoon Klonkie, how are you going? Not sure if Brazil still has its T22, but if still going they must have been built pretty well back then. My Kiwi bro has moved back to ol’Blighty now so I only have my Uncle (Bob) in Tauranga now. Lol 😁 Hope NZ gets some upgrades to its ships happening soon including more personnel!

Like your "Jordan option"…a bit of re-engineering, upgrade work back on the UK. If it's such a bargain option then the UK can keep a few more of the best ones for itself! Why not, the US is continually improving its Abram's from old stock. Jordan will then probably seek its replacement from another country. The UK can also look at a light tank option based on the Ascod 2 chassis, which Israel has already done with the Sabrah tank, with a Cockerill 105mm turret that I think also fits on the Boxer. We know competition is fierce but the… Read more »

Quentin, you are being ‘tongue in cheek’? CR1 was declared obsolete 20 years ago (and was fielded 40 years ago, having been designed in the 70s), was replaced by CR2 which itself is 4 years from starting to be replaced. Reintroduce to British Army service? I would imagine almost no spares are available to support them. What else – reintroduce F-4 Phantoms and Bucanneers to the RAF/RN?

I fully agree that export sales of British AFVs has declined over the years – very troubling.

Hi Graham, yes, probably a bit of a silly suggestion from me. Not sure how far back the US Abrams go. Was just a thought to take back some of the best if available. But if they’re that old then it's just not worth it. Gotta love the Buccaneer's and Phantom's… now that is tongue in cheek!

M1 Abrams was designed 1972-1975 and was first fielded in 1980 with a mere 105mm gun, but it did have Chobham (Burlington armour) – ie fielded when we still had Chieftains and 3 years before we got CR1 into service. However it has sensibly been subject to very many upgrades and the newer ones are an order of magintude more capable. We rejected M1 Abrams years ago (when deciding what to replace the remaining half-fleet of Chieftains with – for a number of reasons, a major one being the thirsty nature of the Gas Turbine engine and the intensive engine… Read more »

You are suggesting to HM Treasury to buy the most expensive tank in the world, when they have forked out for the CR3 costs? Good luck with that one!

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/expensive-worth-it-south-koreas-k2-tank-195732

I was in the team that dealt with the sale of CR1s to Jordan 20 years ago. Those vehicles are 40 years old and were designed in the 70s. I doubt these old warriors will be in the best mechanical condition for modern conflict, and spares will be near-unobtainable. Better that Ukraine has some CR2s and a lot of Leo2s to augment their existing Soviet-era kit.

One would certainly think so.

According to several sources, the number of C2s being transferred are 12. https://ukranews.com/en/news/908578-britain-will-transfer-12-challenger-2-tanks-to-ukraine-first-4-immediately-media

BBC and Sky have the number at 14.

A bit of creative and deliberately mischievous false information might just go down a treat. Why not? Keep the Russian buggers guessing on the battlefield. Hope Ukrainian forces can gradually push them back into the Asov Sea! Strength to Ukraine 🇺🇦, its forces, its people and its president!

Clearly they are allowing none for an in-country Repair Pool or Attrition Reserve. I wonder if the logistic and engineering support package to be delivered in-country has been announced.

We bought 386 tanks, probably about 3 have been totally written off – and have 227 on the active list. I am sure finding a sqn of tanks from a pool of 156 non-active tanks should not be a challenge, even if many, but surely not all, will have been partly cannibalised.

What really worries me, is there seems to be no complaints from the top brass about this stupidity. Are they scared of being the next victims of budget cutbacks. Or are they punting for lucrative jobs in the civil service on retirement. Either way, they are shirking their duty. Someone needs to explain that we have a very limited supply of Challenger 2 (C2) in storage, that can be upgraded to C3 standard. Even hulls scavenged for parts, can be brought back to full operational status. Much more easily than having to produce entire MBT's from scratch, in factories that… Read more »

Who is going to fix them and how are spare parts going to be delivered? Suppose they could be dragged back to Poland. Would need CRARRV for power pack changes!

They would need CARRV for sure. Agree. Give them 12 C2s and 4 CARRV. Deploy quietly 2-3 F35Bs to Poland with LGBs so any C2 at risk of capture gets blown to bits by a stealth air strike. These tanks are generally very reliable. Hopefully of all Western tanks likely to prove the most suitable for Ukrainian use. Abraham's is too complicated and requires intensive maintenance. Leopard 2 Herr Scholz won't agree or support the transfer. Leclerc . Ditto Macron won't donate any of these prized tanks. British army will need a small tank support unit sent to Poland to… Read more »

On the F35 point they can fly from the uk if needed. Lots of tankers around Europe. Now can it get in and out without being hit? Will we then see 2 storm shadow/tomahawks flying in to blow up a CH2 and an F35. More importantly can a ukraine tractor pull a broken challenger2

General principle of towing is that you need a tow vehicle to be of similar weight to the casualty, so I hope those Ukrainian tractors weigh about 72 tonnes. I assume CR2 is at TES.

Do tractors weigh as much as a T72? Maybe they are only good at towing on the flat road. Time for some tractor research😂

Biggest John Deere shipping weight 20,000kg and maximum weight 30,000 roughly. They are chunky

Enjoy! T72? We were talking about CR2 (72 tonnes at TES state).

You might get away with a lighter (than casualty) towing vehicle on a good road on the level (but avoid braking and can accept zero to poor response when pressing accelerator pedal) – but not on an upgrade or mucky track.

As I stated elsewhere this is far more about politics than the actual benefit of 12 Challengers. They will barely be used I suspect it's Leopards that Ukraines wants and needs in large numbers and by getting these it puts pressure on the Germans to at least free up as they 5 Countries already wish to provide them. We are taking one for the team, putting our heads over the parapet to rest the Russian response so Germany can find their own backbone. The US could have done the same of course offering a dozen Abrams to help push the… Read more »

I agree, 12 random tanks making a tiny sub fleet (however good) are pretty pointless of themselves and may just end up in some form of emergency reserve cupboard ( as deploying them will be logistically hard work). But it's the political message of the first donation of a Western MBT, as you say what they need is a western MBT that can be given enmass to start replacing the vast array of soviet linage MBTs they have and in reality that's going to be the leopard 2s . Although Ukraine has a huge amount of soviet MBTs they need… Read more »

Also a useful testing range. Might get a good idea about how well, or otherwise they will stack up against Russian tech and tactics – which was basically what they were designed to counter. Can then filter this into CH3 upgrade.

Ukrainians will be trained to fix them. Unrealistic to drag them back to Poland for repairs. They do need a CRARRV in the squadron fitter sect, and at least 1 more at second line as back up.

When only 2/3rds of our C2 are to be upgraded to C3 that leaves us with a surplus.

IMO this is a good use of that surplus. Not only that but it should act as a spur to shame european countries to provide Leopards

Hear Hear, better used in Ukraine than ending up used for target practice like the Chieftains often did.

We’re not in a hurry to put effective tanks such as CR2s onto ranges as targets. Only once they have been declared Obsolete – thats the usual thing.

If it does lead to Leopard 2 deployments then yes that would be a good thing. My main concerns are logistical. Can the UK supply all of its ammunition and spares needed and are we willing to do so? Can the Ukrainians support it in the field?

Yes they can, everything is covered, it's all good, don't worry.

I guess we just need enough ammunition until the point the C-3 replaces it, no idea when that's complete mind. But other than that factor, depending on stockpiles a good way to use up the shells.

Jim was talking about supporting the CR2s we gift to Ukraine. Not talking about our own CR3s which will not be fielded with Brit Army until 2027-2030.

Jim, you are very confident. It takes a very long time to train REME technicians (who speak quite good English!) to maintain CR2. Not sure how long the course will be for the Ukrainian mantainers.

Main thing is Ukraine will be putting already trained tank crews/maintenance forward for challenger. A tanker said it took him 1 day training to change from challenger 1 to 2. It won't be that easy I think. The combined arms training under way in Germany will serve the Ukrainians well with western vehicles. Another person said the Bradley's systems are idiot proof so that's good.

There was huge familiarity between CR1 and CR2 controls and layout for crew members moving from one to the other and who had the added benefit of speaking the same language as their instructors. But I am surprised at the 1-day claim. I recall converting from SLR to SA80 required a 1-week course (including range time, obviously) and that was just a rifle. Familiarising crew with a different vehicle is easier than training maintainers, who have never seen a CR2 before. The combined arms training is essential and I am glad that it has been made available to UKR personnel.… Read more »

Well quite.

But once Ukraine proves that properly used tanks mop up the Orcs then the pressure will be on to upgrade the rest.

Especially if Russia will restock with new equipment and an army of 2 million men I read somewhere!!

How would the Orcs manufacture that much kit? There is the Stalinist view that ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’… Trouble is that in this high tech world you cannot simply put blokes in carp tanks who don't know what they are doing without tactical or strategic support and expect them to triumph over highly motivated and supported opposition is for the birds. The rabbit hole the Russian went down was thinking that because the West didn't ostensibly win in Iran / Afghan that it would be the same here. For one the West had a hand tied… Read more »

How? Once this war is over, the West with it's famously short memory will fall over itself to buy cheap Russian oil and gas. They wilBuse that income to buy all the kit (SoC's/chips) they need either directly or via a third party. Maybe this war and the limited sanctions will drive home the lesson that apart from the most needed equipment, such as optics and stabilised firing tech, they could use a more analogue construction that can be rough engineered, the way Russia has always done it? Don't forget, the first equipment to go was its newest, the older… Read more »

I’m not so sure.

I think everyone got jolted awake quite sharply. Nobody saw this coming apart from events in UK who were not listened to.

Rubbish like we can't see a use for an aircraft carrier in the next 10 years doesn't wash.

The Chicom situation isn't going to go away either.

"Trouble is that in this high tech world you cannot simply put blokes in carp tanks who don't know what they are doing without tactical or strategic support and expect them to triumph over highly motivated and supported opposition"

Putin: "Hold my beer…"

Hi SB, we wouldn't be surprised if Russia isn't restocking from Iran, North Korea, which haven't thry already done? Maybe even from China, 3rd parties or from any black markets put there.

I am sure they are.

I’m also sure that the Russian equipment quality, training, tactics, logistics and leadership will still be failures.

The real idea behind this is to be the first to break the NATO reluctance to provide MBTs. Once we have done so the US and Germany may follow suit with Leopard 2 and M1s.

so in this respect it is not about numbers but about leadership.

That is the positive side of my mixed feelings.

I don't think so, I suspect NATO has agreed to supply the tanks but there some logistics to sort out, we don't have that issue as they are sole country purchased. Germany stated a couple of days ago that it would not block supply of lepards. This feels more like us trying to beat everyone else to it.

Whatever the motivation it's a good thing and should have happened a year ago. Ukraine needs to win this to ensure Russia is fully put into its box for decades to come.

What German says and does are not necessarily the same thing. This puts the pressure on them to follow through and removes any excuses.

That's interesting, the last I heard reported a day or so after our first announcement that they were at that time still not going to offer Leopards and that it's best, as with their Marders to only agree to do so with others/and a little later they stated more specifically the Americans. I have not heard as yet that they have agreed to other Countries supplying Leopards (which clearly our moved tried to encourage). As 5 have desired to do so so far I think the pressure is on, just wish the yanks would make a limited offer or at… Read more »

Yes, you may well be right in your summation. Time to up the ante and force further humiliation on Putin and Co.

Quite

Finland and Poland have already said they would donate around 26 Leopard 2s to Ukraine (14+12 respectively) just awaiting Herr Scholz permission. Which will be dithered about and ponder until Russia's spring offensive is underway and then agreed but with loads of strings attached. Like you can only fire the gun at crippled Russian tanks whose crew have already escaped or only allowed to use them during daylight hours between 10am and midday on a Monday to Friday basis. 😅🤣😅

There may come a point when these nations say bollocks to Germany and deliver them anyway! I can see that with Poland who are not going to depend on German armour with their K2s and M1s!

…Abrams are entering the Country as cover. But that would be a serious move to defy Germany whatever the mutual contempt. But if Germany want further military orders from Poland they too need to show flexibility.

Nearly 400 tanks is a bit more than cover I would say😄

https://defence-blog.com/poland-orders-more-abrams-tanks/

Got rid of Lambrecht, I hear

The US has thousands of first generation M1s just sitting in storage, we could in theory buy a load and just give them to Ukraine?

Abrams is extremely maintenance intensive and very thirsty (gas turbine powered). The Saudi's proved it needs to be maintained by a diligent western style force, or it will become a paper weight.

Yep Biden needs to stop bumbling on this one. Give them 25 of even short term generally unusable tanks would probably push Germany over the line. As I say it's political rather than military considerations behind this hesitation from Germany, they don't want to stand out as a target.

Countries should be loaning items to Ukraine. If they survive give us them back when ur finished. Ukraine will not want 100s of different types of weapons when conflict ends. That way countries still get to say we own x amount of stuff and Ukraine can put the vehicles to good use.

Yes Leopard 2 would be best for Ukraine as it is less thirsty, needs less tlc and uses standard NATO amo. Challenger is a great tank but not tge best match for Ukraine.

With that said it could be of use as a shock force to break lines or as a tactical reserve to break an assault in a key area.

That is totally the point and it makes us look good too, after others supplied their light tanks/IFVs when we had nothing to offer … except Warriors I guess but we need them presently.

I understand we bought 789 Warriors when the army in the mid 80s was much bigger. I’m sure we could spare a few now the army is half the size it was.

yes indeed.

Typical UK leadership…. Talk a big game and then have someone else do it. When it actually comes to the heavy lifting portion of the program.

US fan boy time…..but not allowed to be a US citizen, must hit you hard hence the jealous and childlike posts. Understandable though it's ok.

Initially I viewed this, when suggested earlier this week, as being diplomatically motivated. Figuratively to get the ball rolling of other countries donating MBTs – especially Germany. However, looking back at the performance of Challenger 2 in both Gulf Wars, in terms of losses versus kills, then a dozen could easily turn the outcome of any battle in Ukraine. Yes the Russian tanks are newer than those fielded by the Iraqs, but the Ukrainians have shown that even newer Russian tanks have many of the design flaws – particularly magazine storage – of earlier models. I expect a tank repair… Read more »

Depends if we provide depleted uranium shells or not. That was the big advantage in the Iraq wars (well that and GPS).

Hopefully as the shells are going to be useless anyway after the upgrade from CR2 to CR3 so might as well use the remaining stock in a good cause. The Ukrainians certainly won't have qualms on their side about using them.

There is no point "looking back" to a situation where the West had total air dominance and the ability to degenerate opposition command, communications and logistics support. That is not the situation in Ukraine.

My ‘looking back’ is with regard to the performance of Challies against Soviet built tanks, so it's entirely valid. You either didn't bother reading my post correctly or you’re being disingenuous. Currently the Russian Air Force avoids flying in Ukraine airspace, due to its losses to manpads and SAMs. So after Ukraine gets modern Western aircraft, which has to be the next step after MBTs, then it won't take long for it gain air dominance. If you’d been paying attention these last few months you’d know that Ukraine has been degenerating "opposition command, communications and logistics support" since the start… Read more »

Your completely right with your comments, however how much does the MOD/army take out of the Ukrainian C2s? In regards to thermal sights etc. My worry is the Ukrainians might get the best tank in the world but a stripped down "best tank in the world".

The thermals etc are all outdated now, way behind the best in the business, and key components that are significantly upgraded in C3. There's no reason to strip out gear that's already a generation out of date.

Good points 👍🏻

Ballsy move to supply Gen4 aircraft to Ukraine – the Orcs will huff and puff and blow our house down; at which point, western pollies will have spincter movement not related to being on the big white telephone.

If only we hadn't made razor blades out of the tonkas.

As you said earlier, they will need substantial repair facilities; let's start training their Airforce now and be prepared to underwrite their endeavours with both MBTs and Gen4 a/c.

I think balls wouldn't be required. Putin only had 2 ways to escalate, both of which are suicidal as he would end up fighting NATO directly • attack a NATO country, perhaps targeting a marshalling depot for weapons to Ukraine • use nukes NATO is currently not directly fighting, that's the biggest escalation on the board. Putin gambled that • he could decapitate Ukraine before NATO could respond • that any NATO aid would be fragmented and slow coming • that NATO would get bored and aid would eventually dry up He was wrong in the first two, and I… Read more »

Certainly any tanks will need a combined arms aspect for European use. One thing Lukashenko had better taken into account if he thinks he's going to aid Vlad in an offensive from the north that's different from 12 months back is that ‘Russian’ military bases used to attack Ukraine are now legit targets as a defensive concept. No need to decimate Belarussian civilian infrastructure or nationals, few of whom may be fans of Luka; so the punk needs to ask, "Do I feel Lucky." Rgs

I think you are right in that assessment.

Nothing cuts through Russian tanks like C2. HESH rounds are probably dead handy in Ukraine as well. As you say even a small number concentrated on a crucial operation could tip the balance. Look at the effect of single companies of Tiger Tanks in WW2, they could have an effect far beyond their numbers.

Let's see if the Russians think the 120mm rifle gun is not up to the job any more.

And indeed the Fireflies when they were able to operate effectively. One was known to take out three Tigers in one engagement but few and far between sadly, and were of course for their effectiveness prime targets themselves, but that gun was the best anti tank gun of the war, forget the 88s. That was the start of a glorious 50 years of unrivalled British gun mastery. Sadly so good that with the Challenger we forgot to think what comes next in gun design (or tanks for that matter I guess) and now out of the business ironically to the… Read more »

Ummm no.

Ummmm yes.

Chally 2's L30 was tested against the armour of a modernized T80. Getting the T80 is a story in its own right. From what I understand the glacis and turret armour was examined and reproduced to build representations that could be used as a target. This when was then tested using Charm rounds. The outcome of the firing trials has not been publicly disclosed. But there has been no sudden drive to replace the Charm round. Which I suppose means that Charm can still do its job.

Agree the C2s probably will tear the Russian armoured forces a new sphincter. If the crews are properly trained I’d expect a 10-20:1 loss ratio. I’ve seen plenty of videos of Russia's piss poor army handling of their tanks. A decently trained C2 crew would have a field day.

Only the latest T-90s look to be a ‘challenge’ for them I agree.

Even a T90 is still just a warmed over T72. See it first, hit it first matters for tank on tank.

Agreed mate!

Sean, I believe the donation of the C2 to Ukraine goes far beyond a diplomatic ploy to shame other countries to donate MBTs. While that is a factor, it's not the main one. Once deployed, I cannot see them sitting in reserve behind the battle lines. The C2 has the capability of tipping the balance in many battle scenarios. They will be a game changer as far as the Ukraine military is concerned.

The "Challie" is obsolescent. The rifled 120 mm and HESH is no longer viable against modern tanks. There's a reason the UK is getting rid of them. And the simple fact that no one even makes ammunition for them anymore. It's a little political stunt. Well-meaning…. But nevertheless hardly a game changer in actual warfare.

Nobody with any real military knowledge things that, which means you’re either a complete idiot or a liar with an agenda. On previous form, we all know it's the latter.

The U.K. is not getting rid of the Challenger, nor are your claims about the rounds true. Not even an idiot could get these wrong, so a liar.

QED

We like to use the term sad bell-end, he responds to that one so much better.

Will remember that, as he seems the kind of bellend that is too stupid to realise when he is embarrassing himself and has everyone laughing at his inadequacies. So I’m sure we’ll see him posting again…

Please… Entertain us… Why is HESH no longer viable? If spall linings in ivans tanks are anything like the paper mache helmets and body armour thats been seen they will be very effective at turning the crew into red mush. It is not only for use against Tanks. Why put a APFSDS round into a BMP with thin armour. It would be a waste of your silver bullets. Hit it with HESH

His view is not to say why only to point out that every thing is 💩. The chieftain YouTube guy was saying challenger is still a great tank and can take a hit or 2 from a 125mm gun on the nose. His main thing was the challenger and western tanks should see the target first and get the first round off and that's most important. The Russians probably sold most of the spall liners and replaced them with fishing nets. Yes comrade these catch everything. Best nets I mean liners in all of mother Russia.

" His main thing was the challenger and western tanks should see the target first and get the first round off and that's most important."

Plus accuracy at range?

Yes

Oh dear, how sad, never mind wrong again.

Know much about the British military or it's equipment do you Esteban? You only ever make disparaging comments against the British. The Challenger II isn't a tank anyone would buy today, but the last of them were made only 16 years ago. They are proven against anything the Russians have. The reason they were designed as they were was for a European conflict against the Russians. The British have a decent history and success with that type of barrel and ammo. Tell me, what tank has the best record against any Russian tank post 1980? What tank has never been… Read more »

An unagraded CR2 will be more of a match against T62/72/80 as been proven in the gulf! As the people who decide these things are not really total idiots despite what we might think you can be sure that discussions with Ukraine have been had and if they want them give them!

I think the Chally will give the Russians a run for their money, and the more the merrier! "The Challenger 2 is a main battle tank, designed to destroy other tanks. It has been used by the British Army on operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and has never experienced a loss at the hands of the enemy." You might recall my post earlier this year regarding the Main Ground Combat System, At the time I thought this might be a better option than upgrading the current version of Challenger for obvious reasons, not least compatibility with other… Read more »

Good if somewhat sad news but the only real option looking ahead a decade or so.

I tend to agree with you. 227 Challenger 2s to 148 Challenger 3s when we had 420 Challenger 1s in service at one point. A lite version might be an option on the tracked Boxer to help fill in the gaps with a 120mm gun. Fast and agile appears to be the way things are looking at present. "A more agile, integrated, lethal and expeditionary force" Announcing the new details in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said, "Future Soldier is reinforced by the ambition outlined in the Defence Command Paper to transform the Army into a more… Read more »

Why restrict our choice to the Franco/German offering for the tank after CR3?

I would suggest the chally 2 was designed more as an infantry support tank ….Hence keeping the rifled gun and the HESH round . Tank on tank actions are very few and far between. With the rifled gun we accepted a slight degradation in performance of APFSDS as it was offset by the more numerous advantages of using HESH. Even with the poorer performance of APFSDS fired from a rifled barrel its still more than an over-match against 95% of Russian tanks it would ever likely encounter. It would struggle against modern western tanks at stand off ranges yes ……but… Read more »

Good to hear 😂 We can do without a blue on blue!

Somebody on UKDJ mentioned the possibility of up to 1300 Boxers, so a mix including these would no doubt be a useful addition.

The jury is out as to whether Boxer will work with tanks as well as Warrior did. Pity we don't seem to have trialled that before placing the Boxer order.

Fingers crossed all works out well in that case Graham.

Infantry Support Tank? That is a WW2 term. We Brits invented the MBT to replace infantry support tanks and cruiser tanks. You suggest a poorer performance of APFSDS from the rifled gun – yet we took out all targets engaged in GW1 and GW2 and still hold the record for the longest kill with ‘fin’ – happy with that. Good to use HESH on tagets that dont warrant ‘fin’ ie medium armour and bunkers and other strong points.

MGCS – first one is not due to roll off the line until 2035 (and I am sure that will slip by a few years), so it is far too late for us. It (or rather a later version) is in fact a possibility as the tank after CR3, not instead of it.

Remember it's not about Challenger 2, it's about a major NATO nation providing tanks. Assuming Mad Vlad does not nuke us this opens the door for other European nations to share Leopard and M1 that are available in much greater numbers.

He's not mad, Vlad is just bad and sad. He won't nuke us, though he may desperately start throwing more forces into the battle trying to secure as much as possible before western donated MBTs appear in Ukraine. More in the military, and in politics will begin to realise the war is becoming unwinable for them. Nothing is as fatal to a Russian leader than being regarded a loser. The final straw for some to move against Putin might need to be the donation of western aircraft, such as F16s. His replacement might be no better, but he would be… Read more »

You mention F16s, but, I wonder if the Ukrainians are doing the fan dance and learning about operating behind enemy lines.

Certainly, causing the enemy to displace and increase transit times for their a/c is quite an achievement, smacking several of them into scrap is highly noteworthy – seems UKR SF are unhindered in the rear com z of Russia – and good luck and logistics to them.

UKR SF certainly seem to be following in the traditions of the SAS in destroying enemy aircraft on the ground, far behind the lines.

I’d still love to see the Ukrainians having modern combat aircraft to destroy any Russian aircraft that do get airborne, and then demolish Russian depots and bases that are beyond HIMARS range. Oh, and a certain bridge too…

When a politically pressured Germany finally allows sufficient of the more ideal Leopard 2s out of their cage then I’d foresee our C2s likely being used to protect Kyiv from northerly incursions, particularly as approaches to the city appear to be limited. Happy to hear counter views, though. Rgs

Totally agree with you our tanks would likely be kept in reserve and for that very purpose simply because of logistics. Makes sense too in your scenario as they would be a lethal line of defence and release other tanks further east.

As a complete aside (sorry, just could not resist), I note that Ajax has marked up another milestone. This automobile can now add ‘turning something of a corner’ to it's previously acknowledged ability to a) move, b) carry passengers. Seriously, this according to the latest interrogations by the Defence Select Committee. What is notable, to my mind, is the evident blase-passivity of the two principal Army Brass in their admittance of making mistakes. Not an iota of pained contrition discernable. Seemed to sum up perfectly just why we’re in the mess we are on land procurement issues. The DSC observations… Read more »

cxd?

OK – WCSP, GM. (rgs 🙂)

Thanks I understand WCSP!

Just for clarity, I ended my full-time employment as CS (civil service). Cxd short for cancelled. Now not saying I got so used to this, but cxd became shorthand!

My concern is what happens if one or more should fall into Russian hands – and I’m thinking purely of the Dorchester armour. Even though the C2 is relatively old, the armour is by all accounts top secret…..

Still we must have delivered some engineering and logistic support for the 6xMLRS we gifted.

CR2 should have had 2 or 3 major upgrades since it was produced in 1998-2002; shocking that did not happen – but the tank should be more than adequate to defeat poorly commanded, poorly supported and ageing Soviet-era MBTs.

Engineering & Logistics – we clearly provided this for the mere 6 MLRSs we supplied in Sep/Oct last year – so would do it for a sqn of tanks – the cost of doing so properly is not an issue.

Good news. 12 is not a lot, but if it triggers a larger supply of Leopards, then that will make a difference.

We don't have enough of them to give them away!!!.

Well what better way to give them away for use in an actual war. Better use there than sat on Salisbury plane.

ABSOLUTELY!

👍

We have plenty spare to give 12 to Ukraine. Look at the army ORBAT, how many we bought, how many we have declared in service, both in the operational regiments and in reserve, storage, and so on. Even if many have been cannibalized.

Hopefully at the nato/Ukraine weapon meeting soon they can work out more vehicles. Ukrainians are doing combined arms training in Germany. Would be perfect to give them nice vehicles to work with on return. The uk could do 50 I think with no big issues on operations if they can get all the other vehicles sorted out.

14 Challies plus a brigade's worth (30) of AS90 I’m hearing.

14 is a very small number – we can spare that number and in fact a lot more than that.

Isn't Dorchester still classified?

Can it and will it be removed prior to shipping?

If you removed the DL2 you would make the tank far more vulnerable. Is that a good idea?

Still classified, extra add on armour like the TES kit is now required on the modern battlefield. This was not designed to swing out for access on a double hinges for maintenance repair and inspection of running gear. This increases job times as crane is required. Also must be removed for transportation!

Yes, One of the risks is obviously Russia getting a mission kill and towing back and analyse the armour

There will be lots of aspects of weapons already in Ukraine that are classified. It must be a risk worth taking in the uk eyes. I think they need sent. Do we really want Russia next to Poland?

Give them all the Challengers; they will tear the T72s to bits. But only if Sunak orders a complete set of replacements. The days of the Tank are not over, not by a long chalk. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, the Russians appear to be on the ascendency. To take trenches you need combined arms. Tanks cannot take them alone and neither can troops unless you decide to do what the Russians are doing by throwing men at it to be slaughtered ala The Somme. I wouldn't want to be attacking a trench knowing that my section will be wiped… Read more »

A silly daydream – but if a Russian tank is confirmed to have been taken out by a CHR2, I’d love to see it brought back to this country, melted down, and used for future Victoria crosses

Oh what a thought how perfectly to f..k off Boris… the Russian one that is.

Hi folks hope all is well As ever I’m guided by you experts on this site. Is possible that we require those Challengers that Jordan has for us to upgrade to C3? Also, at this juncture of theater, maybe there's a school of thought to bring back MBT, or equal to the UK building our own? What do you think? Cheers, George

Any of that would require this Government to fund defence properly. Unlikely to happen I’m afraid. We’ll give 12, then some more. All it’ll mean is we end up with the 148 ch3 promised, with fewer hulls for spares. We could probably give 40 and not impact our plans too much. Might as well do it now.

I would say it's better to give a good number all at once. Give the spares, ammo, add on armour the challenger based engineering vehicles, bridging etc. I don't know how many bridges in Ukraine are rated for 70+ tons so challenger capable bridging equipment will be needed or restricted areas of operations. Ukraine's recovery vehicles may not be able to get a challenger out of a stuck situation as they only have 45t max vehicles. Give enough for a battalion perhaps with Bradley's if warriors aren't spare, artillery, air defence etc. Finally start new tank project. Challenger 3 is… Read more »

There is a ready made tank solution for the UK. K2 Black Panther. The South Koreans have already agreed technology transfer and industrial manufacturing to Turkey (Altay MBT programme) and Poland 880 K2 PLZs. A British built K2 Black Panther would be a most excellent option. 400 vehicles would cost around £3.5-4 billion. Not a terrible option for the future of the British army.

Good evening Mr Bell, I’m unsure if you’ve seen this link, but it includes a great deal of detail regarding the K2BP.

I never realised the main gun was German. Not my area of expertise at all, but it looks impressive!

"This gun is a German Rheinmetall gun, that is licensed-produced in South Korea."

Hopefully, they won't require German permission to fire it!

LINK

The only negative about the K2 MBT is that sans APS it doesn't have the same protection levels as you will find on the CR2-3.

Gets us into the tank manufacture game again, though! Once more into the breech – ?

Many bridges in Ukraine are sub-standard, but I don't know how many can take a Chally – and then a Chally on a tank transporter would need a 100 ton rating. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/a-tale-of-two-bridges/

We are supplying a CRARRV to support the donated squadron. We really need to supply at least one more (if not two) to allow redundancy.

A bit late to suggest a different tank project to CR3! What is the problem with CR3 in your view? My only problems with CR3 is that the programme costs are too high, and we are building far too few.

If they survive I’m sure we will get them back, moving forward Ukraine wouldn't want them and if they are used as Gavin speculates above and I concur to defend say the Capital there's every chance they will indeed survive.

Jordan received British Army surplus CR1 not CR2,but saying that the differences in the Hull between the two are minimal.The CR3 upgrade basically involves the installation of a new Turret – so in theory you could use the same CR3 Turret on CR1 Hulls and end up with pretty much the same Tank.Whether this has been looked into is another matter,it could be a source of extra Tanks for either the BA or Ukraine if they are in reasonable condition.

Jordan is soon to get rid of its CR1s – but it is a terrible idea for us to buy back vehicles for their hulls that were designed in the 1970s and were fielded with the British Army 40 years ago, in order to to get more than 148 new tanks.

I also think you will find that there are a lot of differences between the CR1 hull and the CR2 hull

Jordan has 300+ Challenger 1s. They are circa 1980s technology and have only about 35% commonality with the current C2. They are still great tanks though. Perhaps foreign aid budget should be used to buy as many as possible back from Jordan , refitted and then given to Ukraine. A C1 is likely to be superior to all current Russian tanks upto and including T90 derivatives.

148 of our 227 in-service CR2s are being remanufactured to CR3 standard,. Why would we want Jordan's CR1s back??

UK building our own? Our own what? Sorry I don't understand your points.

The CR3s are being built from donor CR2s. I am sure we could manufacture tanks from scratch again, rather than re-manufacturing from donor vehicles. But the economics don't look great for fleet sizes of less than 150.

It will be very interesting to read about how the Chally 2s and Leo 2s perform in combat on the European steppes, lets see if the can drive back T 80s and Armatas whilst avoid being taken out by Russian anti tank weapons.

I agree but – as a genuine question because I don't know about this stuff – with the Challenger 3 upgrades on the horizon how much of what we see regarding the Challenger 2's performance in Ukraine will still be applicable to what we could expect from Challenger 3? Will C3 be a sufficiently different beast to C2 that not much C2 data will still be applicable to C3 or is there still so much commonality (armour?) that there is much to be learned? One thing that would seem somewhat irrelevant in terms of assessing how C3 performs in combat… Read more »

From what I’ve read and heard the Chally 3 is as far removed from the Chally 2, as the Chally 2 is from the Chieftain. Better gun and sighting / aiming systems, better engines, better armour, better electronic stuff etc. I believe ( not certain) than no Chally 2s were destroyed in Iraq or A/Stan but other notable tanks were. So an uprated Chally 3 could possibly, maybe, perhaps a game changer?? But, But, BUT, I admit to being rather startled as to just how good anti armour weapons are nowadays.

Thanks. That was what I was wondering. So perhaps while for a lot of the other stuff that we are donating to Ukraine, e.g. Starstreak, we are getting invaluable info on how those systems perform in combat, that will likely not be the case to any great extent for Challenger. Still presumably putting the stocks of C2 ammunition to good use is a good benefit because otherwise it would probably just get junked. Even as training rounds I assume it becomes obsolete once C3 is in service since we would want live-fire training to be using the C3 not the… Read more »

Oh you can be sure our spooks are getting intel back off every bit of kit we sent them, And I would imagine a few of the russians latest military vehicles that got taken out are enroute to the UK and US for inspection.

Oh definitely. Russia has lost a handful of T-90Ms – if there isn't one currently sat in a shed on Salisbury Plain or at Bovington I’d be amazed

We already know quite a bit about how Challenger performs in combat – the army actually has done a fair bit of warfighting over the years. However its always to good to get more info especially if different enemy weapons systems are being deployed than in former operations.

It can't have a better engine as it's staying the same. Suspension is getting an overhaul, commander sensors, main gun changing. Personally I don't think it's worth the money. It's costing roughly the same as a new tank but it isn't. Most important for tanks is first look, first on target shot. A new thermal commander sight is what challenger will benefit the most from. Challenger 2 has more chance of surviving a hit from a Russian tank than the other way round.

Engine has new turbo's , improved cooling system and new imh , this would indicate power increase and less start up smoke at low temp's!

After some deeper reading u are correct. The current engine Perkins CV12-6 will turn into the CV12-9 I think. The armoured challenger based vehicles use the CV12-8 with some having -5 variant getting -8 on overhaul. I’m not a big engine guy so hadn't realised that bits could be swapped in and out so easily. There's not a lot of easy read info about the difference between models on the web. Fascinating stuff. Glad u posted about the engine. Hopefully I got the numbers correct

For some reason I thought the Ch3 was getting an upgraded engine surely the present engines can't last for ever.

The best way to think of it is the engine is being modernized. The core of then engine is staying the same. However, reports are saying the engine could produce near 1500bhp, but will be detuned closer to 1400bhp. Part of this is due to the newer turbos. But part is also due to the engine being given a common rail system for its diesel injection. At 27L it will still have less torque tha. The Leopard's 47.7L will still produce more. So the Leopard "should" accelerate faster. Though even with the smaller engine, the Chally has shown it's no… Read more »

Caterpillar did design a common rail system, not sure they put it on. The fuel in tanks is prone to bacterial growth which can attack fuel sponges and bags. Common rail fuel systems don't like dirt.

If you mean Afghanistan,CH2 was never deployed there

C2 wasn't deployed to Afghan. Just so you are aware. You are right about both gulf wars where C1 and C2 suffered zero hostile combat losses.

C2 was never in Afghanistan.

Both NLAW and Javelin would take out a Chally2, when using the top attack mode. The only tank that has proven to survive a ATGM using top attack is a Merkava 4 operating near the West Bank. Where it's Trophy APS took out the missile. As far as I’m aware Russia do not have an anti-tank missile that can do what NLAW does. Which flies over the tank and detonates a downwards firing HEAT jet. Their ATAKA ATGM used by the Mil-28 has only a direct attack mode. The Vikhr ATGM used by the Ka-50/52 is also a direct attack… Read more »

Correct – CR3 is far more than a new turret and gun being dropped onto a CR2 hull. No CR2 (or CR1) has ever been destroyed by enemy fire – a remarkable record. One CR2 was written off after a blue-on-blue in Iraq. We did not deploy Chally to Afghan. Worth googling M1 Abrams and Leo2 destroyed in combat – a surprisingly high number, especially of the former. Chally 3 will be excellent but it is expensive, the programme very drawn out and we are not producing enough – we’ll just have two tank regiments.

If they have DU rounds there should be no contest, not forgetting they won't be sitting ducks. They almost certainly (if not then that's plain stupid) will have full cover from LR Artillery, SHORADs, Brimstones as well as troops using Javelins and NLAWS etc.

Unluckily for T-series Russian tanks, they don't make much use of spaced armour. Their primarily armour uses a combination of composite steel and explosive reactive armour (ERA). ERA has shown that it can defeat a sabot dart, but it's not always guaranteed. The best method to defeat a dart is spaced armour. Where the initial armour absorbs a lot of the impact energy, but then causes friction on the dart as it passes through the hole. This causes the dart to destabilize and makes it yaw. Which then strikes the secondary armour obliquely. Which then gives the secondary armour the… Read more »

There are no Armatas in Ukraine

YET

Ever. You can't deploy vaporware

Indeed if they do appear it will be desperation they are in short supply still being worked on due to reported serious issues In Libya and would be needed to defend their deluded idea that NATO will invade. Equally the fear of losing any would be humiliating for them.

Syria not Libya I think you mean,

Even if it were actually ready why would they ruin the export prospects of the last tank family they have a chance of selling?

As a wunderwaffen it has no chance of making a difference in the war, but as an export it could be a lifeline for Russia's defence industry after the war.

We really need to beef up our army! Challenger 3 upgrades look great. But perhaps we also need to look into a total ‘new’ tank

We’re observers on Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) – the German, French, Italian project to produce a new MBT.

You know how that will end! They will not agree on the spec France will want to be the lead and like most European projects it will fail and everyone will go their own way🙄

If they were designing something new, then yes. But these seem to be settled on using the latest Leopard chassis but with the lighter Le Clerc turret. That shaves tons off the weight, has a better auto loader, and only needs 2 not 3 men in the turret.

Mm:-

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/06/15/rheinmetall-main-battle-tank/

Yes Rheinmetall are hoping that they can sell the Panther as the replacement for Leopard. As it is MGCS is making glacially progress and countries that were looking at it, like Poland, have gone elsewhere. The Panther does look like a tank that could eat T90s and Armatas for breakfast.

Yeh. Sorry, see you’d clocked Panther on another post here. At the Paris exhib shows a certain chutzpah.

I agree and given that the Company is now effective owner of our land warfare core business would serious interest by Britain to co produce it not appeal to them?

I think the problem is the serious interest back up with cash. Uk procurement has issues. There have been a lot of projects delayed/stretched out and without a funding increase or dropping some items the Uk seems a bit stretched for new stuff. These delays have just increased costs and the funding is needing to come from next years budgets. A lump sum of £20+ billion could do a lot to fund current projects and allow a kind of fresh start. Pay for challenger 3, typhoon upgrades, rest of Ajax, chinook upgrades, apaches, new medium helicopter, wedge tail and loads… Read more »

Rheinmetall is 50% of RBSL. Don't forget BAE.

First MGCS is planned to be 2035 (but may slip a few years in reality). Very glacial.

Extremely glacial which is why the Italians tried to form a rival tank project with Poland and Spain, but the Poles instead and went and bought South Korean K2 Black Panther instead.

I suspect the glacial pace is why Rheinmetall has begun developing its own successor to the Leopard, the Panther KF51.

To stop confusion, would all future tank manufacturers please not use the same name as another manufacturer has for their tank? 🤷🏻‍♂️😆)

Good points. I think the MGCS is not for us due to timeline and it may well not be that revolutionary – but we will pick up some design points probably. Our tanks after CR3 must be revolutionary – we have done evolutionary development since Centurion.

I agree about terminology. My minor peeve: I wish people would use CR for Challenger (official army abbreviation) rather than CH (which was always Chieftain).

That is downright heresy to suggest the French will have a hissy fit and walk out, Joan of Arc would be screaming at you from her pyre for such views.

A little unfair – there are many examples of collaborative European military projects.

Get the Germans on the gun and tracks, France the auto loader and sensors, Britain the chassis and armour, suspension and the Italians can do interior and seats.

Germans could do the PowerPack too. Britain should also do the BV!

CR3 effectively is a new tank.

Think we’re only doing so the German government let there leopards tanks go as there seem a little reluctant to make the first move .Has the leopards are in more numbers and could make a difference .Don't begrudge the Ukraine getting Equipment and that theses CH2s are in storage but do have mixed feelings about this ,what next Typhoons ?🤔

If that's what it takes to get the USA to give Ukraine access to some of its vast store if F16s, then I’d say yes, Typhoons next.

Sooner the Ukranians get modern tanks and aircraft, the sooner Russian is defeated, the sooner the death and destruction stops, AND the sooner the U.K. and other economies stop suffering the collateral damage caused by this war.

Typhoon Tranche 1 maybe? Better than scrapping them if we can't afford to bring them up to the standard of the others?

MX footprint is too big. Even in peace time it would take years to train the Ukraine Air Force up to operate these jets as they were designed.

We are "fighting" a proxy war so anything we can give to the Ukraine must be good. I don't know what's knocking about in depot's, Challengers, Warriors, 432's, whatever, but move them to the Ukraine NOW.

You right about that Geoff. We are in a proxy war.

I agree. If Russia takes all of Ukraine it will be a disaster. Luckily the Baltic's got into nato. Poland would not react well with Russia as its neighbour, then how long before that sparks off. One big issue is what does the world do about millions of Ukrainian refugees. 3/4 of Ukraine would probably leave. The Ukrainians are fighting the fight the west has been focused on since WW2. The need lots of help.

Tragically another world problem my friend. Every continent now has a refugee crisis. With China, Iran, North Korea and Russia sticking their noses in for no other reason than their leaders meglomania.

Does anyone know if we still have DU APFSDS for the Challenger, and if so would we let the Ukraine have them ?

I think it was just stored.

The rounds are out of date so are no use to UK forces.

I am surprised that DU in this case has a shelf life.

It doesn't in itself.

Other parts do.

Probably has a half life.

Taxi!

Is the challenger round not separate projectile and charges? I don't know much about the rounds but would that not mean the DU rod is just a metal rod?

Exactly so.

But the the projectile isn't just a lump of metal.

Ahh. I need to do some reading on projectiles.

Stored away. I think the sabot rounds are Tungsten now.

The DU Charm rounds are manufactured by BAe in the UK.

Question… one of the reasons why the German's decided to look at a replacement for the Leopard 2 was that it fired tungsten rather than depleted uranium rounds. From reviewing fighting in the Donbas in 2014, the Germans believed the Leopard might not be able to punch through T80 or T90 armour.

Has this changed? Can the latest Leopards fire depleted uranium? If not, the Challies could be earmarked for those tank engagements where the Russians field their most modern tanks.

The reason we are going Smoothbore 120 mm on CR3 is that it can penetrate the latest Orc armour! As it has greater velocity than what we have now( stand to be corrected).

Agree. The M1A1 was in gulf war 2 and had no trouble cooking up any Russian tank. Considering the gun on the M1A1 is essentially the same 120mm smoothbore as the Leopard 2 firing NATO standard ammo. I’d say this is a non issue. Leopard 2. Leclerc. M1A1 will all be capable of defeating Orc T series tanks from 64 all the way upto T90 series. The only unknown is the heap of junk Aramata. It's absence from Ukraine is telling. The Russians don't want the world to see just how rubbish they are.

Except the tanks in Gulf War weren't T80, T90, or Amartas. Putting the Soviet-era tanks in the Gulf War on par with Russia's latest designs is equivalent to putting the Challenger 2 en par with the Chieftain.

The M1A1 also, like Chally 2, fires depleted uranian rounds. The Leopard fires tungsten, big difference in performance.

Ref https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/leopard3.htm

Not many have said that the Armata is rubbish, so you surprise me. Big problem is that there are only about 20 of them. It is not in series production, as I understand.

My understanding is we’re looking at going that route because we are the only ones using rifled barrels. Switching will allow to use the same munitions as our allies, which has advantages for munitions availability AND access to new exotic rounds being developed for smoothbore guns. The big downside is that the Chally can't carry as many rounds after switching to smoothbore.

Personally I’d follow Rheinmetall's thinking with the KF51 Panther and go for 130mm rather than existing 120mm.

So you would go from one end of the spectrum to the other! 130 mm will be ok IF the rest ofNATO accepts it. The Panther will have to downgrade to 120mm for the above reason if it wants to sell.

Yes I would given the sales success Rheinmetall had with the Leopard. Plenty of countries will be looking to upgrade from these in the future. The Russians have moved to 125mm with the Armata, and while there's few of those in service, it appears the Russians want this larger gun going forward with future designs.

When looking at purchasing your next MBT to last 30 or 40 years, you don't spec it to defeat your opponents current tanks. You design to beat their next-generation tanks.

The Orcs moved from 100 mm in the T62 to 125mm in the T64 onwards mate! The only difference between T72 through toT90 is basically newer sights,reactive armour etc they are all based on the same design.Armata will very likely not be seen in anyones lifetime,they can't even manufacture T90 with the sanctions in place hence the refurbishing of T62.we can't go 130 on our own it would put us out of the main supply chain again!

Later T-90s have new turrets better armour and active defence mind (is that the M?). Want to see as some are in Ukraine how they fair, I think a couple with the new turret have been taken out one last week but don't know if they were full factory spec or how or whether they were taken out through fire and by what or were just effectively abandoned though pics of one had serious damage so got hit by something.

115mm

Russia needed the larger 125 mm because their rounds were not as advanced .

That's what I have read too the German smooth bore seems to outgun it generally.

Oddly this commonality logic did not apply when CTA 40 cannon was chosen. America is changing to the 6.8 mm x 51 rifle round, it would be logical to adopt this when the SA80 is retired !

With regard to the CT40 there may have been other factors at play, I’d hope it wouldn't be a failure of joined up thinking…

Yes the XM5 to replace the M4 looks a good choice for when the SA80 is retired. Though the heavier round and rifle means less ammunition can be carried.

That calibre has not yet been adopted as a NATO standard – we will only use a NATO standard round.

https://www.army-technology.com/news/will-nato-members-adopt-the-6-8mm-caliber-weapons-in-the-next-decade-poll-finds-a-divided-opinion/

Interesting how unfolding events often develop own momentum. Presume there will be significant outside interest generated by probable CR2 performance; not only by the US, making a decision re donation of Abrams, but also by potential future opponents, such as the Iranians, North Koreans and the ChiComs. All will be drawing their own conclusions based on CR2 performance. Can reasonably predict that the performance of the first squadron of CR2 will elicit UKR requests for more hulls, ammo, transporters, recovery vehicles, etc. Presumably, Big Ben Wallace will use those proxy war mandated requests/demands to leverage an expedited conversion of UK… Read more »

Er…K2 BP…🙄

With all the changes from Ukraine to be considered in vehicle/tank development it will be an interesting time. Things like is 120mm smooth bore enough or is a bigger round needed. Trade off between rounds carried vs size etc. If the need is there should it be met with a bigger round or missiles. How much armour is needed and where. tanks play an important role in infantry support so rounds carried is probably quite important. Most important is being able to see targets first and firing first. Sensors and situational awareness. Perhaps small drones going from tanks spotting etc.

Agreed, all should/hopefully will be considered important factors in future designs. 👍

Of course much CR2 performance data is already available from past conflicts it has been deployed to. But of course the Ukraine Theatre is different again. Your point about conversion of CR2 to CR3 – I agree that it is a very slow programme – IOC in 2027 and FOC of all 148 tanks in 2030. The US designed, tested, built and flew Saturn V in less time and that was before CAD and CAM. Not sure about the KF51 but UK is an accredited official observer to the Franco-German new tank project. We design and build all our warships… Read more »

Simply made the assumption that more £ = bigger carrot 🥕 , in terms of conversion contract performance. Obviously at some point that relationship begins to break down. Do believe however, that MoD is theoretically capable of lighting a fire underneath its contractors. Of course, the contractor's reply is lifted directly from the movie Jerry McGuire, ‘show me the money!’ 🤔😳😉 Uncertain whether MoD has a great deal of faith in ANY Franco-German endeavour. Generally can judge serious intent when money flows. 😳 Don't let anyone else know, but I really trust the Poles and the Eastern Europeans in general… Read more »

I like Poland (have visited twice) and the Poles. Some good historic relations with Poland spring to mind – we worked well together in the early days of cracking the Enigma code, then a RAF fighter squadron manned by Poles had the best kill ratio in the Battle of Britain. Further chance for collaboration was lost due to the Cold War. We sent many troops from our bases in Germany to train in Polish trg areas. We do of course today have a good number of British troops in an eFP BG in Poland (together with US, Croatian and Romanian… Read more »

Looking at how well Russian armour has held up this past year, I’d fancy my chances popping one with an air rifle

Well that's down to 3 things, • storage of ammunition for the auto loader in older Russian tanks • NLAW and Javelin • the Russians have no idea how to fight with tanks – they’ve been operating them without support from infantry etc 🤦🏻‍♂️

Given that the Russian army is currently the biggest tank supplier to the Ukranian army, I’d hope the tanks when used properly can perform better. Though there's nothing that can be done about the auto loader design flaw that propels the turret upwards faster than a Harrier taking off…

The Leopard could easily fire a DU round. It doesn't due to political reasons. I’m not sure if this also stops countries operating Leopard 2s from buying DU rounds? The Abrams uses a licensed copy of the Rheinmetall Rh120L44 gun. Leopard 2A5s and later use the longer Rh120L55 gun. Apart from some minor difference and the barrel length the two guns breeches are identical. Which means they can both fire the NATO standardized 120mm ammunition. Germany is now using the DM63 APFSDS round, that still uses a tungsten dart. Whereas the US Army uses the M829 series, with a depleted… Read more »

This decision needed to be taken now if Ukraine is to have the MBTs it needs for a spring offensive. A dozen is symbolic – to get Germany to release the hand brake on the 2000 Leopard 2s it controls in Europe – 24 or 36, which we could do, could be decisive where they are used.

CR2 is outdated and the only people who say otherwise haven't worked on them.

The majority of the fanboy posters on here just can't wrap their brain around that. There is a reason it is far overdue for replacement.

Hello, speaking of fetish fan boys….a none US National wetting his pants about the US. Fan boy special.

Ok mate let's have your reasons why it's outdated, share your opinion and let's discuss.

Second that.

I am not the Alex above. I don't see how anyone can doubt what he said. FCS and sights from 20 years ago so before the great advances in processing power. Armour was not updated because there was no threat, same for rounds 1200hp engine when most others are in 1500hp. Most other stuff is tech from 90's. But most important the British Army stopped thinking about tanks. It was all about deploy capability, FRES etc… Only countries that have enemies at side and superpowers reserve resources for tanks: USA, Israel, South Korean. Or have a strong industrial base due… Read more »

Adding. For example France don't have anymore a production line for Leclerc.

I’m not surprised. Leclerc was designed in the 80s and was produced from 1990-2007 – thats a very long production run. Production line formally closed in 2008, as would be expected. Nexter claim that they could re-create it, if needed (and money flowed!)

Ok let's start on the FCS (TOGS)it is still more than capable of doing its job despite its age and is streets ahead still of T62/64/72/80 maybe the T90 with its French sights could compare ( unavailable now due to sanctions) Engine power still gets it along at 40 mph and the hydro gas suspension gives a smooth ride and is much easier to change after mine damage etc, Armour type upgraded from Chobham to Dorchester. Ammo upgraded to CHARM 3 standard still more than capable of taking out anything it would encounter in Ukraine. But switching to smoothbore on… Read more »

The discussion is if it is outdated. It is. Most Russian tanks are also outdated.

It seems you are not aware of developments in FCS, sights etc.

Is Challenger able like pretty much all updated 120mm smoothbore to have rounds with fuzes that explode over infantry at the distance set, or FCS/Sights that have auto tracking to take out helicopters. Or that the sight have overlays that shows your friendlies and those that are not identified?

Stop changing the goalposts I said it is still capable of doing the job it is intended to do ie kill other tanks🙄Not claiming it had all the bells and whistles that will come on CR3!

I’ve not heard before that tanks have a key role in engaging dismounted infantry. Thats for the infantry and artillery to do.

Good point about deployability. Some who want to abolish tanks, bleat that tanks are hard to deploy, yet we have done so repeatedly since 1916.

There were programmes for CR2 updates – CLIP and CSP – but were not implemented.

They are surely no older (built in 1993-2002) than the Russian opposition tanks, and the quality/technology is far better. Having said that CR2s should have been regularly upgraded over the years, as we used to do with all AFVs. The number of Marks of Chieftain was incredible and a testament to regular upgrades.

Pointless, the AS90s will be marginally more useful.

Totally incorrect. One, a company of CH2s can exert huge pressure in focused parts of the Russian's lines, two, it breaks the taboo. Hopefully the yanks and Germans begin to release their huge quantities of stored and sold (respectively) tanks, that's where the real turning point is

Personally, I thought the same. It is primarily a political move, aimed at Germany in particular. However, there is a broader aspect to this. During the last Gulf War, Challenger 2 was the undisputed king. It took out Iraqi tanks without loss. Even sustaining a constant barrage from militias using RPGs and Milans. It did succumb to the lower glacis being penetrated, which led to an urgent fit of ERA bricks, then a big slab of Dorchester. However, that was 20 years ago. Sadly Challenger has had very little spent on it to keep it up to date. Its original… Read more »

I wonder about M1 Abrams – terrrible fuel consumption (which would burden UKR forces) and the GT engine is maintenance intensive.

Older M1s do not have Aux Engines (GUEs), so have to fire up the Avco Lycoming/Honeywell AGT-1500 to charge the radio batteries on silent watch. Do the older ones even have a BV?

Leo2 in quantity is the tank for UKR.

AS90 has a totally different role to a MBT.

No, really?

I guess it will take weeks to train crews for these tanks, unless Ukrainian soldiers have started this already?

It is current kit so not impossible that a few crews have had a look to see if they think Chally2 would be useful to them?

This will be well planned for training and support UK will want this to be seen to work well.

Can't believe that a select few at least over here for training aren't given some experience on them already. Damn short sighted if not. Geez a few experienced Ukrainian tankers on leave getting to use a Challenged would be about as useful as you can get giving their experience to our crews and detailing what they think are the plus minus points between their own and ours and tactics. If no one has thought of that then we might as well give up.

Forces news reckon approx 6 weeks for crews already armour trained to obtain the basics!

Much more training is needed for the maintainers.

I don't understand why we are getting involved in someone else's war. Ukraine was never in the commonwealth, was not a member of Europe while we were, nor part of NATO, so why are the government so hell bent on getting involved? To me this is a Russian civil war.

Agree fully Ian with that , We should keep our noses out full stop .

Why do you support Putin and a horrible, brutal war against Ukrainian military, civilians and their houses and towns? We are a force for good in this world.

And doing nothing would just give a green light to Putin to do whatever the hell he wants. Maybe invade Latvia or Estonia next, it would also give a signal to China that the west is weak and they can invade Taiwan and the west will do nothing to stop it. We’ll just let dictators take over the world order. Thankfully, NATO has stepped up, and Putin has been surprised by the response, and China will think very carefully about any military action in the future. They have also all now seen the affect on the global economy conflict brings,… Read more »

Thanks pal. Can't believe some people still don't get why we are involved. For the greater good.

Exactly mate 👍

I lose the will to live at times anyone who has studied Putin and understand the strategic pressure on Russia as China comes to the fore plus the feeling of humiliation they feel post Soviet era and the stranglehold they thought they had over energy supplies would surely have no doubts that Ukraine was to be but the first step. As we see now it would allow then to enforce new recruits into their Imperial ambitions as their population falters and immediately exercise added control over Europes and indeed the Worlds base food supplies giving them much greater leverage and… Read more »

We are not in Europe? Really?

Geography yes. I was meaning the EU.

The EU is not a military alliance, it is of no relevence in this case. It is not forcing it's members to send tanks.

So if Europe no longer existed as a free and independent entity you think we could merrily survive regardless? If the Russian North Sea fleet had unfettered access to the North Sea as a result this still has no effect on us? It's like saying if, be it Germany or Russia had ended up as Masters of Europe post war it wouldn't have effected us. Sorry but it's madness to think that is remotely possible. You can leave the EU but it makes no difference to the fact we can't exist without it other than to say how Romania remained… Read more »

Did you miss the bit of Ukraine NOT being part of Russia 🙄

Indeed Ukraine in essence existed before Russia it's like the USA claiming Britain as they originally, in part at least came from here. Geez the Southern territories they talk of north and east of the Black Sea was someone else's Country till the 17c the Circassians who surprisingly they eradicated too before stealing their land and of course Crimea which so many say is essentially Russian was actually the home of the Tartars amongst others a few hundred years back. They were finally just sent off to Siberia if they dared complain mind around the same time Stalin murdered 3… Read more »

Da Comrade Ian, a civil war between two countries! Makes total sense!

How's Russia these days, been conscripted yet?

Nice one!👍😀

Good bait. At least I hope it's bait, or you may want to take your meds

Ukraine is strategically positioned. Currently between NATO and Russia's motherland. In essence if Russia conquers Ukraine then NATO is back to having to guard a very long border from the Baltic States down through Poland and the Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, etc. Instead of a border that is now 700-800 miles it would be 2300 miles and open up many opportunities for Russian misadventure/ illegal invasions/ land grabs in the future.

Exactly the tactics and lip smacking desires from that degenerate regime aren't even subtle really, they are pretty much there in neon lights mocking us, just as when Stalin post war threatened a Turkey in similar manner to obtain both new land and equal navigation rights in the Bosporous that instead ironically pushed that Country into NATO. Deja vu all over again as the saying goes, shame Turkey doesn't quite show the gratitude it should perhaps in the circumxtances.

An excellent point Mr Bell. NATO would struggle to deploy sufficient deterrent forces along such a long border.

For much the same reason we objected to Mr Hitler invading other countries even though they didn't match your ridiculously selfish criteria.

That you think it's a "Russian civil war" shows how ignorant your opinion is. Try educating yourself before embarrassing yourself publicly. Your current ‘reasoning’ is identical to that spouted in the anti-vax/flat-earth forums on social media.

Try not to soil your nappy. If you read what I wrote, it says I don't understand why we are getting involved in someone else's war, which incidentally appears to be a view held by a lot of people. As I understand it, we went to war with Hitler because of the Warsaw pact. I did not say I wanted Russia to win, and of course I have every sympathy for Ukraine. We are not the world police

Can't debate so you hurl insults, I’m not surprised. No the view you are spouting is NOT a view held by the majority of people. Polls show the majority of people in all European countries, around 75% support efforts to ensure Ukraine can defence itself. (It's only a widespread view in the conspiracy theory community, who side with Putin. That you use nappy as an insult – conspiracy theorists referred to masks as ‘face nappies’ – confirms my suspicions about you.) You understand wrong. We went to war with Germany because they invaded Poland. The Warsaw Pact wasn't created until… Read more »

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read your post. Can't debate so you throw insults.

I think pointing out that the Warsaw Pact was created 16 years after the invasion of Poland and after WW2 ended pretty much destroys your argument that it was the reason Britain declared war on Nazi Germany. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 But you clearly identify with your wacky ‘facts’ that you believe ridiculing them is ridiculing you. Wrong, but as you ask, you’ve made yourself look ridiculous on this forum by not knowing the difference between the Agreement of Mutual Assistance (1939) between the U.K. and Poland, and the Warsaw Pact (1955) between communist East-European countries. I note you also didn't deny the… Read more »

Spot on as per 👍

If you think Putin can kill UK citizens on UK soil using chemical weapons, nerve agents and radioactive poisons and all is forgiven, if you think that Russia breaking its undertaking on the Budapest Memoradum is reason for Britain to forgo its obligations too, if you believe that Ukraine is part of Russia just because Putin says so, if you think that the current hike in inflation has nothing to do with Putin's war on Ukraine and we can sit here unaffected by a war in a faraway country about which you know little, and if you think that a… Read more »

We went to war with Hitler because of the Warsaw Pact? What? We went to war with Germany as they invaded Poland, which was a "red line" in 39 (with an agreement with Stalin who invaded Poland from the East a short while later)! Warsaw Pact was the Soviet's use of occupied countries in Europe to form a communist buffer and alliance against the west in the 50s. Agreed we are not the world police, but we are also not the world appeasers and push overs, and the rise of the Nazis once more, this time under Putin, means free… Read more »

💯

Well I hope those people are at least trying to educate themselves on the matter. It's not someone else's war, that same argument was used pre WW2 and how naive was that? We did not control events then or indeed now. The problem in Europe is that not one individual Country could itself stand up to Russia so we either live together or die together in the face of a threat. as otherwise we are picked off one at a time which is effectively now the Otomans managed to control those it did not directly conquer one way or the… Read more »

I think we have to be involved as Russia is the enemy of the uk. Russia is proud of being the enemy. Ukraine is asking for our help. It's the right thing to do help someone in need. Ukraine was turning from a Soviet state to a better country and as a UN permanent member, G7 country etc the uk has to support this. The uk, USA and similar thinking countries have to be the world policemen. There is no better alternative just now. It's also about what's right and wrong. Ukraine was invaded and that is unacceptable. The invaders… Read more »

The Warsaw pact came after Hitler at the start of the Cold War, as a counterpoise to the formation of NATO. We went to war with Hitler's Germany because we had a military treaty with Poland. By rights we should have also declared war on Russia. As they invaded Poland from the East in a coordinated attack with Germany. However, realistically in the late 1930's the UK was not in a position militarily to properly go to war. As the UK's manufacturers were not scaled for a war. This was why the PM at the time Chamberlain, signed the non-aggrieved… Read more »

Warsaw pact ?? That had absolutely nothing to do with WW2 . Your sentiments sound very similar to those of a prominent British government who, as Hitler invaded Czecheslovakia described it as ‘ a faraway country about which we know little. ‘

Hitler interpreted that as appeasement and things didn't go well for the world for a number of years after that. Vladimir Putin would approve of your post.

"As I understand it, we went to war with Hitler because of the Warsaw pact."

😳 I’m amazed I just read that Ian….

Ian, if you analysed what others are saying, you’d realise that it's indeed our war. ‘Luckily’ for us, Ukraine is taking the brunt. Rgs

We have to act as part of the ‘world police’, as we are morally upright people and have military resources that can be brought to bear.

Mmm. A few points: Kyiv is a more ancient city than Moscow and was the centre of the KievRussian empire for hundreds of years until the Annexation of the Metropolitanate of Kyiv by the Moscow Patriarch occurred around the end of the 17th century. This was the start of Putin's Greater Tsarist Russia – Ukraine's history and crucially their sense of identity as a people goes back much further. In 2019 the newly formed Ukraine Orthodox church was recognized as independent by the ecumenical meeting of Orthodox churches in Istanbul. Moscow Patriarch Kirill fell out of his pram. This reversed… Read more »

Ian, your comment astounded me. We have never restricted who we support with military resources to those who are members of the Commonwealth or the EU. If you think this is a Russian civil war, you are saying that Ukraine is part of the Russian Federation – its not. We support the underdog who has been bullied or invaded by a neighbour, no matter where that is. We have global vision and a sense of what is morally right.

To put this into perspective, AlJazeera has just broadcast a report from their journalist just outside Soledar on the road to Bahkmut

He reports that he has seen no large scale withdrawal from Soledar, as he spoke outgoing shells were passing over his head, interviews with UkR SF confirmed the western suburbs of Soledar were still in UkR hands, the road behind him was clear

Clearly the Russians are bullshitting about capturing Soledar. Glory to Ukraine

So much blood spilt over such a tiny place. Hopefully many more Russians fall before that strategically useless patch of dirt falls to their human waves

Fields of bodies, telegram has some grim stuff on it.

Hard to feel sorry for Russian fascists

Medical evacuation from soledar shows the destruction. Coming under artillery fire even with a big Red Cross on the side of the M113 https://youtube.com/shorts/6i2aJCvnVxk?feature=share

Yeah that's what most of the Western media already know. Except the Guardian who reported Russia's claim of having taken the town.do wish the Western press would check their facts first before regurgitating some Kremlin BS

Think the contested status may be more down to Ukraine using precision weapons to harry Russian occupation from without the Soledar boundary, though. Like to think Ukraine has sufficient ability to make access to the saltmine tunnels somewhat uncomfortable, despite their acclaimed tourist status!

CNN was in Soledar and said that Ukrainian troops they witnessed moving 4km from the centre of soledar successfully. Just now the western part and the train station hasn't been taken over. Once Russia surrounded soledar on 3 sides taking the high ground around the town it was going to be very difficult to hold onto. I heard there's around 300 civilians that stayed in the town and it is a town not a city. There's another couple of villages that may be at risk. It appears the Russians got into positions before Ukrainian support could arrive in time. It's… Read more »

Soledar is being fought over precisely because the ancient salt tunnels stretch for miles and miles underground in all directions and there are no good maps. They contain huge deep caverns capable of storing vast amounts of ordnance and materiel and provide almost impenetrable air raid shelters/first aid posts/MASH etc The thought does occur that they would also make a good shelter against a 'tactical' nuclear strike. Which may be why Wagner is expending so much blood to control them - it gives the Kremlin the option The Russians have a long history of absorbing blows (think Napoleon, Hitler) learning… Read more »

I agree with not cutting any forces or capabilities until the uk figure out what it wants it's forces to be capable of doing. A lot of nato is looking at the uk to boost there own capabilities and sees the uk riding to the rescue if needed. This has been reinforced by the numerous defence agreements that the government have signed up to. It's time the uk should conduct a full reinforcement practice mission to see how it would play out and where extra work is needed to improve. Say an invasion of Finland, Latvia and Japan at the… Read more »

Well, to some extent, Britmil can deliver the lessons learnt supporting a similar number of Chally2 platforms in Estonia, they’ve been there a few years now so must have had some issues and although not in an actual, given all the exercises posted on Facebook, they have had a demanding time.

How quickly we’ve forgotten the discussions about the obsolescence of MBT's due to their vulnerability to MANPAD's& UAV's ? But not OUR C2's and others’ Leo's ! Yes I know about better tactics but how can we fare any better ?

If used badly all modern Tanks are not invulnerable – as Turkey found out in Northern Syria,but hopefully Western Training,Equipmment and Tactics would mitigate threats from UAV’S and ATGW's etc.

Seem here there are a lot of ignorance what is the armour of a tank…regardless of model.

No tank resists an heavy ATGM from the back or from the side unless have APS. And from a tank round there was never any war case.

So if a company of T-62 surprises 10 Challenger 2 from their rear. Kaput Challenger 2.

Tactical failures can and do happen, the fog of war doesn't always work in your favour, as was the case with Cojone's eh!.

Let's expand on your theory, said company of T62s would have had to come through the Ukr mainline of defence virtually unscathed! Not very likely is it on the Orcs outstanding ability to not penetrate a line of defence! Then said company would have to sneak up on the Ukr tanks and catch them unprepared,not likely as they would know of any breakthrough that happened and any supporting infantry and tanks would be more than ready for them! Still probably looked good in your tank warfare game didn't it?

You really don't have clue what is war Jacko. For you one side don't mess up and is all perfect. Do i need to remind you of the mistakes in land combat in Falklands starting with troops stuck in landing ships?

I was not saying that we do not make mistakes! However if you think that the Orcs in this war are capable of the scenario you painted you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Alexs wrote"you really don't have clue what war is Jacko" well Napoleon let's have a little review.After spending16yrs in the British Army in the service of HM the Queen being taught how to kill her enemies I just might have grasped the basics don't you think? Your turn,what service if any gives you the insight too come on here and constantly criticise us and our kit? Shall I hold my breath waiting for your answer or will you ignore the question again? Over to you!

Does the Army Catering Corps count as service to HM or service to HM's enemies?

(Breathe!)

🙂

😄yep he hit a nerve but hay ho he has proven himself to be a nob👍

Deleted

Got the email though you wanker

Since my childhood reading about wars.

I had a brief moment in the army of my country but i did not liked it – Too much what you English call "civil service" in a desk -so i did not went professional.

Just reading about WW2 war in the desert will let you have bigger horizons Jack. It will tell you that even if you do everything right – or by the book which is not the same thing – it can end badly.

About right then a book warrior🙄😂nobber

But hence combined arms, as you know, AS. IFVs, of course, but also aircraft and missiles.

Russian MBTs were decimated because • the Russians have hilarious tactics, operating them alone without infantry or air support • the hilarious flying turret design flaw in most Russian tanks • the Ukrainians had NLAW and Javelin

Initiatives such as Operation Orbital etc, are bearing fruit, the Ukrainian regular army is much better trained tactically. No similar design flaws exist in Western MBTs. The armour of Western MBTs is also far better than that on Russian tanks. The Russians don't have such effective man portable weapons as NLAW or Javelin.

You’re not comparing like for like situations.

MANPADS are generally dangerous to flying things mate (although agreed Starstreak and CAAM do have an excellent AT capability). As for obsolescence of tanks, never, as TTPs are developed to counter new and up and coming threats. The main issue with the Russian losses of AFVs was their incompetence and absolute lack of joint training and combined arms warfare! Just because a platform faces new challenges we don't get rid of that platform, it develops. Cheers.

Yellow carded. To those who haven't served, I think we need to explain acronyms. Eg TTP = tactics, techniques and procedures. Totally agree though mate. I think the Russian loses are particularly due to their methods and planning of exercises. Which then leads on to how they perform tactically when in a real fight. Have they actually trained against an opposing force that uses NATO tactics? Which is what they have been facing in Ukraine. I certainly know that I trained against numerous other countries as either blue or red. That used tactics from the Warsaw Pact field book. Never… Read more »

Do you think the dismounted soldier is obsolescent, because someone invented the rifle, MG, grenade, artillery fire…

With so few thanks in stock and they will give them to Ukraine, they lost the mind. With defence budget as usual overstreched think about improve the armed forces instead to give weapons to other country. They,re crazy.

This is all quite fascinating. Where does one draw the line between MBT and fighter jet? What comes after the big tanks arrive? Lots of disaffection towards the C3. Why is this? If the C2 is undefeated and proven in battle then surely that's a proper base for a tank. Has this Korean tank been battle tested and how is it better than the C3? I wait with baited breath for A, footage of C2 in action and B, if this ever sees the light of day. Let's hope we can successfully train Ukrainians whose second language is (possibly) English… Read more »

C2 never faced peer enemy.

Tell me any modern tank that has faced a ‘peer’’ enemy lately? The tank engagements in the Ukraine at the moment like for like soviet era tanks.

M1(US, Iraq), Leopards(Turkish) , Merkavas all were hit by heavy ATGW. In general terms M1 and Merkavas proved. The older Leopards did not.

I don't know if Saudi Leclercs were hit.

Ah well you said peer enemy suggesting tank on tank not anti tank weapons. I suggest you do a bit of research and find out how many hits a CR2 took in GW2 and survived with no breach to the tank only the optics damaged!

Oh i forgot in Iraq one Challenger 2 was penetrated in frontal arc by an RPG and the driver was injured. But i don't call that an heavy ATGM. Report by Daily Telegraph Defense Correspondent Sean Rayment: "MOD Kept Failure of Best Tank Quiet" Sunday Telegraph 13 May 2007 One of the British Army's Challenger 2 tanks was pierced by an Iraqi insurgent missile more than eight months earlier than the Government has previously admitted. The Ministry of Defence had claimed that an attack last month that breached a tank's armour was the first of its kind in four years of war… Read more »

A tank from the Scots DG on the 30 march 2003 was hit by Rpg,s and aTOW atgm and the tank armour was not penetrated! It was back in action two days later with new tracks,wheels and optics! On 6 April anther tank was hit on the front ERA blocks by a 100mm round fired by a T55 at virtually point blank range again no penetration of the hull occurred! Does the above meet your criteria?

That was a very lucky shot – the tank exposed its thin-ish belly plate when cresting. Very quick uparmouring happened.

UAE Leclercs suffered Battle damage while operating in Yemen,the Saudi's don't operate them.

Thanks Paul T. for the correction.

👍

CR2 has not had a serious upgrade since first fielded from 1998 – even if it does well in UKR against poorly commanded, old Russian kit, it still needs to be upgraded (hence the CR3 programme). Why is everyone forgetting training the UKR maintainers? That is a far harder and lengthy task than training crew.

According to the Telegraph, we are also giving 30 x AS90 self-propelled guns. Does HMG have a plan to replace army stocks of such weapons? 148 Challenger 3s is paltry number (if anything, Ukraine has shown that the modern battlefield chews through armour!). Second, I understand we only have ~ 90 AS90s to begin with – even if it is rather long-in-the-tooth these days. Is the MLRS purchase suppose to replace AS90? I have no problem gifting kit to Ukraine but when we have precious little to begin with, one would think there should be a plan in place to… Read more »

What MLRS purchase?

A mix of refurbished and new it look like:

https://www.army-technology.com/features/uk-seeking-to-double-m270-mlrs-fleet/

Future Soldier planned to expand MLRS numbers to 44, apparently now they are looking at 60 plus.

Our sole MLRS Regiment is being joined by a 2nd, by converting it from Light Gun.

Expansion from 6 batteries ( 2 per regiment, plus 2 reserve ) to 8 or more.

Whether a 3rd reg will form I’m unsure if if they will just expand the battery number in the 2 regular regiments I’m unsure.

We original purchased 170 AS90. maybe some of the 30 being sent are set in reserve ?

No doubt, considering there are 3 regiments left reducing to 2. That original purchase furnished 6 regiments. 1 was cut when a19 Mech Bde was reformed into 19 Light Brigade, and 2 others went in the 2010 SDSR. There will be spare.

"Is the MLRS purchase suppose to replace AS90?"

One of the current AS90 regiments has already converted, or is in the process of doing so, to MLRS, as the AS90 regs reduce to 2.

A 2nd Regiment is forming by converting a Light Gun Regiment.

Any future MLRS purchase is on top of the current 44 which form 4 Fire Batteries in those 2 regiments.

We bought 179 AS90 and fielded them from 1992 when the army was a fairly decent size. Since then the army has been reduced in size several times over so we don't need 189. In fact many were taken out of service in the 2010 defence review. I think we have around 117 in service now, but stand to be corrected. So, we will not replace those 30.

I would gift Ukraine all AS90, CR2, warriors and the whole heavy armour tracked fleet and start again with an immediate £20bn order to create a new fleet of SEP tracked and wheeled vehicles and increase in boxer tracked/wheels. secondly, we need a ballistic missile defence system as a priority, especially whilst our armour capability is gapped. I know this is unpopular, but it also starts the regeneration of an army that has consistently wasted money and is now relatively small. what exactly will we do with a heavy armour brigade that our NATO partners can't do? are we better… Read more »

Just been reading an article from Phil Cardy Mirror 14 Jan that not only are we sending Ch2s As-90s but also 4 Apache AH64 Es. I know that not many but we do seem to be stepping up our support.

There's no way we’ll send any apaches

I could see us sending some AH1s, given that they were due to be retired over the next couple of years anyway as the AH64Es come on stream.

The US will not allow you to send their Apaches anywhere.

Please USA pee on me mmmmmm warm and wet, you are sooooo sexy….Fanboy fetish!

Hahaha. The requests a trump special 😂😂😂😂

The Mirror…🙄

Rest easy,

https://defence-blog.com/uk-denies-media-report-it-plans-to-supply-apache-helicopters-to-ukraine/

Why is everyone poo pooing this, remember General Melchett's advice. My advanced math skills tell me that only a portion of C2s are going for C3 treatment. That means a fair few are left gathering dust. Why not use them? The ammo for our much ridiculed but highly effective rifled guns also destined to be gathering dust. Why not use them? I’m sure we are all aware of the West vs Soviet MBT doctrine. I’m sure we can all appreciate the appetite for Ukraine to train and deploy West MBTs. Highly motivated, well maintained, righteous of purpose. Ukraine is already… Read more »

I think personally some of us are missing the points with this decision to give challys! Im thinking along the lines of: 1. An opportunity to good to miss to give the tough as old boots Chally a real test of its protective capability, and picking up any changes to spec for Chally 3. 2. If goes well, more can be deployed, along with CHARRV and logistics (barrels and ammunition to be sure, probably quite a bit getting out of date in storage?). 3. The political "push" other European leaders may be nervous to commit to, in regard to upping… Read more »

Invest £7-8bn per year into mass producing war materials including re-starting tank production. All of this can go into replenishing the stocks we’ve donated and supplying Ukraine. In order to get the money quickly it would have to be borrowed. But make the foreign aid budget responsible for interest & repayments. Foreign aid projects will then have time to wind down in a controlled manner.

Beyond parody. We have more CR 2's in storage than serving so send him the bloody lot!

As is usual with the UK, we stumble into major wars with what we have got in terms of capability. Regardless of what Sunak or Capt Mainwaring say, we are involved with WW3 already – this is now the defining conflict of the century The best thing we can do is to rapidly re-equip the Army with CH3, Archer, and re-establish four regiments of infantry. The RAF needs more F35B pilots and more airworthy Typhoons. The Navy should find a way to squeeze another Astute into the program – whilst we still have access to the American CAD team. We… Read more »

Hey, I really enjoyed my tours in Belize!

Personally, if I was the Ukrainian General Staff I’d try to form an assault brigade out of what's being given. The core would be the Chally's plus some Ukrainian T-?? tanks to beef up armour levels (Challys could provide targeting info and overwatch more than leading the attack as only smally numbers of them). Then add in some AMX 10RC's , Marders (maybe Bradleys), 155mm SP's and AA assets (Gepard + missiles eg Stormer Starstreak etcetc). Plus some other assets comms, engineering etc. This may tip the fight at the local level (and both protect the Chally's and act as… Read more »

Breaking News.

Britain will send a squadron of 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to help counter Russia's invasion "in the coming weeks", Downing Street says.

LINK

Hopefully the MOD and media don't broadcast how, when and where they’re going! Let their 120mm do the taking on the battlefield! Hope there's good Stormer HVM and anti-drone cover for these CH3s in the field. Others have mentioned this before. Wonder if now is a really prudent time to upgrade a larger quantity of CH3s for the Army, up to 200-220? Keep the rest for spares and Ukraine.

*taking and talking!

Not been involved in mod for a few years but people I used to work dont say too much but do say theirs things happening quietly in background about refurbishment, rearming of specific types. Looking for spare hulls quietly to increase certain things and speedng it up. Ones even worked on Jordanian Challies, couldn't be pulled into saying I’d their was any chance of a buyback. Hopefully this govt has realised oh flip and seriously looks into ordering what's needed for future, bcoz we all know it's not this war that counts but the next one when it follows. Been… Read more »

Jordan has almost 400 Challenger 1s which will replaced by Leclercs. I think 200 or so have already been retired. Would a buyback possibly make sense…fit a new turret and smoothbore 120mm to make a C 2.5?

CR1 hull and CR2 haven't a lot in common. However the turret going on CR3 is supposed to be able to fit other tanks as a drop in unit! So MAYBE there could be some mileage in your suggestion👍

It was just a thought. Germany is now saying they cannot deliver the Leopards that Ukraine want ( 300 I think they said) before 2024. The US is never going to donate M1 Abrams and the French have played their hand, so that leaves ourselves. If we pulled our finger out couldn't we spare 50 CR2s? : used wisely they could prove decisive in a spring offensive. Meanwhile buy back 150-200 CR1s, fit them with the proposed CR3 turret and gun and bolt on some reactive armour and you’ve rebuilt our MBT fleet for a bargain price and created lots… Read more »

14 CR2's is fine ( plus AS90's by sounds). The real question is the pathetic German position. They have 350 Leopard 2's (??) and can't provide any – get serious. And as for the 2024 remark – nonsense. They could provide tanks today to Ukraine from Germany Army stocks and get those owned by Rheinmetall reburbished over the next year to backfill. Smokescreen comments prior to upcoming NAYO meeting to justify doing nothing. Disgraceful.

Jordan has Challenger 1s, whilst Oman has Challenger 2s.

Late sky news last night 14 CH2s for Ukraine but shock to see 30 AS90s we are really emptying the shed ,sad thing is no replacements 😕

The army plans to reduce to 2 regiments of AS90/

Going forward the replacement is the FMF platform. This may be 3 regiments worth if 7 LMB gets any. How many AS90 would you like? Those regiments need to equip 6 batteries ( 3 per reg ) and a reserve plus some for training at 14 RA at Larkhill.

There will be spare AS90 just like there are spare Tanks.

I’d prefer 3 regs of AS90 and 3 of Tanks as current but as things stand both are reducing.

The AS90 is no longer relevant and really has never been a good option. And there is a reason no one on the planet uses a rifled 120 mm rifled weapon. There's also a reason no one makes ammunition for it anymore. It's more bespoke UK stuff that has drifted into oblivion. But yes it is a great political message to get the Germans off their ass or perhaps the French. Although they don't have anything to send anyway.

Yaaaaawn, you get so anti, so angry, it's so cute!

Ok serious question, please identify your country of origin so we can discuss the merits of each other's worth in regard to defence, NATO contribution and other important matters………no thought you wouldn't!

Funny isn't it the brave heart turrets on the Ukr krabs are basically a AS90 turret! Seems to be working ok doesn't it?

Are you saying the Polish Krabs is a valid candidate to replace AS90?

No mate but as usual the ‘experts’ are quick to criticise our kit! Just pointing out the Krab has a AS90 turret in all but name and it looks like it works👍

Yes, I agree people are too quick to run our kit down. Just asking. Speaking as a layman I get the impression its a buyers market when it comes to 155mm 52 calibre tracked self propelled artillery. They all look the same to me. I would just buy the cheapest.

I think the Ukrainians know more about what's relevant than you do. You wouldn't know a good option from a hole in the ground.

AS90 has a 155m gun ?

Don't need replacements – they were surplus to our army ORBAT.

Whilst this is a small number of tanks it could be used to provide to covering force from the threat of invasion from Belarus, this could mean being deployed north of Lviv and close to the Polish border for fixing etc, I would go further and donate up to 50 warrior ivf as well to create a mech battalion with a As90 in support, this would free up Ukraine assets to be deployed further east.

I did have similar thoughts in regards to deployment mate 👍

I assume these are the 14 tanks already in Poland, so your thinking makes sense. https://defence-blog.com/british-challenger-2-tanks-arrive-in-poland/

No, those were deployed for the BA's eFP role ages ago.

I think its’ fairly obvious this is squadron of Challenger 2's is mostly tokenistic, and isn't intended to change the situation much on the ground, as the mix between limited ammunition, at best poorly trained Ukrainian tank crews, and very small number of vehicles will only be tactical advantage (if used properly) in a specific location. However, there are some major points to all this, first and most obviously is that this is once again the UK trying encourage (successfully) other parties to ‘tool up’ and send the Ukrainian army desperately needed heavy vehicles, MBTs in particular. Separately, and in… Read more »

BELFAST — A top UK military leader revealed this week that operational analysis of the Ukraine war led the British Army to feel "very uncomfortable" with aspects of its Future Soldier modernization program.

Lt. Gen. Sharon Nesmith, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, said the Eastern European conflict had in "the first instance" caused the army to reconsider how to address air defense, uncrewed systems, deep fires and intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability gaps.

From Breaking Defense website.

The most worrying revelation in that speech was the delay to FOC of Boxer. This was one vehicle contract that appeared to have avoided the problems of Ajax and Warrior. No further details given but if accurate must mean Warrior, unmodernized, will remain in service for years longer than planned.

Boxer was not just replacing Warrior,of course – that was a very late decision in the Boxer programme. We will have 432 soldiering on into its seventh decade!

10 tanks isn't going to do much of anything. And just wait till one of their gets destroyed but a mine, or top attack missile. Russia will milk that for all it's worth.

Please re type in English cheers.

Please re type in a language that is not angry old man. Cheers!

Very strange effort at distraction. I ask you a question on your own account and you post a sad distraction comment on another's! Did you find the socks again? Oh dear US fan boy time.

What is the status of training of Ukrainian air force as per Congressional appropriations few months ago. Which airframe have they been trained on, and is it reasonable to assume that the tanks being sent to Ukraine will be accompanied by F16 etc?

Who is it that thinks the British Army (sorry, enlarged Corps) can do without tanks? Is it Whitehall or another idiot sitting in Army HQ? If anything, Ukraine has proved the days of the tankare not over. When you hear the debate about Switzerland and Germany not allowing specific equipment to be allowed to go to Ukraine (forget whether Ukraine could even get them to the front) and our own issue with the US blocking particular UK-made kit being sold as per British spec, it tells you we must be making our own tanks and in a decent number. We… Read more »

Great post. I too feel that our army is very small and equipped with a lot of aged and unmodernised kit. Equipment replacement plans are usually hopeless – contrast to the navy which is always planning the frigate after the next frigate – amazing! Having said that, we can spare 14 tanks and 30 AS90s – it is not as if these are coming from our operational units – they are surplus, such surpluses arising from all the defence cuts the army has exprienced in the last 30-40 years. We bought 386 CR2s and 179 AS90s way back in the… Read more »

A real pity that the Chally 2 never won more export orders, so there wasn't sufficient numbers being consistently produced to ensure continuous upgrade and evolution.

Nothing inherently wrong with Challenger 2 per se,it did undertake several unsuccessful trials with different countries,but mainly it was offered to the world after Germany reaped it's Peace Dividend and dumped most of their Leopard 2's onto the market at favourable prices.With the US M1 also snapping at it's heels a very modest 38 ( in 2 batches ) was the best it could achieve.

The timing was a problem. Not many nations required new, high-end tanks in the period from 1998 and a few years thereafter. Also, I am sure Abrams and Leo2 were cheaper. Also, Security was an issue with CR2 as well, although I hear that the US supplied a less well armoured version of M1 to export customers, so maybe we could have done the same?

That is an issue, if we create high end technology but are afraid to sell it for fear that others will be able to access the technology, then we end up with very small runs that are cost prohibitive to upgrade. We also lose the manufacturing base and then end up buying from competitors

Need to select the lesser of all evils.

Thats hitting the nail on the head.

The only option seems to be creating good but very different lower tech PV tanks for export as Vickers did (1965-2008) with their Vickers Mk1, 2, 3, 4, 7 tanks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_MBT

…or producing lower tech/less classified export versions of the same tank the British Army has ie a Challenger 2 (Export version).

Mike, This does not explain the reason why we have not seriously upgraded CR2, AS90 or Warrior.

A little off topic, but can anyone explain why Russia has a very large private army? As far as I am aware, despite various private military contractors existing around the globe, there is no other nation that has one so large and more effective than its national army at fighting a large conventional land war. Has China, the US or any European nation got a huge well armed private army that I just haven't heard about? And I guess to perhaps a lesser extent, but was the Ukrainian Azov battalion not initially at least something of a private army or… Read more »

Russia is late to the Private Army game – the US has Blackwater for example ,can't say ive heard of anything similar in China or Europe – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(company)

I see Paul. Impressive that they even appear to have an aircraft. But I’m not sure they’re on the scale of Wagner with reportedly 10’000 employees (plus apparently 20’000 plus convicts). But would the US use Blackwater in a conventional land war?

Blackwater are now constellis. They essentially do all sorts of risk management, security and training work. They even operate a ship with a fight deck and have a company that manufactures armoured cars.

But they are not really a conventional war type organisation, they do high end high risk security, training, rescue, disaster management and that sort of thing.

Interestingly Blackwater are now part of constellis, which is a very large risk management company indeed ( they call themselves a risk management company). They even have their own ship, with a fight deck, 14,000 employees. Big old security company.

I thought Blackwater (which has changed its name at least twice) majored on delivering training and guarding VIPs and HQs – but was not a deployable combat entity.

Azov started as avolunteer group in May 2014 out of the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine and the neo-Nazi Social National Assembly (SNA) group and was formed in Mariupol. Initially they were funded by Oligarch Andriy Biletsky. The group fought on the front lines against pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk. In 2015 funding was taken over by the Government and they were incorporated into the Ukrainian Army but remained virtually their own boss. Their ideology is based on Ukrainian ultranationalism and they are often defined by the media as neo-Nazis or extreme right-wingers. In this way, its ensign composed of a Wolfsangel… Read more »

Hence is this why Putin thinks all Ukrainians (including their Jewish president) are Nazis!

its a token to ukraine, for we wouldn't want Europe to say that UK didn't do much. The world knows that after 1 year occupying 20% Ukraine, the US and Collective West cannot do much to change the tide, needles to talk about Crimea, even the DOnass region is occupied now eventhough US & NATO has been planning and preparing since 2014. 8 years of planning and support and weapons and aids, still leads to Ukraine loosing more territories so right now we can say that the COllective West has lost the war with RUssia … what a pity ehhh

This article in my opinion shows the advantage of developing and manufacturing your own equipment, if we had bought Leo or Abrahms we would be in the same boat as Poland etc ie willing but unable , we could donate Lynx but not Apache and so on. I think we must seek to be self sufficient where possible or cooperate with like minded nations Poland seems very reliable and I’m sure Ukraine will need to bring its entire military into the 21st century. I would invite them into the CAMM missile program ASAP as with ecomony of scale this would… Read more »

Another reason not to ‘buy American’ is the ITAR regulations.

Giving away a finite resource of MBTs is rank stupidity. It's not as if we have a tank manufacturing facility ready and waiting to churn out more, in the very real event we need to rearm quickly. Let the Germans supply Poland with Leopards. They still have a tank factory’ Sir Winston must be turning in his grave. I bet his ghost is stalking the corridors of Whitehall, stomping waste paper bins in the wee hours.

George, we are giving away just 14 of the 386 that were built – only 227 of those 386 are still needed by the British Army. We can spare them. They will do a good job destroying our enemy's tanks, which is what they were built for. Sir Winston will be well pleased that the kit we donate to an ally is destroying our mutual enemy's military capability – he gifted military kit to allies.

" … only 227 of those 386 are still needed by the British Army." This is where we disagree. It takes a matter of months to train new crew members but decades to build factories and new tank hulls. The world has not been this volatile since the 1960s. God forbid, but should we find ourselves on the brink of a major world war. Every military asset will be of significant importance. None more so than MBTs. 386 is way too few but better than 227. Who is to say Russia will be our enemy in any coming war within… Read more »

George, I joined the army when we had 900 Chieftains but we required that number for the Cold War. Fast forward through the CR1 era… In June 1991, the MoD placed an order for 140 CR2s, with a further quantity ordered in 1994. Total 386, which was deemed to be sufficient for the post-Cold War British Army (BA). Cameron's Defence Review of 2010 in the wake of the global financial crisis, cut the tank fleet to 227 (and cut elsewhere savagely including AS90, thousands of soldiers and the Harriers and Invincible-class carriers). So perhaps I should have said that the… Read more »

This is thought to be the list.

Full Package of assistance to Kiev from UK:

Challenger 2 tank company Bulldog armored personnel carriers 8 AS90 guns Dozens of drones 100,000 artillery shells 100 advanced missiles Spare parts for servicing Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles

Its not 8 AS90 its actually 30, Parliment knocked out this document regards aid in Dec 2022

I see that top brass recognises the negative impact on uk forces of sending kit to Ukraine.

I wonder if this was part of the long game, send kit and have increased strength in argument for new kit.

it would be good if uk could establish itself in tank making and sales, stopping Germany making profits wHistory not pulling its weight / stopping others helping

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64294635

TBH, the Army top brass are partly to blame for this situation as they have happily lurched from one plan to another over the last twenty years.

Mike wrote:

""I see that top brass recognises the negative impact on uk forces of sending kit to Ukraine.""

On the 12th of Dec Parliment published Military assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion

You might find the following page out of it interesting

I did not think I would criticise CGS but the army is not made weaker if the donated equipment is not coming from the active list, ie the army has an active list of 227 CR2s out of the 386 that were initially bought.14 CR2s coming from the inactive aka ‘retired’ list is not an issue – it saves us the cost of storing them.

What would be an issue is if spare parts or ammunition destined for BA units or MoD warehouses went instead to UKR units.

To put into context the numbers being bandied around re NATO tanks, it is estimated that Russia is able to manufacture up to 250 new tanks a year, the output for last year was 200 but much of that was before they started 3 shift operation. In addition, they are capable of refurbishing and updating another 500+ older tanks from the thousands they have in store..

That's nearly 5 new tanks a week. what are losses like?

That's what your masters say. The reality is somewhat different…

JIMK wrote: ""To put into context the numbers being bandied around re NATO tanks, it is estimated that Russia is able to manufacture up to 250 new tanks a year, the output for last year was 200 "" from the Russian Independent Newspaper Novaya Gazeta Europe based in Moscow and published 2nd Nov 2022: The barren barrelsRussia's military industry has all sorts of problems: there are barely any details for tanks, aircraft electronics and newest missiles are in short supply Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and currently the deputy chairman of the Security Council inspected Uralvagonzavod, one of Russia's leading military production facilities,… Read more »

Part 2 However, even in the tank industry, the instructions from the highest management cannot be executed immediately. "Everyone was unprepared for a war. Launching any sort of production requires time. First and foremost, all suppliers, selectors and allied manufacturers should be dealt with," the Rostec employee says. "Producing tanks requires metal, guns, engines, electronics, communication devices and all sorts of other complex mechanisms and integral units. All those things were purchased based on the actual contracts and cannot be acquired in a snap of a finger. There were no stocks, too; we have a lean manufacturing policy. … Read more »

Unable to post more as I keep getting sent to spam. do a google on the title, I will post the link next, but that may also get sent to spam

Link for the above post

Where are these 200+ New T90M/armata tanks? We are nearly a year into the conflict so surely we should be seeing this effort in Russian new vehicles on the battlefield. I would say what is possible is 200 for all armoured vehicles not just tanks. These 1000s of vehicles stored are mostly in bad material state. Kept outside in sub zero winter and hot summers weather for 30 years. A major issue found was the wiring had gone from lots along with some other parts that could be stripped and sold easily. Russia took 1000s off the books in the… Read more »

MS wrote:

Where are these 200+ New T90M/armata tanks? We are nearly a year into the conflict so surely we should be seeing this effort in Russian new vehicles on the battlefield.

Moscow has deployed a sizeable amount of new armour to the north east of the Ukraine around Svatove where Kyiv has been making gains.Jacko below has posted a link to one such T90M which was knocked out at Kuzemivka by a bog standard Swedish AT4 ATM. The Ukraine has also captured a number of T90Ms in the region this past week.

That guy also needs to stay away from proferred cups of tea.

I also heard that a few hundred convicts had been released from prison to go into the factories to help make tanks – the sort of thing Albert Speer did.