Squadron of British tanks arrive in Poland to deter Russia

Yeah marketing thanks to his wife’s father at that.

Im glad otheres recognise him for the abolute charlatan he was – complete tosser was ‘call me Dave’ Cameron.

Since when there have been performances of T72 vs Challenger in any way relevant besides anecdotal small data sample?

Challenger2 have never been in any meaningful combat.

Right so you are forgetting Gulf war 1 in which the CH1 took out many T72’s and also broke the world record for the longest tank kill , CH2 took out a squadron of iraq T72’s in the Iraq war all of which no loses in both wars in fact CH1,2 has the best combat record and the T72 half the size of CH2 because for one the CH2 has protected ammo compartment, something the T72 does not have, hence they cook and launch their turrets on every time they get hit, add Dorchester armor to the CH2 , its a far superior tank even to modern T72,80, Alexski you clearly out of your depth of knowledge you are coming across as a 11 year old looking at top trumps cards lol.

Agreed, another chip on his/it’s shoulder handbag swinger 👍

Alex, you’re either trolling or massively ignorant, either way it’s not a good look for you.

During the Iraq war the Challenger 2 suffered no enemy losses, surviving multiple attacks that the Ukraine war has proven would have been total losses had the tank been the T72.

Only one Challenger 2 has been lost in combat and that was a blue on blue where another Challenger 2 mistakenly attacked it.

On one occasion a Challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPGs and a Milan anti-tank missile and survived. It was repaired and back in service 6 hours later. On another occasion a Challenger 2 was hit with 70, yes 70 RPGs and survived.

Caught troll plays the racist card!!!!

How is that racist? Asking you which country you are from, it’s more nationalistic than race! Grow up and learn about racism before throwing that pathetic card into the ring!

Oops again you seem to be confused, where did I say it’s amazing, I spoke about HESH and your lack of subject matter knowledge! Come on do try to keep up and stop the useless deflection answers when you know your wrong and not current!

Keep up you muppet Chally 3 will have the standard nato calibre gun🙄 but of course you knew that didn’t you? As for pissing away money pray tell us your solution to our tank procurement?
Mind you you will probably bang on about Leopards or M1 both tanks that their respective nations are working on replacing in the next 10/20 years won’t you.

Like I said we have more capabilities than Poland, which suck up funds, and which are seen second only to the US. Should we spend more, more wisely for sure! Do we have depth and sustainability, nope! Do we all know this but unable to change this, until our elected morons also see and understand it yep! There is one factor which few European NATO members also match and that’s the willingness to use the available kit and people and the preparedness and understanding that we will accept losses of both while doing it!

Capable of reading but clearly not capable of understanding wider context. Most other people here have agreed that the Challengers are more than capable of combating superior numbers of inferior Russian tanks.
I’m guessing you peeled spuds?

Sean, peeling spuds was not part of my Sandhurst course. I served 34 years in REME, got a degree in mechanical engineering on a vehicles-orientated course, did 4 postings to BAOR/BFG working with armour and was an Equipment Support Manager in Tank Systems IPT in Andover. In my civilian career I worked on armour projects for Abbey Wood and worked on CR2 LEP for Rheinmetall. Please remind me of your military background.

The point I have made and others have too is that 14 tanks is a small number to deploy to Poland (who I understand are sending perhaps 200 T-72s to Poland). Of course even largely unmodernised CR2s will be very effective against Russian tanks of similar or older vintage – kill ratios in the Gulf Wars were very impressive. However ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’ and we are meant to be ‘global Britain’ which requires an impressive capability for deploying kit overseas – I am not impressed by the sending of just 14 tanks, even if you are.

Perhaps you are one of those who are content that we are downsizing our tank fleet over the next few years and that the army manpower is being cut too – so long as we have quality kit even if it is old and unmodernised? Armoured warfare needs mass – and we have too little of it.

Agree. Wallace did make a good point during the Defence Committee questions though. When asked about mass? His response was, is it better to have something that looks good on a parade or something that can protect itself? This I believe was him alluding to having a smaller force, but with a better means to protect itself against, the same type of attacks Ukraine inflicted on the Russian masses.

He did list off quite a few as he saw it clear deficits with the Army. Which were GBAD, ISTAR, EW and deep fires.

What has not seen yet, is any theatre entry kit that has gone with the Sqn. I always think Challys look naked without it. But the one’s in Estonia are still diving around without it. I guess as soon as its fitted you know something is going to kick off!

Thanks Davey. I like and respect Wallace – he served for 7 years and got a MiD for an excellent job leading a patrol that captured an entire Provo ASU in NI.

I remember hearing ‘we will have a smaller but better army’ from Options for Change onwards. It began to grate quite quickly over the years.

Certainly the army has those deficits that you mention, ranging from equipment that has aged but not been upgraded to outright capability gaps.
I agree that it is interesting the TES kit has not been fitted – maybe that would send a too provocative signal. You are surely right to say it would be a combat indicator for TTW.

There are those who think sending a single sqn to Poland is ‘small beer’ and those who consider that is a good amount given the quality of our tank and crews. Fair enough for disparate views – I am more of a glass half empty man, clearly.

I fully accept we do not stand alone and that we have made eFP contributions to deterrence in Poland, and more so in Estonia. But we have a small army which keeps getting smaller (the Tories said it would not fall below 82,500 several times in the last few years – then carved out another 10,000 regardless.)

I don’t disagree. I just can’t see with the way things are currently, that the UK will be getting a larger Army during peacetime. Unless Russia becomes an real existential threat to NATO again as per the Cold War. It seems we have become too expensive to have in numbers. Yet it is always the “manpower” element of the Army, that continuously punches above its weight. For the Army to grow, there needs to be political will coupled with a vision. This could change, depending on gets to PM in a few months time.

Although the sending of one Chally Sqn to Poland sounds like small fry. It is a token effort, but it is still shows willingness to support our NATO allies. Specifically, so that they can support Ukraine with a donation of their older T72s. With the main force deployed in Estonia. It will be interesting to see how long they will be there, before being rotated? Will the Army keep the assets in-country and just rotate regiments? Which makes more financial sense, rather than looking at rotating a whole regiments assets via road, rail and sea.

Thanks Davey. I like all your comments. One of my concerns is that the army can do less as time goes by – the army could not now do an enduring brigade+ size operation such as Op HERRICK, Afghanistan, without the addition of the whole of 3 Cdo Bde and/or at least 6,000 Army Reserve soldiers.

General Sanders, new CGS, talked of this being our ‘1937 moment’ however by 1937 we had been rearming for around 3 years and still had 2 more years grace to get fully up to strength and to modernise equipment. We won’t have 5 years next time to get ready for major continental warfare.
Many commentators from Gen Dannatt downwards state that we could not deploy a full-size (three-brigade) warfighting division with top-flight kit.

I agree that it is interesting to ponder as to how long the Chally sqn in Poland will be there – and for that matter all our eFP troops in both Poland and Estonia, which has already been rotated (sort of). You do not move heavy equipment around without good reason. The kit will stay in-country for as long as it is needed there – and just the troops will rotate – the norm is every 6 months.

You’re more than welcome. For me, part of the problem is the reserve, or lack there of. The UK’s reserve of men and material is too small. I think this is something that the DS should be seriously looking at, especially in the current climate. Fine if we have a small “fully equipped force”. But and its a huge but. If we face the same levels of attrition and casualties that Ukraine has been sustaining, even as part of a larger NATO force. Our Army would be combat ineffective within 6 weeks. We simply could not sustain suffering 500 casualties a day. This would be 22,500 casualties over a 45 day period. Which would be pretty close to the majority of the 1st line troops in the Army we have. Who replaces them?

When the CGS said this is our 1937 moment and that we need the Army to mobilise. I fully expected him to mention the reserves, but so far he hasn’t! As Lord Dannatt has stated, Russia has reverted to type, which is an attritional war, that favours their use of overwhelming fire power, through concentrated artillery. To beat this on the ground, you need to diminish their fire power through strikes on their ammunition supplies and logistics. Which means Ukraine need accurate intelligence. From either covert agents, special forces or ISTAR and UAV reconnaissance assets.

Giving Ukriane the PZH2000, CAESAR, HIMARS and M270 MLRS will help to address some of their shortfall. Especially when fed information on Russian ammunition stockpile or battery locations. As I believe, these assets can make better use of time on target and shoot and scoot coordinated tactics. But they are still out matched by Russian artillery by around 8 to 1. According to some reports, 1/3 of the M777s already sent and are in-country are either destroyed or damaged. They don’t have a means currently of repairing the guns. It seems people have forgotten to set up the maintenance of the guns. Which is just as important as getting the guns in to theatre.

I don’t believe Russia are stupid enough to to start something with NATO. But then again everyone said, prior to them stepping over the border in February, it was all just sabre rattling!

Thanks Davey, I would very much hope that we would not handle our ‘invasion’ as badly as the Russians and would wring more out of our air force such that they not only achieved air superiority very quickly but also started to ‘attrit’ enemy second echelon forces – and that we would handle armour within a combined arms battle with our infantry suppressing Infantry-operated anti tank weapons. However it is wise to ponder on our ability to weather a long high intensity conflict that is less manouevrist than we would like.

Much greater minds than mine have suggeested that we could not currently deploy a ‘well swept up’ warfighting division, meaning a div of three bdes with modernised kit, much if not all of it digitised, and with ample CS and CSS. Probably we could manage to deploy one or two BCTs. Being optimistic, as I am usually panned for being pessimistic let us say we could deploy two BCTs under a Div HQ with a full complement of Div Tps.

The Army Reserve is about 27,000 strong excluding recruits on Phase 1 training and non-deployable elements such as UOTCs? How many could we scrape together for a warfighting operation against a neer-peer opposition? The million dollar question. For TELIC at its peak in 2004, some 20% of the deployed force was Army Reserve, so we might get 20% of two BCTs ie about 1500 – 2000 troops. The problem would be if we didn’t win the war in a few weeks or months and it turned into an enduring operation and/or had very high casualty rates. There would be some Regs and some Army Reserves to throw in but recourse could be made to Regular Reservists (ex-Regs still with a Reserve liability). I can’t think of the last time we did that.

500 casualties a day for a div of two brigades (say about 13,000 strong) would render it combat ineffective in 8 days without BCRs – but of course we would have BCRs coming through. Until the BCRs run out.

Russia’s current tactics are crude but effective in many respects – the use of massed artillery to bludgeon defended cities and terrify the populace. We would not have (if we were the invader) and the Ukrainians do not have sufficient counter-battery capability – the ability to dtect and locate enemy artillery positions and quickly bring fires down on them. Very true that there is a need to identlify ammunition depots and supply lines/vehicles and target them too.

Lack of M777 equipment support, part of CSS? Serious error.

I too hope that Russia is not planning to atttack a NATO country – Putin coukld not be that mad, surely. But I agree that our Regular forces are thin and our Reserve capability is too.

Don’t mention options for change, that started the slide downhill till it became a momentum of its own and dragged thousands of people and kit with it! If I hear “more lethal and agile” once more I will head for the hills!

Don’t get me wrong: I’d love UK to be able to send 100 Chally2 to Poland. That would be a very strong message to anyone.

I also agree mass has a tremendous quality of its own. If you have numerical superiority and technical superiority you have highly effective conventional deterrence.

I’m afraid only the US can check both of those boxes. For the rest of NATO, it’s one or the other.

Sadly so.

But the conservative leadership race has some of the more credible candidates talking about raising defence spending.

Hopefully, that becomes a promise that has to be matched by all.

I’m still hopeful be could get all the Chally II and the full workable reserve upgraded.

As we all know that cost of upgrading units #139 -> #3?? Won’t be double as the main cost is in getting #1-#10 fully developed, upgraded and accepted.

👍

Good morning Graham. First, thank you for your 34yrs of service; you clearly have a the experience to draw upon for discussions such as this.

I’m not questioning the decision to send 14 CR2s to Poland; those in the know picked that number for a reason.

My concern is when we drop from the current 227 CR2s to 148 CR3s, what would have to be given up to send the same 14 to Poland if we had only 148 CR3? In your opinion, when we do fall to 148, how many do you think could be deployed at any one time, allowing for training, maintenance, attrition, etc.,?

Thank you again Graham.

David, thanks for the compliment.

There are of course 14 tanks in a squadron which includes A1 support from a REME Fitter section and an SQMS Team. A tank squadron is, practically, the smallest armour component that could be deployed independently of its parent regiment although that support element is the bare minimum. They may have deployed with a slice of A2 and B echelon support which would be non-standard. Others criticise me for carping but it is a small amount of armour, although we do also have troops deployed on eFP elsewhere in Poland and also in Estonia.

The conversion of 148 CR2s to the CR3 standard is a very slow and somewhat expensive but a significant upgrade is long overdue. I understand that IOC will be by 2027 and FOC was mooted to be by 2030 – but Ben Wallace was keen to see some improvement on those dates. I understand that 18 tanks will be delivered by IOC – 4 tanks in the Trg Org and one sqn of 14 tanks.

In the future in the CR3 era (and somewhat before) we will only have only 2 armoured regiments. If there was a similar requirement to deploy a sqn of 14 tanks to support an ally, then we would deploy one of the sqns from one of the two armoured regiments, and that regiment would adapt to only having 3 remaining sqns – it would still usable as it could still configure as an all-arms BG .

When we fall to 148 CR2s, that is two Type 56 regiments and the balance of 36 tanks is spread between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. [If we still have WFM, then some of the regiments’ tanks will be with the unit and others in temporary storage].
How many of the 112 tanks in the 2 regiments could we deploy? Difficult question. It is hard to imagine a scenario when we would deploy every tank we have at UE (Unit Establishment) – that would be a tough call for someone very senior to make.
We deployed just over half of our 420-strong CR1 fleet to the first Gulf War and less than a third of our 386-strong CR2 fleet to the second Gulf War. Assuming we kept to those ratios we could perhaps deploy 2 or 3 squadrons for conflict in eastern Europe or ‘the Gulf’ and perhaps more for a conflict that threatened the homeland.

We would deploy some of the Attrition Reserve forward into-Theatre for a serious warfighting operation as they need to be readily available in a rear area near-ish to deployed troops. We would not of course deploy Trg Org tanks.

I have a lot of military experience & I have seen first hand what the Chally can do mate! 14 C2s would make anyone think twice!

Yes well said Graham knows his stuff and shares my worries of a reduced tank force , still wiki has still got us as 227 CH2 , no need to reduce more and having familiy members as gunners on the CH2 ,they say the CH2 is still formidable even to modern standards.

Wiki has 227 tanks on the active list – that is correct as far as the current ORBAT stands. That will reduce to 148 CR3s in time.
[We bought 386 CR2 in the late 90s. A good number of tanks – RP, Attrition Reserve and retired tanks – are sitting in the Ashchurch vehicle depot]

I’ve always wanted to have a good snoop around Ashchurch to see what’s still stashed and see if it’s looked after and useable!

Bit of both I hear. They have some CHE I believe and other areas where the vehicles are left in shit state under leaking roofs. Needs a refurb, bit it’s great asset is the railway access.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883646/Information_regarding_the_MOD_s_vehicle_depot_at_Ashchurch_in_Gloucestershire___2020_01347.pdf

Yes, I’d read of this. I used to do lots of FOIA myself though never inquired here!

Very interesting and alarming that there was no earlier discovery of this problem. Disappointing that the FOI request only focussed on contamination (presumably by asbestos) and not on building condition, otherwise the issue that Daniele mentions might have been raised and attracted attention.

Had a quick look on Google earth and it seem a number of the buildeing are being fitted with new roofs

That is pretty much what I would have guessed as it was 50/50 asbestos cement roof panels or asbestos insulation.

If it is roof panels I’m not surprised HSE are not that bothered.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/military-base-near-tewkesbury-270m-4263646

Very interesting.

I guess the original idea was stop storing military vehicles as they would be made on a just-in-time-basis either by our mates in China or on a 3D printer…..maybe not….

Good thing we did keep it as I think we will be fixing a lot of it up pronto once PM is PM – she will make last two and the membership don’t like Rishi who doesn’t like defence. At least PM will give defence increases.

All I can see from her on defence is she is standing by the party manifesto to spend 2%

I always imagine dark corners hiding very old kit from years ago, ideal for a snoop about lol

To be honest I’ve indeed heard 1st hand of such a place, but it wasn’t Ashchurch. And as I’ve never confirmed the story either way I’m not mentioning where just in case.😉

Even the urban exploration lot wouldn’t get near it.

Oh I’m a tease! 😆

With your encyclopaedia knowledge of pretty much all things mil, I’m sure you have some very useful intel on any number of places! Oh and I do enjoy watching a few of these urban explorers cutting about in old military and civil defence sites! Would love to have a go, but would probably get lost/stuck/arrested/break a bloody leg….delete/insert chosen bad luck 😂👍🇺🇦

Lol all of the above.
Yes, 28 days later I think is one? Some of the Muppets have been killed inside old places, dropped down deep shafts. It’s fun to watch and they go into some interesting places but it’s illegal for a reason.

Slava Ukraini!

Still be good fun!!!!!!! Cheers mate 👍🇺🇦

All the very old stuff was cleared out in the 90’s once Treasury ruled on costs back on retained assets came in.

I’d be interested in how a non functional tank hull is valued on the balance sheet!

I went to Ashchurch quite a few times as an Equipment Support Manager in Tanks Systems Support IPT in DLO Andover 2002-2003. I managed all non-CR2 tank derivatives (CRARRV, CHAVRE, CHAVLB, Cent BARV) plus did the disposal of CR1 and a tiny number of residual CH MBTs.

Conditions varied from hangar to hangar, let’s say.

Cheers, quite interesting time I bet!

Thanks Daniele, but I don’t think I did miss the thrust of the article.

The article talks of our supplying a sqn of 14 CR2 tanks to Poland to integrate into one of their brigades (as backfill) to enable Poland to supply T72s to Ukraine. I got that.

My comment, similar to many others, is that 14 tanks is a pathetically small number for the UK to supply to NATO’s forward area as part of NATO’s show of force.

Except it isn’t? It’s in addition to the EFP in Estonia.

I realise that it is in addition to EFP in Estonia. The article was all about Challenger tanks to Poland.

Yes but you can’t view them in isolation.

Hi Graham. I saw it a bit differently, in that considering that parts of the remaining 3 regiments are already deployed in a couple of BGs to Estonia then 1 more Squadron is not insignificant given how small the force is now?

I think the regiments still have 4 armoured squadrons plus HQ Sqn.
So we only posses 12 Sqns to tanks to start with.

Hi Daniele. I see your POV, aggregating our eFP effort in Estonia and Poland with the subsequent and recent deployment of an armoured sqn to Poland as a backfill, and contending that we ae not doing badly overall.
As a significant NATO member I feel that a single squadron (one-twelfth of our active fleet) to Poland is a small scale effort, no matter that others laud the relative quality of our 20-year-old unmodenised tanks.
A problem with deploying a single squadron to Poland is that it will ordinarily deploy with thin support, so-called A1 support – a REME fitter section and SQMS logistics – and will lack ready access to A2 and B echelon support. I know you like the support side to be covered!

Indeed. Without it, it matters not how many tanks, SPGs and men you have.

Unrelated Daniele but I think you where talking about the lack of capability in Phase 1 establishments to take on Ukranian volunteers the other day, did you see the news that 11 SFAX are taking over that tasking?

IMO perfect job for them, low threat training missions is what the SFA’s are for, and it would have been criminal to have them and not use them for this. Also am thinking this will be a good argument to keep 11 SFAX and ASOX in any future reviews.

Morning Dern. Saw a headline that UKR had arrived in UK but didn’t read it.
Yes, I was asking if Phase 1 had the capacity.

Agree, seems madness not to now they exist.

Right, just read up on it.
Says at 3 sites including one in NW England. Not difficult for some of us to ID despite them understandably not naming locations in the press.

Biggest European NATO contributor to that deployment I read.

As usual, HM forces can step up and actually deploy, regardless of overall numbers. They are not for show like some.

We are always there when it counts. 🇬🇧

As you say that is the inportant point, being able to deploy abroad. Same as having a blue water navy.

Yes but Kaiser Wilhelm and Emperor Meiji both succeded, we need to stop buying into the idea that everyone who invaded Russia failed.

Neither succeeded in invading and conquering Russia. Small bits yes, but that’s akin to saying Nazi Germany invaded Great Britain on the basis it occupied the Channel Islands.

Really? Did the conquest of the Channel Islands force Britain to Surrender? Did it cause massive territorial concessions? Did it mean a collapse and change in governement?
No?
Then it’s not at all akin to saying Nazi Germany invaded Great Britain on the basis of occupying the channel islands.

In 1914-1917 the German Empire outfought the Russian Army and brought the Russian Empire to it’s knees, and ended with the collapse of it’s government and resulted in the handing over of a huge area to the central powers. How is that not invading and conquered?

The Japanese invaded, beat the Russian Army, forced the Russian fleet to surrender by bombarding it with Artillery, and then destroyed the 2nd Pacific Squadron at sea, baisically leaving Manchuria a Japanese Protectorate for 30 years, Russia only regained it’s terretory from Japan after jumping into the Pacific war in August ’45.

Both of these are highly succesfull invasions and conquests, but they don’t suit the narrative of “Invading Russia is a bad idea” that the Russians love to push, so get ignored.

Then you do not understand Russian thinking clearly. First use is a reality and they would not think twice about it.

You’ve been listening to far too much Russian propaganda. No. T
hey won’t commit mass suicide.

I cannot see Ron’s question. Are we talking about the feasibility of bringing back retired CR2s to service? More than a cost issue. Many of those tanks will have been stripped for spares and thousands of parts would have to be ordered – lead times will be long and some of those parts won’t have been made for years, so unless obsolescence management was top notch there would be a problem. The time taken would be huge – just to evaluate the conditon of the retired fleet would take enormous time and effort. Who could do the work of evaluating, ordering parts and fitting them, then re-commissioning – RBSL is busy building CR3. Maybe Babcockes could do it. I cannot see this idea ‘would fly’.

Cheers AB.

Just stop. There’s a reason they are being replaced but only in a tiny number. The UK people always love to think that their kit is the finest in the world. Stop gobbling up the things that your government feeds you. In a real war. The alleged world-beating . It just looks sad.

What govt do you listen too then?
A good few of the posters on here have actually served their country on said systems and have more knowledge on capabilities than any govt minister!(comrade)

They are not being replaced, they are being upgraded, all nations upgrade their military equipment….according to your beloved government the T14 Amarta is a world beater …..and yet it is not being used in combat.

Wow that’s a handbag post if I’ve ever seen one! That chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy!

I love the tumble weed moments of silence when you get handed your arse by another poster and you have no answer, as you realise your knowledge is limited. Your posts are just angry “ my missus got banged by a Brit squaddie” gum bumping sound bites! Do make more of an effort, and if it makes you feel better, Brit squaddies bang a lot of wives/GFs, your not special. Cheers 👍

Yeah, i know what is in Challenger, outdated armour, outdated sights, outdated FCS. Good gun albeit with no future.

It is less old than a T-72 but it is not modern.

Still superior to any T72, the CH3 will be even better.

But the chally has a well trained crew who are concentrating on soldering and the mission, and not wondering who they will rape next, hoping the stolen washing machine and fridge don’t fall off the turret, and who think combined arms warfare involves looking out of the hatch seeing another turret fly past them, on fire with the arms of the commander (12 months served Sgt cough!) flailing about, then that’s the difference my little troll (who changed his avatar to support a post by his previous avatar and who says he is from Portugal then decides he isn’t) TROOOOLL 💩

I wouldn’t go as far as to say outdated in my opinion. It really depends what it’s compared to. The expect enemy it would face would be a T-62, T-72, T80 or variation of them.
Now if it’s being compared to a brand new development of a tank things could look at bit outdated. But the challenger2 isn’t going to be fighting against a leopard 2A7, latest Abrams.
By all accounts I’ve seen the challenger 2 still does it’s job just as good as allied tanks.
It’s budgets really. The uk could of developed and made 500 new top of range tanks but that would of come at the cost of something else. Maybe no NLAW, brimstone, ASRAAM updates , meteor, new apaches, new chinooks or anything that adds up to the equivalent cost.