Britain confirms plans to give Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine

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 issues.

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 seriously consider adding greater UK content and manufacturing input into the German / French effort. Just how much content the UK will get is still in doubt, so why not start afresh and build our own MBTs again? The technology is there and the level of engineering excellence will undoubtedly increase in the workforce as the CH3 is developed at Telford. The serious heavy engineering involved in producing chassis and turrets would be mitigated by using advanced milling technologies and could contribute to lowering the costs of previous methods. A CH4 using the basic CH2/3 architecture could be one option and draw from the battlefield experience enough valuable data to establish a real contender. Where there is a way there is a will, or is it the other way around?

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 manufactured from solid billets without the previous expansive infrastructure. As I said, the CH4 would be broadly based on CH3, but most likely have a smaller turret with a two-man accommodation and a self-loading gun. The tank should operate autonomously and in multiple if required.

I’m not proposing a cheap vehicle in CH4 but a slow and constant production rate could argument the CH3 fleet with around 100 vehicles by the end of its run. Such a project could seek partnership and might benefit from such an arrangement, but I don’t see it as essential. The UK retaining the art of building heavy armour would be a wise investment and an essential military option for the UK’s future security.

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 argument to be had. Yes CH2 to Ukraine and I am not a pacifist, but I am against arms exports to anybody other than Canada or Australia. For too long “dogs-of-war” companies have sold to both sides.

We need a UK new MBT – God speed to a new CH4 project, or even better a brand new UK MBT for the 21st Century (call it “Champion”). 🙂

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 manufacturing is perfect for these technologies. The MOD needs to pull it’s finger out.

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 come from say a Sovereign Wealth Fund if the UK had one.

Sadly, predictably, events in Ukraine have highlighted a problem with our MBT capability. At least this issue is now much wider known by the Media and general Public, though many still don’t realize that we cannot now design produce our own MBTs for the future.

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 number ordered ,hopefully for an acceptable price and deliver the completed vehicles to the British Army.When production ends the factory can carry on with its day to day product lines and everybody wins.The Italian Ariete C1 was built by IVECO and Fiat so its not a new idea.No Factory shutdowns and redundancies,and the BA gets a new MBT,

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 is that there should be no reason why the UK cannot continue to build tanks on its own, even if it is more of an assembly line undertaking (with much fabrication subbed out) rather than a classic production line job.

British AFV manufacturing facilities should have had a drumbeat of orders over the last 20-30 years for both new replacement equipments and factory-level (Level 4) upgrades. It just didn’t happen.

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 later takeovers. Government should kick its own arse.

Not sure what the evidence is that BAE abused its monopoly position. Just that Government was embarrassed to highlight a monopoly situation of their own making.

Anyway instead of BAE’s CV90 recce variant to replace CVR(T) and the possibility of them later on supplying CV90 IFV to replace Warrior – we get troubled and hyper-expensive Ajax built by a greenshoots company and expensive and non-tracked (non-cannon equipped?) Boxer respectively.

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 (which was cancelled for somewhat unconvincing reasons).

Post CR3. I think it is very sound to have observor status on the Franco-German project. I am sure we are looking at US projects too. But we could build the tank after CR3 ourselves.

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. A little like how Typhoon production is handled across Europe but with unique UK content if required.

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 similar to the Naval one, then CR4 must be built in the UK (I would not limit production soleley to Telford), and preferably designed in the UK, but must have true export potential…
or at least compare a UK proposal with the best that France/Germany, the USA and other western (and Korean?) nations can come up with at the time.

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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Turret#/media/File:Royal_Tank_Museum_95.jpg

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 have no independent corroboration of this. So 156 or 76 (take your pick) tanks should be ‘retired’ and stored at MoD Ashchurch. [It is not usual at all to sell or scrap any of an equipment type that has not been formally declared ‘Osolete’]. They are likely mostly to be in poor condition, probably stored in the unheated and non-CHE sheds and stripped wholly or partially for spares over many years, leaving them as ‘Christmas Trees’, the army equivalent term for the air force’s term ‘Hanger Queens’.

Looking now at the 227 active tanks. You could argue that the army could get by with less than 227 active tanks (all of which should theoretically be in good condition and complete) – a whole different side of the coin. The active fleet is made up of:
a. Tanks assigned to Field Force units (the Unit Establishment), whether or not in unit lines or stored elsewhere under a WFM regime.
b. Tanks in the RAC and REME training organisation.
c. Tanks in the Repair Pool – happy to explain
d. Tanks in the Attrition Reserve (was called War Maintenance Reserve).
The army is set to reduce from 3 armoured regiments to 2 so the MoD will surely revise the 227 number down by at least 56 tanks when this happens.

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 moment I thought we were in trouble.

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.

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.

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 delivered I believe. Otherwise with the Germans as good as owning any domestic capability, we should consider what options are on the table with what’s going on in their homeland be it Leopard based of next gen proposals and see what uk production options might be available if any. But that’s all rather longer term really. Meanwhile let’s really push tank killer options, examining automated vehicles, Boxer or other vehicle employed, drones or whatever is an option.

‘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. 🇦🇺 🇬🇧🇺🇦

, *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!

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 maintenance required.
No reason for us to look at buying later spec M1s – we are buying CR3s which will be fully in service around 2030 and might last 20 or more years.

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.

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.

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.

I still wish this had all been thought about and planned for some 4-6 months ago.

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 behind its back for due to RoE and for two it wasn’t a full scale pitched battle which is what most western kit was designed to fight. NLAWs isn’t a lot of use against insurgents but it is the real deal in a supported tank battle with ambush tactics and funnelling.

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 T72’s have proved more resilient in their repairability for both sides. If not, as the saying goes “money talks”. China has it’s own young semiconductor manufacturers operating now, several Middle Eastern nations are using the cash to get their own companies that make them set up too.

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.

…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/

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.

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 think he’ll be wrong on the third too.

Aircraft support, training ground crew and aircrew is an order of magnitude of complexity above supporting tanks. So I’d say start training Ukraine now for a single Western aircraft, which given its widespread availability, should be F16.

Ummmm yes.

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…

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

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.

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…

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!

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.

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.

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 slouch.

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.

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,

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 of other programs that aren’t fully funded/paid for. Pipe dream.

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).

Ahh. I need to do some reading on projectiles.

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.

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/

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 in the UK – I am sure the new Land (Equipment) Industrial Strategy should say something similar about AFVs, especially tanks.

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 (at least those occupied post-war by the Soviets) more than some senior members of NATO, who shall remain nameless These countries know the score perfectly well and have a willing, cooperative spirit. Believe you Brits would do well to make common cause w/ them, as a class, both on armaments programs and deployments. Simply one opinion from across the Pond.

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 troops).
I don’t believe we have collaborated on procurement projects before but that could happen.

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.

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 anti-vax conspiracy linkage either.

Spot on as per 👍

💯

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

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 in Iraq. But another Challenger 2 was pierced by a powerful rocket-propelled grenade in August last year during an attack that blew off part of a soldier’s foot and injured several others.

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.

👍

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.

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.

Link for the above post

That is the level of detail I am missing.