BAE systems say that Black Night comprises cutting-edge technologies and capabilities, which are being offered to the Ministry of Defence as part of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme.
Simon Jackson, Campaign leader for Team Challenger 2 at BAE Systems said:
“The UK is home to some of the world’s finest engineering companies, who have pushed the boundaries of combat vehicle design with Black Night.
We are providing the bulk of this upgrade from home soil, however, we have chosen the best defence companies from around the world to collaborate with also, including names from Canada, France and Germany who bring unique skills and proven technology.
The British Army has our commitment that we will deliver the most capable upgrade possible, and the best value for money.”
The features touted by BAE include:
  • Active Protection System – Systems allow the tank to detect incoming anti-tank missiles or armour penetrating rounds and automatically launches a counter-explosive to neutralise the threat.
  • Laser Warning System – When targeted by enemy weapon systems, the tank can identify the source of the threat then automatically slew the gun to point at that source, making it quicker for the crew to counter-fire.
  • Regenerative braking – The tank has been made more energy efficient by using less energy-hungry kit and installing regenerative braking in the turret, which generates power when the gun slows down into position.
  • Thermal Imaging Technology – Front and rear infrared cameras (similar to those used in television programmes such as Planet Earth II) provide extremely sharp night imagery, helping troops identify potential threats and move undetected in hostile situations, while also shaving valuable seconds off reaction times.
  • Accelerated fightability – New equipment controlling tank’s weaponry is faster, meaning the crew can identify an enemy, target and engage more quickly.

The Challenger 2 tank, built by BAE Systems in the 1990s, served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq. BAE Systems is now leading the strategic partnership Team Challenger 2 bid to keep the tank battle-ready for the next twenty years, as part of the Ministry of Defence’s decision to extend the tank’s life until 2035.


  1. Tank gets hit*

    Black Knight: Tis but a scratch!

    Enemy tank: A scratch? You’re engines gone!

    Black Knight: No it isn’t

    Enemy tank: Points at smoking a sputtering engine* What’s that then?

    Black Knight: I’ve had worse.

    Enemy tank: You liar!

    Black Knight : Come and fight me, you pansies!

    • Let’s hope we can increase the overall numbers too sorry.

      An edit function will help to minimise grammatical errors and make future posts look more professional rather than having to do it this way!

      • It’d be good if we could, but we don’t actually have the facilities to build any MBT anymore, let alone more Challenger 2’s (Not sure what they’re going to do once it’s retired, current rough plan is likely to be to buy Leopard 2A8(?))
        Oh and unfortunately they don’t plan on upgrading the gun, the upgrades will definitely help (especially thermal sights, and the Active Protection System) but it’s not as significant as it could be.

    • No it has been dropped due to cost. The ammo storage would need to be redesigned to accommodate the different rounds and it most increasing the cost significantly.

      I think the MOD has agreed to invest in developing more advanced ammunition while still using the rifled barrel so hopefully that will offset the loss of the L55.

      I would still like to see the engine replaced though. The up armored version currently weighs 75 tonnes, so could certainly do with a power boosts with the MTU engine used in the Leopard.

  2. Nice colour wrong main armament should be smooth bore 120mm,and get rid of that stupid 7.62 at the operators hatch, killed enough good people.

  3. I wish I could find the tweet that this quote comes from, but I have seen it written that there is concern within the Royal Armoured Corp regarding the range of the smoothbore gun as opposed to the current rifled one. As I understand it the smoothbore tops out at 2.5 to 3 kilometres. The rifled gun is supposed to be more.

  4. I feel BAE is just teasing with the Trophy system, saying it is to show the options that could be available as part of the LEP, we seem to be a long way behind the curve on this technology as we should ideally be developing it ourselves rather than purchase it form someone else.

    • BBCS wrote:
      “I feel BAE is just teasing with the Trophy system, saying it is to show the options that could be available as part of the LEP, we seem to be a long way behind the curve on this technology as we should ideally be developing it ourselves rather than purchase it form someone else.

      They are actually offering the Iron fist APS system, rather than the Trophy. From what I can gather the former is a bolt on module, where the latter isn’t and requires space inside the vehicle.

      • Sorry your correct, I actually thought Iron Fist was just an updated version and name of the original Trophy system, but they are made by completely different Israeli companies that don’t seem to get along. Although offering different solutions to the same problem can only be a good thing long term, especially if Iron Fist is more modular.

  5. Consider that in modern times we have deployed Armoured battle groups to Iraqi (1990-2003), on both occasions we deployed 100 plus, 150 in 1990 and 120 in 2003.

    Today with only 250 in the active inventory, do we have the capability to deploy 100?

    I doubt it very much…. If we can only deploy 30-40, then you have to ask yourself if the force is so far below critical mass to be rendered ineffective as a main battle capability, is there any point keeping an MBT in the inventory at all now, never mind a small fortune in a mid life update??

    Perhaps it’s time for a change of thinking ….

    • I was thinking about this myself, in recent conflicts the majority of heavy armour is wiped out from the air before coalition forces even set foot on the ground. So would more flexible apc’s be all that is required to hold it, especially since the UK is so far from any likely conflict zones.
      I can see why continental Europe requires heavy armour but I see less need for the UK especially considering the amount of support/money it requires to deploy.

      • I tend to agree but there has to be a route from the existing A to your envisioned B a single jump on the basis of theory as logical as it may be would be extremely risky. So perhaps this upgrade is the minimal requirement while potential alternatives are examined and introduced which is no short term transformation not to mention the cost and required infrastructure for such an alternative force. One has to stay at least semi invested in the status quo till alternatives are more proven especially I ally as they would likely involved combined ground and air interactions of a presently (mostly) untested nature.

        • Agree. Ground scanning radar is the end for mass armoured manoeuvre warfare. The best way to kill tanks is with air power, not other tanks. The logistical chain and deployability challenges are also huge handicaps. This is not a capability we should be investing in.

          • Name one conflict where air support actually destroyed most of the Armor. Had the respective Air Forces in the Coalitions during 91 or 2003 actually killed as many tanks as claimed their wouldn’t have been massive tank engagements in the desert. As it turned out in both cases most enemy tanks were destroyed by Coalition tanks. Air power has not proven its ability to kill tanks nearly as quickly or efficiently as other tanks. Given Air power in both aforementioned cases had the benefit of a months long bombardment campaign and still fell short once counting of actual destroyed units was done. Armored and Infantry units win wars, same as always.
            Most countries have had ground scanning radar since the 70s some since the 60s. There have been multiple Armored engagements since.
            Aircraft have advanced, well so have SAMs and MANPADs. Offensive technology has always and will always beget defense. Someone invents anti-ship missile, someone else invents Aegis. Someone invents HESH and HEAT first you get Spaced Armor and ERA then composite armor layers.
            A more historic example? Some one invents pre-fitted clothes (uniforms), desiccated and tinned rations, and rail lines allowing much greater mobilization of a countries population. The result? Mankind’s genius gave us rapid and accurate artillery and the machine gun. Hence the need for both continuing investment in equipment, while ensuring the Military is well trained, exercised, and led by competent personnel. That way the Military can adapt to the situation it finds itself in quickly using an array of tools at its disposal and doesn’t spend four years throwing men at machine gun emplacements.

          • Armour will still be needed going forward. Air power is very effective and can change the course of a war but it can not take and hold land.

      • Am I missing something?

        ‘Black Prince’ was the planned upgrade to the Churchill tank (I guess more of an experimental design), which never happened – only a few prototypes were made.

        Given recent decisions made to use names of historical resonance (such as Tempest) I just thought ‘Black Prince’ was a missed opportunity.

    • Well, i’m surprised they didn’t call it the “Queen Elizabeth”. I’m not anti monarchy but i’m getting sick of the trend of creeping around the royal family whenever we name something.

      • It is worth remembering that when RN ships are named something royal, they are usually named after a preceding ship, for example HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) is named after the 1st world war dreadnought battleship Queen Elizabeth which in turn was named after Queen Elizabeth 1. Not our current monarch as many people assume.

        Likewise, HMS Prince of Wales (R09) is named after the title not the individual currently holding that title.

  6. Sorry to all you tankers out there guys but two words. Lipstick and Pig. On the front of every MBT at least in Europe should be the words ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter here’

  7. I am very cautious with BAE’s approach compared to Rhinemetal’s. BAE are focusing on the first to see – first to kill solution, by improving the commander’s thermal imager and giving the driver better night viewing aids. They will upgrade the control interfaces and displays to mimic those provided with Ajax, with the theory that will lessen the training burden, they say this will also help with the ergonomics within the turret.
    When the Chally2E was offered to Greece was it not fitted with a more powerful engine for the trials, i.e. the MTU883 Europack engine? This engine as fitted to the Leopard significantly increased its performance. So if its already been fitted and trialled before why is not part of the new upgrade requirement. I have heard that there is a separate engine program and that it may be upgraded as part of this.
    Back in the day the ROF designed and built a high pressure 55 cal smooth-bore gun using the same carriage as the Chally 1’s L11 gun. I believe it was on on par for accuracy etc, but the Army then still preferred the rifled gun so that they could use HESH, so it didn’t go any further.
    The Black Knight Chally is shown fitted with the IMI Iron Fist, not the Trophy system. Trophy uses a similar method to a claymore, basically blasting small tungsten cubes at the target. The Iron Fist uses something similar to a grenade round, but uses the blast effect rather than fragmentation to destroy/divert the incoming threat. Trophy has been fielded on Merkava 4s for at least the last 5 years and has been proven in combat against multiple simultaneous threats. Iron Fist has not been fielded by the Israelis, but it has shown the capability to not only defeat top attack ATGM during trials, but also divert kinetic rounds.
    The main problem with the smooth-bore gun is the ammunition, particularly the FIN rounds which are over a metre long. The Chally converted with the smooth-bore gun could only carry 8 rounds in the turret – not great. Hence why there would be a requirement for a new turret over a redesign of the existing one.
    To be honest the whole Army is under-powered. If we have 225 Chally 2s and those are with the RAC etc, where are the reserves, what do the TA have? Critical mass, we are way past that. We have enough perhaps for one major engagement and that’s it.

      • I love the Comet too, remember asking my father who served with them what he thought of either the Comet or Cromwell (can’t remember which it was some time ago) and he said they were rubbish but having read up on the former I suspect it was the latter he was referring to as the Comet finally looked like a creditable tank to me with that turret and gun after a series of missteps on a similar theme.

        • I’ve always had a place in my heart for the cruiser tanks and particularly their service in N. Africa. The follow on Centurions are still plugging away in various guises in several armies… Amazing. The Matilda’s were the infantry support tanks (Wonderful photo of them going into combat with a lone piper leading them with the Desert Rats somewhere out there) while the Valentines, Crusaders,and Honey’s were the fast movers of their day…


    • “When the Chally2E was offered to Greece was it not fitted with a more powerful engine for the trials, i.e. the MTU883 Europack engine? This engine as fitted to the Leopard significantly increased its performance.”

      When they built the Challenger 2E it was found that the MTU883 powerpack is dimensionally smaller than the Perkins in the current Challenger 2. They felt that the additional room gained could be used for additional fuel capacity & hence a greater range. Seems like a win-win scenario that did not go anywhere.

  8. Once again we are dreaming. We have a small Army with limited resources. Get rid of the remaining MBT and change to to something faster smaller lighter, with advanced tank killing missiles. ( I think it is still NATO policy to nuke the Russian tanks as they roll into Germany, assuming the European continues to support NATO? Do we need our own MBT especially if you only have a few?)

    Our government continues with MOD budget cuts we will end up with a few soldiers like Belgium or Holland.

    • We have more MBT than we have artillery.

      Should we get rid of that too?

      Tanks, like artillery, should uavectheir place.

      Shouldn’t the name Black Knight be more appropriate than Black Night, despite its supa doopa might vision?

  9. From what i read its modular, with this version having all the toys and whistles but the final ‘purchased’ version could have some or none of them.

  10. I think as more capable anti armour systems proliferate, Chinese versions of Brimstone and it’s advanced SPEAR 3 grandson will spell the end of the heavy weight MBT.

    At its present rate of advance, the Chinese will be building and selling to the highest bidder a variety of high end tank killing systems within the next 10 years, no doubt about it.

    We need to move towards an airmobile lightweight fast tank ( wheeled or tracked) with a smooth bore gun, coupled with enough protector drones, AH64E’S, Typhoon, F35b’s fielding SPEAR 3 and smart guided artillery to sweep all before them.

    It’s a sharp combination that could smash a large formation of even the latest MBT’s.

    Doesn’t matter how advanced the composite armour is, if a SPEAR3 (or equivalent) comes vertically at it, it’s a dead tank!

    • The challange is being able to target a missile from ground level. Aircraft have a natural advantage over tanks as they are high up and so their radars can track targets from great distance, but then the reverse is true, a ground based radar can pick up a plane and target it.

      A ground based radar however has extremely limited sight against ground targets, and in real world situations probably not a lot better than mark one eye ball (hills, gullies etc get in the way), meaning a tank would have a chance of knocking out your light armour before they can fire, and then the strength of the armour comes into play.

      In a combined warfare situation, I suspect MBT still has its place, saying that has the UK has limited ground based air defence, I wonder if the money should go else where.

      • That’s the thing Steve, how many of the 225 we have are actually deployable?

        If we have dropped below the threshold for deploying 100 tanks as part of an Armoured Division, then it’s in danger of becoming irrelevant.

        Like I said, the only time we have deployed MBT’S operationally in the last 60 years in quantity was in both Gulf wars, both times 100 + tanks were deployed.

        If we can no longer do this, I would need convincing ( yet to hear a good augument for keeping a small force) that it’s a capability worth retaining, let alone spending money upgrading at a time of tight financial spending..

        No doubt BAE Systems will turn it into a highly profitable endeavour.

        I would rather spend the money on deployable forces.

  11. There will be a point in the future where to over-come a tank’s APS you will need to carry out a swarm attack, much like a ship. Which is kind of funny when back in the day the tank was formed by the land ships committee.
    IMI’s Iron Fist has been shown to defeat a Hellfire doing a top attack on a M113 test vehicle. I cannot state what the angle was, as it didn’t look to be vertical but was definitely more than 45 degrees. The T14’s Afghanit system I don’t believe can do this, as the way it is fitted perpendicular to the turret ring it’s more designed to counter threats coming from along the horizontal plane.
    What’s more IMI also showed a FIN round fired from a 105 equipped M60 deflected, this is a major step change in capability from the APS perspective, especially when you consider the speed of the FIN. Admittedly, the round was only slightly deflected off target, so rather than striking the side of the tank it hit the top edge, but that could be enough to save the crew and the tank.
    I do believe that APS will give a new lease of lift to the MBT. It will be a question of either how fast it can reload or how many ready rounds it carries of how vulnerable it is to a swarm attack. I know Trophy has demonstrated on the West bank that it has defeated a simultaneous attack from RPG29 and an AT-5 ATGM in urban combat. Trophy has a quick reload time but only a few reloads before it has to be manually refreshed. Iron Fist at the moment uses two discharge launchers, but that could easily be changed.
    Most tankies I know, who have used the Chally would say the engine is the first thing that needs upgrading along with a new gearbox, followed by the sights, then the gun. I have seen first hand the grisly affects Charm3 has on an upgraded T72; which smashed through the front glacis ERA, the turret, engine and out the back. So there’s still life in the old dog yet, except against possible a T14, especially when fitted with an APS like Iron Fist.

  12. So let me give all you fine chaps my take on this tank. Firstly my credibility, CR2 is sort of my bag and without going into what I do, it is firsthand experience and not copied and pasted from some kids website.

    Let’s take a look at the current CR2.

    Mobility wise it’s not great, the engine isn’t too bad, the gearbox is what causes most of the problems, it dumps lots of power and reliability is an issue. The Hydrogas suspension is world leading, having worked on M1 and Leo I can safely say CR2 can cross rough terrain better than the others, yes acceleration is shocking which is really important but once you get going is fine.
    Protection is outstanding, it can take a serious amount of punishment and keep going (I have the skid marks in my pants to prove it). Over the frontal arc the protection levels against KE and CE is bordering on ridiculous and even on the sides its better protected than anything else I have worked with.

    Firepower, this is where her age starts to show. L-30 is, although a newer gun far inferior to a RM smoothbore, not just because of the design but because of the advances in ammunition technology. If you compare L-28 with say an M829-A3/A4 you will see that they are not in the same league when it comes to performance. You can develop new ammunition bespoke to the gun but when it comes to long rods there is not much scope to increase penetrator length due to the chamber design. There is lots of fake info going round about accuracy of the rifled gun and yes in the early 90s it was more accurate then the in service ammo for the smooth bores but that is no longer the case.

    Future CR

    I managed to get a look around BAEs proposal and had a chat with some of the chaps on the project, it does look so much better on the inside. I get the idea of using Ajax screens but that will not do a huge amount to the training burden, it will however simplify the supply chain. The gun controllers are about the same with a few extra buttons and the gunners’ sight is the same which is understandable as it’s still better than the one on Leo.

    My biggest problem is BAE seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room, the gun need to go. Worryingly, I was chatting to the BAE rep and he was adamant that the gun was just as good as a smoothbore, when I called bullshit he changed tack a few times and tried to boggle me with facts and figures, all of which were just plain wrong. The same chap then went on to say the 44 cal barrel was less accurate than the 55 cal but had the same muzzle velocity, again the opposite is true.

    So why would BAE over state the capability of the L-30? Simple, they do not have a mature smoothbore design and have pinned all their hopes on the MOD going cheap, they have put forward their proposal before RM in order to get a leg up. I know for a fact RM has a mature smoothbore design and a few posters on here are correct, it involves rebuilding the rear of the turret.

    In the next few months we will see who gets the contract, interesting times.


    • When BAE bought the ROF for peanuts, along with the small arms factories, they gained the large calibre foundries. Which included not only the Chally’s rifled gun but also the rights to the prototype smoothbore gun that had been developed on the back of the L11. I wonder why they never kept going with the development, when it was clear that NATO as a whole was going down the smoothbore route. It seems that either BAE didn’t see a market for the smoothbore gun or they couldn’t be bothered especially as Rhinemetal was now the preferred gun. I believe these factories that produced these guns along with the Navy’s 4.5″ were closed down. So does that mean we no longer have an option to produce large calibre weapons, except subcontracting them out to the States via BAE’s incorporated companies? Especially in a few years time AS90’s 155 will also need replacing!

  13. Excuse my ignorance on this subject but could the Chally3 fit and use an automatic loading system?
    and if the effect of going smoothbore would lead to a reduced complement of shells then what the point of having a tank that will need an armoured top up vehicle following immediately behind the tank, Right now out of all the MBT’s in the World which are in combat a lot of the time? The only one that comes to mind is the Israeli Merkava – so why not explore an upgrade with Israeli help, yes it does appear that RM may have the best barrels, but remember it was Britain that created the armour defence systems, so if the Govt. didn’t close down the ROF, them maybe we would be manufacturing the Worlds best barrel and the needed ordnance. So in summing up apart from the barrel issue should Britain look to say Sweden and Israel to assist in improving our Chally2 to create Conquerer 2

  14. DaveyB: I think it was the timeframe that was the problem, correct me if I’m wrong but BAE took over in the late 80s meaning the L-30 was already developed and at the time it was a ground breaking gun. I believe the reason we didn’t go for an L-11 version of smoothbore was partly due to the large stocks of cold war ammunition and the assumption that the British Army will be operating a 2 platform tank fleet which needed commonality of ammunition. To change all tank guns to 2 piece smoothbore would be expensive and at the time would not have increased performance massively.

    Then that there wall came down a few years later and we all reaped the peace dividends, another spanner in the works.

    Anthony Thrift: An automatic loading system for 2 piece ammunition is hard to do safely, look at Russian tanks. The Idea of a smoothbore gun reducing the ammunition load considerably dates back to an old proof of concept project, without modifying the turret bustle you could only fit in a small amount of 1 piece rounds, the reason for this is to do with the design principles of CR1 and CR2, using a mix of welded and cast structures. RM CR2 offers a redesigned turret bustle to accommodate a standard amount of rounds.

    Looking towards the future, personally I would cancel the whole project, sell them all off along with AS-90, 432 and CVRT. We should concentrate on deployable forces not ones that take months to arrive in theatre and have nothing better to offer than any other country with and armoured capability. Invest heavily in Ajax and Boxer, they can self deploy quickly, real strategic mobility is what we need.


  15. Agreed BV, it’s the route we need to take, just let the CH2 roll on for a few more years with minimal upgrades and phase out by 2025, replaced with Ajax and Boxer variants.

    Air mobile forces, with sufficient air cover..

  16. Why is everyone going on about the gun for the bae systems bid? I understand it is perceived as a weakness. But My understanding was the LEP was a separate project and there was/is a lethality improvement program to address this separately?
    There obviously will be a link between the two programs and the bidders have been encouraged to provide optional extras. It maybe that rheinmental go for a full turret replacement which obviously would make sense to have a new gun at the same time. The bae systems bid maybe quite modular and therefore could be transferred to a new turret. I do think this a strange way to do it but I believe that’s the scope of the current project.
    However, as to the current main armament everyone is making statements and I would be surprised if anyone knew the actual capability of the l30 (I would hope that it is top secret) – all I know is didn’t penetrate as far as the l55 this could be millimetres/cm! There maybe ammunition upgrades that can make up for the potential small difference? Also if we are to go smooth bore why rush into adopt 120mm when the Germans and french are developing 130mm, that they believe would have significantly more punch. We don’t have ammunition commonality now so I couldn’t see that as a problem.
    If we were to adopt a new gun – I’m no expert but if you put a Challenger turret next to an m1 is it really that much smaller? Is a turret redesign really completely out of the question? Especially if all the electronics are changed? The main thing is that the LEP addresses is the tank can hit the targets, protect itself, move and communicate.
    As to the t14 we were wetting ourselves before 1991 as the t72 was so much more advanced! And I doubt that any t14 crew would drive directly at a Challenger to test it’s gun! I am sure that it would still do some major damage

  17. Simon: The life extension program was originally a cheap solution to replace the out dated systems on the vehicle, most of the fire control systems are of early 80s design and are no longer supported so it was a bid to keep the vehicle supportable until its OSD. That idea has changed somewhat over the last few years and now is worded as keeping the tank competitive out to 2035.

    So the Capability of the L-30, without going into numbers. We do know from the UK smoothbore project that the L-55 firing DM-53 had “significantly” better penetration then the current British system. Importantly, if you look at the ammunition you will see a huge difference in length between the two, penetrator length is critical when striking real world targets made up from composites and protected with ERA then just a basic witness plate of RHA. DM-53 has nothing on the newer American rounds which would be a better option for us, they penetrate more than the German ammo and are way better at dealing with real life targets. You are correct, very few people know the exact penetration figures.

    The American are not looking to upgrade from their 120mm L-44, this is because of the new M-828 A4 round that is just about to enter service, this round is a game changer and can deal with any current and future threats.

    The reason why the Germans are looking at 130mm (and it is a beast) is because of their lack of political will to use DU in their ammunition, I would be surprised if the LEP team have not had a good look at it and I think it’s a serious contender as that was one of the reasons why we started the smoothbore project in the first place.

    I’m not sure what you mean by small turrets, I believe you are referring to the turret bustle problem, if so then CR2 is quite deceiving in that respect as most of the back of the turret is storage bins and not actual turret, unlike the M1 which is mostly ammo storage.

    “The main thing is that the LEP addresses is the tank can hit the targets, protect itself, move and communicate. “

    Completely agree with you but with one small change, swap hit targets with defeat targets, that’s where the current gun falls down, it will struggle to reliably penetrate a modern MBT at any useful range.


  18. Thanks BV well if it is that bad, hopefully our short sighted politicians will get the cash out and the army will have the sense to invest in a new turret or even new tank rather than throwing money into something that appears obsolete. Hopefully black night is a stop gap. It looks more and more sensible that either used leopard tanks were procured and updated or new builds were built in the uk or just to build a Challenger 3 from scratch, from what you are saying the vehicle is ineffective now never mind 2035/2040! If we are serious about combating the perceived Russian threat, then not only a new tank but one in considerable numbers approximately 400 mark need to be considered. Otherwise as others have commented scrap the mbt altogether. We need either the 130mm or to adopt the American aproach no point having something else that will become obsolete quickly. To me the strike brigades seem flawed in a full conflict, Ajax should stay as a CVRT and a potential fv432 replacement and if we are having strike brigades they should be all wheeled and equipped to defend themselves against tanks when they deploy (even just to allow covered withdrawal) they then maybe able to assist in flanking manoeuvre as the French did in 91. The problem is the defence budget would need a major increase 🙁

  19. Simon: buying up a few leopards isn’t a bad idea, it will just be a pain in the ass for supply chains ect.
    I do believe we need to start taking high intensity warfare seriously again, our future armed forces could be built around 2 tank regiments, 2 recce regiments and 4 armoured Inf battalions, that’s your lot, 2 brigades worth the rest are light inf/cav that are not useful in a proper fight. Compare that to the 40 brigades that Russia operate on a smaller budget, it won’t even make a dent (I get the scales are extreme and we would not fight alone but purely for comparison). So why do we have so much light infantry? The army says it’s because they are more flexible and can be used for capacity building, the real answer is armoured infantry battalions with their Warriors are one of the most expensive units in the British army, we have the vehicles for 12 battalions but will only be manning 4, absolutely scandalous. The modern British Army has a thin veneer of capability, on the inside its completely hollow.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here