Britain is considering deploying Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks to Poland to allow Poland to supply Ukraine with T-72 tanks.

“We are looking more at what we can do to backfill in countries such as Poland, who may want to send heavier weaponry to help defend the Ukrainians”, Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a press conference in India.

“We are looking at sending tanks to Poland to help them as they send some of their T72s to Ukraine. We’ve got to look at what more we can do military, we’ve got to keep intensifying the economic sanctions – we want to make sure there is wave after wave of intensifying pressure on Putin.”

The Ministry of Defence said on Friday:

“The UK is exploring sending British Challenger 2 Tanks to Poland. While no decisions have been taken, these would be deployed on a short-term basis and operated by UK personnel to bridge the gap between Poland donating tanks to Ukraine and replacements arriving.”

Johnson also set out plans for a “security guarantee” for Ukraine, stopping short of NATO membership. Johnson said that the guarantee would “make sure their territory is so fortified as to be impregnable”.

Additionally, the UK ambassador to Ukraine will make a return to Kyiv ahead of the re-opening of the British embassy in the capital.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

283 COMMENTS

  1. Wonder what the numbers would be .Got a bit of a surprise about the French sending heavy Artillery 15 155mm guns if true that is.

      • French sending unknown number of ceaser, Belgium and Dutch sending self-propelled 155mm howitzers, Canada and Us sending M777 howitzers all plus ammunition. Ukraine finally getting some serious modern firepower. Also UK working on a truck mounting for Brimstone missles for Ukraine to get some shore batteries to deter counter amphibious landings.

          • Boris said it in India, that they were looking at improvising a truck mount for Brimstone to make technicals.

          • Boris sure is giving away a lot of useful info to the Russians. Has he never heard of the value of surprise?

          • Exactly, and that deterrence just might save Odessa from total destruction in the long run, especially that sort inevitable prior to any seaborne invasion. So make sure that is off the table by letting them know what will be waiting, might work, even if none were actually supplied. The fact they hit a domestic block today in pursuance of supposedly destroying ‘foreign supplied’ weapons in Odessa today tends to demonstrate their nervousness in such regard.

          • This is as we queried a week or so ago the anti ship missiles (or at least one aspect of it) he was referring to. These would be sent to Odessa to defend it against any attempt at a landing. As we know they would be lethal against landing craft and the video from MBDA a few years back demonstrating it taking out 4 consecutive moving targets from a very basic improvised mount pretty much reflects the relative simplicity of supplying something similar but on trucks to Ukraine. The Russians knowing, will only ensure they don’t attempt such a landing if they have any sense which I think will be seen as the best solution in terms of defence of Odessa and its surrounds.

            From what I read that location might be the only place they will be used because 1) their effectiveness and specific suitability as outlined above 2) we are anxious that there is no risk that they fall into Russian hands due to sensibilities about the sensor tech and 3) I suspect there just might even be some undercover personnel accompanying them to help exploit them at their best, train Ukrainian forces on the job, ensure they aren’t ‘misused’ and related to that make sure they do not risk falling into Russian hands with the knowledge they are mostly away from the eastern hotspots where most such risk exists. Oh and if things do get hot that any such personal can easily (having fulfilled their task and purpose re those missiles) slip easily across into Romania if required or in an emergency.

          • an amphibious assault on odessa after the moskva incident will be at the russian navy’s discetion the ukranians have shown with the rigt kit, they’ll give even a superpower a run for their money.

          • A very useful tool to have at your disposal!

            “In Ukraine, the missiles would be fired from land towards targets at sea.

            Defence analyst Paul Beaver said the missiles can still be “very effective” fired from land and, most importantly, they “will work”.

            “Integration onto a truck isn’t going to be that difficult,” he said.
            “The engineers at MBDA will have already thought of this and probably be working on it as we speak.

            “More importantly at the moment, it’s the deterrence value of it – to stop any Russian maritime aggression.
            “I think Brimstone could be very effective.”

            However, he did draw attention to the fact the missile is not a long-range missile and not “over the horizon”.

            “This is about, for example, deterring in the first place and then destroying Russian landing craft should they be foolish enough to attack, say, Odesa on the south coast,” he said.”

            https://www.forces.net/technology/weapons-and-kit/brimstone-raf-missile-ukraine-set-fire-land-sea-targets

          • Why is it stupid? We had already agreed to fit sea Brimstone on the patrol boat we were planning to build for them and they would make mince met of any amphibious beach landing craft and vehicles.

          • I think the Sea Spear missile has a 16kg HE warhead not the 6kg armour piercing warhead of the parent Brimstone.

          • Not at all its far more vital defending Odesa strategically than knocking out some tanks which Ukraine has from what I read 10 anti tank weapons for every tank ranged against them. Brimstone has very specialist abilities that make it perfect as a weapon against landing craft and small vessels indeed there is no better I suspect. Oh and it can be used at little risk of it falling into the wrong hands, it can even be detonated in mid flight if required. The prime anti tank weapons being used are far less sensitive in terms of technology. And no doubt in an emergency they could still be used against tanks though I suspect there will be little trace of their existence should tanks get that close to Odesa.

          • No doubt. I’ve no idea on numbers but they can’t be everywhere. Do NLAW and Javelin work?

          • Very well judging by the video evidence and the figures given nearly 600 tanks taken out and the Russians are now pulling badly damaged tanks back to Russia to repair. That said there are no doubt plenty of misses for a range of reasons and no doubt some hits aren’t necessarily kills.

          • Russia is fielding other tanks but the t-90 is only an upgraded T-72. And they didn’t upgrade the important bits that make a t-72 vulnerable. The T-90 shouldn’t even have a new name. Should of been a T-72 model in my opinion.
            There is the T-80 in different models. Possibly some T-64 as well.
            Russian forces have obviously been neglecting the maintenance and upgrades.
            Always wondered how they seemed so strong with a small defence budget spread so widely. Now we know, training, upgrades, maintenance etc etc.
            Russia should withdraw now before it loses more of its equipment and troops. Any gains now are pointless.

          • Yeah they’re working great… And they have armor that the Chally as they say in the UK won’t work against. That’s why the UK has kicked that tank to the curb. That was known shortly after the Gulf war. Hesh does not work on modern armor

          • They’re opening up T72’s and the rest like tins of sardines lol…
            Personally I’m a big fan of the ‘pop off’ turret design.
            I love your posts, brings a smile everytime.

          • Really??? The Chally doesnt work against T90s. Dont think thats true . Ask the Iraqi republican guard how they faired against the Challenger 2.
            The T90 is basically an upgraded T72 with improved engine, auto loader and supposedly better optics, targetting and suspension.
            Very doubtful a T90 can withstand an APFSDS or just “sabot” round fired by a Chally 2 from 2+ miles away.

    • In a word, no. Like him or loath him, and regardless of the reasons, Boris has been VERY much Ukraine number one ally. Pushing for the ‘SWIFT’ measures before the EU or US got on board, arming the Ukrainian military long before the EU, and has consistently backed them.
      The tank suggestion would simply make further soviet era tanks available which will be needed in a protracted conflict, particularly if one considers the sheer volume of equipment lost on both sides in merely a a few weeks of battle.

      (I would say that the UK may been to consider just what OUR operational reserves look like…but I think most of us here have a similar view on that sadly).

      • I suspect actually he is; it’s in his nature. That said I agree his influence has been +be and this conflict will run on a while so backfilling T72 is just the first step. Ajax with its 40mm CTA has to work as a light tank if required. For example I think it is a match for a T72.

        • The CTAS 40, won’t be able to pen the front of a T72. According to CTAS the fin round can penetrate 150mm of armoured steel (RHS). A T72’s upper glacis is well over 300mm, whilst the front of the turret is over 500mm. Which is not taking in to account the additional ERA fitted in front of the steel armour.

          The CTAS 40 might get a few lucky hits frontally on the optics. But unless it can shoot at the rear of the tank, then Ajax will be over matched. Hitting the sides again will be an issue, as the T72’s armour get thicker around the turret basket and where the driver sits, plus they put additional ERA to supposedly boost the protection level.

          Unless they fit something like a Spike ATGM to the Ajax’s turret, it won’t stand a chance in open country.

          • Thx for that detail. So I have to ask what (armoured vehicle) targets are vulnerable to CTA40 that are invulnerable to say a Bushmaster 30mm?

          • CTAS 40 is designed to out range and overmatch vehicles like the BMP and BTR series. The BMP3 however, has additional frontal armour, plus the 100mm gun and coaxial 30mm autocannon. The additional frontal armour was designed to counter Western 30mm rounds. Whether it can or not is debatable, as number of BMP3 were destroyed by Ukrainian BTR4s that use a 30mm autocannon.

            The BMP3 also does not have the same level of technology as the Ajax, not a true hunter-killer capability. So the Ajax “should” see it before the BMP3 can see it to engage. Ajax will have STANAG level 6+ armour over the front, which will protect it against 30mm APFSDS rounds in a standard configuration. It may, like Warrior, have a theatre entry kit for up-armouring. The 100mm gun will be a problem if it manages to hit. By all accounts to make it fit in the turret, they had to make the commander’s and gunner’s positions even tighter. So ergonomics may also be a factor.

          • Davy:
            Didnt the Ukrainians using the BTR 4 fitted with the 30mm GROM module take out a T72 by directing its shots under the turret and side armour just above the wheels and to the rear.

          • Yep plenty of vids of 30mm shots into the back and side (running gear) areas lighting off the auto loader. The armour is V suspect.

          • I believe so, the video I’ve seen with a BTR4 vs a T72, is that they peppered the T72 from behind, knocking out the engine. The armour on the back of the turret is pretty thin by all accounts, especially around the spent cartridge extractor hatch.

          • One minor, Soviet tanks mostly didnt use hardened steel after WW2, just regular cast steel (about 270 on the Brinell scale) and 300 rolled plates for the body vs 400+ hardness for western to save money. The front glacis of the T-72 tank alone had a glass reinforced plastic composite in the arrangement:
            80mm steel
            52.5mm plastic
            52.5mm plastic
            20mm steel
            52.5mm plastic
            52.5mm plastic
            80mm steel.

            The plastic layers wernt single piece as they didnt have the tech to produce them thick enough,

          • I remember looking over an Iraqi T72 Lion that had been peeled apart by a Chally. The composite layering was pretty evident, but it wasn’t enough to stop a Charm round. There seemed to be more steel plates though amongst the rubber sheets.

            From the look of the hit, it had passed through upper glacis and the ERA, then the driver, turret floor and most of the way through the engine. We could tell this as the turret was some 30ft away, so there was a clear view. It was pretty grizzly and not for the feint hearted. The Loggies were tasked with the clean up.

          • I think you are fundamentally correct but having seen concerted cannon fire on what was purported to be a T72 a few weeks back and it apparently being set on fire I am no longer sure about what is and isn’t lethal. Trouble is drone footage isn’t entirely clear and no idea what was firing the rounds and what calibre they were but looked pretty lethal nonetheless with the obvious caveats of not having a close in view ( thankfully) to confirm what one seemed to be seeing. Either way looked decidedly scary.

          • This is the video I’ve seen. It was taken in Mariupol and clearly shows a BTR4 engaging a T72 and a BTR 80.

            Ukrainian BTR 4 destroys russian tank T-72 and BTR-80 in Mariupol, March 19, 2022 – Bing video

            After engaging the BTR, it engages a static T72. Ukrainian infantry can clearly be seen sheltering next to a building. When the BTR opens up they quickly scramble out of the way. You can see the gunner deliberately aim at the area between the tracks and track guard. The hits do seem to set off the ERA. The gunner keeps firing at the same area where its seen a fire breaks out. Which I believe means they hit the behind armour fuel tank after clearing away the ERA. After this the video shows the gunner hitting a barely visible BMP.

            I have seen another video of a BTR4 engaging a possible T72 that was driving away from it. Again the image is too grainy to be sure. But it looks like the BTR immobilised the T72 by taking out its engine.

          • I think the best you could hope for is a mobility kill with the fin round or use an airburst round to disable optics. The CT40 is scarily accurate over 1500m, so I can’t see the Commander taking on an MBT by choice except from a hide.

        • Ajax started as a recce vehicle. Then ‘Strike’ was added to its role – and now Light Tank/Tank Destroyer. Wow, this vehicle will be able to do everything – if the army ever gets it into service.

          • I seem to have ignited a technical debate which is above my pay grade.
            However, I think we can agree it would be good if we can get Ajax into service.😅

      • The US has been supplying Ukraine with arms since 2014. The statement that the UK got on board before the US is blatantly false. Boris, as usual, does a very good job of strutting around blustering and trying to pretend he’s Winston Churchill, but the facts are that is the US which has supplied Ukraine with over $2.4 billion in arms, with another $800 million package waiting to be announced. The UK has only provided a fraction of what the US has provided. Let’s not rewrite history.

        • Daniel, The discussion was about 2022 shipments. You expect a superpower to ship more $ worth of arms than a non-superpower. However the UK has done very well – that ‘fraction’ is a very high fraction. The UK has supplied more missiles than the US.

          • Actually read today that the US is concerned how it is getting through its stocks of stingers and has just put out an urgent call for offers for its replacement to be in service within 5 years. Bod knows how we will replace our missiles or when.

        • Daniel wrote:

          The US has been supplying Ukraine with arms since 2014. The statement that the UK got on board before the US is blatantly false.

          Thats not what Ross wrote, he stated:
          “”Pushing for the ‘SWIFT’ measures before the EU or US got on board,””
          followed by:
          “”arming the Ukrainian military long before the EU, and has consistently backed them.”

          The first military sales by either country was the supply of 75 Saxons to the Ukraine by the UK in 2014, the US supplied Kyiv with 50 HMMWV and 15 TPQ-36 Firefinder artillery finding radars in 2015, granted not arms sales as such, which if we look at offensive capabilities then the US sold 37 launchers and 210 missiles in 2018 followed a year later by another 10 launchers and 150 missiles

        • You’ve rewritten (erased) all the training we’ve supplied!?…to 10’s of thousands of Ukrainians
          But dont let that stop you.

          • Remind me about the numbers within the BMATT? Perhaps you have the syllabus and time spent? Infantryman needs 1-2 years to be good at what they do – how much time did an individual Ukrainian get?

            Stop repeating Bluffer Johnson sound bites.

          • Ask the Ukrainian ‘bluffers’ who are putting their additional skills to good use on a daily basis on the battlefield!
            Men and women are using additional training to turn the tide of war.
            Putin thought he’d have a government sat in place in a week.
            No ‘bluffing’ !

          • So a BMATT have trained 900,00 soldiers, truly impressive, like our 4 Astutes controlling every ocean and sea; seriously, I’m astounded.

        • … and the Poles (indeed others) are really putting their neck on the line without any of the bluster.

          Which reminds me, weren’t the Poles proposing various vehicle set ups (some on Russian derived vehicle designs ironically) in coordination with MBDA for Brimstone. I wonder if they can/are being tapped to hurry things up in respect of this particular requirement..

        • Yes the US has good record keeping in value in dollars of stuff given to Ukraine that can be looked over. Trump and the withheld payment being one headline a few years back. They like to publish figures for each shipment. Both the U.K. and the US have been doing alot amongst other countries also. The total effort has been really helpful to Ukraine.
          The U.K. doesn’t seem to do publish everything in £ value given.
          The training the USA, U.K, Sweden and others gave Ukraine over the past years has made a massive difference and really is what has made the force so effective. Obviously this only adds into the hard work and effort put in by the Ukrainians fighting for survival.

      • I read earlier an article quoting a retired British Army officer that Boris would be talking about the 79 Chally 2 we have in storage.

        If he was right then that put paid to the British Army getting any more than the 148 Chally 3’s already ordered.

        Cheers CR

      • I’ll opt out if I may of giving that piece of lying filth any credit until he resigns.

        Wallace might have been involved but, I’ll put £50 into charity that this idea in no way originated with him.

        #borisbetterbluffoff.

        • And is he any different than the rest of the bent toss pots who inhabit parliament? There is certainly a lack of decent options from all parties.

          • You’re not wrong, Mercer? Ellwood? I’ve no idea – really looks like a swerping clean out is needed.

        • Just wondering if you believe there’s such a thing as a biological woman ? If you know the answer could you let Mr Keir Starmer know please. Asking for a friend.

          • ok, I’ll bite. IMO biological woman is tautology. But the thoughts generated by your imagination can be different from the thoughts generated by sense perception and from the thoughts arising from the memory. Tricky thing the brain. It’s easily fooled. That’s why science came up with the notion of repeated experimental observation and independent verification.

        • Everyone to their own, Ukrainian military have very very high regard for him.
          Means more to me than a ‘parking ticket’ like offence.

          • Well I guess you missed the remark by their PM about not dropping in for a photo op, then?

        • Well remember the alternative was Corbyn. We’d be on our 6th strongly worded letter to Putin if he was running the show.

      • Not saying he hasn’t led the charge; just pointing out that people working quietly behind the scenes have ‘solved’ the Ukraine tank deficit, at least for the moment and in time for the battle.

      • Yes. Some comments above are misleading. Britain provided 450M GBP of military aid thru April 8th. That’s more than 20% of the $2.4 billion US assistance DanielMorgan mentions above so proportionally (size of economy/population) you could say the UK has done more than the US. But where is the discussion about an ounce of prevention compared to a pound of cure? What I don’t understand is why a plan and equipment provisions weren’t put in place after 2014, especially after the downing of a commercial airliner over Russian-invaded territory. The full invasion scenario wasn’t likely but it was a legitimate scenario for Ukraine along with the Baltic States. Stocks separate from any individual country’s inventory of anti-tank weapons and M777 howitzers should have been built and held at the ready for whichever European country Russia decided to invade. 108 M777 Howitzers and ammunition would have cost how much? Around $500 million? What is the sum of the property damage in Ukraine so far? Around $82 billion?

        • Arguing as to whether US or UK or for that matter Poland has done most or first is missing the question. The question is why have some done so little or so late. Cough, cough France, Germany.

          • Exactly. The US and UK are without question leading the western effort to support Ukraine. It’s not a competition.

            However, the list of who isn’t doing enough is long, and neither the US or UK are on that list.

          • Exactly. Should king behaviour by them considering their willingness to feed Putin’s income and the arms they previously sold them. They owe Ukraine big time.

          • France, gearing up for Presidential elections Germany gearing up for their Oktober Beir Festival

          • Indeed!

            The top investigative body in Russia is looking at whether the SAS is “organising sabotage” in Ukraine.

            “The Investigative Committee – Moscow’s main federal investigating authority – said it would be following up a report from Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency.

            RIA quoted a Russian security source as saying about 20 members of the SAS had been deployed in the western Lviv region, close to the border with Poland.”

            https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-russia-investigating-reports-of-sas-sabotage-in-western-lviv-region-12597027

          • Go on then training hours delivered an individual AFU soldier… You work it out…

            Neglible.

          • See my answer above firstly.
            Secondly no one was training an army from scratch after the taking of Crimea.
            The Ukrainians already had an army.
            Bolt on, supplementary and refresher training are what keeps things ‘professional’.
            Look at what they’ve achieved against massive odds and tell me the additional training was negligible!…
            Ask Putin if his ‘week one’ government is in place.
            Dont let you’re hatred for Tories blind your judgement mind.

          • Please try harder, Ellwood, Mercer to take leading roles in Government… are they not Cons as well?

            I have no hatred per se of the Cons, but that bs lying tosser and the rest of his minions need cleaning out.

            Please remind me, which Party promised no cuts to Defence and then cut 9,500(net) from the Army, as well as tanks and has been in power for 12 years presiding over the £5Bn waste that is Ajax? Who promised not to cut RN platforms, we’ve lost 2 frigates, promised not to cut the RAF – go on, guess what happened.

            I’d actually vote for Tobias, but hey that my hatred of the Cons showing through, right?

      • Ask the Ukrainian President?..his own words pretty much said who was leading the way in support, training, sanctions and upping the game heavy hardware wise…and it wasnt Biden!

          • Well, just so we are clear I think he is grandstanding but I’m not holding it against him. He’s doing a good job.👏

          • He’s got the big calls right; NHS and Social care funding, Defence spend / RN fleet, Covid, Rail network, Ukraine, Brexit. The NI protocol is a dogs breakfast but he makes pareto pragmatic decisions. Some of his acolytes like Rees -Mogg and Patel are not top drawer…probably bottom drawer actually.

  3. What tanks? We only have to regiments and two squadrons already dedicated to Estonia. This situation has laid bare how I’ll informed and deluded are government really is about our military capabilities.

      • Yes but crews are more important then tanks, plus those tanks that have been stored have also been gutted for spares.

        • We are not sending crews to Ukraine or Poland – don’t see the point of your comment.
          Not all tanks in Ashchurch will have been stripped for spares.

          • No the MOD says we are sending crews with tanks on a short-term deployment to provide cover for Poland until it gets replacements – presumably Leopards.
            They’d be no point in giving Poles our spare Challys as they don’t have them so would need training, etc, etc.

      • I’m guessing these might the the ones put in storage after the 2010 Defence ‘review’ (if we can call it that).

        • One of the things following the three year injection of cash was backfilling spares that had been STOROBed.

          So it may well be that the parts stripping stopped and stored and supply chain are once again active.

          I’m pretty know, from friends, that the UK military have quietly been mobilising and fixing things just in case things get hotter. I don’t want to get into specifics but it is unsurprising stuff – increasing serviceable numbers and making sure things are properly stored up for protracted usage.

      • 386 Ch2 bought by the British Army. 227 of those are allegedly still in service. 148 of the 227 are being upgraded to Ch3. The difference between 227 and 148 is 79 🤔

      • I wouldn’t suppose it would make much difference to have our tanks sat in Poland instead of the UK. Don’t suppose the wives will be happy but as they were built for a war in Europe (the tanks, not the wives) then it will give them a good bit of experience. Might generate some interest in the batch 3’s too.

        • At least it would stop the whole ‘tanks are irrelevant’ nonsense.

          We are about to see running tank battles T72 against T72….

          • Except that from the news it would appear that the Russians have lost most of their tanks to ATGWS.

          • Where theres people not following OPSEC running around filming on mobile phones the losses have been mostly to ATGWS. The professional soldiers have for the most part not been using mobile phones as they can be tracked.

          • Apparently ther Ukr forces are saying its more losses from the God of War than ATGW. Small commercial drones monitoring fall of shot for the spotters.

          • I heard someone from RUSI say that the Russian losses to ATGWs are heavier than expected due to the fact that their armour is not accompanied by sufficient numbers of infantry to suppress the rocket crews.

          • Yeah that and their tanks being crap. Poorly deployed. Driving along known highways and prepared routes that the Ukr army has set prepared tank trap ambushes for. Then there are issues of crap tank design. Stowed ammo being held in the auto loader carousel and no blow out panels. Add on the fact lots of their ERA (explosive reactive armour) seems to be made of bags filled with sand and its no wonder they are suffering huge casualties.

          • Dont think so. Russia has thousands of old T72/64 in reserve and storage. What thry will be getting short of is willing and trained tank crews prepared to face a withering array of ATGWs NATO has supplied.
            I wouldnt want to be a Russian tanker facing 10 such weapons for every one of their tanks.

          • We already have done, but its been in areas of the country without mobile phone cameras where the real soldiers were doing the fighting. The Ukrainians had 4 tank brigades at the start of the war, two regular and two reserve. One of the reserve has been left guarding Odessa, one of the regular did the fighting on the Chernihiv-Sumy front and the other two were deployed to on the Donbass frontline and to protect Kharkiv.

        • Aye, they’ll defo get experience in Poland… not sure if the wives will be happy.

          Perhaps OMO washing powder sales will surge in the pads.

        • I don’t think our CR2s go to Poland with British crews. Why would they do that? No – I understand we gift surplus CR2s to the Polish army for them to take into service – to enable them to release T72s to Ukraine.

    • The cupboard is bare nothing to get out! But at the same time it isn’t surprising for politicians to think there should be something there when we spend 30/40bn or so on defence per annum.

      If we didn’t have so much mis management and got value for money there should be more there! But I guess spending beyond our means I. Afghan, Iraq etc has emptied things out as well.

      Need to increase to 3pct of GDP and use the money better with longer sustained build of thanks etc on home soil rather than boom bust.

    • All we would be doing is moving our active service tanks to Poland to help defend the country whilst they wait their US replacements.

      I don’t really get why this is a ‘considering’ just send the tanks and job done.

      • I get that but we really don’t have enough armoured formations to appropriately meet are commitments with flexibility.

    • Harry. Two armoured regiments and two sqns in Estonia? That much? Really?
      Anyway HMG decided we only need 148 CR2s for conversion to CR3. We bought 386 CR2s and 1 was written off from TELIC so we should have nearly 250 languishing in Ashchurch, but of course many will be in poor condition/stripped for spares.

    • Still 3 regiments I believe, as the KRH has not converted to Ajax yet as per Strike Brigade plans.

      Agree with the wider sentiment, but there are others in store.

  4. Good. I wonder if the Ukrainians would prefer more t-72 or challenger 2 tanks if given the Choice. Logistics obviously would be a bit of an issue.
    Surely now would be a good time to build new hulls for the challenger 3 instead of refurb with new turrets.
    Also does anyone know out of the 386 built and with 227 in service what happened to the 150 odd left over?
    If 250 could be gifted to Ukraine how much would that reduce the unit cost of the challenger 3. Give them the new tanks and the warrior and Stormer would really help in the coming years

    • Poland’s current MBT fleet mostly consists of Leapord 2s. Abrams was purchased to replace PT 91, with T72 previously expected to carry on in service. Although, with this recent donation Poland may very well need to buy more western MBT although I suspect they would order additional Abrams.

      • The US has thousands of them sitting out in the desert just waiting to be refurbished. And the assembly line is active. All the US Marine tanks that have recently been retired are completely up to date. And the US Marine corps is larger than the entire UK armed forces.

    • It would make sense to have new build C3 as opposed to a combination of old/refurbished and new components. Someone also mentioned about our operational reserves on tanks which are very low indeed for sustained warfare. However, unlikely the UK would take a sensible approach and have new build C3’s and donate the older C2’s to Poland. However, if we did what you are suggesting it could be a win-win all around.We might even then be able to sell some C3’s to Poland if we wanted an export market for C3’s. One lives in hope though!

      • Andrew,
        Don’t change the CR3 plan now! It has been many years in gestation as it is – I worked on the project in 2016 for Rheinmetall. Your idea would slow everything down by many years, would cost more and would achieve no real benefits.
        The current plan is technically a good one but numbers are too low, execution is ridiculously slow and the project is far more expensive than it should be.
        We will build 138 CR3s – with two Type 56 Regiments in the ORBAT, then there will be 26 tanks for the Trg Org/RP/WMR – I agree that is not enough.

          • No problem Graham, don’t forget in peacetime the tank regiments will never have 56 tanks, as some are in Germany or used for training or repairs elsewhere, just as a peacetime tank regiment won.t have the full troop complement.

          • Yep. The main reason units will not have their 56 tanks in peacetime is Whole Fleet Management, which was introduced many years ago.

        • Main thing is to get them done. To my simple mind it should be easy to remake the hull but I am pretty clueless about tank construction.
          Tell me if I’m missing some vital bits but in my head the turret and hull are made out of the same stuff so with new turrets being made the bits for making hulls is already being made. Just make it hull shaped instead of turret shape and adjust thickness accordingly. Using the challenger 2 designs. I know this is a really simplistic way of looking at it.
          If there are max 385 challenger 2 tanks (I say this as can’t get a number for total stored) there may be scope for more upgrades if needed.

          • From what I’ve seen the turret is new but the hull is just being improved with new suspension and some engine upgrades.

          • I hear that the hull is being reworked not replaced – it will be stripped, shot-blasted or similar, all welds inspected and made good as necessary. Items removed will be conditioned – checked for serviceability and residual life – the items that are still good and not needed an upgrade will probably be replaced – other items will be new items.

            The turret is all-new as I understand, as will the cannon. Most if not all of the electronics will be replaced.

            Many other items – PowerPack, suspension etc are being upgraded.

            Then there will be spares to make and new training aids, simulators etc.

            None of the above is easy – a modern MBT is an exceptionally complex bit of kit – but it should not take until 2030 to achieve FOC or costs as much as it will.

    • So you want new hulls and new turrets… you have watched only Fools and Horses episode of Trigger’s broom, right?

      😉

      • Well we’ve done half the job with making a new turret, which is probably the hard part. We may as well finish it off and make some new hulls to so we can up the numbers.

    • I have often wondered about the 386 – 227 tanks ie the 150-odd. One was lost in the friendly fire incident in TELIC and to my certain knowledge none were sold. I doubt any were fully scrapped, so they must all be in Ashchurch – in various states of condition depending on whether they became ‘Christmas Trees’ or not.

  5. The main force in Poland is the Abrams tank, and if replace a number of T-72s to assist Abrams with the Challenger tank, how many tanks will the UK have?

    Of course, it would not be a problem if the UK reorganizes from the current organization that points to tanks, 
    and it may expect to export the Challenger 3 tank to Poland in the future.

    However, the key is whether Poland will go to two tanks, Abrams and Chellenger. 

    And where does the British Army reorganize from the tank-pointing organization go?

    • Poland’s current MBT fleet mostly consists of Leapord 2s. Abrams was purchased to replace PT 91, with T72 previously expected to carry on in service. Although, with this recent donation Poland may very well need to buy more western MBT although I suspect they would order additional Abrams.

    • I think you’re all missing the detail of this proposal. This isn’t a donation of Challenger 2’s to Poland, it’s a deployment of British Army Challenger 2’s to Poland, with British crews integrated into the Polish Army to plug the gaps until the Polish Abrams order is fulfilled.

      • I hadn’t heard that detail – where did you get that from? I thought we were gifting surplus CR2s to Poland (for them to own, train on and crew) in order to release T72s to Poland.

      • I wonder how many CR2s will deploy to Poland? I bet it won’t be too many. We have lost the ability to do anything ‘at scale’.

      • The problem I’m having with that statement is if the Poles have spare crew having donated tanks but have tanks in reserve, then why do they need Brit tanks?

        Where are the Polish crews? Ukraine?

    • They arent building new Challengers, they will be offering the Challenger 3 upgrade for export to the other Challenger 2 users but its likely our next tank will be the European Main Battle Tank ‘Eurotank’ as the UK has joined the project as an observer.

      • By the other CR2 users, you mean the mere 38 tanks that Oman has.
        The CR3 project virtually amounts to creation of new vehicles, or re-manufacturing to be pedantic.
        I wait with interest to hear more about the Eurotank – past international MBT collaborations involving the UK have all failed.

        • Has there ever been an international tank? You know what will happen the French and Germans will agree to disagree and it will fall by the wayside!

          • I don’t think so. Imo.

            French will be quite happy to have Germany leading the tank programme if Fr get to dominate the SCAF, as the latter is much larger.

          • The 8th tank in existence was conceived as international!
            US would supply the mechanicals, Britain armour plate and weapons and it would be assembled in France.
            War ended before it entered mass production.

          • There have been at least 2 attempts – US-West German MBT-70 in the 1960s – and the UK-West German FMBT in the 1970s.

            There has been more success with collaborative IFV/APC programmes – eg ASCOD, Boxer.

        • They are supposedly also going to market the turret as a standalone product for fitting to other tanks/Armoured vehicles with the same/similar diameter turret ring.

      • Id hope we go for the US militaries next mbt. It will undoubtedly be built at a much lower unit price than a Franco-German mess up.
        Thousands vs hundreds of models built.

  6. The most comedic comments were from General Barron’s who seems stuck in a time warp stating that the British forward positioned troops, in the Baltics. would be crushed by the Russian airforce unless US AirPower was deployed.

    Completely bonkers.

    The one thing we have seen is that the Russian airforce is useless and with NATO air overhead including Typhoon, F35A/B, F16 etc never mind Patriot of Land Ceptor or the other flavours theatre systems I can’t see the Russians able to operate at all. NATO, collectively, has a lot of well trained jets in the European theatre. Then take into account the US ones based at Ramstein and in the UK.

    • Telegraph today

      “ In a Parliamentary hearing on Tuesday, General Sir Richard Barrons, ex-head of Britain’s Joint Forces Command, warned that Nato was woefully unprepared to fight Russia were the Ukraine conflict to spread. For example, the 900-strong British force in Estonia – part of Nato’s much-fanfared new Baltic presence – would be wiped out by Kremlin air power within “a week”, he said. Without US air support, he added, any British forces that went to help them would be pulverised by Russian air power.”

      https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/23/putins-war-ignited-new-nuclear-arms-race/

      • NATO air power (with or without the US who have further to deploy) would reinforce the area in a matter of hours. Russia could not control Estonian air space for a week.

        Regardless of that, intel would know an attack is coming and the forces in Estonia would not be caught with their pants down and defences would be ready.

      • Plus there is a two reasons why you target the civilian population. One is morale the other is your conventional military is incapable of hitting a cows arse with a banjo !

      • The ex head of UK J.F.C. is a moron who knows F.A. I genuinely wish I could act surprised. But I can’t.
        😔

      • Given Russia has failed to gain air superiority over Ukraine after over 50 days I can’t see it achieving superiority over Estonia in a week against NATO even if the USA was absent for some reason. Sounds like the General has an agenda to push rather than giving straight answers.

        • Any airfield in Estonia is completely in range of a myriad of Russian rockets and artillery. Or is the UK loves to say fires. That’s kind of an issue. It’s a little tiny country and there is no defense in depth.

        • USA might be absent but RAF wouldnt be. I cant see Russias pilots only trained to fly in pairs or quads going to be able to defeat RAF formations of F35Bs and Eurofightwr. They wouldnt obtain and maintain air superiority over Estonia.

      • Within a week ,same statistics as BAOR during the cold War except they could fight on indefinitely if resupplied Barron didn’t mention that little bit

    • It is too early to judge how Russia’s Air Force has been performing. They have definitely held back on the use of both fixed wing and rotary launched guided weapons. Why? In Syria they have been using a mix of both guided and unguided, so why not in Ukraine. There has been a distinct lack of pushing for air superiority or offensive SEAD missions over Ukraine. Rather favoring using short range and tactical ballistic missiles, along with cruise missiles against strategic and key targets.

      An assumption would be they are holding back, due to the sanctions. As it’s unlikely that they can quickly backfill the number of Iskanders fired. But perhaps they are keeping these in reserve if there is a need to engage NATO. Their refocus of shifting their forces to push from the South and East, means they can better provide local air superiority. But also means using unguided weapons can be better employed, as there are clearer lines of demarcation between the two forces.

      We know Russia have guided weapons, as they have been seen being used on the recent joint exercises with Belarus and China. So their command must have a reason for not employing them.

      So in this case, I think the General is correct. Russia still has plenty in reserve, we don’t!

      • I have to say that I don’t concur with that assessment of Russian capabilities.

        a) Russia fell into a trap of using French provided avionics for its newer planes and refurbs. The supply of that dried up. It never got all the targeting bits that it needed.

        b) a lot of the more high tech bits of metallurgy always were done in Ukraine. This is, I think, the real reason for this war. Post 2014 Russia couldn’t make much in the way of rockets, turbines and whole jet engines.

        c) because of the two above reasons Russia has been operating STOROB like crazy to keep anything working.

        d) Anything that could be sold off to line the pockets of the corrupt has long ago disappeared and that is most of the spares.

        e) GLONAS has been well and truly messed up on an epic scale so some of the munitions won’t work at all.

        f) I wonder if some of the missiles that were fired early on were retargeted?

        Yes, the Russian had/have some cruise type missiles but I don’t think they have the serviceable numbers that many suppose. I also don’t think that the Russians have as many full serviceable aircraft with all functional systems as is now becoming very apparent.

        • Like you say it could all be smoke and mirrors. But I wouldn’t discredit them just yet, until there’s sufficient evidence. They simply cannot be predicted with what they will do next, especially if Ukraine is seen to be winning back territory.

          One thing you didn’t mention was that prior to 2014, Ukraine provided the majority of the sensors that Russia’s guided weapons used. After 2014 they tried to reverse engineer these parts setting up factories in both Belarus and Russia. But the rumour is they have had difficulties with quality control, where a lot of the sensors weren’t working after firing or their performance was worse than the originals.

          Apparently France, were still providing technical and spares support for the systems that were fitted to the upgraded T90Ms a month after Russia invaded Ukraine, before Worldwide political pressure made them stop. With the current embargo on components etc, unless they get these parts from China. I believe Russian will quickly burn through their in-service equipment without having replacements, as they won’t have the components to repair faulty electronic equipment. Which may put them in a similar position to Iraq in Gulf War 1, where Western technological superiority overmatches a greater number of basic systems

          • I’m not surprised about the sensors issue.

            Russia never had good manufacturing capabilities for precision stuff.

        • Lots of key bits.

          All the big Antonov transport planes were always made there etc

          I think some of the avionics were too.

          I know various specialist jet and rocket bits were made in Ukraine for sure.

      • Yes, its interesting that the Russians have not used precision guided weapons. I wonder if the reason is so as not to legitimise NATO giving them to Ukraine.

    • As well as General Barrons’ inaccurate point, it was thoroughly negative and defeatist.
      Also, it suggests that the British Army would be negligently tactically handling the armour (much as the Russians did in Ukraine Phase 1), and exposing it to enemy air all the time.

      • I am hoping he had an ulterior motive. He is the first person to really lay out the truth who had been in command, without spouting the party line. Does Russia have sufficient numbers in active reserve to attack the Baltics? Probably not any more with 1st line units, following the catastrophic performance the brigade combat teams have shown so far and the significantly losses these teams have suffered.

        Perhaps what he is saying is that the small token force in the Baltic would be quickly overwhelmed by Russian forces if the were at full strength. He is laying it on the line and implying that the deployed forces we have sent are not enough, if the cack hit the fan.

        How else do you state that the Army is understrength and ill equipped?

        • But the small force we have in the Baltics wouldn’t be fighting alone?

          Unless I’m missing something the locals would also be involved and they would be pretty motivated. Never mind the massive air resources that NATO really does have.

          I agree if we had 10k men to send then we should. But we don’t so we do what we do best send in a crack team to train and coordinate the locals.

      • It came across as being a very odd comment given that rapid support in hours from 100’s of NATO jets who could precision missile the Russian armour into smithereens with ease.

        • That’s simply not true.

          They could 10p% wipe Russian air off the face of the map and proceed to make new razor blades out of Russian armour and human fertilizer out of their cannon fodder, BUT, only once their respective governments had gained national authority.

          That is THE Problem with Article 5 and means nothing is automatic.

          Indeed, Finland would be first in to… finnish… Russian forces, they said so.

          So, given, that there are nearly 2,000 Brit bods there along with Estonian AF, ffFrench and Danes, not sure that a full on attack could be repulsed by local forces especially as all the Balts are in dire need if multi-layered AD.

          VERY happy to be corrected.

          • What’s the likelihood of a full on attack that we wouldn’t know was coming? VERY unlikely I would hazard a guess given how they advertised what they were up to in Ukraine.

          • I won’t disagree except to say, Germany in the military sense have skin in the game, politically they’d need their arms twisting.

            Next, I give you France.

            Thankfully, Canada are in Latvia with America in Poland, thank the heavens.

  7. The Poles have Leopard 2, so it would make more sense for any surplus Dutch/German Leopard 2 to be given to Poland. Or US surplus stocks of M1 now that Poland is buying the latest version.
    Slightly off topic. The US military has just adopted the Sig 6.8×51 as its next rifle/machinegun.

    • A new calibre weapon has been on the cards for a few years now, with the US looking at both 6.2 and 6.8 mm variants. Will see how long it takes the rest of NATO to follow suit!

      • Deep wrote:

        A new calibre weapon has been on the cards for a few years now, with the US looking at both 6.2 and 6.8 mm variants. Will see how long it takes the rest of NATO to follow suit!

        The irony here is, just after the war the British impressed with the German army 7.92 “Kurz” round decided to develop their own and came up with the .280 British round everybody was impressed with it, except the US who were pushing their own 7.62(long) , they won NATO went 7.62 in 1954 only for the yanks who had complained that the .280/30 didn’t have the legs to go further than 800 metres to then drop the 7.62 (long) and go down the route of the 5.56mm, only to find that that the 5.56mm didn’t have the legs to keep up with the Russian 7.62 (short) and set about looking for something that would and settled on a design almost identical to the .208 British they rejected.
        key for picture from right:
        5.56 x 45 (NATO)
        7.92 × 33 mm Kurz,(German)
        7.62 × 39 mm, (Russian)
        7.62 × 51 mm NATO,
        T-65E1 49 mm,(The round the 7.62×51 was based on)
        280/30 British, (Pink tip)
        .276 Pedersen
        .303 British
        .276 Enfield
        30-06 Springfield

        • The 6.8×51 will outrange 7.62x54R, which is what the Americans wanted. It will be a fine 7.62×51 replacement, but is it a tad too hot to replace 5.56? The 5.56×45 is a 2mm shorter case than the .222 Remington magnum, but otherwise the same. There was a target shooting version of the .222 Rem Mag, necked up to a 6mm bullet. Recently American 1911 enthusiasts came up with the .45 super. They noticed the .45 acp, dating to 1911, has a low pressure in comparison to modern rounds, so the super has a thicker base internally, to take high pressure modern powders, but externally is the same as .45acp. What if we put all these ideas together? Take the 6×47, stretch it 1mm, with the extra internally to strengthen the base, then use modern powders to give it oomph & finally the low drag 105 grain 6mm bullet from the 6mm Arc? A 6mmx48, the same diameter case as 5,56, so the same number of rounds in the magazine. Too long for a 5.56×45 magazine well, but would fit in a 7.62×51 well.

        • Knew about the US favouring 7.62mm, also believe that Churchill had a say in us not pushing our .280 round and going with the US, although can’t remember why!
          But yes totally agree how ironic this has turned out, perhaps we knew a good thing back in the day!

          • I’m sure after the war the British boffins set about finding what is the perfect round. After loads of tests they came back with the .280. Looks like they were right 70 years ago.
            America is going to still use the M4 5.56mm for lots of roles in the future.
            Personally I thought the general dynamics bullpup design with polymer ammo was the best and I had hoped it would win. Think the bullpup was a step too far for the yanks. Textrons bid with the telescoped ammo failed but if they can get it to work as good as normal ammo has great potential.

          • Again… No one cares what the UK wants to do. A bit player since world war II. All the other major players do what they want to do. Everyone has had cool ballistic ideas. And yes it’s not rocket science. But if no one wants to use it then it’s pretty much freaking useless.

          • I have never heard the post-WW2 UK as ever being called a bit player. How rude. How inaccurate. Esteban, are you an American, inspired by MAGA Trump-ness?
            The UK remains a major player on the world stage, notwithstanding that we dismantled the Empire.

          • Not really true is it! Who do the US come to when they need partners for anything that requires the military?? Why don’t you try and work it out!
            No it’s not rocket science, but the US is equally good at f**king up major armaments programmes, just look at the F35, Zumwalts etc. Don’t think rocket science is the issue do you!!!

  8. I would suspect that this is about deploying a battle group, until Poland can purchase more leopard 2s or Abrams, I’m not sure they would want a number of orphaned challenger2s it would make their logistics and training pipelines really complex.

    personally I would like to see the challenger 2 that are not being converted to challenger 3 kept and maintained in storage in state they can be returned to service if needed.

    This would allow for:

    1) conversion to challenger 3 if needed
    2) used in case of sudden operational need to replaces losses ( as an example if a point class loaded with a battle group floundered for some reason, and a good amount of large ships flounder every year).
    3) could form a reserve armoured unit, we need to develop a more robust reserve force if we are going to lean down the army to the bone.

  10. I think it’s showing now that the 148 challenger 2 tanks slated for upgrading will not be enough going forward.

    • We all identified that error in judgement, it equates to two Armoured Regiments, plus training and maintenance, plus reserve….

      That’s simply not enough, dropping from three Regiments is a massive mistake.

      They are hollowing out the the force structure beyond all good sense and reason right at a time of massively increased threat … Apparently the Government don’t feel the need to revise the last SDSR!!

      We can only hope that behind closed doors serious spending increases are being planned…

    • The US defence stocks have surprisingly not been doing very well, Co-vid related supply and staffing issues and Boeings continuing commercial airliner woes.

  12. Getting heavy weapons to Ukraine is really a priority as Russia have now made it clear they are going for a land bridge to Moldova and Moldova would not have the fight Ukraine has ( it’s a tiny county, with and area already in Russian defacto control.

  13. Now having fewer than 200 operational Tanks has come back to bite us in the behind.

    Anyone’s thoughts on whether the UK needs to get C3 built in larger numbers?

    With the Russians painting Moldova as it’s target cutting towards Bulgaria’s borders, the ground is prime Tank and fast moving warfare territory, it is no longer “if the UK can afford it”, more of if we don’t, where does NATO stop Russia’s aim of re-establishing a Warsaw Pact II?

    • When does fast,moving,armour and Russian even come into the same sentence?
      judging on the last few weeks they haven’t shown they can move sod all 10 miles from a railway!

    • We are only upgrading 148 out of the 386 originally purchased – and the upgrade is spread out over 8 years.

  15. If this goes ahead then the Poles will be giving their 125mm ammo stocks to Ukraine and operating smooth bore ammo for their Leopards and soon to have Abrams and also be using UK sourced HESH for their rifled Challengers. Seems a very complicated way of doing things. Surely they’d be better off receiving more Leopards whilst we in the UK convert ALL our C2 to C3 and form a second armoured Div.

    • The article clearly says

      The Ministry of Defence said on Friday:

      “The UK is exploring sending British Challenger 2 Tanks to Poland. While no decisions have been taken, these would be deployed on a short-term basis and operated by UK personnel to bridge the gap between Poland donating tanks to Ukraine and replacements arriving.”

      They would be operated by U.K. personnel.

      I would guess the Polish Army would use Leopards ( and Abrams ) as front line tanks in the event of any action involving Polish tanks and hold the T-72 in reserve or to cover flanks, etc. The Challengers would backfill those areas the T-72s would operate in, with British Tank Regiment crews operating them – but using Polish bases for most of the logistics ( like accommodation and food ). Send the minimum U.K. personnel needed and embed the Challengers into the Polish tank strategy – not deploy a battle group or division.

      We will get them back when Poland get their new tanks.

      It doesn’t make sense to donate a tank they don’t use.

    • Rob. That would make far to much sense. Although i think MOD are turning away from heavy armour and wants drones drones drones. They are cheaper than soldiers and expendable.

  16. While I support Poland being reinforced, I certainly think this is more about a force strength increase rather than a replacement.

    On paper, Poland has 470 T-72s in storage, in addition to the 120 spread across 3 T-72 battalions (they also have Leopards and 233 PT-91s, which are themselves evolved T-72s).

    So it seems they could pull a lot from storage without any impact on their immediate defense capabilities. I can’t imagine they’re planning to donate more than their storage can support.

    Now, another question is whether the tanks in storage are serviceable, perhaps necessitating tanks be pulled from active units.

    http://www.military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2pl.htm

  17. Sky News is reporting that the defenders in Mariupol steelworks have received supplies via a night time helicopter run. They also report that some crack Russian units from Mariupol are being redeployed to the Donbas front.

  18. This makes sense as a temporary measure.

    Meanwhile, six random predictions:

    – The conservatives are destroyed at the local elections. Boris is gone by Christmas.
    – There SA80 is replaced by a Sig or HK 6.8mm
    – the UK buys the K9 Thunder
    – the UK joins the M1 Abrams replacement program (because the Germans have been too sketchy recently)
    – Ukraine is split into separate Western and Eastern nations. Western Ukraine joins the EU and NATO
    – the West is still too dumb to understand the threat posed by the CCP

    • The CCP & its crazy zero covid lockdown supply shortages, may finally, dear god please, wake up Western politicians & bankers on the need to reshore industry to UK, USA & EU.

    • – Will be difficult for the Conservatives to be destroyed in local elections as Labour got a high watermark number of seats last time round.
      – Ukraine won’t be spilt like Germany, it’s already clear that Russia intends to annex any Ukrainian territory it holds by staging referendums like they did in Crimea.
      – K9 is the best system in the market, especially with the K10 automated resupply vehicle.
      – It’s due to corporate greed and economic cost not ‘dumbness’ though result is the same.

      • The Conservatives can be beaten by co-operation between Labour and the LibDems.
        New ‘people’s republics’ of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk could end the fighting. Bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow though.
        It is a result of corporate greed.

    • All credible except Boris lasting to xmas, if the Conservative party has any future they must remove him in weeks.

    • The UK lead the original Boxer design. Its a successful program. Why not get Rheinmetal and BAE to design a Euro successor to Leopard and Challenger?

  19. So If we find we need a lot more tanks in the next few years, what do we do? Anything to help Ukraine is good though.

  20. I wish Russia would deploy some of their vaunted T14 Aramata tanks. Just so we can see exactly how useless they are. Im thinking very useless and all bombastic claims are in reality just a load of hot air. Any tank where the crew are all contained in a single forward mounted compartment that they have to climb over each other to access via a single hatch is going to be a death trap for its 3 man crew.

  21. i’m all for supporting ukraines defence against the ragtag rabble that was sent to invade and desecrate its soil, but do we have enough for ourselves left?

  22. All this gear that we’re sending to Ukraine, e.g. the Stormers and apparently some AS90s – what are we doing about replacing it? The Govt has never exactly been generous with the defence budget

  23. after the performance of mechanized units and russian tanks the deployment of nato tanks should alarm them greatly. NATO will after the ukraine war ends be easy prey for nato. and they know it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here