The UK is considering supplying Ukraine with Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks, which would be the first time a Western country has offered to supply heavy armour to Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Downing Street hasn’t made a final decision yet, but Ukraine is hoping that if the UK agrees, Germany might follow suit and provide Leopard 2 tanks as well.
According to a report from Sky News, the UK might send around 10 Challenger 2s to Ukraine, which is only a tiny portion of the 300 tanks that Ukraine is hoping to get as they try to beef up their mechanised forces.
Last week, Berlin and Washington announced in a joint statement that they would be giving Ukraine armoured combat vehicles as part of a major policy shift. For Germany, this means sending Marder infantry fighting vehicles, and for the US, it includes Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
In March 2021, the British Army announced plans to upgrade 148 of its 227 Challenger 2s with the aim to extend its service life out to at least 2035; these upgraded models will be known as Challenger 3. It is not planned to upgrade all Challenger 2s; those not upgraded will be retired or potentially sold/given away.
The Challenger 2
The Challenger 2 is heavily armoured and equipped with a 120mm cannon, which is capable of firing a variety of rounds, including armour-piercing and high explosive. It also has a 7.62mm machine gun and a range of other defensive and communication systems.
One of the key features of the Challenger 2 is its advanced armour, which provides a high level of protection against a range of threats including kinetic energy and chemical energy rounds. The Challenger 2 has been used by the British Army in several conflicts, including Iraq. It has a reputation for reliability and performance and has been widely praised for its ability to withstand the demands of modern warfare.
10 is comically few.
The real prize for the Ukrainians will be Leopard 2, and the UK offer will put some momentum behind that.
Exactly that this is a ploy to get the Germans to open up the Leopard market👍
And open up any other heavy armour from international donors I’d say, but diplomatically it’d be a smart move if Britain took the initiative, even if we’re only donating a handful.
Defo, hence the story leaked first to Der Spiegel… worth it if we can get the Germans to pull their finger out finally.
I presume you mean because of higher numbers and not it’s capabilities. The Leopard 2A4 wouldn’t fair well against the Challenger 2.
Exactly, there’s a far deeper pool of Leopard 2’s that could theoretically be provided, and not just by Germany but a range of NATO states.
Deeper pool. It is estimated Germany has some 2000+ Leopard 2 held in reserve. How the mighty have fallen. The German army in the cold war could muster multiple armoured divisions. Now not so sure.
Germany could easily supply Ukraine with 300+ MBTs. They won’t though as Scholz is still hopeful of cheap Russian gas imports resuming to allow Germany’s manufacturing output to continue it’s onward march.
There is no mythical reserve of 2000 Leopard 2 in Germany or anywhere else in Europe,at the end of the Cold War Germany’s impressive fleet was dismantled and examples exported literally all around the world.The L2 cupboard was so bare Rheinmetall/KMW recently had to resort to buying back spare examples from Switzerland to top up its stocks for re-manufacture.The newest customer,Hungary are are being equipped with New Builds,luckily the Germans retained the ability to produce them.
None fair well against each other…
Maybe with the financial aid that’s been recently ring fenced we could purchase ex German leopards on behalf of Ukraine?
Still need German Government to agree to onward export to Ukraine.
Agreement made today – Poland has made the first move, Leopard 2 from its own inventory will be sent to Ukraine.
Interesting. The German Government would have had to agree that (End User Agreement).
I suspect UK will withdraw the thought of sending 10 or so CR2s.
Everyone from Germany, us, Poland etc and now UK are considering it. No one has actually pulled the plug yet. This feels more like a don’t forget about us move.
What I don’t understand is why everyone is nervous about giving tanks. The US has huge numbers in reserve, they could donate. Can only assume nations are worried that their vunerablities will be revealed. For European countries you could understand if the concern is that they have enough for their own needs so none to spare but the US surely has plenty.
I think, to start with, a small number is sensible.
Well it’s only 50 more & they’ll have what the British Army has planned to be deployed in the frontline
mainly because we don’t have a large number….
No, 3 regular regiments reducing to 2 when KRH converts.
So unless Saunders rips up A2020R and alters the ORBAT we won’t need many more than planned if they’re T56.
I’d prefer a few more and the 3rd Reg retained, but tanks are not the priority anyway in my view. We don’t need a new BAOR.
ISTAR and artillery is regards land domain, with the RN and RAF top priority, so no need for the hundreds and hundreds of tanks some are asking for.
Hi Daniele, as you may know I’m no military expert as you and many others on this site. Always appreciate the advice you give. For my small knowledge on military matters, the UK to have similar levels of MBTs as we did in the cold war as some sugest would be such a waste of the defence budget. We don’t need hundreds of tanks , after all we have no land boarder to protect, the tanks we have would have to be deeployd to a conflict zone which is a slow logistical process. Far better to equip the army RN… Read more »
Morning George.
I agree. I do not advocate getting rid of the capability, Tanks are needed. Just not several hundred of them!
3 Brigades with a single Armoured Regiment each as before to form a single Armoured Division was fine for the UK, we have other priorities.
Just which priority will be given enough? RAF, RN, intelligence, training…..?
For me all 4 of those!
thanks DM , liking the idea of 3 brigades each with 1x single armoured regiment , seems a well struck balance.
Alas being thrown away.
With the rule of 5 before 2015 with 5 deployable brigades we could sustain an enduring brigade level commitment too.
The move from 3 Armoured Brigades to 2 Armoured and 2 “Strike” was actually a cut when taking the ORBATS and especially the CS/CSS into account, but some cannot see through it.
Thanks DM, a sad state of affairs .
Hi George, The US has no land borders to protect from an adjacent enemy yet has over 2,500 tanks. We do not use tanks to defend the UK – we use them for expeditionary operations (deterrence and warfighting). We have deployed tanks abroad since 1916 – we know how to do it. It takes some effort, but it takes some effort to sail a carrier group to the South China Seas and it took some effort to deploy RAF aircraft and support staff to Afghanistan and other places. Of course we do not need similar levels of tanks to the… Read more »
Hello George
“Far better to equip the army RN & RAF with modern agile easily deployable assets”. – you have my vote with regards to the RAF! The RN is doing fine under the plan to return to 24 surface combat hulls (IMHO).
Hi DM, Actually your post is a timely reminder for me to ask if the Labour party have a published defence paper/manifesto on their defence policy and plan? Specifically detail on army force levels, RN ship levels, RAF sgns etc?
If you are aware of such a document, could you share a link to access? Thanks in advance.
Morning mate.
I’ve not seen or heard of such.
Cheers Mate, I did think that was likely to be the case, thought to check anyway.
We bought 386 CR2s, about 3 have been written off so down to 383, of which we declare 227 as being in-service, so (on paper) we have a spare 156 (ie 383-227) to give to Ukraine. Not such a small number. In practice, many will be Christmas Trees (ie partly stripped for spares over the years). Plus we are only converting 148 to CR3, so have a further 79 (227-148) to gift and those should be in fair condition. So a pool of 235 (ie 156 + 79) to be considered for gifting to UA . Quite a big number,… Read more »
The fact we’re only upgrading 148 is pretty comical too
I wouldn’t say it’s comical, though I’d agree there should be at minimum the current force level.
As comical as only buying 6 x Type 45 destroyers when the RN needed and asked for 12 – or buying 7 x Attack subs when we had 28 in the early 80s – or buying 9 x P-8 Poseidon to replace 35 Nimrod MR.2’s
Welcome to the wonderful world of defence cuts, defence reviews, defence-disinterested prime ministers and bean-counters!
Morning Graham . Sadly , we are likely to have another round once Team labour take over next year.
I’m of the view the RAF is in bad shape with regards to force levels. interesting to note the 2003 cuts left the RAF with 16 front line fast jet sqns . Look at the numbers today- circa half of that.
Labour aren’t always terrible news for defence – we got the carriers project initiated thanks to their 1998 SDR.
Surely no-one could cut the army to less than 73,000 personnel or 148 tanks.
Worrying about RAF numbers, I agree with you.
If Labour get in, I hope they retain their shadow Minister John Healey to be SofS – he is very sound.
Agreed. Like the comically few in the tiny British Army.
I reckon we have 383 left out of the 386 CR2s we bought, of which 227 are declared as being in-service (and the remainder ‘retired’).
I’ve dug up a post from Gabrielle Molinelli’s twitter feed which suggests that 80 CR2 were scrapped (non recoverable), which corresponds with what was alluded to from an ex – CR2 Commander, so you’re probably looking at around 300 max Hulls all told.
Thanks Paul, I found Gabriele on Twitter – what date was that CR2 post? He is an Italian journalist who writes well about British defence matters but where did he get the story about 80 CR2s being scrapped – I cannot find a written source anywhere.
Could an Italian have misused the term ‘scrapped’? – and just mean that those 80 tanks have been comprehensively stripped for spares and are off the MoDs books for CFE count purposes, but are retained as ‘Christmas Trees’ at Ashchurch.
The date was 22 April 2022,the phrase he used was ‘disposed of’,but probably irreversible.This matches up with the author of this book’s memories of the subject https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Challenger-2-Kindle/p/14460
Thanks Paul. There was no MoD announcement of scrapping 80 CR2s.
I would give them all our tracked fleet (CR, AS Warrior, FV) and start again (take the capability holiday). We can replace with KF51/41/31/CV90/Ajax and/or SEP and/or Boxer. what we need to decide is exactly what we expect of our army and how they achieve that. I am not sure heavy armour and Central Europe tie in with such a small military and a government with global aspirations. We need to stop pretending we can do everything within current budgets. the other thing to say is that any new formation requires far more AAD and Fires than what we have… Read more »
Wouldn’t that be nice 😅
So basically just get rid of any capability to fight peer on peer for 10 years at least? Great and what about maintaining the skill set if anything else? Unfortunately regardless of how this conflict ends the British Army must refocus to conventional conflict on the content with expeditionary operatings coming second.
I expect joint theatre entry to be our speciality
why not? It was ok for carrier strike and mpa. what I would say is are we going to fight any peer in that time, where would that be? Why should we fight in the European plain when Germany don’t do their bit and why would you send our troops out in kit that is not fit for purpose? ukraine is desperate and needs our help. I believe we should give it, also if we really wanted to we could refresh the whole military inventory in 3-5 years if we wanted to but we don’t. ajax can be turned into… Read more »
1st are naval industry is kept at great additional expense. Batch 2 river where ordered simply to keep the production lines open. However, ship production by its nature takes longer so can sustain lower orders. 2nd our kit is generally fit for purpose and if a war was to happen the resources would be found quickly to make it happen. Also country’s like Poland and Estonia certainly do there bit and why shouldn’t we? Better to fight them in Eastern Europe then in the west. Also Germany is certainly trying to make up for bad decisions and is no more… Read more »
We took a risk having that massive capability gap for carrier strike and MPA, but warfighting doesn’t come around that often for those capabilities. The army rarely has much of a break from kinetic operations so he risk would be that much higher. Our army is currently doing deterrence ops in eastern Europe (Poland and Estonia) – we are in NATO and must go to where the threat to NATO is – we are not a one-man band doing purely national operations – we do Alliance ops, and always have done. Germany is steadily increasing its defence budget and is… Read more »
I hope our army’s enemies take a capability holiday too!…and that our Treasury has exceptionally deep pockets to totally re-equip the army with armour.
We don’t merely defend the UK – we are in NATO and need to be able to contribute to NATO operations (and UN operations, and US-led Coalition operations) so we can’t drop major capabilities.
Totally agree we need more AD and Arty (tube and rocket), and to upgrade what we have.
we have taken multiple capability holidays across the other force structures, you could also argue we are currently taking one with armour given its state.
As for money HMG finds billions for other things when it wants to. It can do so for a problem of its own making.
£20bn is peanuts in the scale of public spending.
With carriers/Harriers and MPA – it was a true 10 year capability gap there was no capability at all. We were potentially very vulnerable. Today there is no missing capability, just that the capability has aged. Tanks – we have 227 CR2 in-service including 3 armd regts. SP Arty – we have AS90 in service Armoured recce – Scimitar still around, but Warrior being prepared as an interim replacement until Ajax can be delivered in a fit state. No gap IFV – Warrior is still in-service and wil be replaced by Boxer, without a gap. But you advocate creating a… Read more »
Only 148 to be upgraded to Challenger 3 is simply no were near enough for a major power.
Yes in light of recent events we could surly do with doubling that number but I doubt that will happen.
Hopefully if a ch2 is lost in combat it will dispel any illusions of invulnerability
contemptible comment- I can only assume (hope) you’re not British.
I can only assume English isn’t your first language?
I think you need to explain that comment.
A lot of smokescreen gets thrown up about the ch2s supposedly invulnerable armour. Meanwhile more important features such as CITV, present on other NATO tanks, get ignored.
Hopefully if one is lost in combat it will focus minds about the importance of keeping tanks up to date instead of making massive jumps every few decades so the budget available has to be split between fewer vehicles.
CR2’s armour is clearly very good – and no CR2 (or CR1, which had an earlier form of Chobham Armour) has ever been lost to enemy fire – unlike many other tanks from western nations.
But no armour is invulnerable, just as Titanic was not unsinkable. I think we all know that. But I am not hoping for a Chally to be destroyed by a very powerful enemy munition.
The DAS to be fitted to CR3 will further improve the British tank’s ability to survive.
Your last two words sum this up totally; we are a long time away from being a major power.
I agree. Bruce, were you in the army (REME)?
Nope, I’m a navy guy.
Always bear in mind when talking about our numbers of tank that we’re going to have to move them a long way by sea, road and rail to get them anywhere where they’d be useful.
I’d argue for a split and keep the 148 CH3 and get a wheeled vehicle along the lines of the Centauro or the Type-16 to work with Boxer equipped units to provide the firepower.
Many questions. Isn’t CR2 a unique rifled bore? Do they/will they have the ammo? Can they service the beast, mechanically and electronically? Will CR2 be degraded to remove ‘sensitive’ equipment (sighting/radios/computers)? How long from UOR will it take to get them on the ground in battle with support teams? Many more questions of ‘sensitive’ nature need answering.
What happened to the Challenger 2’s that were mothballed in the 2010 review? From memory it was about 100 tanks. Surely there are more than 10 that we can dust off and make good?
Meanwhile in the long term start plans to construct brand new Challenger 3’s and get the numbers back up.
Certainly it would make sense to contribute all serviceable Challengers that aren’t being upgraded. Would be 79 currently operational plus any in storage/mothballed.
We might soon be able to do a real world performance comparison between Challenger and Leopold against Russian tanks.
Would also be an interesting opportunity to test the performance of prototypes of some of the less security sensitive upgrades incorporated in C3. Won ‘t happen, but an intriguing proposition…🤔
Actually I was thinking that Boxers should be sent to Ukraine, straight from the production lines.
See how it performs and give the Ukrainians something far superior to their opponents.
I suspect in the snow and mud Boxers could not make it out of road track… There is a nice video of a comparison with a K9 SP artillery in snow.
Well the Ukrainians have ordered 8 of the self-propelled howitzer variant at a cost of over €200m, so they don’t seem concerned by the snow and mud.
Alex’s point was that K9 Thunder was great in snow and mud -and that Boxer may not be.
My point was that the Ukrainians didn’t seem concerned enough to not spend €200m on them.
Sorry, still don’t get it. I did not say K9 had questionable mobility. The K9 performs well in snow, ice, mud. Ukrainians have no concern about any aspect of K9 Thunder.
My point is whether Boxer is as good in such terrain.
The Ukrainians have spent €200m on Boxers, they obviously don’t think mud and snow is an issue.
Ahhh, Boxer. I thought Alex was talking about the K9 Thunder. Boxers have good mobility but I cannot believe they will maintain the same pace as a tracked IFV in very demanding climatic conditions, cross-country.
Alex, I have just seen the K9 video in snow in Norway – high speed, great mobility.
I have concerns about Boxer mobility in snow, ice, deep glutionous mud and fine sand – and keeping up with CR2/CR3 – for those tasked to operate with tanks.
Let some other nation send Boxers from their established fleet – we haven’t got one in service yet.
If you bothered reading comments before replying you would notice I said “straight from production lines” and not “from established fleets”. As it is I’m not sure if the U.K. production line is fully operational yet.
But if it is I would said from the U.K. too. We’re not currently at war with anyone, so better for them to go to Ukraine, save some lives there and defeat the Russian orcs than spend its time on Salisbury Plain.
OK, you are right. Sorry.
I do know that parts are being ordered for British Boxers by the main contractor, but don’t know if they have started the build yet.
You are probably in a minority to say that if any British Boxers are in build that they should go to the Ukrainian Army instead. I think Boxers should go from other nations’ established fleets – they will get to the front quicker.
I’ve no problem being in the minority, I was in the minority prediction the sun-prime property crash and sovereign debt crisis of 2008/2009, I was in the minority in predicting the Brexit referendum result, etc.
Being in the minority doesn’t mean you’re wrong – just look at Galileo…
Given the Ukrainians are fighting our war for us, in taking-on the only regional threat to us and Europe, I’d give them whatever they want. To not do so risks a Russian victory.
Surely you don’t want Putin to win?…
I spent all too many years facing 3rd Shock Army to suddenly want the Russians to win their horrendous war in Europe.
Your radical proposal (if other western nations follow suit) has a very good chance of success, but I just can’t see our Government being that bold and stripping our army of most of what they have got – it would take years to restore our army’s capability, and billions of £s.
Before todays announcement about tanks the U.K. has given $7.5bn to Ukraine. Contrast that the next largest donors in Europe, Poland at $3bn and France’s $1.5bn. If any country is prepared to give equipment and weapons to Ukraine its the U.K. They were all purchased originally with the view they’d be used against Russian aggression, if another country’s servicemen are prepared to shed their blood using them for what they were intended for, I have no problem at all. We do need to see a rebuilding of U.K. capability after these donations. Lessons from the war are already showing which… Read more »
OK, you’ve convinced me that we could and should donate more army battle-winning equipment to Ukraine, even if it leaves our army very short!
But I agree – could we trust our politicians to recapitalise the army to the right level and quickly, after making such substantial further donations.
Those 79 are currently in-service until such time as CR3 comes into service – they are a mix of tanks in:
a. the training organisation,
b. the Repair Pool and
c. in the Attrition Reserve.
No they’re not.
Why do you say that? – need a bit more than a 3-word answer.
Do you doubt that the UK declares 227 CR2 as being in-service?
Do you doubt that we have three Type 56 armoured regiments?
“operational” is not the same as “in service”
Sean, you do like the short answer!
In-service vehicles should have a high availability, no matter which role they are in.
When I was serving in REME, at least 70% of operationally vital vehicles (and other equipment) had to be fit, rising to 90% after 24hrs concerted maintenence work.
Do you have information that suggests these figures are not being met?
386 Challenger were delivered. 227 in core fleet 75 in deep storage (according to recent MoD Parliamentary data) 1 Total Loss (CR2 Blue on Blue in Iraq) That leaves 83. However I believe 2 have been damaged in training incidents (including one incident that resulted in fatalities, that vehicle will likely be in quarantine). So around 80 have been reduced to spares for the remaining fleet. No idea what happened to the hulls and turrets though. Given the total rebuild nature of CR3 it would make sense for the major components from the 80 ‘spare’ or 75 in deep storage… Read more »
Dust off lol, would have been robbed for spares !
No doubt. But I would hope from the 80+ not in active use and the ones we are not upgrading then we could put together a force greater than 10 for Ukraine!
I would guess they have been torn aparts for spares for the ones that are still operational.
Of course there are more than 10 CR2 tanks that we could spruce up and offer to UA. We bought 386, probably 3 were written off, and 227 are declared as in-service – so we have a lot that are spare, although they will be in varying states of repair, as they are not required to be servicable, being out-of -service ie retired. What has happened to these mothballed tanks? I haven’t heard of any being scrapped or sold so they must all be in storage in MoD Ashchurch. Industry is already building CR3s out of donor CR2s – IOC… Read more »
The UK has a Pitiful amount of Tanks and can hardly field an armored division so this is surprising. I wonder if, after the Ukraine war, the British government will get real and rebuild the British army from the pathetic state it’s in?
Germany has a pitiful number of aircraft carriers and can’t field a single carrier strike group… and best not mention the state of the Austrian Navy….
Why do people always make excuses for the British army not being up to scratch by talking about others? You are part of the problem mate, get real.
We don’t need BAOR again. The Russian’s have been eviscerated and would need 20-30 years to become a threat again from today, and thats if they allocated huge sums of money and effort to it. So there is no real threat. And that gives us a precious commodity. Time The Army is in a terrible state. But that is mainly down to decisions made internally by the Army. Giving them more money is like buying an alcoholic a bottle of whisky. They need to sort their entire approach to procuring, maintaining and operating equipment out first before thet get given… Read more »
Bravo. Agree. The army itself is the architect of so much of its demise.
100% agreed there. Poorly lead. And we are an Island so have lower need of an Army. Fleet and Air needed in quantity as well as quality. About time the Army got their thinking right. fast moving and hard hitting outfit not still in the past of BAOR and get the kit. It has been shown some of the kit is first class but needs methods of getting it into position to take the bad guys out.
H Angus – sorry to bang on re RAF numbers , bet being ex Air force, you’ll excuse my rant . The 2003 defence cut left the RAF with 16 front line fast jet sqns . Look at the numbers today- circa half of that, This is almost exactly 25% of the 1990 force level. So how is it the RN is set to have 24 surface warships (50% 1990 levels) & and the RF ahs only 25% (8 sqns) ? I’m not denying the RN their required need, but their is no doubt in my mind the RAF needs… Read more »
Angus, The army is required to mount expeditionary operations all over the world, including to eastern Europe. The army is our most experienced Service at conducting kinetic operations – they actually do warfighting. No-one serving or retired ‘thinks BAOR’ – their opponent, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR disappeared in 1991. The army was drastically cut as a consequence in the Options for Change defence review and we then bought far fewer quantities of heavy armour – we bought only 386 CR2s, wheras we had once bought 900 Chieftains. Totally agree that the army needs to get their thinking right… Read more »
Gen Sanders is an exceptional leader – I served alongside him when he was far more junior and have followed his career since. He has only been in post ‘for 5 minutes’ – give the guy a chance to turn things around.
I agree that we don’t need BAOR again – the Warsaw Pact and the USSR collapsed in 1991. We do of course need to play our part in alliance operations, both in Europe and further afield – and need a range of equipment to meet all threats that a coalition would face – and that includes some armour. We have used tanks (and medium weight platforms) many, many times in kinetic operations in the last 30 years – you could not say that about certain other platforms across Defence. So there has been threats apart from Russia. Totally agree that… Read more »
The Brits always fight way above their weight class. The German gov’t never provides the German armed forces with enough of anything to be combat effective.
I think it’s a great opportunity for us to rebasleine. Prioritising the RN and RAF (Inc ballistic air defence) as well as the northern flank commando force.
perhaps it’s time for other nations to take care of the Central European plain. Not sure why we need to but certainly need a plan to reinforce. Germany is nato in name only. Several other nations the same, time to put more into the pot.
Why do people always whinge that the U.K. doesn’t have more of everything that everyone else has?… They probably also complain about the amount of tax they already pay too…
You are the problem, the Empire is gone, accept it, move on.
Because the UK is an island? We dont have vast oversees territories that we need to defend in land based warfare anymore.
Having a stronger Navy and Air force is vastly more important to the UK than an Army soaking up huge resources when its simply not needed.
No one is going to invade the UK mainland in a conventional sense, meaning we need to be in other places to support others to fight, to do that we need an air force and a Navy to get to those places and sustain the support.
James, did you miss that we are in NATO and have alliance responsibilities? Why do you obsess about defence of the UK island? That is not what the army focusses on. In the whole of East and West Sussex (where I live) there is only one regular army unit and that is not roled for or trained for Military Home Defence – they are a deployable artillery unit. I can’t even remember when any part of the army last did a MHD exercise. The British Army is an expeditionary force and has been for centuries. The army deploys mostly on… Read more »
I think the Czech and Slovak navies are in trouble, too.
No chance!
There are 227 CR2 tanks (out of the 386 purchased) that are in-service split between 3 armoured regiments, trg org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
I agree that this is a pitiful number.
The British Army is the Cinderella service for kit.
“…to extend its service life out to at least 2035.”
What then?
2035 is a joke. FOC is 2030 – will the CR3 fleet only do 5 years service? The norm is that we get up to 30 years life out of our tanks.
What then? The craze is for unmanned or Optionally Manned equipments but I hear we have observor status on the Franco-German-Italian next tank project called Main Ground Combat System aiming to replace their currently in-service Leclerc, Leopard 2, and Ariete main battle tanks. First MGCS tank due off the production line in or soon after 2035.
Hmmm. I hope the Russians don’t get their hands on any examples with the armour tech. Or have things moved on from Chobham armour?
Dorchester.
Thanks. I’d heard of Dorchester but didn’t know it had been fielded. So my worry remains, we do not want the orcs to get their mitts on it.
Dorchester Level 2 (per Wiki). According to various authors/articles passive armo(u 😁)r may have reached a practical limit. Hence interest in active systems. Speculation, outside wheelhouse.
I’ve seen a few CR1’s at military shows – AFAIK Chobham Armour is still classified, so all modules have to be removed as part of the de-mill process,replaced by some accurate sheetmetal work.
OG Chobham aka Burlington has now been declassified, you can find an article on the Below The Turret Ring blog or several documents at the National Archives, although the later Dorchester remains a secret.
Essentially Burlington is angled and stacked layers of rubber sandwiched between steel. This disrupts the jet from HEAT warheads and reduces penetration. The Soviets put something similar in the T-72B turret front.
Correct.
Also, it was a major discussion point when selling CR1 to Jordan who had to put in very high levels of base security etc.
Well the Trophy buying for CH3 shows that indeed things have moved on from armour.
But it was already written. You can not have Chobam all around you tank. it would be a 100t monster.
CR2 prototype was built with Dorchester Level 2 armour in 1990, CR2 production 1993-2002. DL2 was an upgrade on the original Chobham Armour known as Burlington (especially to the Americans who used it on early M1 Abrams.
Don’t know what has been developed in more recent times – its probably classified!
ok, here’s my pennies worth.
The Chally 2 uses a rifled 120mm Gun. One of the reasons the U.K. is upgrading to the Chally 3 is because getting hold of 120mm ammo is getting harder by the year, hence the move to the NATO standard of 120mm smoothbore. So as I see it, handing over a weapon system which uses its own bespoke ammo is going to result in an additional supply problem, which the Ukrainians don’t really need. Much better to standardise with just the one type.
It’s really just to prod the Germans into letting the Ukrainians have Leopards – either bought direct from the manufacturer (who apparently has a large number in store) or donated by the German government.
There is a couple of other countries that will supply Leo,s if they get the go ahead from Germany as well.
But Germany have the ultimate say. Danes and others can’t supply Leopards if Germany says NO.
Well if you actually read my post I believe that is exactly what I said🙄
Indeed was fast reading it seems. Apologies.
Any idea how many of the 120mm shells we have in stock? Could be a cheaper way than decommissioning it all just ship it over to Ukraine to fire at will.
I agree. German Government should agree to Leo2 nations passing on tanks to UA (End User Agreement and all that).
I actually wonder if the 10+/- could be used in a training cadre, furthermore, the same with the Bradley’s and Marders.
Undoubtedly, UKR needs multiple brigades of tank and AIFV to form a Division, however, it will take time to exercise up from Squadron service using the advanced features of Abrams and Leopards that might be sent after our gesture. Thoughts?
Potentially, eventually, but during the interim UKR will utilize fully any/every weapon made available w/ sufficient munitions. How will UK allocate existing stocks of bespoke 120 mm rounds? Could easily envision UKR expending all spare rounds, then clamoring for UK War Reserve stocks. Then, does UK restart bespoke ammo production line at enormous cost or expedite conversions to C3? West has not faced potential issues like this in past 30+ yrs. 🤔😳
These are training tanks, UKR would be stupid to field 10; and you point out the reasons why.
They can also lever the door open for Leopards.
What are the implications of Ukraine operating a myriad of different vehicles and other bits of kit when each one requires different training, spares, ammunition etc?
I guess in period of peril and crises it’s fine for Ukraine to take what they can get and run them into the ground if it helps to kick Putin out of their country!
Multiple types mean maintenance mayhem so rapid reduction in rates of advance. So what ruzzian armour did on the way to Kyiv.
Surely they would operate specific equipment in certain areas only not just mix and match and send it all over the place?
Yes. A less active sector or in a second line.
Wouldn’t the Korean K1 be worth looking at for Ukraine?
The Brits don’t even have enough of them for themselves. The best tank for Ukraine would be older Leopard 2 tanks. Easier to learn how to operate and maintain and much better than the Russian garbage they currently have.
We have 227 CR2s in-service, which is plenty for the three armoured regiments (to come down to two), Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve….and a large number (possibly over 150) that are ‘retired’ but stored – they will be in poor condition and many will have been partially stripped for spares.
Agree that UA is better off with Leo2s.
Just donate every armoured vehicle to Ukraine. They are doing our work for us. We won’t be needing them soon, and we can perhaps sort out our procurement process from scratch.
You are joking, right? We have used armour extensively in the last 30 years – we could not afford to be without it.
Procurement of AFVs certainly needs to be sorted out.
A bit of a stupid idea the Challenger 2s armour is still classified even though 2s are quite old, the upgraded 2s to 3s will still have the same armour which if Russia gets their hands on one of the 2s. Its possible even if they don’t take the advantage of having one. They could send to Iran or North Korea to exploit any weakness in the armour. Challenger2 tanks have never been destroyed on the battlefield only one received damage which took it out of action for a day was inflicted by another Challenger2 tank.
Maybes its a small batch of older 2’s which dont have the upgrades? Or worse case said armour plates are being removed and replaced with non classified alternatives?
I see what you are saying but since the armour plating is the well documented feature of the 2. To replace it with inferior plating would be costly and as soon as one is damaged and let’s say France or someone had a axe to grind with us found out. It would be another “the UK sending inferior equipment to Ukraine” we’ve already been slated 12-18 months ago when we suggested about sending some obsolete personal carriers. Even the military said it was a bad idea this is what happens when politicians come up with ideas without thinking of the… Read more »
Absolutely not , every challenger should be upgraded where possible and kept . This whittling away of our armed forces is a historical stupidity that has happened far too often and ended with dire consequences.
Totally agree with you I think they are only upgrading 148 which is stupid.
Rant Warning: Why have we (the west) been so slow with looking at solutions for something that would obviously be eventually needed by Ukraine None of the Western MBTs are ideal for Ukraine & only the US has a tank fleet that could cope with numbers required once soviet T tanks started to run low. All nations seem reticent to deliver these vehicles to the frontline. There’s risk of giving some sort of propaganda victory & perhaps enthusiasm with some areas of Russia should latest western MBTs be destroyed IMO we should have be digging around the reserves for stock… Read more »
Rhienmettal had a load of Leopards in storage, but just like the nations that would like to donate from their stocks (eg Poland), the German government needs to give permission first.
Why don’t you think western MBTs are ideal? Is it their much larger size and weight compared to Soviet MBTs? 🤔
Thailand bought 49 T-84 Oplot tanks off Ukraine in 2017. I wish Germany would swap Leopard 2 for Thai Oplots, then give the Oplots to Ukraine.
’60 in the active war fleet for the British Army’ – what do you mean by that?
We have 227 tanks in-service, including three regiments each of 56 tanks.
We are upgrading 148 CR2 to CR3 standard, however we will only have 60 full armour packs & 60 sets of APS. Basically post CR3 upgrade if we go to war we have 60 tanks ready.
Thanks Simon, I was aware of that.
IOC for CR3 is 2027 and FOC is 2030. If IOC is one sqn or one regt then 60 sets is enough. The problem is if we still only have 60 sets in 2030 for the two regts ie 112 tanks.
However I think by 2030 the war against the bean-counters may have been won and we will get 112 sets – hope so!
The way I see it FWIW no CR2s will go to Ukraine they would not be wanted as Farouk has pointed out the extra supply issues for 10 tanks would not be worth their while! However if this moves the threshold of supplying MBT all well and good. There are leopards in Rhienmettal that can be supplied IF the Germans get the message that we are willing to send tanks if need be. Other Leo users have said they are willing to send tanks but due to licensing they need clearance from the German Govt. Let’s wait and see and… Read more »
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-us-strykers-modern-european-tanks-on-the-table-for-kyiv
Oh well,that’s Ukraine saved then,Germany mothballed most of their fleet,now we’re gonnae give 70 ton monsters that’ll sink up to their turrets in the Raspititsia .
France is giving AMX vehicles with 105 mm,which I believe they’re struggling to find ammunition for.
I’m wondering why we don’t go the buy-back route: Kuwait has ~250 Warrior IFVs, Oman has 38 Challenger 2s, Jordan has 400 Challenger 1s (assume 200-300 still in running order) that they are already in the process of retiring. Seems like there’s a good pool of stuff that could be had for relatively cheap to support Ukraine without hurting our armoured forces too badly.
Please understand that 10 CH2 is just a political fig leaf for Germany, so they are not the first to give Ukraine Western tanks. The US is thinking of giving 5x M1 for the same reason. They know the thirsty M1 is not ideal for Ukraine & the Yanks really think Leopard 2 is the best choice for Ukraine, but they know Germany will not deliver Leopard 2, until the US & UK contribute token numbers of MBT first.
Challenger uses different rounds in its rifled barrel to anyone else, maybe a mixed benefit with the added logistic problems.
“In March 2021, the British Army announced plans to upgrade 148 of its 227 Challenger 2s with the aim to extend its service life out to at least 2035”
Given that IOC for CR3 is 2027 and FOC is 2030 – and that we Brits keep our tanks in service for up to 30 years (ie Chieftain, CR2) then surely MoD is hoping that CR3 will serve until 2057!!
I feel the research in this article is a little of in one part it says we have 300 cr2 then it says we only have 227 I feel sending them to Ukraine isn’t a good idea we would be better sending them cr1 as they are in storage
What CR1 in storage ?.
CR1 was declared obsolete over 20 years ago!
I disposed of all CR1 when I was the Equipment Support Manager for CR1 in 2002-3. Nearly all were sold to Jordan.
What the hell is there to consider, supply them to Ukraine Putin has to be stopped.
I hope they’re going to be sent with TES (Theatre Entry Standard) to be genuinely competitive with other tanks’ protection.
Was dissapointed to find the Leopards were early batches of the 2A4 which didn’t even get the proper composite armour.
Good point. I am a bit out of date but some British TES kit may be too classified to be released – others may know the detail.