Britain’s ‘most lethal tank’ rolls off the production line

Pretty sure RAC have moved back to T58 regiments, the armoured regiments all now have 4 sabre squadrons.

Do you have a source for that?

I have a mate in KRH who says they moved back to 4 sabre squadrons. Royal Tanks website also says 4 squadrons, and when I searched up their individual squadrons on social media, Ajax, Badger, Cyclops and Dreadnought were all on CH2.
Presumably QRH is the same

Cheers mate, I’d not heard about it.

No problem.
Just checked and QRH have a tweet from December 2022 saying that B squadron is reroling back to a tank squadron for 4 tank squadrons in total.

That’s good. There is sound tactical logic for a ‘rule of 4’.

Hi Louis.. Interesting information. Does that mean if each Regiment is going to be a T58 that each squadron will be 14 Tanks.

Seems like a good idea to me having 4 squadrons..

Yes, and two tanks for RHQ.

Hi Graham.. Alrighty, Thx.

Have a good weekend!

I though each squadron was now 3 troops of 3 tanks with 1 for Squadron HQ – so 10 per squadron

How does that actually break down Dern?
4 doesn’t go into 18 and 18 doesn’t go into 56

4 Tanks per Troop. 4 Troops per Squadron = 16 Tanks + 2 Tanks for the Squadron HQ = 18 Tanks.
3 Squadrons of 18 = 54 + 2 Tanks for Regimental HQ = 56.

“The US Army is about to get a medium tank and the UK should take a serious look at it’s attributes.”

You mean the M10 Booker build by General Dynamics Land Systems and based off of the Spanish-Austrian ASCOD family of vehicles?
Yes, the UK should definitely have a UK based Subsidiary of General Dynamics look at building a medium weight armoured vehicle based off the ASCOD platform and introduce a split Challenger/ASCOD fleet. Better yet, lets build a whole family of vehicles based on the ASCOD chassis!

Just need a name for this hypothetical tank… I’m thinking something that starts with “A”. Would be a nice link to “ASCOD” right?

(Sorry I couldn’t resist)

What the field commanders need is the option of a second 120mm gun but with a more nimble footprint and performance over CH3. If M10 can deliver, the MOD should at least contemplate it as an option. By the mere fact, that the Army will only have a small CH3 fleet it should be used as a hammer blow alongside an agile platform. If the US see a need for the M10 why shouldn’t the UK?

Isn’t the M10 equipped with a 105mm main gun?

Unless I’m mistaken, I think the M10 rolls with a 105 mm gun?
Whether through necessity or design, what I’ve seen quite a lot of videos of from Ukraine are Bradleys and other IFVs being very successful with their autocannon and ATGMs. Reports from the front are that Ukrainian tankers are mainly operating at night, and using their 120 mm cannon for indirect fire on positions, more like an assault gun than a NATO doctrine tank.
If I were the MOD, I’d be looking for an IFV-sized platform (M10 does seem to fit the description, as does Ajax), but with more emphasis on indirect/longer range AT weapons like ATGMs. The direct fire component seems to be for supporting infantry, laying down covering fire, etc.
Obviously, we want to be careful not to apply too many lessons from Ukraine onto our military, as we fight in a different way. But I don’t see how we’d be using our tank guns much differently to the Ukrainians in an environment where drones are everywhere.

You may well be correct about the 105mm M10 and that may possibly be an adequate calibre? What I would prefer is a 120mm to augment CH3 and get the numbers up from 148 hulls. As I said a lighter footprint would offer improved heavy-ground performance and at the same time deliver real clout. We may have to look to Korea or Japan for an answer but I’d like to see this smaller tank in service within five years.

I don’t think the Americans would be bringing in an undergunned new vehicle, and there are a number of armoured vehicles with variations on the L7 105 mm in Ukraine at the moment which seem to be doing the job. So yes, adequate.
I agree that we need something to augment the limited numbers of CH3, I guess I would push back and say that a direct-fire 120 mm gun may not be the right answer for that. They certainly don’t seem to be getting a lot of use in Ukraine. I’d personally rather have a lot of ATGMs that can be launched from under armour, but I may be drawing the wrong conclusions from the conflict.

Depends on the use case, 105 is probably not a good calibre for any sort of AT work, but for direct fires in support of infantry against soft skinned vehicles, light armour, and hardened positions? Probably does the trick.

Fair enough- probably good enough against a T72, not so much newer models?
Picking up from your discussion with Maurice, if the 105 isn’t really up to scratch against the newer threats, may as well stick with the 40 mm on Ajax for those lighter targets and bolt a box launcher to it with ATGM for the heavy armour targets. Makes more sense to me in general anyway, more flexible.
There have been a few videos of Bradley performing pretty well in Ukraine, if we could get Ajax able to fire the ATGM on the move then, with a bunch of reloads where the scout squad would fit, it’d be able to perform a “medium tank” role better /more flexibly than an M10 in my opinion.

Well the shift from the old L7 105mm to the RH120 was started by the appearance of the T-64. Also the M35 (the 105 on the M10 Booker) is Rifled with everything that entails (I don’t know enough about it, but I’d not be surprised if it turned out it was a modified L7!)
I’m not going to have a go at the CTA-40mm on the Ajax, it’s a step up from RARDEN and more firepower than a Bradleys 25mm, but there’s still some things it can’t do. A 105 will definitely carry a bigger explosive payload than a 40mm so for DF and maybe even indirect fires it’ll have a definite niche, and while I wouldn’t go out hunting T-72’s and T-80’s with an M10, with a discarding Sabot it’s still something to think about.
I’m seeing shades of CVRT with RARDEN vs M-551 Sheridan with it’s 152mm back in the 70’s.

If we fitted ATGM to Ajax we would have a Tank Destroyer rather than a medium tank.

I’d personally look at it a bit differently, as the 40CTAS is not a tank killer. I agree though that medium tank doesn’t fit either- but I don’t really want one.
Something that can support infantry in the assault and also deal with heavier armour is what I’m after, and Ajax with ATGM more or less covers that. I don’t know what you’d call it, it’s kind of an infantry support gun, but not… Obviously an IFV with the same armament would as well, with space to actually transport the troops, but we don’t have one of those.
My reasoning is based mostly on Ukraine, as direct fire seems to be restricted almost completely to close-in assaults, and the odd unplanned encounter between MBTs. For the assault, higher volumes of lower calibre rounds seem to do a very good job, and an ATGM like javelin could handle the MBTs. If we really wanted to go into fantasy fleets land, an Ajax hull with a turreted 120mm mortar capable of direct fire would also be great for the same role.

Interesting. The mix of Ajax with Infantry in Boxers was what the old Strike brigade was all about but with Ajax having CTAS 40mm and without an anti-tank weapon system.

In the two armoured brigades clearly CR3s will support the Boxer mounted Inf with heavy direct fire which is just anti-tank fire and not fire optimised for defeating or suppressing strongpoints ie fortified positions/bunkers – for that indirect fire has to be used.

In 7 Lt Mech Bde, there is nothing supporting the Inf with heavy (min of 30mm cannon) direct fire and nothing mounted providing anti-tank capability (be it 105/120mm cannon or ATGW). You advocate Ajax with ATGM – it would be expensive and would mix wheels and tracks and we may not have enough Ajax to do that – but it is worth considering – perhaps better would be a wheeled platform with 105mm (Centauro B1 or Booker M10!) or with 120mm (B1 Centauro).

120mm mortar that can deliver direct fire? Are you sure? Mortars deliver indirect fire.

AMX 10 also has a 105mm. I vote bring back the M551. Nothing says “F you” in the infantry support role like a 15ton tank rocking up with a 152mm gun on it. Crews don’t need teeth anyway, not when you’ve got an airmobile artillery shell to deliver.

Just FYI the Ukranians have been using tanks in the DF role from long ranges either in hit and run attacks or in support of infantry assaults (Challenger specifically has been cited in this role).

As for DF 120mm mortars, there are *some* modern systems that can achieve that. NEMO for example. But I’m not seeing people rushing to adopt it.

Thanks Dern, I just heard UKR was using its Challys in long range sniping roles from the edge of wood blocks – good to hear the wider story.
DF mortars – thanks. I will research how they work – interesting.

You’re right about the DF mortars not having many takers currently- although I think that might be slow adoption of turreted mortars rather than no-one wanting the DF capability? I think the increasing need to be able to fire and displace very quickly because of drones and wider use of counter battery radar etc. may make people think again- the Patria systems say they can even fire on the move.
It’s hard to know what would support the infantry better- a medium calibre (I’m calling that 25-40 mm, don’t know if there’s a more official definition) with higher rate of fire, or larger calibre (105-152 mm) with lower rate of fire. Obviously, a mix of both would be ideal, but I don’t think we’re going to be that fortunate.
That’s kind of why I was slanting towards mostly autocannons, with turreted 120 mm mortars that can do both indirect and direct. And everyone gets boxed ATGMs. Trying to fill as many slots with as few different types as possible.
Sheridan would be an interesting switch, though, have any been sent to Ukraine?

To be honest, I wasn’t sure whether Strike still existed or not!
I’d ideally like to see a turreted Boxer wheeled IFV to go with the wheeled medium formations and a tracked IFV to go with the heavy tracks, but I’m venturing into fantasy fleets again.
Are there not any decent HE natures for the 120 mm smoothbore? I’d have thought they’d have come up with at least one… I’ve seen some finned ones that look a bit like mortar rounds, but not sure how great they actually are.
I’m assuming 7 Lt Mech is our medium weight force, which only has Boxer APCs with the RWS if memory serves? In my view they need something. If we can get a turreted Boxer with a 30/40 mm autocannon and ATGM, then I’d also be happy with that- but I was just working with what we currently have in/coming in to service. My assumption is that adding ATGM box launchers to an existing turret is easier than designing a turret with the two for Boxer. I may well be wrong though.
If we’re going with something like Centauro with the bigger gun, I’d be OK with that too. Although probably prefer a Boxer platform with the turret module to keep things simple in terms of different vehicles.
Patria state that their AMOS and NEMO turreted systems can both provide direct fire, so that’s what I had in mind. They can also do MRSI for about 6 rounds, which is also a nice capability to have on wheels or tracks. Was reading Think Defence the other day, an article on old mortar launched anti-armour rounds- was thinking that might be worth someone dusting off too!

Strike, which never really existed because the Boxers that are a prerequisite for it never where bought, went away almost the moment Nick Carter left. Strike would have had the 4 Ajax Regiments and 4 Boxer Battalions in their own Brigades, but they’ve since been folded into the Armoured Brigades (each of 1 Ajax, 1 Challenger, and 2 Boxer units) and I DSR (the remaining 2 Ajax units). [Kind of 1 Yorks and Scots gds went to 7 and warrior units just re-roll to boxer but… you know what I mean).

Re the 120mm smoothbore, there’s are HE rounds for it, but physics is a cruel mistress. You design a tank gun to fire a projectile at high velocity it’ll fire them at high velocity. I presume the choice of the M35 105mm is in part down to it being able to fire shells at low velocity (the stats are not publically available though so I am guessing here).
AT projectiles you want to fly really fast because they arrive on target with maximum energy. That’s really not an issue with a kinetic rod penetrator because it’s a solid hunk of tungsten or uranium, but for actual shells this becomes an issue because you want the shell to be able to be intact when it impacts something to deliver effect. Higher velocity means you have to build a chonkier shell that can handle arriving at 1000m/s instead of 500m/s. Chonkier shell means less space for explosives on the inside, means a worse HE round. This is why the Western Allies in WW2 actually never fully got rid of the 75mm Sherman even when the 17lber and 76mm Sherman versions where coming off the production line, the HE round on the 75 was better for firing HE at infantry emplacements and light vehicles which where more common than any tank.

For clarity I’ll outline the British Army’s Maneuver Units Orbat under Future Soldier:
3 UK Division
1 Deep Strike Recce Brigade
-2 Regiments of Ajax
-2 Regiments of Jackal (1 Reg 1 AR)
-3 Regiments of MLRS (2 Reg 1 AR)
-3 Regiments of AS90 (2 Reg 1 AR)
12 Armoured Brigde
-1 Regiment Ajax
-2 Regiment Challenger (1 Regular 1 AR)
-4 Battalions on Boxer (2 Regular 2 AR)
20 Armoured Brigade
-1 Regiment Ajax
-1 Regiment Challenger
-6 Battalions on Boxer (3 Regular, 3 AR)

1 UK Division:
16 Air Assault Brigade
-3 Battalions of Parachute Infantry (1 of which AR)
-2 Battalions of Air Assault Infantry
-1 Regiment 105mm Light Gun
7 Light Mechanised Brigade
-1 Regiment of Jackal
-5 Battalions on Foxhound (all regular)
-2 Regiments 105mm light gun (1 Reg 1 AR)
4 Light Brigade
-1 Regiment of Jackal
-6 Battalions Light Infantry
-1 Regiment of 105mm Light guns (AR)
19 Light Brigade
-2 Regiments of Jackal (AR)
-8 Battalions of Light Infantry (AR)
11 Security Force Assistance Brigade
-5 Security Force Assistance Battalions (4 Reg 1 AR)

Commander Field Army:
Army Special Operations Brigade:
-4 Ranger Battalions

Field Army Troops:
Trials and Experimentation Group:
-1 Battalion of Experimental Infantry

Thanks for the primer, and the ORBAT, I can never keep track. 1 DSR seems like a weird mash-up, of longer ranged fires and forward armoured scouts, but I’m not a soldier, so maybe that makes sense. I’d have thought that the artillery would be organic to the other brigades, but maybe not…
I’m inclined to think that an AFV that can be the modern Sherman would be a good idea then- that we can mount different guns onto the same base hull. Would be too expensive to do that with Challenger, but Ajax/ASCOD or Boxer would be the next logical choices.

The British Army has only rarely kept it’s artillery organic to it’s brigades, usually instead they’ve gone to a Divisional Artillery Group or Brigade (1 Artillery Brigade and 1st Strike Brigade merged to form 1 DSR). In practice it’s not an unworkable idea, basically a cavalry screen that’s very familiar with working with the divisional fires, and somewhat reminiscent of the old American Cavalry Regiments (Also 3 Regiments (Squadrons in US talk) of cavalry, although 1/3rd of their sub units where MBT’s, and less fires, more helicopters).

So the Sherman idea has merits and problems. It doesn’t really work for tanks per say, and no it’s not really a cost thing, it’s more of a design issue. You can *kind of* do it for IFV’s however. As we’ve covered Ajax and M10 Booker are modified ASCODs, with 105s and 40mm’s (while ASCOD is an IFV with a 30mm), Boxer has a litany of modules, Centauro has it’s 105 variant, it’s 120 variant and the Freccia IFV is the same chassis. But it’s always worth remembering that none of these are tanks.

Centauro is the best example to illustrate this because unlike the others it is actually a tank hunter. It was concieved as a quick reaction force that, when the Eastern Block landed an Amphibious Force somewhere in Italy, would race up the Autostrada, lie in ambush, and then die in a fighting retreat to buy the actual Italian tanks and Armoured Infantry time to deploy to where they where needed. It makes sacrifices to be able to do this: compared to the Ariete it’s got less off road mobility, and it’s armour is only rated to defend it against a 40mm canon. Which is fine, because if you wanted to armour it like a tank…you’d have to build a tank.

The two Strike brigades were deleted from the Orbat some years ago which is where the Infantry’s Boxers were originally going to go, and to work with Ajax units.

So in 3 (UK) Div, our warfighting Div, we have two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) (to use the new US-type jargon for a brigade) – their infantry will now get Boxers rather than upgraded Warrior (WCSP) which has been cancelled – to work alongside tanks.

The third ‘manouevre’ brigade in 3 Div is 1 Deep Strike Recce Brigade which has Ajax units and Artillery units but no Infantry.

In 1 (UK) Div there is a mix of different types of brigades. 7 Lt Mech Bde, a medium brigade which supposedly has the most punch, does not have Boxers (as they are all in 3 Div); their Infantry has wheeled Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles (Foxhound).
Also in 1 Div – 4th Light BCT and19 Bde plus the usual Engr Bde, Log Bde etc. Infantry in 4th and 19 Bdes are light role.

There are lots of 120mm HE rounds for 120mm smoothbore on the market. The Israeli M339 HE-MP-T is capable of penetrating 200 mm double reinforced concrete walls. The Swedish SLSGR 95 is a rebuilt mortar round. Additionally, I can only spot one anti-personnel cannister round, the US M1028 containing 1100 tungsten balls.

Ordering more Boxers (you suggest a turreted Boxer with a 30/40 mm autocannon and ATGM) for 7 Lt Mech Bde and dispensing with their PM vehicles (Foxhound) is a fantasy fleet idea. The Boxers are all in the armoured brigades of 3 Div, and it is those that need more firepower.

M10 Booker is neither a light tank nor a Tank Destroyer. Its 105mm gun enables it to fulfill its role to provide fire support to accompanying infantry in mech rather than armoured brigades.

The point I was making is M10 is the same base design as Ajax, just with a 105 (not 120mm) gun instead of a 40mm.

If you want a light protected vehicle with a 120mm gun on it then there’s really only one thing in the West (and I’ve advocated for it before), and it’s Italian.
B2 Centauro, accept no substitutes.

CV90 120!

The M10 Booker is really an infantry support vehicle. It will replace the Stryker MGS, as the US Army has stated the Stryker MGS is not fit for purpose. The Booker uses the 105mm gun from the MGS, though it is manually loaded instead of using the MGS’s autoloader.

In some respects the Booker would struggle, if it came face to face with a modernised T72. The US Army are saying the main gun is for the assault role, not for fighting other vehicles! Which I believe is a mistake, as at some point if it’s used in anger, there is a good likelihood it will face other armoured fighting vehicles, plus the odd tank. Even though its not meant to, Murphy’s law always play its part.

Personally, I think the CV90 120 would have been a better option. As it uses the original L44 Rheinmetall 120mm gun, which can be used against a modern tank.

Pretty sure I said it elsewhere, but there’s always trade offs to be made, and not every engagement will be against an enemy tank, nor will every unit be configured around a gun kill. M10 Bookers working in close co-operation with infantry will have dismounted ATGM’s.

Anyway you can’t design every vehicle with the “well Murphy’s law states that at some point this vehicle will come up against a tank” mentality, because then you’d just end up with a fleet of MBT’s. In this case I think the design trade offs of having a smaller 105mm to support infantry as an assault gun is a decent trade off. It’s not a hunter killer TD, but the sabot round on the 105 is probably enough to at least give pause, and as an assault gun it’ll also be supporting infantry which will have ATGMs.

It’s a similar problem Warrior always faced. It had to be protected by Chally or infantry with Javelin. It really needed a turret mounted ATGM like the Bradley. Which should have been a modification following the retirement of the Striker.

With regards to the Booker, even as a purely infantry support vehicle. Statistically it will come face to face with a MBT. Hopefully there’s a Javelin nearby, or it won’t end well for the Booker.

The CV90 and ASCOD are roughly similar sizes. So I’m surprised they didn’t look at a similar gun installation as the CV90 120? This would have made more sense than the 105. As the gun on the CV90 120 is made by RUAG and has a length of 50 calibre. It can fire NATO standard 120 tank ammunition.

As it’s now a BAE product I’m surprised that this wasn’t offered to the US instead of the rehashed M8 AGS.

Or NLAW or Matador, or Panzerfaust 3, but while I wouldn’t *want* to have to take on an MBT in a M10, with APFSDS 105 rounds it’s not exactly toothless either.

I don’t know enough details on the 105 on Booker, but I suspect it’s a combination of “We want something lighter” and a that a rifled 105mm probably has a better HE round than a smooth-bore 120mm.

We have the Ajax as someone sarcastically pointed out but we aren’t making a true light tank in terms of armament. Maybe it’s a way forward but Challenger purists will decry equipping armoured battalions with such a light option. I also don’t think it’s a great idea to double down on the Ajax.

There’s nothing in-between the Ajax and the Challenger being made in the UK but there’s some medium tanks such as the Type 10 (Japan) and the K2 (South Korea) that are 48 and 56 tonnes respectively.

Labour will probably want us to join the European (or rather, Franco German) tank programme (despite the workshare already agreed) as they’re in love with Europe, but I’d prefer we partner with either Asia or northern Europe (Sweden probably) to develop a tank more suited to our needs (we should be less focused on continental Europe and more focused on quick response).

As an American living here in Northern Europe (Finland) and keeping up on Nordic defense topics, I can (imho) say that it is unlikely Sweden would want to develop a new tank. Leopards already are the common tank (and in Norway last year Leopard again won for new purchases vs Korea’s Panther). Land-wise Norway/Finland/Sweden are taking serious steps to define joint war plans where continued commonality is likely beneficial. Any new tank for any of those countries will likely be joining the european next gen tank project as a consequence. Moreover, in terms of tank requirements, maybe I’m misunderstanding what the definition of a “quick response” requirement would be, but I would think that the “local” threat of Russia would mean any northern tank requirements would better match the Franco-German effort vs requirements for expeditionary quick response.

At the moment, the discussion in these three countries are: 1) Defense of the high north
2) Defense of the baltics
3) Naval responsibilities for Norway/Denmark/Sweden (Less so Finland)

I mentioned Sweden only because they are the only main player in Europe outside of maybe Poland or Spain that has a serious armoured vehicle industry (not including Fr/Ger), and before the Leopard 2 made their own domestic tank, but yeah the Nordics are all Leopard users so they may well just buy whatever the French and Germans make, unless the French mess it up as they tend to.

There was a bit of conflicting news around the Leopard replacement; Germany has both been reported as agreeing to workshare on the MGCS with France (in March 2024) and also reports of a separate discussion with Italy/Spain/Sweden (reported Sept 2023). Likely that the latter was negotiation tactics and the March agreement being the way forward (for now).

The March agreement however has nothing to say for non Franco-German members so it is potentially up in the air what happens with the Nordic Leopard users (Sweden was mentioned as an observer previously, as was the UK).

There remains a (somewhat slim) possibility of a Nordic/UK/Holland tank that is suited to the northern theatre and ease of deployment (which is what I meant by quick response, something that is easier to move by sea).

I am more of a fan of working with SK or Japan, as that may offer more domestic participation/joint development, but Labour will want EU.

The UK Army needs a greater spread of battlefield options and a second lighter and faster 120mm platform would complement the CH3 fleet.

The British Army to use its proper name, needs a Long Range (LR) Tank Destroyer (TD) to replace CRVR(T) STRIKER which was taken out of service without replacement in mid-2005!!

Some might also argue for a MR TD to replace the FV120 SPARTAN MCT (Milan Compact Turret) which was also taken out of service without replacement!!

Infantry in 7 Lt Mech Bde have little in the way of Direct Fire heavy weapons. They need a wheeled, armoured DF fire support weapon system. It was for that role that the US developed M10 Booker but we would need a wheeled type for that brigade.

I seem to recall hearing somehwere that the Army is looking at fitting Jav to Ajax, but can’t for the life of me remember where.

I think a wheeled DF fire support (*cough Centauro B2 cough* but probably Boxer based) vehicle would be great in 7 LBCT, or 4 when it gets wheels.

The army needs to fit Jav to some sort of wagon to restore a Tank Destroyer capability.

Centauro – Jordan bought a number of B1s three years ago which in combination with Leclerc MBTs, have replaced their Al-Hussein Chally 1s.

The B1 has a 105mm gun though, while the B2 has the full 120mm (although it’s a 45 caliber gun not a 55 like Leopard or CR3).

Thanks Dern. B2 looks to be a good piece of kit.

In 2021, the Belgium Defence Company John Cockerill made a 3000 series turret for the Boxer. This carried a derivative of the L7. The turret has been shown on other vehicle, such as the Leopard 1. I’m not sure if it has done any firing trials?

I don’t know. Tbh there’s so many Boxer variants floating around right now it’s hard to keep track. O_o

I’m cautious about Ajax due in part to the prolonged issues. But if it can accommodate a 105mm or better still a 120mm gun, then I’m interested.

The original AJAX fleet was to include a Fire Support variant (105mm?) but was canned alongside the Ambulance. The turret ring on AJAX is MBT sized so a 105mm turret could be accommodated. More likely, possibly, hopefully is a Brimstone ARES.

There are 2 issues with the main armament – reduced number of stowed rounds over CR2 and abandonment of DU projectiles thus reducing penetration.

How is spin effected? Are there fins on these HE rounds? Just curious?

Yes, they look a little bit like a mortar round in some ways.
Northrup Grumman have a fantastically “American” promo video for their M1146 AMP round, which you can find on Youtube, which has some great slow-mo shots of it. Rheinmettal do a very similar product.

👍

There was a HESH round developed for smoothbore guns. It had a slip ring that caused the round to spin as it travelled down the barrel. Nobody was interested, as multiprogrammable HE rounds came onto the scene. Which had a more flexible use compared to HESH.

Yes, a number of fairly recent attacks by 15 to 30 tanks have been thwarted by Ukraine using drones. The issue Ukraine currently has is that they have to use drones, as their stock of both 152 and 155 HE is running very low.

Thanks. You don’t usually engage tanks with artillery but I guess UKR is using anything that comes to hand. Drones are an excellent weapon to take on tanks.

The Russian tanks are more susceptible to drone attacks than ours probably would be. They have little sense of using cover, their tanks have weak armour; they don’t seem to operate in combined arms groupings, they have lost the art of deception and surprise, they don’t seem to fight at night, they react slowly to enemy attack, they seem to be poor at camouflage etc.

Not saying we would not lose tanks to drones, but hopefully less. I know our top armour is not very thick, but surely better than Russian top armour and so may shrug off a small warhead.

It would not be likely as the west is better at this than its peers, , but losing local air superiority for some reason could be a cause, swarm missile attack and as you say swarm drones..or even something like losing the squadron before it deploys…taking out a Point class loaded with a squadron..or any other risk around the deep conflict.

Its the whole lethality of peer warfare and deep war..one of my favourite quotes is

“Leaders must recognize that the hard-won wisdom of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is important to retain but does not fully square with the exponential lethality, hyperactive chaos, and accelerated tempo of the multi-domain battlefield when facing a peer or near-peer adversary.” Deep operations, theoretical Approaches to fighting deep..army university press MD Lundy…it’s a great read around

It’s a great paper on risks around 21c peer on peer land/sea/air conflict.

Thanks. I’ll look at the paper. Where is it?

link sent its waiting approval.

Certainly not something I’d want to be looking down the barrel of!
Shame the Guards Armoured is no longer a thing, they could have taken their tanks grouse shooting!

I’d read, unsure how true, that some of the RSG bunkers have a clause to repossess in need. Except now their location is known.

Sorry BoF, was meant for Dern. Good comments from others here too. Love all the detail.

XD

Challenger 2 without any Theatre entry standard Kit attached:
Here
Challenger 2 with 2003 era TES kit, mostly ERA blocks attached:
Here
Challenger 2 with circa 2015 theoretical maximum TES kit on show at Bovington: Here

The fate of the CR2 in Ukraine has been known for ages, there is no doubt whatsoever about what happened and how it happened, christ I’ve posted enough links to it since last September.

Sorry Paul I don’t take broadsheets as a reliable source or a replacement for proper battle damage analysis.

I’m not talking broadsheets, plenty of witness statements, pictures and video available. Britsky on twitter has provided plenty of information on it since it happened amongst others.

I’ve seen the pictures and Brits’ analysis. All that comes from that is: Disabled by a mine. Later hit by an ATGM. Nobody has any conclusive evidence whether it was an external fire that got out of control on an abandoned vehicle, a penetration of the hull and detonation of the ammunition, or anything in between.

As I said, for now, it’s all speculation based off of a few very unclear photographs, not an actual battle damage analysis.

*edit* just to make you happy I’ve done a quick check of Brits twitter to see if my memory is correct. He uses a lot of words like “best we can tell” and “hit” but makes no concrete conclusions and makes no opinion on whether the tank was penetrated or not, just that it burned out. Which is exactly what I’m saying.

Hi Dern,

Thank you for the information.

Does anyone have any idea what happened to the destroyed C2 hulk itself? I severely doubt it was left in-situ where the Russians could get their hands on it.

Maybe it was shipped back to the U.K. for any lessons-learned for C3 (although I would think the development work would have been concluded by this time?).

I also read that the U.K. put restrictions on when and how the Ukrainians could use the C2s as we didn’t want the Russians to have access to it, in part because the armour is still highly classified even to this day.

The last update posted was that the CR2 is still in the exact spot where it was taken out, still within Ukrainian lines , no apparent attempts have been made to recover it as it is too far gone. I posted a link to pictures at the time and the location had been Geo Located to dispell any doubts.

UKR was supplied with 2 CRARRVs. I would be amazed if they left the destroyed CR2 hulk in situ for the reasons you state.

No, the CR2 was unrecoverable for the longest time, too close to the front and I think the Ukranians didn’t want to risk one of their two CRARRVs (if it’s burned out probably not worth risking a recover vehicle for the wreck, even if the BDA would be worth it for us back in the UK). There’s been a fair amount of back and forth in that area since then, so no idea what’s happened since January, the wreck might be rusting in the field still.

OK. Good info. Thanks.

Great answer Dern!

Well, yeah, I could’ve said interim Warrior I guess 😛

I also read that Russia could not use any of the T64 in storage due to engine issues. It was also said that the number of stabile tanks in storage was not as high as thought, due to academic corruption over the past 30 years, which meant all sort of parts had been removed and sold

£220 million being spent on the site at the moment. Hopefully will provided some inprovement

Thanks Davey. I like your term ‘leg infantry’ – snappier than the term ‘dismounted infantry’!

We need that research and anti-drone kit.

I wonder if UKR is using Gepard to take down drones?

i know, no rush to replace it it seems, just drag it out a few more years until some decides what will finally replace it a crap version of Boxer, not yet even ordered

Err, no. Boxer is the replacement for Warrior IFV – decision was announced by MoD way back in March 2021. Tranche 1 and Tr 2 orders have been placed.

is that on top of the 600 or as part of that order and what is it armed with?

The Armoured Inf (AI) battalions in the armoured brigades were to get upgraded Warrior IFV (ie WCSP) with a stabilised 40mm cannon amongst many other improvements.
Boxer MIV was to go to the Mech Inf in the two strike brigades.

Then the army scrapped those two (Infantry-centric) strike brigades from the Orbat, so Boxer now did not have a ‘home’. Political solution was to now earmark the Boxers for the armoured brigades and to scrap the Warriors. Beancounters were delighted as no more money had to be spent on the WCSP project.

The 623 Boxers ordered thus far (further orders should happen) are all for the armoured brigades. So far Konigsberg RS4 Protector RWS have been ordered which can only take a MG, GMG or A/Tk system – and not a 40mm stabilised cannon, or indeed any type of cannon. Not sure which weapon will be chosen – probably a medium or heavy MG.

under gunned then, there is a version of Boxer with a full turret, Rheinmetall Lance 30 mm two-man turret, and  RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems Samson Mk II RCT turret, not sure if we will buy that but a machine gun makes no more than a APC at best.

Martin, many of us have been saying the same (‘its just an APC’) since the March 2021 MoD announcement.

I once called the Boxer ‘the British Army’s Saracen for the 21st Century’ and I did not mean it as a compliment! Boxer is fine for Mech Inf (that’s why it is termed a MIV), but it is no replacement for an IFV.

Thales signed a $118m contract with Kongsberg for the RS4 RWS in Dec 2020. Not sure of the numbers but that would be for Tranche 1.
I don’t think Armament for Tranche 2 has been announced or ordered, so perhaps something better than an MG could be sourced.

Sobering to think our armoured infantry should have been getting stabilised 40mm CTAS in upgraded Warrior!

Ajax is even better than Boxer as an possible IFV, not sure it can hold a full section but its tracked, has a stabilised 40mm Why some idiot chose Boxer with a heavy machine gun is beyond reason.Stupid choice by some who clearly is a yes man or men

Ajax, as with nearly all recce vehicles, carries just a crew of 3 and no dismounts, so it is entirely unsuited to take a rifle section of 8 men.

Ajax is a derivation of ASCOD Ulan/Pizarro IFV so perhaps it could be reverse engineered back to an IFV but what a hassle.

I thought I had explained the logic (not that I agree with it) of Boxer replacing the upgraded Warrior (WCSP). It was because Boxer no longer had a ‘home’ in the two Strike brigades (they had been deleted from the Orbat). Also a saving could be made by cancelling WCSP.

The better solution would have been to persevere with and field WCSP with the 5 AI Bns in the two armoured brigades…and to field Boxer with the 5 Mech Inf battalions in 7 Lt Mech Bde; their PM vehicles could be reallocated elsewhere in 1 (UK) Div..

yes defence on the cheap, its not important, the PM has no clue about and simply does not care, i pray no war for at least 5 years until we partly re equip

No, I’m talking about your silly dismissal of the younger generation.

And? its my opinion, that is all, you have ours i have mine. Not came across many who inspire confidence. Too sensitive, indulged, not at all like getting their hands dirty, If you disagree that is good its called free speach.

It’s called Free Speech true, that doesn’t protect you from me pointing out that you are saying an incredibly stupid thing that old, pathetic, men have said about every generation and have always been proven wrong.

Indeed, going back to 1990 ish there were a string of articles in the DT, from ex serviceman saying the guys joining up now couldn’t do the Falklands etc. They all ( or a lot of them) went on to Iraq, Afghan etc etc

i agree, but the Army can not cover all bases, its simply is not big enough, manned enough or has enough kit or ammo. Saying that i am not sure our Army can do much any more,

What does our army drop and why? What does the RN and RAF drop as they are historically small too?

Mildly related: I do get annoyed with some of the statements about the Challenger that have been spawned by that sun article. CR3 does need a better engine, but people really got the wrong end of the stick reading that drivel.

That article was a while back and I don’t have the reference. I’m sure your reading of it is better than my memory. First crew in a while to work together on an exercise with regulars. I expect (I hope) they can provide individual augmentees often, formed crews training with regulars once in a while. I hope there is some training at troop level regularly, although not with the regulars. A full squadron attached to a regular regiment – I don’t see how that’s going to happen using just reserve days.

The thing is RWxY doesn’t have their own tanks, so I doubt they train at troop strength on their own at any point.

Ex Wessex Alamein Sept 23 they were out and about👍
Four minute video on YouTube War machine TV..

Thanks for the reference. I had not heard of that channel before. The lads practicing their individual and crew skills within a Troop setting. Great! My late father in law served with RWxY in the Western Desert.