With advanced armour and devastating firepower, the Challenger 3 boasts an impressive range of state-of-the-art technology, making it the most lethal and survivable tank ever operated by the British Army.

The latest of eight Challenger 3 prototypes rolled off the Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land factory production line in Telford as the Defence Secretary had an opportunity to meet the engineers and apprentices who have worked on this crucial programme.

The Ministry of Defence say that the first tank is already showing its capabilities on trials.

“All will be tested under operational conditions to validate their performance and make refinements, before another 140 are built and delivered to the British Army.”

Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, said:

“In a more dangerous world, the need for vehicles such as the Challenger 3 is imperative, as the threats facing the UK evolve. This tank will be at the heart of the British Army’s warfighting capabilities and will be integral to the UK’s deterrence.

The hard work and dedication on show in Telford and across the country is instrumental in driving forward UK defence innovation and delivering for our forces in the frontline.”

Providing the Army’s Main Battle Tank, the Challenger 3 will remain in service until at least 2040.  This third iteration of the Challenger series includes a state-of-the-art turret with a more capable smoothbore gun, which is compatible with NATO ammunition, as well as improved armour and sensors.

The Army’s Director Programmes, Major General Jon Swift OBE said:

“Challenger 3 will be at the heart of the Army’s Armoured Brigade Combat Teams, alongside Ajax and Boxer, and is critical to the Army’s warfighting capability and the UK’s contribution to NATO. The delivery of these prototype vehicles, the first of which has already started trials, marks a significant milestone on the Army’s modernisation journey.”

Director General Land for Defence, Equipment and Support, Lieutenant General Simon Hamilton CBE said:

“Delivering the capability the Army needs to be more lethal is vital in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. The Challenger 3 Programme is a cornerstone of the Army’s Future Soldier modernisation, and I am delighted to see the Army, DE&S and RBSL collaborating together to provide our soldiers with a world-class Main Battle Tank made here in the UK.”

RBSL Managing Director, Will Gibby said:

“RBSL is playing a key part in delivering the Land Industrial Strategy through its Challenger 3 programme, ensuring it benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing, whilst also sustaining valuable skills across the country.

Delivery of the first pre-production Challenger 3 and the commencement of trials marks a critical milestone in our delivery of this impressive capability to the British Army and will provide our soldiers with a world-class Main Battle Tank made here in the UK.”

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

241 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Geoffi
Geoffi (@guest_811590)
2 months ago

Yeah, but a total of 148 is ridiculous

Jim
Jim (@guest_811593)
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffi

I agree especially since the entire project is only costing £800 million. We should upgrade all the challengers 2 we have to challenger 3 standard ever if we don’t have troops to use them and just keep them in storage. If Ukraine or our own experience in WW2 has shown us anything, it that you need a lot more tanks than crews in a major conflict. Most crews survive a tank being knocked out but producing new main battle tanks is now no longer an option, production would take years. It’s also pretty evident from Ukraine that in an emergency… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811671)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Depends on the design of the tank.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811873)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Stand my missus in front of me enemy and she’d nag them to death

Ian Skinner
Ian Skinner (@guest_811744)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Most crews survive- unless its a Russian tank

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_811762)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

“But only a tank can perform its role, there is no civilian equivalent.”

Except a Volvo 700 Series

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811785)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

We certainly need more AFVs than crews – and have always done so.

Some tanks are not assigned to armoured units – they are those in the Repair Pool (in storage), the Training Organisation (out with RAC and REME trg units), and the Attrition Reserve (in storage).
We will have only 38 CR3 tanks to split between those three areas – it means a very small Attrition Reserve.

I agree with you.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811615)
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Indeed. The Options for Change defence review confirmed that the order for a mere 386 CR2 tanks for the post-Cold War army was valid!

Of those 148 CR3s, then 112 would be with the two armoured regiments.

Last edited 2 months ago by Graham Moore
Tim
Tim (@guest_811642)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Why 148 tanks and 138 F-35Bs and 196 snow mobiles? No rounding up. How do they choose these numbers?

Dern
Dern (@guest_811672)
2 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Because units do not necessarily operate in nice round numbers of ten.
A Tank troop consists of 4 Challengers, a Squadron consists of 18, and a Regiment of 56.

Louis
Louis (@guest_811682)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811696)
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

Do you have a source for that?

Louis
Louis (@guest_811728)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811740)
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

Cheers mate, I’d not heard about it.

Louis
Louis (@guest_811751)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811847)
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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

John Stevens
John Stevens (@guest_811885)
2 months ago
Reply to  Louis

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

John Stevens
John Stevens (@guest_811886)
2 months ago
Reply to  John Stevens

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811921)
2 months ago
Reply to  John Stevens

Yes, and two tanks for RHQ.

John Stevens
John Stevens (@guest_811938)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi Graham.. Alrighty, Thx.

Have a good weekend!

Caribbean
Caribbean (@guest_812490)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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

John M
John M (@guest_811972)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_812008)
1 month ago
Reply to  John M

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.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_811681)
2 months ago
Reply to  Tim

The CH3 will be a great tank and with its brand new gun (latest iteration) our foe needs to worry. As the ligature of the threat of war tightens CH3 could find a mate in the form of a medium tank of which around 300-400 should be required. Such a fleet would address the pitiful CH3 numbers and offer more battlefield choices for the commanders. A lighter tank might also address the muddy condition issues, which CH2 has encountered in Ukraine. The US Army is about to receive a new medium tank and the UK should take a serious look… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811703)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

“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… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Dern
maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_811748)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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?

Bob
Bob (@guest_811764)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811781)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_811788)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

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.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811819)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811849)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

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.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811879)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811890)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812053)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_812326)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812406)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812423)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812469)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_812471)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_812467)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812491)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_812563)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812616)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812589)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812052)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811848)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_811996)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

CV90 120!

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_811995)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812015)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

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… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_812229)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812424)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

Markam
Markam (@guest_811725)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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,… Read more »

sgtpokey
sgtpokey (@guest_811738)
2 months ago
Reply to  Markam

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… Read more »

Markam
Markam (@guest_811749)
2 months ago
Reply to  sgtpokey

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… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_811750)
2 months ago
Reply to  Markam

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811796)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811854)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811967)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812010)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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).

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812066)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_811997)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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?

Dern
Dern (@guest_812016)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

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

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_811789)
2 months ago
Reply to  Markam

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.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_811807)
2 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812050)
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

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

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811874)
2 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Only 8 T26 and. 4 T3. The MOD only orders in small numbers for anything including pencils, I’m told👍😁😁.

Codlugarthia
Codlugarthia (@guest_811618)
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Exactly right

Marked
Marked (@guest_811734)
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffi

And only enough protection kits for half of them, the rest fitted for but not with 🙄

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811798)
2 months ago
Reply to  Marked

That’s bean-counters for you!

Grizzler
Grizzler (@guest_811592)
2 months ago

I should hope its the most lethal given its the model we’ve had for 40 years and if it wasn’t a step up on 1 & 2 there woudl be something even more seriously wrong with our development than we are aware of ( although not sure the 120 smoothbore is as accurate as the rifled gun its replacing tbh)
Having said that 150 ain’t enough…and that doesn’t include APS for all , nor the 130mm gun…still… better than nowt I suppose.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811673)
2 months ago
Reply to  Grizzler

Depends what ammunition your firing, if you’re shooting HESH then no, if your firing virtually any other NATO ammunition then yes.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_811735)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

I don’t think HESH is a nature used in a smoothbore weapon.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811783)
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian M

It’s not, for precisely the reason Dern states- accuracy. I believe that there are dual purpose/HE rounds developed for the smoothbore that can essentially fill the role of HESH, so we’re not missing out.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_811802)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

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

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811815)
2 months ago
Reply to  Ian M

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.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_811878)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

👍

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_811998)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812054)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I hear that in going from CR2 to CR3 that we are dropping DU proj for tungsten alloy, which have 10-20% less penetration, but that should be offset to some extent by the higher muzzle velocity we will get with smoothbore.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812076)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Pretty sure America produces DU rounds for the Rh-120 so if we want them, they are there.

Ron N
Ron N (@guest_812258)
1 month ago
Reply to  Grizzler

The APDS round on CH2 was not spun so the different gun types had no effect. The CH2 ‘fin’ round had bands on the outside that spun as the round went down the barrel. This system insured the armour piecing dart left the sabot without spin. The fins on the dart kept it stable in flight to target.

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_811598)
2 months ago

Most survivable and lethal but with only 150 we’ll be knocked out of a real war within weeks.

Concerned
Concerned (@guest_811610)
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

It has a similar armament (basically the same) to the leopard 2 series and will likely share ammunition

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811613)
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

By that reckoning all 14 of the less well armoured CR2s in Ukraine should have been wiped out in hours!

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_811630)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, they should have been if put in combat.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811920)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

UKR’s CR2s have been in combat – that’s how they lost one in a minefield near Robotyne c. Aug/Sep 23. I am sure I read somewhere that another CR2 has been seriously damaged or destroyed.

UKR is using their CR2s mainly as long range sniping tanks firing from tree-lines at enemy ‘fortification’ some 2 miles away.

If they are firing and taking fire, then they are in combat.

Last edited 2 months ago by Graham Moore
Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_811645)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

But realistically..it would be quite possible to loss a sabre squadron in a couple of hour in a peer war.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811922)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I don’t think that is realistic. 14 tanks tactically well handled all being destroyed within a couple of hours? By a swarm of drones? Has that happened in the Russo-Ukraine war?…or any recent war?

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_811999)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812065)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

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… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_812020)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Jonathan
Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812071)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_812113)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

link sent its waiting approval.

farouk
farouk (@guest_811599)
2 months ago

“making it the most lethal and survivable tank ever operated by the British Army.”

I think a lot of time and effort is been spent around the world in producing better defended armour especially in light of the rise of the FPV drone. To that end i saw a most interesting video on twitter yesterday regards how effective UAV can be google:

Rocke Fella – NAFO Raccoon Spec Ops
NAFORaccoon ·23h
It’s not the size of the drone that matters but how you use it
T-72B3 near Krasnohorivka

Last edited 2 months ago by farouk
Tom
Tom (@guest_811612)
2 months ago

£5 to 6M per tank, that can/will be trashed by £20,000 worth of drones and C4.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811620)
2 months ago
Reply to  Tom

Tom, So has Ukraine lost all (or nearly all) its western supplied tanks including all 14 CR2s?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811614)
2 months ago

If FOC is still 2030, then I should certainly expect it to remain in service until ‘at least 2040’ as Grant Shapps says.

Jon
Jon (@guest_811616)
2 months ago

Silly question for those who know these things: is it more lethal than Challenger 2? I understood the smoothbore barrel of C2 to be able to shoot further than that of C3, and that the C3 barrel has easier to acquire NATO-standard ammunition, rather than more lethal. Is that wrong?

Codlugarthia
Codlugarthia (@guest_811619)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

C2 is rifled. C3 is smoothbore.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_811629)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Not a tank bod but iirc the C2’s rifled gun is held to be the most accurate when firing HESH ammunition, which is spin stabilised by the rifling. The fin stabilised sabot ammunition doesn’t engage with the rifling due to a slip ring, which is good because adding a spin would likely cause the rod to wobble reducing accuracy and penetration. People will debate whether HESH is useful against modern armour, the evidence I’ve seen suggests it’s an almost guaranteed mobility kill at the least. As for lethality iirc the new gun fires one part ammunition with a longer rod… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Tomartyr
DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812002)
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

The Rheinmetall L44 and L55 guns have the same chamber and throat dimension. Which is now a NATO standard. Which means if the Army wants to they good purchase the US M829 M3/4, that use depleted uranium. Though Rheinmetall have developed a new tungsten alloy Fin round that can self sharpen as it passes through armour. Which negates the DU advantage.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_811631)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

It is enough the better sights and commander independent sight in Challenger Mk2B oops sorry Mk3 to be more lethal

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_811648)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

its all a bit “whatever” really…smoothbore or rifled 120mm…either will kill whatever tank at any ranges that they can hit…..

Dern
Dern (@guest_811689)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

So short answer: Yes the 120mm on the C3 is more lethal than the current gun on the C2. Longer answer: The gun on the Challenger 2, the L30 was designed to fire HESH, which is a traditional round that, like a bullet required spin to make it more accurate. This was technology that was effectively abandoned by the rest of NATO when they switched from the British L7 105mm gun to the German Rh120/44 in the 80’s. Instead the rest of NATO focused on developing APFSDS ammunition (HESH works by contacting a enemy tank, squashing against it, and then… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811743)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

That’s a very interesting post 🍺

Dern
Dern (@guest_811863)
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Cheers!

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811784)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

In addition, I believe there are dual purpose/HE natures for the smoothbore which fill the role of HESH for non-armoured targets like buildings, bunkers and the like.
Smoothbore is definitely the way to go.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811866)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

Also Smoothbore gets Cannister. I do not advise arguing with a 120mm shotgun.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811876)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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!

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812004)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

HESH plateaued when tanks made more use of spaced armour arrays. The spaced armour negated the shock wave traveling through the armour to get to the squishy bits. A HEAT is more effective against spaced armour. Though by using a combination of different materials in the spaced array. It can also defeat a HEAT round.

Ron N
Ron N (@guest_812267)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

CH3 uses RH120/L55 A1 this is a higher pressure variant of the gun on the German/American tanks. I think CH3 will be the first tank to get the new gun.

David
David (@guest_811739)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Lethality is also about ability to see and share target via data link, pass the sensor data to other assets. Just like fighters share picture through link 16 so they don’t have to be exposed themselves to know where enemy units and defences are.. The future tank concepts basically have crews tucked in a pod sat in front of flat screen touchscreen monitors. In terms of rifled vs smootbore , the penetrator of a smooth bore round can be almost twice as long as in the two piece C2 ammo, hence it is more likely to cope with future armour.… Read more »

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812001)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

A Chally 2 will be able to fire its HESH round further than Chally 3 using a multi-purpose HE (MPHE) round. This is because the HESH is more aerodynamic. However, the MPHE has much wider target set, as it can have a programmable and proximity fuzing. Which HESH cannot, as the fuze is required to be in the base (rear end) of the round, due to how HESH works. In some respects the rifled CHARM armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) or Fin round, is more accurate, than a Fin round fired from a smoothbore. As the dart is… Read more »

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_811622)
2 months ago

Most lethal maybe but definitely not invincible, 148 is a riseable joke!!
Every Ch2 needs to be upgraded and more built from scratch.

DMJ01
DMJ01 (@guest_811641)
2 months ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

The riseable joke is no tanks at all in the Belgian Army and just 18 leased Leopards in the Dutch Army.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_811658)
2 months ago
Reply to  DMJ01

Neither Belgium or Holland have politicians think they have a duty to police the planet.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811816)
2 months ago
Reply to  DMJ01

Back in the Cold War era, both those countries contributed an armoured Corps to NATO and had many tanks. Those ‘glory days’ are well and truly gone for BE and NL.

Dragonwight
Dragonwight (@guest_811623)
2 months ago

So we are supposed to believe that 148 remanufactured Challenger 2’s are all that? This country has no civil defence plan, no air defence bar a few token units, no ABM system. Its frankly a sick joke. All the BBC broadcast is how smoking will be banned to save lives. No mention of the instant obliteration that awaits the UK population courtesy of the useless UK government. If Iran attacked the UK like it did Israel the result would be a massacre. Ask your MP what measures exist to protect you and your family. The answer your get is let’s… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_811632)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

I would hope UK would be more like Israel if in same situation.

Dragonwight
Dragonwight (@guest_811649)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

How would we do that then? With our own Iron Dome that doesn’t exist. I ought to add I did ask my MP and that was his answer.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dragonwight
Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811746)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

There useless 🙄

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811817)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

Which long-range non-nuclear ballistic missiles would we launch at Iran if they attacked our homeland?

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_811651)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

Right now Iran’s ballistic missiles can just about reach Eastern Europe, but they will indeed strive to get a greater range in future developments.

But like other world events, it should be seen as a wake-up call.

The Israelis Arrow 3 and David’s sling, have proved their worth so maybe we should buy some of those systems?

Hugo
Hugo (@guest_811654)
2 months ago

We don’t have the budget. The forces are expected to be all over the world, they can’t spare funds for home defence

Last edited 2 months ago by Hugo
Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_811742)
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugo

Of course, we have no budget for anything like a good ABM system, but that just shows how complacent our politicians have become.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811821)
2 months ago
Reply to  Hugo

I don’t think our politicians have thought about home defence since axing firstly the Civil Defence Corps and then UKWMO, the ROC -and sold off the bunkers that would enable the continuance of regional government.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_812192)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_811720)
2 months ago

Great gun commentary Dern! 👍

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_811730)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Dern ?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_811732)
2 months ago

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811867)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

XD

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts (@guest_811729)
2 months ago

Sunni or Shia ? , if the former, then Iran will still be an adversary.

Grizzler
Grizzler (@guest_811806)
2 months ago

its never Sunny in the UK…

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811747)
2 months ago

Absolutely

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_811765)
2 months ago

It runs a lot deeper than Westminster

Marked
Marked (@guest_811736)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

Thankfully we aren’t in range of mass deployed cheap drones like those Iran used. I share the concern of being totally reliant on the RAF for defence of the UK though. The biggest vulnerability is sub launched cruise missiles aimed at airbases, power stations etc. I don’t share the head in the sand arrogant assumption that many on here have that the navy will 100% keep subs at bay, or that Russian missiles are crap and will miss anyway.

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812009)
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Iran have showcased a 40ft ISO container containing around 20 Shahed drones. Where the Shaheds are launched from inside the container through a two part roof door. The idea is that you put the container on a articulated lorry and drive it closer to you target. Or alternatively, put a number of these containers on a ship and sail it closer to your target.

You have to wonder, who they would target with such a sneaky weapon system?

Marked
Marked (@guest_812068)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

I expect they’d use it in the gulf area, make the whole area a no go for shipping. They’d be nigh on holding the west to ransom with our reliance on oil. This whole thing is going to get very messy. The sooner we can wean ourselves off oil the better!

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811745)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

Looks like your letting of steam mate 👍 but your spot on I have put on posts before about our ability to Defend our selfs if Missiles or drones were coming towards the UK . Unless our government put more money in Defence and Recruit more then it never will be solved . 🚀 🙄 🇬🇧

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811787)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dragonwight

Probably worth pointing out that the vast majority of the Iranian drones and missiles were shot down by Jordanian, US and UK military assets before they even entered Israeli airspace- or failed on launch or en route. Even Israel couldn’t have coped on its own, and it was a number of our “token” air defence units that helped protect them. Could we protect ourselves better? Yes, probably. But defence planners have to equip for the most likely scenario, and a ballistic missile attack against the UK mainland is deeply unlikely. We’re better investing in GBAD for our combat forces, so… Read more »

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812011)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

Sadly Iran also launched quite a few ballistic missiles. These required the use of Israel’s Arrow and widely rumoured US Navy SM3 and SM6. To knock these down. Although a few got through and land in an Israeli Air Force base. The UK currently does not have an effective ABM defence!

Last edited 1 month ago by DaveyB.
David
David (@guest_811638)
2 months ago

I’m curious about the Epsom/Farnham armour that is to be used on C3. Can’t find anything worthwhile about it anywhere.

Does anyone know how it stacks up against C2’s Chobham/Dorchester armour?

Also, I understand the C3 hull is virtually unchanged from C2 (suspension aside). In that case, C3 would inherit the same vulnerabilities of C2 especially on the front glacis plate which I have read is only 70mm of steel.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_811646)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

You’re not going to find specs on the armour are you it’s TS! The front armour has been improved on CR2 so will be the same if not better on C3. Has there been any reports on the vulnerability of the hull apart from the front?

Last edited 2 months ago by Jacko
David
David (@guest_811659)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jacko

Hi Jacko.
We all know the C2 armour is still classified – even after 25+yrs or so – but there is stuff out there on what it most likely consists off, etc.,.

There is absolutely nothing – at least that I can find – to even hint at what the Epsom/Farnham is could be.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_811662)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Good👍

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_811652)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Hi David since the actual armour of the challenger two is not published I would take that with a huge pinch of salt..also the theatre entry standard for the challenger 2 includes a significant increased protection package that includes glacis.

David
David (@guest_811661)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Hi Jonathan.

I am very curious about all things armour on the C2 and C3. For example, the C2 lost in Ukraine was by all accounts, first disabled by a mine and then knocked out by a Kornet missile hit to the hull side (at least according to reports). The turret was dislodged, so does that indicate the hull armour was breached?

The reason I ask is that it is the same hull as C3, so can the hull armour be upgraded from C2 standard to C3 standard?

Jim
Jim (@guest_811680)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

The C2 and the C3 both carry changeable side armour for theatre entry standard deployment. This armour is continuously upgraded. Cages are also routinely installed to deal with RPG’s on British challengers. I don’t think Ukraine had the same installed.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811691)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

So the mine was a mobility kill, knocked the treads out. After that if the tank can’t be recovered a complete kill is only a matter of time. As it stands there’s not enough information about what happened, whether the hulls was breached or a fire started and eventually reached the ammunition, is all just speculation, and likely will remain so for a long time. Even if that does get released remember that the Challengers that Ukraine got where the base models, and didn’t even feature the additional add on armour packages that our Challengers where carrying into Iraq in… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_811693)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_811697)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811701)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

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

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_811711)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811713)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

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… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Dern
David
David (@guest_811724)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_811727)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811827)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811858)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811969)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

OK. Good info. Thanks.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811846)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Great answer Dern!

Nestor Mahkno
Nestor Mahkno (@guest_811957)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Have you tried the war thunder forums?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_811644)
2 months ago

we need 3 armoured regiments not 2….essentially this is an appalling defence cut… so how many do we need x3 type 56 regiments 168 training establishment 18 maintenance pool 18 attritional reserve. 56 ( and this is low..once long ago the British army had a 100% attritional reserve policy) so for me that means we need an min number of 260 MBTs….. One of the biggest problems with this is that there will not even be an open production line to rebuild the armoured force after a major conflict….on the numbers of 148…we loss a regiments worth of MBTS and… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_811663)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I reckon you could get away with just 76 extra, that gives you 3 regiments with 168 plus 56 for training, maintenance. It’s pretty bare bones but in a war situation training would probably be superfluous as there would be no new builds to crew.
Anyone know how many hull we have that can be added to the rebuilds ?

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_811675)
2 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

As many as you like! Rhienmettal have said they can manufacture hulls if needed.

David
David (@guest_811664)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Unfortunately, we also don’t have enough crews/support for more than 2 armoured regiments.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811684)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Really? There are 3 already at present as I don’t think KRH has converted to Ajax yet.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811695)
2 months ago
Reply to  David

Well that’s not true at all. The RAC consists of 8 Regiments, and the Royal Yeomanry consists of another 4. So 12 Regiments in total. Of those 12: 2 (QRH and RTR) are on Challenger 2. 4 (KRH, RDG, RL and HCAV) are on AJAX. 1 (RWY) is Crew Replacements for QRH and RTR 6 (LD, RSDG, QDG, SNIY, RY and QOY) are Light Cav on Jackal. QDG re-rolling from Jackals to Challenger not only is possibly, but given it’s role in 3XX would be sensible. Plus RWY should have it’s own Challengers and not simply be crew replacements for… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811932)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Great post relating to the future in part (AJAX ref). I fully agree that RWxY should have their own Challengers.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812013)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_811674)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I read we have all the bits still to reopen a production line. In the circumstances if we do it might be worth really checking it out to see if we can reassemble it and how long it would be till the first tank would roll off the line. Scary bit is we in UK are doing nothing apart from building a few CH3s while in Russia they have got to a high new production rate already. Will we even keep the unconverted CH2s? I very much hope so or it will prove we are dafter than a brush like… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_811677)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Indeed Russian MBT production is now at 90 a month…

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811799)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Analysis of satellite photos of equipment being pulled out of storage, combined with the numbers indicates that only 20% of the “production” coming out of Russian plants are new builds or deep upgrades to the latest standards, the other 80% is basically a refurb of old T62/54s etc. to make sure the engine turns over and the turret spins around and off it goes. No new optics or anything. The report goes on to say that the quantity of hulls that can be quickly refurbed is constantly going down, as are the quality of the parts they can get from… Read more »

Simon
Simon (@guest_811910)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811699)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Will the unconverted CR2’s be in a state worth keeping is the question.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811710)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Yes, we covered that before, those photos of the sheds at Ashchurch would imply that many will not be.

Simon
Simon (@guest_811911)
2 months ago

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

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_811766)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Yes from what I can see the only think the ch3 is not getting is a new hull . Its getting new turret . New engine , new transmission . Its highly upgraded . The uk certainly has the skills to creat a production line if it wanted to

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811833)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonno

Once CR2 is formally declared obsolete, they will be coralled at Ashchurch and disposed of by gifting, sale or scrapping, together with spares, simulators, training aids, publications etc.

We do not keep equipment long after it has been formally declared obsolete. We do not have the space or the not inconsiderable budget to keep obsolete kit. In time we would not have anyone trained to operate or maintain it. Spoiler alert – we don’t have hundreds of Chieftains, Chally 1s, M109s or Abbots stored at Ashchurch.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811686)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agreed. I’m not one calling for several hundreds as the CSS does not exist for that but 3 Regs should be achievable considering we still, as far as I’m aware, have 3 Regiments of Tanks.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811700)
2 months ago

But, given the structural reorg of 1DSR how well can that third regiment operate, or can it just get out onto Salisbury plain? 😉

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811708)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Hmmm, I’m not actually sure where the KRH stand at the moment to be honest? Carters plan had them losing the Tanks longs ago but for the delays.
Since 1 AI Bde merged with 1 Art Bde it cannot deploy in concert with Bde organic supports unless it is being used piecemeal elsewhere like supporting Cabrit or the elements in Poland?
And no infantry in that formation to support it for starters, unless one of your ORBATS becomes reality.

Jon Hampson
Jon Hampson (@guest_811656)
2 months ago

I would be surprised if the new tank rolling of the production line was not an improvement on what had gone before.

Micki
Micki (@guest_811660)
2 months ago

A mínimum of 300 are needed, 148 is a joke.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_811692)
2 months ago
Reply to  Micki

Not to mention the lesser shell carrying capacity of the C3 (31?) down from C2 (49?). Extra C3 numbers might help compensate for this drop and hopefully there’re some very efficient reloading vehicles sround. Also hope these tanks have good counter drone tec onboard. Won’t having a mixed fleet complicate logistics for a while so why not maximise the C3 conversion further across the whole fleet? There’ll need to leave some C2 stock and shells to support those in Ukraine. Did they ever recover that knocked C2 in Ukraine?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811834)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I have not heard that CR3s will have counter-drone tech, any more than other AFVs, or indeed any vehicle, has such kit. The pintle MG always notionally had an anti-aircraft role in addition to its anti-personnel role but that was never really credible for obvious reasons.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811868)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

TBH I’d really hope that any Tank Based ECM just stays out of the public domain for the foreseeable future. Definitely an area to invest in though, a MBT can carry much more powerful ECM than anything man packed and in the future might be able to provide an umbrella for dismounts.

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812018)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

DE&S/MoD have Land GBAD Project 6.This is a program to counter small UAS. Part 1 is introducing the SMASH weapon sight for leg infantry. Part 2 introduces the vehicle mounted system. Which from what I understand, makes use of a vehicle’s RWS and mates it to a sensor. So that it can search for and track a small UAS, allowing the RWS weapon to take out the drone.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812067)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

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?

Jonny
Jonny (@guest_811718)
2 months ago

WE WANT MORE TANKS

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_811721)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonny

Plus more mobile VSHORAD to protect them and all the others!

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_811719)
2 months ago

The key questions remain:-

  1. What type of conflict(s) & in what terrain(s) do we anticipate using tanks
  2. Will these tanks brush off the new anti-tank weapons now available
  3. How many tanks (if any) might we anticipate needing in a European war
  4. Is there any serious option to having tanks
  5. Should the 148 be deemed sucessful is it possible to convert more
John
John (@guest_811733)
2 months ago

Mmm, tanks. Heavy, medium light? How many? And where to deploy? I think Poland has the answer to all of this. Russia is churning out 100 or so modern heavy tanks a month, has thousands of older ones in reserve and has manpower reserves yet to “call up”. Have we seen any real tank warfare since Gulf 1?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811837)
2 months ago
Reply to  John

British experience? How about Gulf War 2? We have also deployed tanks on Peace Support operations in a kinetic environment – Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia.

We have deployed tanks far more times in kinetic operations since the early 90s than just about any other combat platform including: ships, submarines etc.

Have we seen any real tank warfare since Gulf 1 – you must be excluding the current Russia-UKR war for some reason?

John
John (@guest_811924)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Gosh. Wow.

Martin
Martin (@guest_811741)
2 months ago

Can some one in the know explain why we need 100’s of tanks and who and where we expect to fight any one with 100s of tanks. As the Army is smaller, the tank easier to knock out than it has been for a long time the idea of 140/148 up to date tanks makes sense. Simple numbers are not the answer and the Ukraine war is a risk trying to say a peer on peer war will go like that. We wold NEVER fight a peer enemy alone, and it would not be like Ukraine where one side defensive… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811752)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

Martin , how do we know what will happen in the future no global ball will tell us . Could Trump pull out of NATO if ‘Re-elected probably not but still if the USA did so how many other countries would drop out ? Would one rely on the French ? I think it would be upon the Polish to hold the Russians off ,lightly hood been the UK along side them on the Battlefield so 148 Tanks or so is Bloody Ridiculous .More money in Defence needed now Recruitment needed now. 🍺

Martin
Martin (@guest_811760)
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

VERY true but we have weak air defence, out ranged small amounts of Artillery, a wheeled! IFV its more about right kit right right job than just numbers. Recruit as mush as you want but if the kit is lacking and more leave than join, its all a waste time and effort. Its a much deeper problem than just money , issues in the Army, are not being address its again just keep quite and hope its goes away. Very, very poor leadership, lead by example seems not to apply. Blaming the MOD all the time distracts from problems closer to… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811845)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

We won’t have an IFV when Warrior is withdrawn.

Martin
Martin (@guest_811894)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812057)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Martin
Martin (@guest_812058)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812310)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin (@guest_812311)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812409)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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,… Read more »

Martin
Martin (@guest_812410)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812416)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_811770)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

The uk ideally wants light heavy medium vehicles in reserve , so when we have to call up a 100 thousand new recruits we have the vehicles in reserve. New tanks may not be the best thing to focus on , as germany france doing that . We would probably be better off focusing on light medium stuff , especially for rapid expedition forces

Martin
Martin (@guest_811772)
2 months ago
Reply to  rst 2001

Call up who, todays cry if they eat meat youth , good luck with those ones. Its not about numbers its about the fact all we have is old, out ranged, short of spares, short of ammo, can recruit who you want we do not have the kit to give them.
And once trained they leave, address those issues first, just chucking money at it is pointless.

Dern
Dern (@guest_811859)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

Shades of 1937 in that response. Every old and bold generation has said the same thing….

Martin
Martin (@guest_811895)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Dern
Dern (@guest_811931)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

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

Martin
Martin (@guest_811936)
2 months ago
Reply to  Dern

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812014)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Simon
Simon (@guest_812031)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812419)
1 month ago
Reply to  rst 2001

All serious members of NATO needs tanks. Our prospective enemy has thousands of them. Tank warfare is not just for Germany and France.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811843)
2 months ago
Reply to  Martin

Did you miss the two Gulf Wars? and the tank deployments to three countries in the Balkans? You never know where and when our tanks will next be in action. We have used our tanks a heck of a lot in kinetic operations over the last 30 or so years. Not sure why you need to emphasise that we would never fight a peer enemy alone – the British Army has hardly ever fought alone in the last 100 years or more. So what? Why does that mean we don’t need many tanks? We deployed 221 tanks to GW1 and… Read more »

Martin
Martin (@guest_811896)
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

no i was there, but who do think we fight in a desert?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812059)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

If you had asked me or anyone in MoD in 1989 if we would soon deploy twice at divisional level to the desert for tank warfare I would have doubted you.
MoD had been so convinced we would never fight in the desert that they had sold off all the stored desert combats years before (to Iraq, how embarrassing!).

You never know who or where you are going to fight next. Need to be prepared to fight anywhere.

Martin
Martin (@guest_812061)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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,

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812420)
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

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

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_811753)
2 months ago

All MBTs should now be fitting with ECM, given the ability of cheap FPV drones to take out AFVs easily. I hope that is being given consideration with CH3.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_811755)
2 months ago

Great to see Challenger 3 getting ready for sevice ,MK1,and MK2 have proved them selfs in both Gulf wars. Just need another 600 or so of these Mighty Beasts and a bigger Army and we’re sorted 🤗 ok guys I’ll go and get my coat .🚶 🇬🇧

Mikee
Mikee (@guest_811774)
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

It goes without saying but if the government was serious about our defence they would ensure that all of our CH2 tanks are converted to CH3 status and even then it would not be enough in a shooting war with Russia.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_811808)
2 months ago

All very well, except it’s still only 1200 HP as far as I’m aware. Would have been a very simple task and not a lot more to put a 1500 HP power pack in, and I can’t imagine much more expensive. Ukrainian tankers’ primary complaint is that the power to weight ratio isn’t as good as Russian or other NATO vehicles, and it’s meant that it gets stuck more regularly- needing a tow out of soft ground. Not ideal, and such an easy fix. Quite apart from numbers. If we’re only getting 150, then we really need to consider fitting… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_811935)
2 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

We still had CVR(T)s STRIKER (w/Swingfire) and SPARTAN MCT (w/Milan) back in the day when we had at least three times as many tanks.

DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_812019)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

Under a separate program, the engine, drivetrain and hydropneumatic suspension is being upgraded. The engine will be converted to a common rail diesel, plus some other engine tweeks. Horsepower is increased to around 1400bhp, can’t find the torque figures. Which for a tank is more important than outright horsepower.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_812182)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

That’s enlightening as the performance figures for the new tank didn’t add up with the original engine specs. 1400bhp is a big increase isn’t it? Certainly makes the claimed top speed more believable.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_812197)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Torque is the crucial factor. Sure big hp numbers look good. But it’s torque that helps the tank accelerate from a standing start.

The Chally’s V12 is 27L whilst the Leopard 2 V12 is 47.7L. The Leopard’s bigger capacity engine will develop more torque.

There is a video on YouTube where there’s a drag race between a Leclerc and a Chally 2. On paper the Leclerc being much lighter should walk it. But the Chally beats it by a good margin!

Dern
Dern (@guest_812209)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_812323)
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

I did read about that, a programme beginning with an ‘H’ if I recall. I thought it had been superseded by CH3 without being rolled into it. What I’ve seen of CH3, everyone seems to talk about 1200 bhp still… Will be very happy for you to be right though!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811872)
2 months ago

We want lots of them. How far can we churn them out FFS don’t give the job to Scotland or we won’t get then before 2950

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812308)
1 month ago

Some debate here about accuracy of smoothbore vs rifled guns. I have just found out (www.forcesnet) that CR2 from QRH won the May 2023 tank gunnery competition, Ex Iron Spear in Estonia, beating Leo2s and M1 Abrams. Accuracy was a major feature in the competition, amongst other things. “The UK’s Challenger 2 tank has blasted away the competition in Nato’s Exercise Iron Spear. The armoured vehicle competition for main battle tanks, held in Estonia, saw a Challenger 2 tank, from the Queen’s Royal Hussars beat a German Leopard 2 tank, operated by Spanish personnel, and the third-placed American M1 Abrams… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_812349)
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes I remember when that happened. But I would *always* urge caution with things like that. Because it’s not a true test of the guns accuracy per say.

It’s like if you do a marksmanship competition with small arms and someone with an L85 outshoots someone with a M4. The L85 could be more accurate, but it really is a test of the user rather than the gun. Same for tanks.

(Add in for these kind of international competitions there almost always is a big home field advantage in the results).

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant (@guest_812402)
1 month ago

I see comments here that armoured regiments have changed from 3 sabre squadrons (type 56) to 4 squadrons (type 58). I saw an eX-tweet (don’t remember when) that 3 squadrons and the HQ of the 4th were regular. Reserves were required to make up the 4th squadron. So, the regiments might now be called type 46.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812425)
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Seems rather unlikely. Armoured Regiments don’t work like Infantry Battalions where a Regiment has reserves directly associated with it, and RWxY doesn’t have it’s own tanks, so is not going to be forming troops to back fill either of the Type 58s.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant (@guest_812529)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I saw an MoD news article a couple of years back that RWxY had formed a complete operational tank crew. Just one. I didn’t believe a full reserve squadron would ever work. But in the context of reducing Army numbers with hardly any units going, the remaining unit strengths have to reduce somehow. As said, I don’t think a reserve squadron works so a it looked like a reduction on the quiet to effectively type 44. I gave them the 2 extra to 46.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_812564)
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

I think you need to reread that article mate! I believe it said they were the first crew in a while to work together on an exercise with regulars. The idea that the RYxY couldn’t form crews when their purpose in life is to backfill crews is stretching it a bit don’t you think?

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant (@guest_812582)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jacko

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.

Dern
Dern (@guest_812603)
1 month ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

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

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_812723)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

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

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_812747)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jacko

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.

Michael
Michael (@guest_815044)
1 month ago

As has already been said, 148 Challenger 3s is insufficient. But this should come as no surprise when you take in the whole of the UK’s defence recruitment, planning, procurement and operational requirements, etc. The army is too small; the RAF don’t have enough front line aircraft; whilst the RN are woefully behind many of our NATO partners. In summary, the UK’s defences are inadequate. The UK is poorly served by the ignorance and incompetence of the political classes.