Thales has published a first-hand account from a former British Army tank commander arguing that the new Challenger 3 main battle tank (MBT) must deliver technological overmatch at a time when the UK will operate fewer tanks than its potential adversaries.
The article, authored by Syd and released by Thales UK, reflects on lessons from decades of armoured service. Syd wrote: “Lethality starts with what you can see. This is as true now as it was back when I was stationed far outside of Basra’s city walls. The success of my unit’s mission was defined not by the size of our shells but by the power of our sighting systems.”
Having served on Chieftain, Challenger 2 and reconnaissance vehicles like Jackal and Husky, Syd argued that sensors, sights and stabilisation systems have repeatedly proved decisive in combat. The arrival of Challenger 3, he suggested, represents both a leap in capability and a test for a leaner British Army.
The Army has committed to 148 Challenger 3s by 2030, a figure below the notional 170+ often cited as the requirement for a combat division. Timelines are also tight: trials are underway, with structural tests and firing already validated, but all systems must be delivered on schedule if the Army is to avoid further gaps.
Syd noted the warning from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte: “We’re not ready for what is coming our way in four or five years.” Against this backdrop, he wrote, “every Challenger 3 must punch above its weight.”
The programme is billed as tripling the tank’s lethality by the end of the decade. Much of this rests on its Thales-developed sighting systems. The stabilised TrueHunter Gunner sight, for example, enables firing on the move, while the Commander’s panoramic system integrates surveillance and targeting.
Thales says it is also embedding algorithms to support faster detection and target tracking, introducing what it brands a “DigitalCrew” to reduce operator strain. Syd argued that these advances matter not only for accuracy but for crew survivability: “Any capability that shoulders their stress, fatigue and mental load becomes ever more essential to mission success.”
Syd highlighted how Challenger 3 changes the relationship between tanks and reconnaissance forces. Traditionally, MBTs acted on data passed from lighter recce units. Now, stabilised long-range sights and integration with intelligence feeds mean the tank can itself contribute to the “recce-strike kill chain,” allowing faster and more precise engagements.
Further enhancements are already under discussion, including AI-assisted target recognition and tighter integration with real-time ISR. Yet the article emphasised that capability gains must be balanced against budget and manpower pressures. “It’s a need that can’t be met with endless investment into shinier kit,” Syd concluded. “We must instead shore up what we have. Whitehall knows this; so too does the British Army.”
For industry, Challenger 3 represents a high-profile test case. For soldiers, it may determine whether Britain’s armoured forces remain credible on a battlefield increasingly defined by speed, sensors and integrated strike.
Without even one formed and fully equipped Armoured Division, Britain’s armour will never be credible on a Central/Eastern European battlefield.
To offer a credible conventional deterrent, Britain requires an Army Corps with a minimum of two armoured divisions, equipment (at least) forward deployed on mainland Europe.
That is what this year’s Strategic Defence Review has
promised our allies and that is what they are expecting in the (almost certainly inevitable) breach of NATO’s Article 5.
Agree, what is ordered is totally laughable and ludicrous. Looking at Poland and some Baltic states is a lesson in adequate planning and acquiring the right amount and types of armoured kit. Mass, when needed, is not on the British agenda.
The SDR does, I believe, reference the importance of mass.
Unfortunately HMG has been obsessed with constant electioneering for the last thirty years and the received wisdom is that there are no votes in defence.
The small boats, although not considered in Whitehall to be a Defence of the Realm matter, have alerted the voter to this country’s parlous internal and external security status.
Unfortunately that has occurred in the aftermath of a £500Bn botched response to a common cold coronavirus and simultaneous with the squandering of further Billions on a quixotic, entirely futile utterly stupid pursuit of ‘net zero’.
The latter, in combination with Putin’s demographic colonial imperialist expansionism is at least arguably the biggest threat to national security since 1938.
Agree on everything except net zero is not a futile response . With a huge over reliance on energy imports and import of goods for energy hardware , a national strategic focus on net zero is very important . Agree it makes sense to continue with North Sea instead of wasting billions on importing gas from qatar and USA . Global warming is arguably the uk biggest threat . It is happening now . Being an island with uncontrolled mass migration , having to import around 40 percent of out food . Having g no Royal Navy anymore to guarantee or coerce our trade routes , lack of preparation and foresight will bight us on the back side very suddenly
Net zero is over in the U.S.
The science doesn’t stack up:
‘The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.’
U.S. DoE Climate Assessment Report 23 July 2025
Britain has to get with the program or disintegrate.
Agreed the numbers are far too small but the U.K. contribution to NATO should be in reinforcing the Scandinavians who have large land borders with Russia and small populations. That we should be offering armoured forces to support the Germans, French, Poles etc in Central Europe when they face a weakened Russia has more to do with the U.K. politicians inability to accept a role that is not in the expected main area of conflict i.e we must be seen to be there!
Of course our politicians fail to fund the capability but are prepared to offer token forces that in all likelihood would be wiped out is where we’re at.
I have no doubt the Army would like to recreate BAOR and the RAF obviously want to get into flying nuclear strike missions again but that does not necessarily represent the best defence strategy for the U.K. or our most valuable contribution to NATO.
I was very disappointed there were no stated increase in personnel numbers from the defence review and likewise a stated uplift in equipment bar a long term promise for 12 SSNs but to be honest I think there is a huge task in just modernising the defence estate, infrastructure and the industrial base before any of that can happen. It is a long way back from where we are now given the complete neglect of defence for over 3 decades.
If Putin takes Ukraine (and he will not stop until he does), subverts Moldova and annexes the Suwalki corridor, penny packet British armoured formations spread out in the Baltic States will require another Dunkirk. We could not save Schleswig Holstein or, later, Norway even when we ruled the waves.
We have committed to supplying an Army Corps to NATO once Article 5 is triggered. Why? Deterrence. This is not about war fighting. It is about deterrence. We had the long peace in Europe 1945-2014 thanks to conventional deterrence. Few who served with BAOR as youngsters would wish to see it restored. The SDR, instead, talks of prepositioning heavy equipment in Europe. Complicated equipment that lacks ownership rarely prospers. Nevertheless, without considerable (no doubt including resource) encouragement from our allies, that may be the best practicable solution.
Monro, what puzzles me is the constant military commitments the UK metes out to its forces, yet can’t match assets to do the task properly and with as few casualties as possible. For example, the recent announcement that Britain will lead any peacekeeping mission to Ukraine if and when it gets the green light. This will require a large armoured fleet to work with, principally the French, along a complex border. 148 CH3 on their own would not be enough firepower, though equipped with Troyphy and added armour, would be the equivalent of say another twenty vehicles when compared with the previous Challenger’s survivability. The CH3 will be awesome just as the CH2 is proving in Ukraine, but the government’s constant blind spot regarding MBT numbers is simply baffling.
HMG are hoping that ‘Something will turn up’.
Unless oil sinks to $45/barrel, certainly unlikely before end 2026, it will not. I do not believe that the grave threat to national security from Putin has yet been fully comprehended by the Cabinet. It is to be hoped that it will not take ballistic missiles landing on London to achieve that comprehension. By that stage, it will be far too late.
We need armoured divisions and we need them right away. We should immediately ask President Trump for a draw down of M1A1 Abrams and Bradley IFVs from U.S. reserve stocks to pre-position in Central Europe while we get on with the recruitment and training that will be required. Funding? Simply scrap the scientifically illiterate ‘net zero’.
As an illustrious previous PM would have said: ‘Action this day!’
I agree we face a huge threat from Russia but it is only the second biggest threat to the UK. The largest one is the very extensively and exhaustively scientifically proven threat of climate change driven by burning fossil fuels.
Those opposing net zero are the scientifically illiterate.
However back to the UK commitment to provide two armoured divisions, or typically 6 brigades. My view is that the minimum number of MBT per brigade is 75 with a short term reserve for battle losses and a higher number per brigade would give more creditability.
So we have a minimum requirement of 450 MBT
But credibility also comes from ongoing manufacturing capability which can be rapidly expanded. This last pont is where we have fallen down even worse than in actual numbers. Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine we have produced zero MBT. We should have been making a token number each year and been able to switch to making and supplying considerable numbers to Ukraine each year.
So on top of my suggestion of a minimum number of 450 MBT we ought to get there as fast as possible perhaps 100 to 150 per year and then continue to produce at least 20 each year every year to keep production line knowledge current.
By the time we get to say 600 MBT we won’t be making Challenger 3 but will have moved on perhaps Challenger 4.
We are in the second cold war and have been for years. If it lasts as long as the first cold war 1948-1989 turn we may be making Challenger 5 or Challenger 6 by the time we can consider another peace dividend.
We will have had to beat climate change well before then and China will have weaned itself off burning fossil fuels in well under 40 years. Giving up on fighting climate change would be more devastating than inviting Putin to appoint the next UK government and bring in a police state in the UK.
I very much hope that the people of the USA will stear away from this course which Trump appears to be taking them down.
Totally agree with you. The UK impression 40 percent of its food ontop of an uncontrolled migration policy. This is also one reason why it is strategically vital for uk and Europe to hold onto Ukraines wheat supply. Global warming is here now effecting commodities and will only get worse . Covid has shown we cannot rely on all our friends in europe to help out in times of crisis . 40yrs ago the UK still had Royal Navy leverage in the seas trades routes so food supply and trade routes were always guaranteed . Today the uk has pretty much zero leverage in the seas . The uk is now unable to guarantee food supply via the sea .
Those opposing ‘net zero’ are any number of eminent scientists.
Global Warming Petition Project:
‘In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.’
U.S. Department of Energy Climate Assessment Report
‘I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it…..I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions.’
Energy Secretary Chris Wright 23 July 2025
Conclusions
‘Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency
or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections
6.1-6.7].
‘Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by
natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar
activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated’
‘Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically
than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than
beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1].’
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate
Climate change is real, but it always has been.
‘Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science. Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue.’
DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments.
Net zero is dead. Britain hasn’t so far moticed. That myopia with attendant costs represents a major threat to national security.
“In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process”
Can I correct that to “In those who clicked a checkbox claiming to be PhD scientists…..”
The petition claiming 31,487 signatories has been in circulation for 27 years! The scientific consensus may have changed of quarter over a century, however, there is no mechanism for withdrawing your name from the petition as new data arrives (if they find out you’ve died, like the organizer, Prof Seitz, they will asterisk your name; however “The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories.”). Many of the signatories are probably dead, as the original cohort, 1999/98, had a very significant proportion of retirees, and remarkably few under 40. That’s not unusual with these things. A sample of 91 signatories of a similar European petition from 2019 showed nobody under 40. Given that you don’t get a PhD until 25 and probably retire by 65, you’d expect around 34 signatories to be under 40 if there was a flat distribution of active scientists.
The Global Warming Petition Project is historic relic. You can see lists of the signatories by state and by name, but not by year. I’d have thought that far more relevant than by state, wouldn’t you? but perhaps it would uncover an inconvenient truth.
The DoE report was written (almost in secret) by a group of five hand-picked climate sceptics. You only have to look at their Wikipedia entries to see how every single one of the authors were already decided against the climate science consensus. How then could their results be said to be unbiased or representative of modern American science? Look them up for yourself, John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven E. Koonin, Roy W. Spencer. They aren’t even independent of each other! Christy and Spencer have worked together since the 1980s.
Sorry, I missed a name: Ross McKitrick.
The world could go 100 % green energy tomorrow, it would help, but it will not save the planet.
The underlying and real problem is overpopulation.
We are currently at 8 billion people, and it is projected that we could easily see 10 billion people within 50 – 100 years.
Every human consumes resources.
It is an ever-decreasing circle because our economies depend on consumerism.
We laud short-term initiatives such as replacing ICE cars with Battery EVs, which
in the long term will cause greater pollution because Li-Ion are full of toxic chemicals
Tomorrow is the ‘big reveal’; the publishing of the Defence Industrial Strategy. Hopefully we will find out more about the plans for armoured vehicles.
Will this include the autunm equipment plan which is supposed to have some numbers in it? Or just more blue sky thinking full of buzzwords.
I’ve no idea, but I hope we will know more than we know now. Surely it has to be more than ‘we are going to make more stuff in the UK’. Maybe a clear statement about which technologies we judge have to be sovereign and which are commodities we buy on price from anywhere. Perhaps also a statement of strategic, trusted partnerships?
I suspect that it will not include the equipment plan, which is mean to give us the the numbers.. that will be something we have to wait for.
It’s my understanding this is an essentially all about industrial workforce strategy..so new STEM colleges focused on the defence industries as well as training young people and STEM defence jobs for veterans.
That would make sense. Be consistent with the govts ‘mission based’ thinking.
Oh, dear Paul, I have a sinking feeling that it will disappoint on every level. As I mentioned above, the government’s blind spot regarding the Army’s needs and pedestrian progress in supplying troops with state-of-the-art armour is a constant irritation to me. Have you observed new kit is too few and will be delivered in 2030, the repetitive default everyone at the MOD uses. If this dilatory attitude can exist when there is a raging war in Europe, what will it take to wake up and smell the coffee?
What are they planning to deploy to ukraine in the event of a ceasefire? A squadron of challengers will not be any sort of credable deterrent a d the operation tempo would be brutal with just 3 tank regiments that is unless we plan to abandon our forward presence in Estonia, we need to look at rasing a second armoured division to properly hold NATO’s eastern flank especially now we can’t rely on American any more.
Punch above its weight
Do more with less
Enhanced lethality
Sounds like the glib mantras chanted by The MOD.
The army needs mass and reserves …..so build more, or buy more.
So, what they are really saying is that the 148 Challengers are not enough, and because they have not learned a thing, especially with tanks being secondary in use in Ukraine with the modern warfare, the MOD has shrugged its shoulders and told the Army to cope with it!
I see big problems in the future!
Simply put, 148 is no where near enough. Do we have enough Challengers 2s to up that number to 170? Or have sold too many abroad on the QT? If so two options exist – buy back CH2s if possible and up the order for CH3, or place an order for Leopard 2 A7. Of course having 2 types of MBT is not good given the issues with training spares and maintenance requirements.
It’s just enough to sustain a trip wire force on NATO’s frontline indefinitely, plugging into a Baltic or Scandinavian formation. Also in the event of NATO fracturing it’s enough to deter anyone daft enough to try landing ground forces on UK soil. It is def not enough to field a UK division.
A key word is missing from the final sentence of the editorial, drones.
What use is the finest tank with unbelievable to us now AI intel systems if, being perceived as a primary target, it is swamped by a swarm of drones?
These are 10 X as lethal now though.
They are 10 X as lethal now though.
Maybe 20 X !!!
It’s good to see UKDJ back. I couldn’t get on for most of yesterday.
While our sensors will undoubtedly be first rate, what use are they if Opfor target our own vehicle and there are only 60 Trophy acquired?
It’s relatively cheap things like that which should be embraced as standard with this supposed “uplift” in spending, for such small numbers.
Reading that a type 44 Regiment will be adopted, now that we are retaining 3 Regiments of Tanks. ( KRH remaining as is meaning only 3 Regiments of Ajax rather than 4.)
Additionally, Armoured Regiments will be augmented by Strike Squadrons of Ajax, and I think Snipers, Mortars, Drones.
I think they had a CVRT Sqn in the Cold war too, so a bit of spin there from the Army if such isn’t a new thing.
Back but did you get the Warnings and “Bot” Security computer searches ? Mine went nuts, UKDJ was bombarding me with Trackers and some very serious looking searches. WTF was that all about ? Can’t see anything from the site admin either.
No mate?
Strange then. Must be the security thing my Son set up, flagging up unwanted “Probing” (ooo misses !) Well anyway, I guess I’m a real person after all, and not a Bot as it implied.
Who knows.
The UKDJ has been, or is targeted by, Bots and Trolls, be they Russian, Chinese, whoever.
It’s not the first time the site has been down.
Might actually have been something quite mundane.
Anyway, it’s back.
Unless we have an increase in CR3’s type 44 was the only way forwards.
No we always had a CVRT troop 8 x Scimitar for close recce in an MBT Regt as did Arnd Inf 8 x CVRT also Scimitar in the Recce platoon of a Warrior battalion. Same was the case when mech Inf Bns had 432, but then it was a mix of either Scimitar or as in our case Sabre which actually worked quite well We also had 4 x Spartan with the much underrated Milan mobile turret which gave Recce a bit of longer range lunch and had an excellent thermal sight as well. Spyglass if I recall. The medium Recce squadron also with CVRT , then Scorpion but later Scimitar is what you refer to was a Brigade level asset and tasked by them.
Lunch should of course read punch – but we did have quiet a few excellent long range lunches in Recce courtesy of obliging German farmers and being way out in front being out of sight and mind of BHQ. Halcyon days 😁👍🇬🇧
Thanks. Couldn’t remember if it was a Sqn or a Troop in an MBT Reg.
So Sqn scale is new.
I knew of the Recc Platoon with Scimitar in Mech and AI Bns.
We’ve speculated here whether Ajax would continue in Boxer Bns, and the future Ares Bns.
Against a peer it will punch above it’s weight for all of about 2 weeks, eg in Estonia/ Latvia/ Lithuania.
After that we’re done! Limited ammunition, spares, recovery, reinforcements, GBAD, CAS (with just 140 jets we’ll be unable to control the airspace). The British Army as an Expeditionary Force, even with C3 is no more than a tethered goat.
Force evacuation you ask – after ditching Albion/ Bulwark and with just 8 frigates left I wouldn’t be confident that would be possible.
Tactical withdrawal? having just binned off Puma2 without any replacement we’re down to a small number of Chinooks.
If we’re lucky we’d last a month before Starmer waves the white flag, with a load of destroyed and captured equipment and a load of PoWs paraded in Russia on national TV starving.
That people is what happens when weak politicians and career driven top brass whittle down our military to the point of being near useless in a peer fight.
Defeat in battle is ugly and brutal and our leaders have forgotten what that looks like.
It will take 20 years to rebuild our land forces.
The answer? focus primarily on growing the RN and RAF – and forget any expeditionary delusions – we’re not up to it!
Why would it only punch for 2 weeks. It is only one division in a pretty large european orbat.
Lack of: Size, ammunition, CAS, GBAD, reserves, tactical lift
European NATO has the equivilent of 30 Divisions, lack of size certainly isn’t a problem, and our airforces dwarf the Russian airforce, which is struggling against Ukraine’s virtually non-existent airforce.
How on earth would we end up defending Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania on our own – there’s this thing called NATO last time I looked . Actually under current plans we are only tasked with Estonia , other people, Canadians, Germans, French looked after the rest and having spent quiet a lot of time there recently I can assure you the Estonian army is a very well equipped and capable force in its own right . Also isn’t our primary land forces commitment to NATO still the ARRC?
We actually have 213 Challenger 2 tanks left in the inventory including those in storage (some which have been raided for spares) so if the will and money was there, we could increase the order to 200 Challenger 3 tanks. Notably, the same issue exists through all 3 services with vehicles/aircraft and ships/submarines unavailable due to a lack of spares!! Are we ever going to learn?
Yup, but not for the price that RBSL agreed too, it won’t make economic sense for the remaining hulls. And of course the treasury won’t fund the extra 50 hulls.
And that is of course precisely why we were only able to donate 14 CH2 to Ukraine ( although it was symbolically significant as we led the way as regards NBT ) because as all on here know a CH3 is not a new tank but a reworked Chally 2 so we need to hang on to every hull we have As Danielle says I’m hearing too that both KRH and QRH as well as RTR are now retaining their MBT so that will restore us to the ‘rule of threes’ model and allow us to return to the three Armoured Brigade structure Div by binning the nonsense that is Deep Recce Strike. The only way they can achieve this if course with only 148 Chally 3 is again as Danielle stares return to the Type 44 armoured Regt and sadly move back away from the somewhat luxurious Type 56 or even Type 64 that we aspire to today.
We aren’t returning to a 3 brigade structure, that would require an uplift in Boxer numbers, resubordination of a few battalions from 7 and 4 brigade and the raising of some new CSS units and artillery. None of that is happening. KRH is simply going to be a second MBT Regiment within the same brigade as RTR.
Its complete nonsense. People have been making the same argument for decades, justifying ever lower numbers, and citing increased capability. War in Ukraine has shown it up to be nonsense. Mass wins wars. Sustainability wins wars. Being able to take attrition wins wars.
148 main battke tanks is a joke number, doesnt matter how capable they are.
We wont last a strawberry picking season in combat.
Ah but 148 CH3′ can be crewed by all those “Members” in Government as a trial, then they’ll know the way forward.
Trophy has a massive evidence base around it, essentially every single Uk armoured vehicle should have a trophy system. The Isreali army suffeeed significant MBT and armoured vehicle losses against anti tank missiles before the introduction of trophy. Even so there is evidence that the isreali army is struggling with MBT losses in GAZA. To the point they are holding off on the decommissioning of Merkava 3s as they are waiting for a new order of hundreds of Merkava 4s to regenerate from combat losses. Infact it was reported Isreal has used up 50% of its reserve MBT force.. ( which was to some sources about 500 MBTS).
Essentially both active wars show that MBTs are vital for direct fire support, but the modern battle field is more lethal to MBTs than ever before even arguably one of the most survivable and modern MBTs with active armour ( Merkava 4).. what it really shows is you need:
1) a tank that will keep your crews alive when it’s knocked out, because on the modern battlefield there is a good chance an MBT is going to be knocked out
2) having a very good recovery and repair operation.. because Isreal has a very good industrial base for repairing MBTs and it’s struggling in a war against a really shitty enemy. Russia fighting an enemy with good equipment and training is expending MBTs like water.
3) having a very significant attritional reserve.. we have forgotten this. In WW2 the American armoured divisions struggled a bit because they dropped their attritional reserve percentage and could not replace losses as quickly as the British units which had maintained an attritional reserve of 100% ( essentially the reserve was maintained at a 1 to 1 basis…
With 148 tanks the British army is essentially dropping to not having an attritional reserve..even with only 2 type 56 regiments.. 112 tanks deployed, a sabre squadron for the training establishment takes you to 130 then 10% maintenance pool 13 is 143.. essentially the moment the UK MBT regiments engages a reasonably well equipped and switched on enemy they are probably not going to stay combat capable for very long. In reality the UK needs a at least 1-2 sabre squadrons of attritional reserve MBTs for each active type 56 regiment and it needs three active MBT regiments..
So 174 active tanks in regiments, 18 for training = 192 then 10% maintenance pool so 20 and an attritional reserve of say 3-5 sabre squadrons 54-90 so in reality the Uk needs 266 MBTs minimum and 202 as a good solid risk management number.
Sorry 302 as a good sold number not 202.
“Now, stabilised long-range sights and integration with intelligence feeds mean the tank can itself contribute to the “recce-strike kill chain,” allowing faster and more precise engagements”
Code for we will be raising a second armoured division by combining Challengers with Ajax.
I’m not sure where you are getting that from in that quote. It’s pretty straight forward in what it’s saying:
By combining the information from the new gun sights on CR3 with the new networking capbilities in the tank, the tank itself can be used as a spotting asset to call in fires, without having to pass the information on to a specific forward observation asset.