British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks will be in Ukrainian hands for use against Russian forces by the end of March, with Ukrainian troops beginning training on the tanks next week.

The information came to light after a Parliamentary written question was lodged. Rachel Hopkins, the Shadow Minister for Defence, asked:

“We also welcome the Tallinn pledge as an important statement of western unity and intent to provide Ukraine with the support it needs. The west is united and we move together at a vital moment for Ukrainian forces. We encourage the Government to continue to work with NATO and European allies to deliver the support Ukraine needs to face down Putin’s aggression. It is now our duty to make sure that Ukraine wins this war. Can the Minister say when he expects Ukrainian troops to begin their training with our Challenger 2 tanks, and when he expects those tanks, and the tanks being sent by NATO allies, to begin to arrive on the frontline?”

Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“I am pleased to say that training is expected to start next week on Monday. She asked when the Challenger 2 tank will be in theatre; the intention is that that will be at the end of March. Between then there will be a significant programme of training, not just for the tank crews who are to operate the vehicle, but for those who will be charged with maintaining it. I am happy to discuss that further in due course if questions arise.”

I talk about what the sending of tanks signifies here.

Sending tanks to Ukraine is a big change in Western thinking

The Tallinn Pledge?

The Tallinn Pledge was a joint statement by the defence ministers of Estonia, the United Kingdom, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania; and the representatives of Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. As part of this, the UK promised:

“The United Kingdom’s accelerated package consists of a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks (14 to be sent) with armoured recovery and repair vehicles; AS90 self-propelled 155mm guns, while preserving their commitment in Estonia; hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles; a manoeuvre support package, including minefield breaching and bridging capabilities; dozens more un-crewed aerial systems to support Ukrainian artillery; another 100,000 artillery rounds; hundreds more sophisticated missiles including GMLRS rockets, Starstreak air defence missiles, and medium range air defence missiles; 600 Brimstone anti-tank munitions; an equipment support package of spares to refurbish up to a hundred Ukrainian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

The package is further augmented by continuing basic training and junior leadership training for the AFU in the UK with 9 International partners. With the aim of training around a further 20 000 AFU personnel in 2023. The UK is also coordinating the International Fund for Ukraine which has raised almost £600M with partners. The first package of support from the fund will be announced shortly.”

You can read the pledge here.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

116 COMMENTS

  2. Can’t come soon enough. Of course if you listen to the deluded Orc mouthpieces the Russian army has nothing to worry about Western tanks. Time of course will tell but I think it will be Russian armour for breakfast methinks.

      • And more on the way! It’s a pity Poland doesn’t have any K239 Chunmoo yet to donate as well.

        Speaking to Canadian television, Mateusz Morawiecki, Poland’s prime minister said: “Poland sent 250 tanks as the first country half a year ago or even more than that.

        “Right now, we are ready to send 60 of our modernised tanks, 30 of them PT-91. And on top of those tanks, 14 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, from in our possession.”

        PT-91 tanks are Polish-made battle vehicles, and began service in the 1990s, after being developed from the Soviet-era T-72s.

        Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Poland for its announcement on Twitter, adding: “Together we will win!”
        Canada will send four Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, as will Norway, while Spain says it is also considering the move.

        K239 Chunmoo the rising star of the MLRS in the international market

  3. I wonder if the M60A3 is a more suitable tank for Ukraine. It is nearer to the T62/T72 that the Ukrainians are used to. Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt, Taiwan, etc still have many M60A3. I bet they would happily swap them for US surplus M1A1. The Ukrainians need at least 300 tanks ASAP. Egypt alone has over 800 M60A3 in storage.

    • Was thinking about the M60s myself on the same lines of you really that there maybe a better fit them M1s ,I would of thought the USA would have a good stock of these Tanks left over from the 80s ,I know there marines also had them for some year’s.But there’s been no word of them hard to believe if there sold in them all off.🤔

    • Nobody is going to get surplus M1s from storage! ALL export M1s are delivered without the DU mesh in the armour. That’s why they are talking about late next year or 2024 before Ukr gets any M1s as they will probably have to be new builds without the DU Mesh.

      • Which is why I am saying Ukraine should get M60A3. The donor nations can get their M1A1 replacements at leisure, when any sensitive bits have been removed.

      • It’s interesting I read yesterday that no new Abrams are actually being built but all new tanks are put together from previously manufactured parts kept in mass storage (along with ongoing upgrades) to pre-determined customer requirements and obviously within US limits for each customer, the armour being perhaps the major one. Clearly why the US was reluctant to offer it for a lengthy period. Are there moves in the US towards eventually developing a new tank design, not heard anything.

    • John wrote:

      “”I wonder if the M60A3 is a more suitable tank for Ukraine.””

      Personally I dont think so as the A3 is fitted with the 105 L7 Gun and whilst good in its day, would have issues penetrating the armour on the T72B3 (let’s not forget that the T72 was upgraded with additional frontal turret amour twice in the late 70s and early 80s (T72A aka Dolly Patton, T72B Super Dolly Patton) tests after the fall of the Soviet Union by the US on newly acquired T72Bs revealed that fitted with the latest ERA, the T72B was able to survive direct frontal hits (note the emphasis on frontal which is what a APFSDS would be doing) 

      Saying that the Israeli Magach 7C and Turkish Sabra tank (the M60 in Turkish service upgraded by Israel) a much improved version of the M60 is fitted with improved armour (There is a video of the Magach 7A getting hit by 20 Hezb-allah Sagger Missiles with only 2 penetrating and that was via the roof, the crew survived.) they are also fitted with a 120mm smooth bore gun. All of Israel’s stock of Magach 7C having been replaced in frontline duty by the Merkava are currently in store. The Turks are in the process of introducing the Altay (based on the Korean k2 Black Panther) and I suspect that the M60 and Sabra will be the first to be placed in store and in my eyes would be a much better tank to hand over

      • USMC & Saudi M60A3 were effective against Iraqi T72 in the 1991 Gulf war/Kuwait liberation. Taiwan started rearming their M60A3 with 120mm in 2019.

        • Ok I’ll try again for the third time (first two attempts went to spam)
          The T72 when it came out was meant as a much cheaper alternative to the T764, instead of the advanced laminate armour that the T64 had it came with a bog standard cast turret. At the front they placed a cavity which contained rows of ceramic balls suspended on wire, this was then backfilled with molten metal, the problem there was it was found that the heat from the metal melted the wire resulting in the ceramic balls ending up at the bottom of said cavity. The Russians replaced those balls with Ceramic rods.
          At the same as the above change they decided to increase the frontal armour on the turret, this was the T72A. (Known by NATO as Dolly Patton armour)
          Syria the first export customer for the T72M (the export model of the T72A) came a cropper in 1982 against the IDFs 105mm L7 armed armour (Sho’t, M60 and the Merkava) when they went into Lebanon. The Russians shocked at how easily the IDF had defeated the T72 (at the time the mainstay tank of the Warsaw Pact) decided to add even more frontal armour to the Turret this became the T72B (Known by NATO as Super Dolly Patton Armour) The T72B became the mainstay for the Soviets (and then the Russians) until the late 1990s.
          As mentioned the T72M that Syria purchased was the export version of the T72A. The thing about the T72M was it was fitted with thinner armour (5 tonnes lighter) and less capable FCS. Which is probably why it was defeated so easily by Israeli 105mm ammunition, seeing as the T72 armour was designed to defeat 105mm ammunition
          After the Lebanese war, the export version of the T72 (T72M) was upgraded with an additional 14mm of armour and became the T72M1, this in turn was upgraded further and became the T72M1M, but and a big but, it was still less capable than the T72B, for example that cavity I mentioned above, in the export versions, they contained no ceramic inserts, rather they were filled with sand. So the T72s (T72M1) which the allies met in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 (and 2003) were basically the bog standard T72 of the early 70s.
          After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US managed to get hold of a number of T72Bs and carried out tests on them using 105mm guns and found that in each and every case they failed to penetrate the frontal armour of the tank.
          Since the T72B, the Russians have improved them so we have:
           T-72B2/T72BM (2006)
          Improved T-72B with built-in second-generation explosive reactive armour that provides protection against APFSDS and HEAT attack
          T-72B3 (2014)
          New main gun and fire control) same as found on the T-90) new ammo, improved 1,130 hp . Fitted with Relikt ERA
          T-73B3M: (2016)
          New 2A46M5 125-mm smoothbore gun. Fitted with panoramic sight.
          In a nutshell the T72s Moscow is fielding in Ukraine are of a much higher quality than the T72s , found in Iraq and wouldn’t be that effected by 105mm ammunition.

          • Oh yeah, here is a ugly snap of me sitting on top of a fromer Iraqi T72 tank at the army college at Shrivenham (they have a most extensive collection of armour
            https://i.postimg.cc/JhtnnSKs/Untitled-1.jpg
            one of the hats I wore was as a vehicle recognition instructor (Did the cse at Larkhill) which explains why one of my hobbies is visiting military museums around Europe.

          • Farouk, that photo in the gun sheds takes me back. I did my degree course at Shriv 1976-79 and paid a few visits to the sheds.

          • Farouk,
            Hi. Thanks for the pic – the mighty Tiger. Can you imagine that thing coming towards you if you were a WW2 Tommy. Terrifying.

            BTW, just heard on Sky News that a US General privately told BW that our army was ‘barely second tier’, ‘would run out of ammunition within days in a major conflict’ and was ‘no longer a world class army’. I wonder if it was Gen Milley? Anyway – devasting verdict – but one that, sadly, doesn’t surprise.

      • I cant believe the laid back attitude I’m reading here. Give them M1 Shermans why not?
        We want to give the Russians the thrashing of their lives and save Ukrainian lives. Win the war.
        What you people are talking about is patronising nonsense.
        I’m glad UK is sending the real deal. Better if we could send Challenger 3’s with the smoothbore 120mm.
        The Russian Army needs to go home in ruins and for the Russian populus to see it or they will be back in five years.

        • Jonno wrote:
          “”I cant believe the laid back attitude I’m reading here. Give them M1 Shermans why not?””
          What laid back attitude? the majority (with the exception of 1) of posters here are in favour of helping Kyiv. Oh by the way the M1 is know as the Abrams and not the Sherman, that was the M4.

          Jonno wrote:
          “”What you people are talking about is patronising nonsense.””
          Its a message board, the last I looked everybody is entitled to free speech which explains the 1 person I mentioned above.

          Jonno wrote:
          “”I’m glad UK is sending the real deal. Better if we could send Challenger 3’s with the smoothbore 120mm.””
          You do realise that no such tank exists and will not for a good few years (looking at 2027)

    • Oh come on …
      The provision of modern tanks is to help the Ukraine in its war against the Russian invaders. The aim is not to dump obsolete and antiquated tanks onto Ukrainian soil in what resembles charity from scrapyards.
      The last units to use the M60A3 was the US ARNG back in the 1990’s – almost 30 years ago!

        • John wrote:

          “Taiwan is still using M60A3 today. They started upgunning them with 120mm in 2019.””

          Whilst Taipei did talk about replacing the 105mm main gun with a 120mm one, they never got round to it, basically because Washington ok’d the sale of 108 M1 tanks in July 2019 with the del dates as follows:
           
          18 in 2022,
           
          18 in 2023,
           
          28 in 2024,
           
          30 in 2025
           
          and the remaining 14 in 2026
           
           
           
          Instead they upgraded the FC and sensors of the M60, followed last year with a move to replace the engines and gear box.
           
           
           

          • Interesting to see the US and it’s support for Taiwan, tanks don’t usually get the publicity of whizzo things like aircraft. While on the subject of tanks could someone explain to an ancient fish head how the army organises tank squadrons, and how they interact in a combined arms operation? And also could we not perhaps offer two squadrons rather than one, ie 28 vehicles, which would make a recognisable increase in the fire power available to the Ukrainian army. Although we don’t have a huge number of challengers the front line is in Ukraine at present, and I suspect we have a considerable number in store which could be brought forward. I may be completely off beam here but I would be interested in opinions either way. Thanks

        • Taiwan is not facing a massive Russian army – when did they last have combat experience – 1949?
          I bet no-one donating M60 A3s to Ukraine would have had them upgraded to 120mm cannons.

    • John, you suggest the Ukrainians can’t handle 20 year old western tanks – you do them a dis-service. They are very tech-savvy.
      M60A3, first fielded in 1978 (but original M60 on which it was based, was fielded from 1959), is an old dog.105mm cannon will be inadequate, surely. 10-12mph cross country is feeble. Armour will be inferior by far to the western tanks being offered.
      For a tank that could be supplied in the hundreds, better for UA to have Jordan’s CR1.

      • Its a numbers game. The West has so far offered just over 100 modern tanks. Ukraine needs 300+ tanks ASAP to defeat the new Russian Spring offensive. The M1 may take one year to get into Ukrainian service, for combat. What is needed, is a quick filler, in large numbers now. M60A3 exists in large numbers around the world. Get 200+ to Ukraine now, to defeat Putin in the Spring. They can relegate them to 2nd/3rd line units once the newer fancier, more complicated tanks are eventually in service.

        • Ukraine has asked for 300 modern, advanced western tanks – I am not convinced the M60A3 is ‘up there’ but beggars can’t be choosers, and you are right. They are available in large numbers – and they are also not too difficult to move by HET etc and quite easy to maintain.
          I’d still prefer to send CR1s in the hundreds though, if the CR2s, Leo2s and M1s are ony available either in small numbers or will be late.

        • Think of the poor tank crews. They are’nt as expendable as people here tend to think. I spoke to and had a guided tour of Normandy with veterans from the Northamptonshire Yeomanry who fought in Cromwells through Operation Goodwood in 1944. They were defenceless against the German Panthers and Tigers even the Mk IV’s. Not a happy situation without support of Fireflys even.

      • Graham wrote:

        “”For a tank that could be supplied in the hundreds, better for UA to have Jordan’s CR1.””

        Actually the Uk would have been better trying to get Jordan to hand over those Chally 1s to the Ukraine than the 14 Chally 2s, simply because one of the first things than Amman did was replace the 120mm rifled gun for a Swiss RUAG 120mm smoothbore one which i suspect would ease the ammo problem

      • I agree Challenger1 could be a useful beast if given a work over. It would also justify re activating our Tank manufacturing industry. The tank to produce would seem likely would be subcontracted Leopards or Korean tanks.
        The later is highly sophisticated and built under licence in Poland.

        • KADDB in Jordan could give the CR1s a work over (and are best placed to do so) but would need western money.

          The last ‘tanks’ manufactured in the UK were CR2 variants – Titan and Trojan – c.2002-2004. No steady drumbeat of orders since, either to build new tanks/variants or to upgrade in-service vehicles – very regretful. Two tank factories closed down – and demolished.

          Order placed in 2021 for RBSL to re-manufacture CR2 to the CR3 build standard, a somewhat different undertaking.

          When will we next place an order for tank type work? Upgrade or replace CRARRVs in parallel with the CR3 programme? Upgrade Trojan and Titan?

          Whilst the order for 148 CR3s might be uplifted (a bit), for sure we won’t be building any more gun tanks until CR3 goes out of service – in 2050-2055?

  4. Reading some reports from old tankers say they are concerned about the Ukrainian’s ability to keep the CH2’s running as maintenance is not easy, especially in the field. All tanks are complex and who says the German and American machines will be any easier? The huge clear out of UK war stocks must be a concern to the Army and the Treasury needs to declare they will replenish and in full.

      • Was thinking they might keep the Challengers and M1s around strategic points and the leopards more on the front line? Does that make any sense??

    • Maintaining any modern tank is not easy.

      Not sure what maintenance tasks on CR2 are difficult – they have hydraulic track tensioners unlike most other tanks. PowerPack changes can be done in an hour or two (less with experienced VMs). Engine parts are more accessible than on the Leo2 engine, which is very densely packaged. Chally has suspension units which are quickly and easily changed unlike tanks equipped with torsion bars (Leo2, Abrams).

      M1 Abrams – I am told it is exceptionally maintenance intensive, especially that ‘aero-engine’. Any problems with filtration to the engine will reduce its life. Rumours abound that the tanks electronics need a lot of maintenance too.

      General Sanders is concerned at the loss of equipments and warlike stores & munitions to Ukraine impacting on our army’s readiness.

  5. Ukraine needs tanks in large numbers and the question is whether or not the numbers required will be given. The small numbers talked about at present including just the 14 CH2s won’t do the trick.

    • It may be small numbers but, for example with the CH2, if the crews are properly trained and tactically deployed they’ll carve their way through far superior numbers of Soviet-era tanks without any losses. The Iraq’s can confirm that from bitter experience.

      • We had a lot more tanks up against the Iraqi army and the sheer weight of numbers counted for a lot. Ukraine needs an adequate sized force to really make a difference, 14 here, 14 there or in the case of Canada a laughable 4 isn’t going to cut it . If the west is serious about helping Ukraine it needs to ship in the right numbers!

        • Yes but remember these donated tanks are in addition to all the Soviet-era tanks they also have. Ukraine now has more of those than it did at the start of the war, and more than Russia has in theatre.

          But I’d agree, the more Western tanks the better. But I’d put money on a single CH2 versus half-dozen T72s.

          • None in the area we were operating but a heck of a lot in the Theatre of Operations in general – they were the lead nation and the world’s only superpower after all. I was not of course suggesting that it was only the UK doing the heavy lifting.
            My point was following yours to inform all that we have deployed tanks in quantity in kinetic operations in recent times – and that 14 tanks is really a very insignificant number.

    • A T72, upgraded or otherwise is still a T72. Ukraine needs the far superior Western tanks and I for one cannot understand why NATO countries are offering meagre amounts when they could easily give far more? What are these countries worried about? The Russian army is struggling on the ground in Ukraine and Putin is not about to attack a NATO country, so why are we not handing over the Tanks needed for a decisive victory?

      • Countries cannot send what they simply do not have – no-one apart from the US has cold war levels of MBT’s anymore,the inventories available to send per country now are minimal.

      • Apparently, Russia has created a new Div on the Finnish Border… recent Task and Purpose, should that Div via into Estate it will be faced by circa… 14… Challys, sound familiar?

        No one predicts what a bear will do; just be prepared.

        Oh, and give the Ukrainians a shed load of F16s!

          • Well, I love your optimism Sir, however, Germany will be a reluctant and very late partner to soiree, not sure we can expect much from Luxembourg and I wouldn’t take a bet on Turkey, either 😉

            Meanwhile, I wonder whether Rand Corporation will be re-gamimg the invasion of Latvia again, where it was estimated THE Russians would be in Riga inside of 30 hours; air power will be decisive, the Yalu River, and the battle of the Glosters will pale given the potential kicking we could receive, and although it grieves me to say it, you need PARA out rotating their Bns with perhaps RIR, who are equally nuts.

          • David, you doubt that NATO members would respond if Article 5 was called following a Russian invasion of a fellow NATO member, Estonia. I am very alarmed at that. It is fundamental to the raison d’etre of NATO. Article 5 has only been called once since 1949 – following the 9/11 attack on the US. The response was strong and immediate as reflected in the number of nations deploying forces to Afghanistan to defeat AQ and their Taliban backers.

            No-one expects Luxembourg to send a couple of armoured divisions! They have under 1,000 personnel – but they do ‘show willing’ – Luxembourg has provided military personnel for UN, NATO and EU peacekeeping missions since 1992; it is a member of the Eurocorps since 1994.

            I would like the Rand Corporation to re-game the invasion of Latvia – hope they use military experts in such gaming and not just boffins.

          • Graham
            In 2013, 2014, Russian rhetoric was funnelled through amps at the indigenous Russians in Latvia, Latvian fish and dairy products were stopped overnight – this was a politically destabilising axis for the Russians to pursue: most fisheries employ Russians; the agriculture belongs to Latvians, employs Russians.

            In a similar vein, the Latvian Govt. only employs Latvians holding a Degree obtained in the Latvian language and the old babuska’s who might have had 300 years of relatives in the local churchyard were denied Latvian passports; Russian speaking Latvians were dismissed from Govt service.

            Discord duly appeared,but, not directed at Putin for robbing the local Russians of jobs, but, at the Latvian system; I could understand to some extent.

            However, at every Latvian International Institute Assc event, the Germans would usually field a speaker: the common message was that trade was the way to make Russia a better neighbour! Latvia should build better trade with the Russians.

            I wonder what the German word for ironic is?

            As to the NATO re-enactment of an enlarged musketeers performance, you don’t doubt the alacrity with which Germany has responded to Ukrainian requests for help?

            It’s a strange world we live in.

      • All to play for I think. Ukraine will have the French tank destroyers and lots of Brimstones and ATGm for defence against a Russian offensive in Donbas.
        More interesting is what the Ukrainians are hoping to do. It looks like by March they will have roughly 100 modern tanks, over 100 Bradley’s, plus same number of Strykers. I think these infantry vehicles carry TOW or Javelin. My thinking is this is enough for an armoured spearhead which can take Zaporozhye and cut the land corridor to Crimea.

  8. When this war ends in victory for Ukraine, do you think we will get some of these big ticket items back? Say the 14 Challengers or AS90s survive and are used but serviceable, should be we even expect them back after the threat to Ukraine recedes?

    • I doubt we expect them back but when Ukraine wins I imagine they’ll send us back any surviving Challys, yeah. They’ll more than likely want to go the route of Leopard IIs.

        • We certainly need more artillery in the British Army – and not just because of the gifting to Ukraine – and to replace very old artillery systems.
          This from Forbes magazine:
          “British Army seems comfortable giving to Ukraine at least 30 of its 89 AS-90s. Disposing of the AS-90s has compelled the U.K. government to accelerate, by years, a $1-billion plan to replace the aging howitzers. “Instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do this earlier this decade,” defense minister Ben Wallace explained.

          The army is evaluating the K-9, the French Cesar, the Swedish Archer and other tracked and wheeled howitzers. All have long guns—52 calibers or greater.

          While the selection process for a new howitzer gets underway, the army could get a few new-ish guns to bridge the gap between the AS-90s and whatever comes next. “I have also directed that, subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability is to be delivered,” Wallace stated.

  9. A question for the experts here.

    Is the Abrams not able to use multiple fuels – both gasoline and diesel afaics in addition to the aviation fuel seem to be specified?

    What is involved in using one of these in theatre? Can they just put the diesel or gasoline in, or is there much more to it? Or is it just for emergencies etc?

  10. I’m also quite interested in the future of tanks in Europe.

    Do we now have an opportunity for Poland to win the international tank orders for the next generation with the after-K2?

    Will Germany be trusted by international buyers?

    • UK should never buy a German tank – would we get permission to sell or gift it on after service with our own army?

        • Yes, Matt, I know. I worked for Rheinmetall. Not quite the same thing as a ‘German tank’ though.
          Germany would not restrict our future disposal (by sale or gifting) of CR3 just because it had a German gun.

  11. There were some suggestion that C1s that are in storage in Jordan/Oman as I understand could find their way to Ukraine either in an upgraded form or as is.

    • Jordan is in the process of disposing of its CR1 fleet of nearly 400. Oman has 38 CRs in-service.
      It is for those governments to decide if and how they could aid Ukraine.

  12. I’ve only heard about the Tallinn pledge through these pages. Great, strong, unambiguous wording. Interesting mix of nations making the pledge – and does not include USA, Germany, France etc. Should have got wider publicity.

    • For a lot of diplomatic stuff it’s a good idea to go to the Gov.uk site once a day or so. A lot of interesting stuff goes under the ‘media’ radar.

  13. Tell them where, when, time of day, how many… stupid broadcasting of all our moves!
    End of March?! Are you kidding! There’s a war going on, time is of the essence. Bring it forward to early – mid February and stop all this faffing around. Ukraine needs to have some “surprise strength”! They’ve waited long enough for these bloody tanks.
    Sorry for my rant… and have a nice weekend.

    • Quentin, as usual these damn politicians have taken months to make the tank decision. There is a huge amount to do to get western tanks into Ukraine, prepared with all spares, support vehicles, ammo, crews trained, maintainers trained, higher level commandes trained. I think we are doing quite well for the British tanks to be at the start line some 2 months from political decision.

      • Hi Graham, I totally agree with the lead time, training, logistics etc. Just can’t believe the level of “broadcasting” about all of this as if it’s some tv board game. The West has also had prior time to prepare for this earlier but political decision making gets in the way. My back ground is in supply chain and logistics, nothing military though, mostly sea, road, air, tanker and 3PL so I’m not just spouting off here. I’m actually quite proud of the 🇬🇧 contribution and leadership in supporting 🇺🇦 and long may it continue. I also do appreciate those, like yourself, who have had real military and related experience.

        • Hi Quentin, thanks for your comments. I was REME (and often worked closely with RLC (and before that RCT and RAOC)) for 34 yrs, then worked for MoD Abbey wood as a civilian for 2 yrs, then in Defence industry for 6 yrs.

          I am proud of what we as a nation have done for Ukraine and we have often been in front of the US in decision-making.

          We have entered a new phase in the war with Ukraine, moving from defensive actions and containment to having to transition fully to the offensive – and for western nations to now supply more kit and much of it offensive in nature. Many more tanks will be required as well as combat aircraft like F-16s.

          I see little likelihood of peace talks and every likelihood that this war will continue until Putin leaves office, one way or another.

          • That’s a great record of service and experience, very well done and good to have you and others on this site. It’s always good to get our sometimes unrealistic comments tempered with a bit of operational realities. We all had a go at “Ajax”, lol, me included. And we all want more of everything and sooner! Back for more later after my Sunday morning ☕️!

          • Thanks. We all rightly had a go at Ajax – it was the wrong vehicle (too big, too heavy), built by the wrong company (totally inexperienced), at the wrong time (ie years too late) and at the wrong price (too expensive).

            But it seems to be transitioning towards ISD now – just hope it does well on the Reliability Growth Trial, which may take a year or so.

            Just wish these defence cuts didn’t keep happening, decade after decade – the world is a dangerous place. We didn’t achieve resounding success in Iraq or Afghanistan – the politicos need to wake up and smell the Sunday morning coffee!

          • Do you think after this, ASCOD can serve as a platform for an IFV replacement of the Warrior, incorporating lessons learned and all that?

            Otherwise, what IFV do you think would be suitable? The CV90’s recent Akeron MMP demonstration made it look pretty exciting.

          • The MoD decided not to proceed with the Warrior upgrade programme (WCSP) for reasons that are not totally clear but it seems there was frustration at the slow pace of the programme and that certain problems such as those with the CTA40, were not rapidly sorted. They decided in May 2021 to buy some sort of version of wheeled Boxer instead. If it has a cannon it can be termed an IFV for the ‘Armoured Infantry’. [I think this was a very bad decision, we should have accelerated the WCSP or bought CV90 or another well-sorted tracked IFV – but my voice is irrelevant – ‘the die is cast’].

            Why then do you see a need to revisit this decision and look at ASCOD as a Warrior replacement?

            Anyway to answer the question – if you are talking about the development of ASCOD that is now the Ajax and its variants – the answer is ‘No’. No version can take an infantry section of 8 men plus vehicle crew.

            Alternatively, considering the ASCOD Pizarro/Ulan – tracked, with a 30mm Mauser cannon, then this takes 7 dismounts in the back plus crew of 3 – this is OK as the veh comdr dismounts to command the section. Good top speed of 70kph. In service since 2004/5 with Spanish and Austrian forces. It looks OK.

            But we are going with wheeled Boxer and hopefully they will all come with at least a 30mm stabilised cannon – otherwise it is not an IFV – it would be a mere APC.

          • Thanks for the detailed answer, and clarifying the difference between Ajax and ASCOD. Yes, I know Ajax isn’t designed to carry dismounts.

            While Boxer has been ordered, is there not still time to “revisit” the decision by reallocating Boxer to the protected mobility infantry, and buying a tracked IFV for the armoured infantry?

          • My answer did say AJAX and its variants (which uincldes ARES, the so-called APC version – it carries just 4 dismounts – they are not an infantry fire team (half-section) – they are a specialist team.

            Once you have ordered something, there is a contarct in place and it really is too late to revisit the decision.

            It was that Boxer (filling the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle remit) was going to the Mechanised Infantry in the 2 x Strike Brigades and Warrior would be retained and upgraded for the Armoured infantry working with tanks in the armoured brigades. We no longer have 2 x Strike brigades in the future Orbat. There is one Deep Recce Strike brigade, but with no Inf, just cav and gunners.
            No-one now uses the term ‘Armoured Infantry’, just Mech Inf, Lt Mech Inf, Lt Inf and Inf (Reserve). Its not so clear now.

            The Inf accompanying tanks in 12th and 20th armoured BCT are termed Mech Inf – they are getting Boxer, instead of WCSP (upgraded Warrior) but no idea if they will even get a cannon – its desperate.

            Its all such a mess.

          • My sympathies.

            Well, could there not be an additional purchase now of eg CV90 or whatever tracked IFV to fill the Mech Inf role, with Boxer going to Lt Mech Inf?

          • Tracked IFV (be it resurrected, upgraded WR or CV90 or Puma or anything really) should go to the Armoured Infantry (bring back the term) and Boxer should go to the Mechanised Infantry, with a lighter wheeled vehicle for the Lt Mech Inf.

            But HMG has decided Boxer for all requiring armoured protection – probably all the contracts are signed now.

    • Announcing these things is a form of diplomatic pressure, and it’s been the UK way of war since at least 1982 that I can remember, when many high profile movements of the Falklands task force were televised to give the Argentinians every available opportunity to return the islands. However, when it comes to the sharp end, operationally sensitive information won’t be as obligingly revealed. This war has carried on for twelve months now, you may have noticed this with regards to earlier weapons transfers.

  14. More dangerous escalation in this de facto proxy war between NATO and Russia .The cheerleading for one authoritarian corrupt anything but free nation against another authoritarian corrupt anything but free nation would be funny were it not so serious given the total and utter lack of understanding by the majority in this room. Some of the shite that’s been written by guest contributors in particular on the effectiveness or rather lack of on sanctions and policy supposedly countering Russian aggression is well nothing but shite and is there for all to see nothing but abject failure.

    where’s the indignation in here at the hollowing out of our own precious armed forces whilst pishing billions in aid on this lost cause or giving away irreplaceable equipment (C2) ?

    Western tactics and equipment is far superior to the Russian shite this is self evident however they {Russia ] will not stop ( read a little history) and are way more effective when it comes to asymmetric warfare. All we are achieving is ensuring more unfortunate Ukrainian and Russian cannon fodder die.

    of course I’ll get a heap of shitehoose nonsense from folks that don’t know shit about anything other than the propaganda they are fed and love to repeat and I’ll get called a Mouthpiece for Russia which as stated many times I’m Not but if it stimulates debate then 😁👍🏻

    Support the British Armed Forces spend tax payer money on our Armed Forces and de-escalate this pointless futile war that’s nothing but planned manipulation all carefully orchestrated by the globalist shitebags who are pulling the strings whilst the sheeple sleepwalk into subjugation.

    expect to see my comment 2-3 weeks after I submitted it 👋🏻 Or not…..

    🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

  15. I Know the first job of any British government is to defend the realm which usually means scrapping or giving away perfectly good equipment to save a few quid but surely they didnt just scrap 160 challenger 2 tanks.Anyone know what actually happened to the tanks because i do remember we had around 400 if i remember correctly.

    • I have written on this many times. We bought 386 CR2 tanks. About 35% were taken out of service (but stored) in the 2010 defence review, leaving us with 227 tanks on the active list.
      Between 2010 and 2018, 80 of the out-of-service tanks were scrapped – it is unprecedented to scrap tanks that have not been formally declared ‘Obsolete’, so this was done without publicity – very shameful.

      We still have 227 tanks on the active list and should have 79 on the inactive list (they will be in rag order, probably).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here