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.

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

116 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Slug97
Slug97
1 year ago

I thought ammunition for these tanks had no active production line?

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
1 year ago

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.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

👍🙏👊

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Nigel Collins
TypewriterMonkey
TypewriterMonkey
1 year ago
Reply to  Cymbeline

👍🇺🇦🇬🇧

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago

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.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.🤔

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

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.

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Agreed Numbers are there but only 105mm guns and again a bit like Challenger 1 they very old tanks!

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

Does that gun work against a T72?

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The USMC took out Iraqi T72 in the Kuwait liberation.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

The USMC were still using M60A3 in 1991 & they were effective against Iraqi T72.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Thx. I am following the discussion below on upgrades.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul.P
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

Interesting to compare M60A3 to CR1!
CR1 is superior in every way – gun (120mm vs 105mm), armour (Chobham vs bog-standard RHA), X-country speed (c28mph vs 10-12mph).

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

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.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

That is indeed the case, a ‘how it’s made’ type programme on freeview showed the process, very interesting.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The current US Army position is that it will continue to upgrade the M1A1 for the foreseeable future. That hasn’t stopped GD from developing a model replacement for the Abrams.
AbramsX Next Generation Main Battle Tank Breaks Cover (msn.com)

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

Do the older M1s have DU mesh? If so, perhaps they are in US stores?

paul kistruck
paul kistruck
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

400 Challenger 1s Jordan is about to dispose of ???

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.… Read more »

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by farouk
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Graham,
You might like this picture then:
https://i.postimg.cc/jqPcbGYc/059.jpg

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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.

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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.

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

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.… Read more »

Marius
Marius
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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 Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Marius

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

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.
 
 
 

Nick C
Nick C
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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 Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Taiwan is facing China. Hardly a small threat.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Taiwan is not facing China in combat right now. But I take your point.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  John Hartley

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.

farouk
farouk
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

Well all of a sudden CR1 would make some sense! Didn’t realise that they had had the gun changed.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  farouk

A few other mods done by KADDB too including provision of a CITV and a sensor mast. Hard to find out the details but I believe there were more than just those mods. No idea of the condition of these c.400 tanks, but they won’t be rusty!

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Graham – the CR1 wiki page has been updated ( probably in line with recent events ) here is a new pic thats been added – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1#/media/File:1AD_tankers_train_with_Jordanian_Armed_Forces_160108-A-LY282-003.jpg

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Thanks Paul. I am encouraged by the 2017 pic – the CR1 tanks, externally at least, look good.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Notice the Iraqi style enhancements on the Turret 🙄

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Sorry, didn’t get that one?

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The Box like additions to the front and side of the Turret,to give extra protection,much like some Iraqi T55’s sported in GW1.

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

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… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I think there is a plan to move Titan from the scissors bridge to the Legaune type as used by the US and Germany. I can’t find the link now but apparently it has already been trialled.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

A very good idea and long overdue. The Leguan is a horizontally launched bridge (first used on the Leo1 AVLB) – this is far more tactically sound as scissors bridges reveal your position to an enemy observor, and are quite slow to deploy.

Jacko
Jacko
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Usually about 5 mins for a No8 bridge off our trusty Chiefy AVLB from on site to prove the bridge!(mm I’m old😳) Titan might be bit quicker?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jacko

Only 5 mins? It felt longer looking at the demo.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

Well the Abrams will be the most difficult that’s for sure.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
1 year ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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??

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  maurice10

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… Read more »

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

And there’s not enough tranporters. It limits how much armoured force we can commit quickly.

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

It’s called a train…

Paul42
Paul42
1 year ago

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.

RobW
RobW
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

It won’t but it was always a token effort to put pressure on others to donate Leos, plus send a message to Russia.

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

Paul42
Paul42
1 year ago
Reply to  Sean

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!

Sean
Sean
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

We had 221 CR1s up against Iraq in GW1 and 120 up against them in GW2.

Paul42
Paul42
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Along with how many US M1s?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago

The tank donations are happening. The UK CR2s opened the gate. Poland is sending 14 Leopards and 60 significantly upgraded T72, Germany 14.
https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/887354.html
I make that a total of 102 decent tanks will be with Ukrainian forces by March; more if European NATO allies chip in. M1 Abrams to follow later in the year.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul.P
Paul42
Paul42
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

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?

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul42
Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

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.

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul42

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!

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barry

Estonia (auto correct).

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barry

If that Russian Div goes into Estonia, then the whole of NATO will respond.

David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  David Barry

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’… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore
David Barry
David Barry
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The US tanks will miss the Russian’s Spring offensive. Pity.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul.P
Patrick
Patrick
1 year ago

Great to see they’ll be delivering 120mms of democracy at night and on the move in only a few weeks.

Caspian237
Caspian237
1 year ago

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?

Steve R
Steve R
1 year ago
Reply to  Caspian237

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Caspian237

We won’t want them back – army transitions to CR3 and also needs far fewer AS90s than before.

Jonny
Jonny
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Wasn’t the mod/defence secretary talking about purchasing more artillery asap only the other day?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonny

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… Read more »

Matt
Matt
1 year ago

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?

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

I read that M1 Abrams gas turbine engine (Honeywell AGT1500) can run on varied fuels.
Wiki: “The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuelgasolinediesel and marine diesel.[2]

I would imagine that some engine adjustments are required before a different fuel is used and that jet fuel offers best performance.

Paul T
Paul T
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

I believe it is multi-fuel yes.

Matt
Matt
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul T

Is there anything to stop UA simply sticking some diesel in?

I’m a little baffled that I have heard nothing about it from anywhere.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

The Honeywell (was Avco Lycoming) AGT1500 gas turbine engine can run on a variety of fuels but is optimised to run on jet fuel. There may be adjustments to be made before the engine can run on diesel.
I am sure its fuel consumption would still be high running on diesel.

Matt
Matt
1 year ago

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

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

Matt
Matt
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Challenger III has a German gun …

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt

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.

expat
expat
1 year ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  expat

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

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.

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 year ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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 ☕️!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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… Read more »

Matt C
Matt C
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt C

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… Read more »

Matt C
Matt C
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt C

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… Read more »

Matt C
Matt C
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt C

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.

Matt C
Matt C
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

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.

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
1 year ago

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… Read more »

phill
phill
1 year ago

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago
Reply to  phill

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).

Last edited 1 year ago by Graham Moore