British-built Challenger 2 tanks have reportedly crossed the border into Russia, being used by Ukrainian forces in their recent offensive in the Kursk region.
The Ministry of Defence has not officially confirmed the specific equipment used in the operation, but sources told Sky News that Challenger 2 tanks were involved.
The Ministry reiterated Ukraine’s right to use UK-provided weapons for self-defence, adding that this right extends to operations within Russian territory, provided they comply with international law.
The 82nd Air Assault Brigade has been operating British Challenger 2 tanks since last year and is confirmed to be participating in the offensive in Kursk.
The deployment of these tanks follows a commitment made by the United Kingdom in January 2023 to supply Ukraine with 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, along with support vehicles.
Ukrainian troops began training on these tanks in the UK shortly thereafter, completing their training in March 2023. By the end of March, the first Challenger 2 tanks were delivered to Ukraine.
As of last month, 13 of the original 14 Challenger 2 tanks remain operational within the Ukrainian Armed Forces, with one confirmed destroyed based on visual evidence.
Recent satellite images have revealed that Russian forces have responded to the Ukrainian advance by constructing a series of defensive fortifications, including trenches and anti-vehicle ditches, north of the Ukrainian positions. These measures suggest that Russian troops are preparing for sustained combat in the region.
In addition to the satellite imagery, videos circulated on Russian social media platforms appear to show Russian forces engaging with Challenger 2 tanks in Kursk. However, these reports have not been independently verified. Ukraine has claimed control over more than 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory during this offensive.
The Challenger 2 Tank
In the words of the British Army, the Challenger 2 is a main battle tank, “designed to destroy other tanks. It has been used by the British Army on operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq, and has never experienced a loss at the hands of the enemy. Built in the UK by Vickers Defence Systems, now BAE Systems and Land Armaments, it was designed as a replacement to the Challenger 1 tank in 1986 and has been in service with the British Army since July 1994.”
| Mass | 62.5 tonnes (61.5 long tons; 68.9 short tons), with a combat-ready weight of 75.0 tonnes (73.8 long tons; 82.7 short tons) with add-on armour modules. |
| Crew | 4 (commander, gunner, loader/operator, driver) |
| Armour | Chobham / Dorchester Level 2 (secret) |
| Main Armament | L30A1 120 mm rifled gun with 47 rounds |
| Secondary Armament | Coaxial 7.62 mm L94A1 chain gun EX-34 (chain gun), 7.62 mm L37A2 Operator/Loader’s hatch machine gun |
| Engine | Perkins CV12-6A V12 diesel 26.1 litres, 1,200 bhp (890 kW) |
| Suspension | Hydro-pneumatic suspension |
| Fuel capacity | 1,592 litres (350 imp gal; 421 US gal) |
| Operational Range | 550 km (340 mi) on road, 250 km (160 mi) off-road on internal fuel |
| Maximum speed | 59 km/h (37 mph) on road, 40 km/h (25 mph) off-road |
Marder tanks were also sighted. Since Marder and Challenger has been used together in the past, this is not so surprising.
Marders are not tanks – they are IFVs.
Yes, I am no native speaker and in German, we have the Kampfpanzer (MBT) and the Schützenpanzer (IFV). So I called both tanks, which, granted, the Marder is not. However, Marder has been used with Challenger before by Ukraine, while Leopard 2 was used with Bradleys, so it hints that those units had joint training.
Thanks Michael. Challenger-Marder and Leopard 2-Bradley sound like good combinations to me.
Michael, in diesen Sinne würden wir das Wort “armour” oder AFV (kurz für “Armoured fighting vehicle” oder Gepanzertes Kampfahrzeug) auf english benutzen. Panzer und Tank passen nicht 100% zu einander. Tank bedeutet eigentlich nur Kampf- und Spähpanzer. Schützen- und Panzerhaubitzen unsw sind zwar “armour” (Panzer) aber nicht “Tanks” (Panzer).
They’re playing the IFV role with the Challies, in lieu of the Warrior.
Just a quick point of order George- I think you were so keen to get this article out that you didn’t second-check the title!
That said, great news that they’re in action in a manner closer to what they were designed for! It’s just a shame we can’t commit more.
Now, maybe, the UK government can correct their shocking decision to restrict Storm Shadow use to within Ukrainian borders. They should absolutely be being used in Kursk.
Agree Ukraine should move away from Soviet style warfare. Personally though I would not permit the Ukrainian’s to use SS inside Russia. That would probably be unwise at this stage and unnecesary.
We will need to reopen a Challenger production line or two if we are going to see Ukraine right.
Could buy the CH1 that are all in storage in Jordan and upgrade them, might not be as good as CH2 but still a strong hull with a big gun!
CH stands for Chieftain. The CR1s held by Jordan have all been retired and will be clapped out – they had a hard life with two armies. It would take too long to do what you suggest – contract for purchase, transport to UK, contract for upgrade, do the upgrade, train Ukrainians, ship to Ukraine…..then there will be ammunition supply issues.
I know we discussed the upgrade before and concluded it would be a logistical nightmare. However there’s a propaganda aspect, shipping 400 tanks to Ukraine, get a few running and film them. Russia wouldn’t know how many Ukraine actually planned to get in service could be 4 or 400. Potentially they now need to plan to take out 400 more tanks. I’d also through out a fake news headline that Ukraine partner will upgrade them on route. Bit of smoke an mirrors and may not even need to deliver all 400 as long as Russia believes Ukraine has just go 400 tanks.
Ukrainian farmers seem very apt at towing tanks so they could be moved around to make the enemy think they’re in service or as Ukraine has been doing with other equipment, make mock ups of CR1 to again make the enemy think more than handful are active. Obviously logistics of all this shouldn’t impact the actual fighting capability.
Seperate topic. I didn’t realise the CRARRV has CR2 powertrain so its a known upgrade. And Ukraine is using CRARRVs also.
Perhaps the refurbishment of the Jordanian CR1s or the more complex task (an upgrade), could or should have been discussed between HMG and Jordan some 2 years ago!
Refurbishment to the original 1983 build standard would have been possible using cannibalisation of several of the vehicles. However an Upgrade would have been a more complex, costly and time-consuming task. As I mentioned Jordan would have been far better placed to do the work but we would have had to pay for it.
A good point about CRARRV is that it has got the CR2 powerpack and transmission (TN54), but I seem to recall that the vehicle is made of standard armour not Chobham armour. It is now a very old vehice (ISD 1988).
well in this case its clearly challenger 1 mate, there is no ‘chieftain 1’, but thanks for being pedantic
…there’s Cheiftain mk I through 5 however. So not as clearly as you might think.
I think we are at the limit of what we can send in terms of tanks and AS90s.
We could probably send more Bulldogs and perhaps eventually Warriors when there are enough replacement Boxers.
or send Boxers instead of Warriors…..🙂
I had this debate before with Graham, in principle an upgrade CR1 would be a good tank, not top notch but very capable. But its the logistics of doing such an upgrade. New power pack, version of the CR3 turret, sensors and comms some form of active protection to make up for the older Chobam armour. Little knwn fact the CR1 were given to Jordan.
I think Rheinmetal also looked at the possiblity of doing a lesser revamp but it was obviously not an option.
Maybe as the war drags on and the supply of western kit becomes more difficult due to our own needs then it might get looked at.
There’s one more aspect though, just just pulling them from Jordan and shipping them to Ukraine then get a few running and firing a few rounds for the press could be great propaganda. Russia wouldn’t know if there was 400 is service or 4. Headline 400 more tanks arrive in Ukraine would do any harm.
That is not realistic. CR2 was designed in 1986-1993. The line closed in 2002. Some say all the jigs and manipulators still exist which utterly amazes me. However we don’t make gun barrels and could probably not produce castings and most parts will be unobtainable. We don’t have a proper tank factory now just assembly halls – they are different.
Just throw a Rh120/44 in there and bring back the CLIP. 😆
Joe, what is the problem with the article’s title?
At first it was “built built tanks”, as the actual web address for the page still shows. George very quickly sorted it!
🙂
The media need to stop putting “British” in any weapons headlines tbh. These are Ukrainian tanks now, we gave them to them. It plays to Russian propaganda with western media keep saying British, German or any other western countries name in headlines.
👍
UK gave permission to use Storm Shadow in Russia ages ago, as did the French with Scalp.
Yeah, but the early models- the ones most likely to have been sent- are subject to ITAR it turns out. So we need permission from the US
Would not be very welcome news if you were a cannon-fodder mobik plucked off the street and folded into a rusted out T-54!
Or T-62M or T72 , T80 ….a T-90M would be your best hope
I wonder how many servicable modern(ish) tanks the Russians have left?
As I understand it their production rate is very high, around 90 a month…it’s just their losses are very high as well…
Production rate is relative to an extent, isn’t it? We’d think that all our Christmases had come at once if our MIC were producing any vehicle at a rate of 90/month. But, in terms of meeting the needs of the war that Russia is fighting, it’s woefully inadequate.
yes it is
Those will be renovations of tanks in storage. In terms of production, it’s a handful per month
Russia is doing both, new builds and refurbs.
I read 20 new T90Ms per month the rest are refurbished from storage or war damage.
I believe that potentially they are bringing in 1500 MBTs (RUSI estimates ) a year when you include refurbished and reactivated tanks.( losses equate to around 3000 MBT losses since 2022.)..earlier doors that was more reactivated old vehicles..where as now it seems to be more T90M, T72b3, T80BVM and less reactivated vehicles..so they are effectively coving their losses.
There is a difference between a refurbished tank and a complete rebuild to a new tank…no one is calling a challenger 3 a refurbished tank..in effect Russia is bring in vehicles in 3 ways..new hull construction, new rebuilds and refurbished tanks..and most of the tanks are complete rebuilds..
Russia has production lines for:
1) T72b to T72b3 ( a full rebuild new tank, as the Uk is doing with challenger) around 40 hulls
2) T90M ( new hull and upgraded older hulls ) estimates are 20-40 of these a month ( mix of new and rebuilt hulls)
3) T80B o T80BVM 10-20 per month..( with retooling happening to build new hulls.
so that’s 70 to 100 essentially new tanks ( as the challenger 3 will be a new tank)..
Then there are the simple reactivations with moderate upgrades…T54, T55 and T62 .it seems that this has mainly been very old hulls and they have not reactivated many T72Bs ( only about 7% of their T72s have been reactivated ..instead it’s thought this is because the older tanks don’t have the auto loader which may be more costly and time consuming to reactive or replace…
At the start of the invasion Russia had 3300 active tanks ( T90, T80, T72)…and around 17500 stored vehicles…( most are T72s at 7000+)…so even with losses they are going to have 14000 tanks to be activated or rebuild…with the 300-400 new hulls built each year..Russia has a lot of tanks to go through…
Basically Russias production of t90m is enough to keep up with their losses of t90m.
However they’re unable to replace their t80 and t72 losses with like for like, so the Russian army, going by loss data, appears to be getting a core of units with their best equipment, while the rest of the army slowly deteriorates to t64s and 55s.
I’m a little curious to know how they are performing, and just how effective would Chieftans and CH1’s be against the tanks they were mostly designed to combat ?
I hold my hands up to not really knowing anything about this subject and will eagerly await any answers.
It is an interesting point.
The thing was to try and move the Ukrainians away from playing the Russian game of cratering the fields and onto a more manoeuvre approach to fighting.
Apparently it was quite hard to get the Ukrainian commanders to understand that there were limits to NATO ammunition stock and supply and so they were firing it off like it was going out of style. There was an assumption that with the size of NATO there would be huge amounts of it going spare. Then next problem was that Soviet system couldn’t really hit anything reliably. So there was a bit of a toxic mix of Soviet tactics and awful kit.
Hence why the gifted tanks were ones with accurate sights on them so that the precious rounds could actually hit things of value.
There was apparently discussions about the CH1’s but those didn’t really go anywhere as the was no capacity to upgrade the hulls. Otherwise, it was back to an ammunition throwing competition which couldn’t be supported by industry.
The issue was also the slowness of NATO in letting Ukraine get bogged down in WW1 style trench warfare by not suppling decisive weapons quickly enough to maintain the early momentum.
What we are seeing here now is manoeuvre warfare.
I suspect the plan is to suck in as much Russian mass as possible and eliminate as much as possible. The main issue that Russia has is that at some point it will run out of even museum grade tanks like it is using now. The old tanks are easy meat for any modern tank, howitzer, 30mm AP or ATW. If you can get those tanks back into the kind of situation where NLAWs etc can be utilised huge numbers could be cleared from the battlefield very quickly. And I suspect that is part of the shaping that is going on here. To get the Russians into bad places to be dealt with on Ukrainian terms.
Once all the Russian defensive reserves are drawn in and cleared then other punch throughs can be made in other soft spots.
Key is to keep things dynamic and mobile as the Russians cannot do that as their C2 is useless.
Despite repeated patient explanations by GM, remain unable to comprehend why the delta between the 148 CR-2 hulls reserved for conversion to CR-3, and the 200+ CR-2s officially declared to be operational, would not be available for donation to UKR. Obviously, there would have to be a suitable time period for tank refurbishment and an order placed for additional CR-2 compatible ammunition. Additional UKR CR-2s would presumably be valuable in both maneuver warfare, and, if necessary, defensive operations. Similarly, also unable to understand why additional M1-A1s have not been made available. Can’t imagine the UKR declining an offer of the supply of additional western MBTs. 🤔
We need to have spare hulls too as they are unique!
Can you imagine the outcry if we gave all the spare ones away and ended up with less than 148? Which is already a jolly low number.
Really we need every single one converted.
I find it hard to imagine why additional M1A1 are not being made available. USA has loads of them.
There are many things about how our support for Ukraine is delivered that will be very puzzling until the histories are written!
There’s 38 in Oman but Oman may want to upgrade them or hang onto them in current form for another 10 years. If they’re going hang onto them then better we convince them to go for another tank earlier. And then get the CR2 into storage ready for upgrade. Usually I’d for UK selling the upgrade but these hulls are scarce.
Sorry, site preventing response.
Because at present we don’t have anything to replace them with…we have 3 heavy brigades at present each with 56 challenger 2…the plan is for one of those brigades to go to Ajax and 2 to go to challenge 3..so dropping to 2 heavy brigades…..but Ajex is nowhere near ready for brigade level deployment as yet so we have maintained 3 heavy brigades with challenge 2
Also remember the army will need to take challenger 2s out of commission so they can be converted to challenger three..while maintaining the challenger 2 brigades…
I also think there is not in insignificant chance after the defence review that they may decide to convert more challenger 2s to challenger 3 148 is a profoundly low number even for 2 brigades..and they are after all a bargain at just over 5million a tank..when you consider a new Abrams rocks in at 25million…converting the extra 50 tanks would be 250million spreed over say 5-8 years …which is small change each year.
Jonathan.
Very gentle correction, 1st AI Brigade already “merged” with 1 Artillery Brigade.
So although the 3rd of our Tank Regiments, ( KRH ) still survives, thanks to the Ajax delay, as Carter would have had it long gone, the third AI Bde around it is already gone.
The “3rd Brigade” is now the DRSB, only “heavy” insofar as it has what’s left of our SP Artillery, MLRS, and Warriors and any other armoured vehicles that might be in use by the Armoured Cavalry.
So 2 Heavy Bdes, 12,20
DRSB.
7 Light Mechanized.
16 Air Assault.
This constitutes our deployable “all arms” Brigade formations. And DRSB is hardly worthy of that title as it lacks tanks, infantry, and most regular CSS.
Otherwise fully agree with your post.
Need that 3rd Reg of Tanks retained, more CH3 converted, and either a 3rd AI Bde returned or some added beef added to DRSB.
In my head I always think we still have the 3 heavy brigades because we are just about still clinging onto the third challenger regiment…
I think I’ve blanked out the fact 1st AI brigade got trashed and turned into DRSB…mainly because I’ve really got no idea what the 1st DRSB combat team is actually for…seems such a stupid idea I keep forgetting about it…
Still hoping they see sense, retain three heavy brigades, each with a type 56 regiment and a mix of IFV equipped AI and boxer equipped mech infantry….they won’t but I hope.( somewhere in my head I think they have kept all the warriors and challenger 2s because the army hopes sense will return and they have a cunning plan )….
The cynical side of me tells me it’s a fig leaf trying to maintain a “Brigade”
The positive side of me sees it as a groundbreaking formation linking ground based recc assets, using Ajax ISTAR suite, far forward, to channel data to the MLRS and SPGs ( hardly any left )
Though isn’t it a reality that they could have done that any way, without “merging” and just calling DRSB what it is, a DAG.
Why not keep an armoured Brigade, and convert the administrative, non deployable 1 Artillery Brigade into this formation, but with 1 Ajax Reg rather than 2, and 47 RA with the Watchkeepers?
Because, like the Strike shambles before it, these things ALWAYS require a cut first.
The “new” is then highlighted and shouted about and the cuts ignored by most.
Not me.
i completely agree..I think in the end everyone knows for present requirements the army needs three deployable brigades in 3rd division….and this was a way to cut one and still pretend on paper we had 3…but I think it like all cuts is and was gamble that we would not be involved in a major “long” peer war.
I don’t get or trust the present concept of the DRSB at all to be honest as I think it’s an ill conceived bodge…it could work as a high firepower but lighter very deployable brigade focused against an enemy that is not a peer and will not engage in combined arms manoeuvre type warfare…( otherwise I would imagine they will just manoeuvre and punch out your echelon/ take and hold all your logistics hubs and bugger you) I’m not sure how your brigade takes, holds or undertakes combined arms manoeuvre warfare without the armour and or armoured/mech infantry…so I just cannot see it replacing a proper heavy brigade…
I could see it working better with mechanised infantry for a middle weight brigade that has very high strategic mobility…but for that it needs really be all on wheels…so many be a formation with couple of regiments of wheeled self propelled artillery, light recce regiments and a couple of battalions of mech infantry in boxer…as a more strategically lighter option to the standard heavy brigade combat team.
The present ( bodge) DRSB as I see it will have all the strategic mobility issues of a heavy brigade ( tracked 40 ton vehicles) with none of the advantages…and far from being a deployable formation seems to be a load of random artillery regiments..stuck together with a couple of light recce and a couple of heavy recce regiments…infact I cannot really imagine it deploying as a Brigade combat team, instead I imagine specific regiments would be deployed to support either the 20th or 12th brigades if the army ever needed to deploy an armoured brigade.
In the end I simply cannot see why the army did not stick with 3 heavy brigades, each with an ajex armed recce regiment, MBT regiment, and 2-3 armoured infantry or mechanised infantry nations..everyone knows for the expectation non the army that works and it works for a reason….but maybe I’m conservative.
My cynical side says because in 2015 they needed cuts with their 2 Heavy, 2 Strike Bdes.
They could the left the 3 AI Bdes alone and used the 2 deployable Bdes in 1 UK Div that had CS CSS at that time and uplifted them.
We’d now have 5 armoured or mechanized all arms Bdes, 3 Cdo, and 16AA.
Instead, 3 Cdo and 16AA all got CS CSS cut at that time, though in 16s case it’s been restored.
Basically the current British view is to see the fight as being in two parts; the “First” or “Deep” Battle that will be fought with fires and surveillance, and then the “Second” or “Close” Battle that’ll be fought up close with armour and infantry.
DSRB is conceptually a force that is aimed at fighting the “Deep” battle, finding, and destroying enemy forces at long range (for land forces) long before the AI Brigades get stuck in. In this sense it’s not meant to be a stand alone Brigade, after all eventually, even if you win the deep battle, you will have to fight the close battle.
In that sense it doesn’t really work with a Light Mech Brigade, because fighting that deep battle becomes less necessary when you’re not fighting a peer enemy (or more accurately, against a non peer opponent that deep battle is relatively easy to win and will probably be fought mainly be the RAF).
It’s also not exactly a “Load of random artillery regiments.” There’s some deliberate structure there, with 2 AS90/Boxer155 regiments to provide close support fires, and 2 MLRS regiments to support 2 Ajax Regiments in the Deep Fires Role.
Assume then it deploys in rear of the two forward AI Bdes?
Like I believe the traditional 3 Bde Division would?
Otherwise, what protects it while it fights the Deep Battle should some OpFor formations get close? It has no attached Infantry. And if those formations are found from the AI Bdes, isn’t that diverting them from the Close Battle when that comes?
Should it have a couple of Infantry Bns itself?
Obviously not fully read into their conops, but my understanding is 1 DSR “straddles” the AI brigades. With Cavalry doing Find and Fix missions well ahead of the FLOT and Artillery preforming the destroy task from behind the FLOT.
Just to clear up a point of confusion, if you are tasking infantry to fight OpFor that are close then it’s not a case of “we should be saving them for the close battle.” That is the close battle starting. (In this scenario with the deep battle either still under way, undecided, or lost). I guess the point of the deep battle is that either the enemy is forced to stop before the close battle starts and the initiative falls to the AI brigades, or the opfor is so damaged in the deep fight that the AI brigades have a marked advantage in the defending close.
I’d argue in this view RPAS and One Way attack drones are probably a better use for 1DSR than an infantry battalions worth of Boxer? More eyes, more fires.
OK. I’d read that back in July one way attack drones were being tested by the RA, I’m looking forward to an official announcement.
Hi Dern that’s pretty much what I thought…and why it confuses me…you cannot really call it a deployable Brigade combat team if essentially it’s an adjunct to one or both of the Armoured infantry brigade combat teams….in reality all they have done is added a couple of Cavalry regiments to what was first artillery brigade…because before the the first AI brigade and 1st artillery brigade got turned into the DSRB..the 1st artillery brigade would have provided artillery regiments in support for the deep battle with any one of the three AI brigades ( 1st, 12 , 20 AI brigades)..now DSRB does that with any one of the 2 remaining AI brigades….essentially stinks like they just wanted to cut a deployable heavy brigade..and hide the cut behind creating a new name and slightly different role for 1st artillery brigades….after all there was nothing to stop them just adding a couple of Cavalry regiments to the 1st artillery…without cutting the 1st armoured infantry…or they needed to they could have keep the infantry battalions from 1st AI and inserted them into the DSRB to make it a brigade combat team that could be deployed on its own.
There are differences.
1st Artillery brigade was in effect an administrative formation without a specific doctrine, in practice all of it’s forces would be distrbuted to the AI formations in close support roles. Less focus on the deep battle, and more immediate fires to support the close battle. So, as I understand it, again not read into their conops in detail, there is a doctrinal shift from just providing CS fires to 3 AI brigades to independently targeting enemy formations in the deep.
For your last points:
No you couldn’t create 1 DSRB without cutting 1 AI. For starters you’d have had to create a few new cavalry regiment. Secondly, which infantry battalions where cut? (This is absoultely a trap question btw, the infantry wasn’t cut, it’s still in the field army Orbat).
You can dislike the concept if you want, but characterizing it as “Just 1 Artillery Brigade with some cavalry” is just off the mark. (It’s like saying an Armoured Brigade is “Just an infantry Brigade with some tanks.”).
As for it not being able to deploy on it’s own as a Brigade… sure? It’s part of a Warfighting Division concept. Being able to deploy a brigade independently is not the be all and end all of military capability.
Hi Dern
re cuts to the infantry…back when the 1st armoured infantry was converting to the 1st strike brigade it lost:
one armoured infantry battalion was a complete loss ( the first and second battalions of the royal regiment of fusiliers were merged into one regiment..so the 2nd battalion was a complete loss with the 1st going to the 20th brigade).
The Mercians moved to 12th Brigade and the 1st battalion Royal Anglian regiment moved from Armoured infantry to light role and 11 brigade ( losing around 200 from its establishment)…
So in the end the loss was significant.
Then in 2021 when the 1st Armoured Infantry was was converting to the 1st strike brigade… with 2 cavalry regiments and 3 mechanised infantry battalions…all of a sudden..in 2021 the plan changes and by 2022 it’s the 1st deep reconnaissance strike brigade…the 3 battalions of mechanised infantry got moved on…one more Calvary regiment was added alongside the artillery regiments…
So although the Armoured infantry battalions were cut in 2020 ( I believe the warriors, went to the cavalry to cover the delay in ajax) and three mechanised infantry battalions moved….they did not per say need to move the mechanised infantry or at least all three battalions..that was choice…
Essentially the army shifted its infantry battalions to stabilisation and security force assistance and away from supporting the deployment of an armoured division.
I get there may have been a pretty significant shift the doctrine around the deep battle…and 1st artillery brigade was not up to the role…but they seem to have sacrificed a lot… my understanding is even within the deep battle you still need to fix in place which was the concept for having the mechanised infantry in the original strike brigades…
what is really interesting is what I see as the loss of ambition for the army that we seem to see in the higher levels at HMG which I think is really sad..
after all in sept 2020 the MOD stated that..”Boxer will be at full operating capability in the early 2030s allowing the remaining protected mobility vehicles to be replaced and the full strike brigade ambition to be achieved.”
This was when the MOD was still planning to equip the army with 300+ rebuilt/upgraded warriors and over 1000 boxers…the plan ( before 2021) was never for a handful of mechanised infantry battalions and 9ish protected mobility battalions…it was for the army to have 4 heavy/medium brigades. I have never been a fan of the army elements of “defence in a competitive age”..infact I’m with Dr Jack Watling from RUSI when he pretty much panned it arguing that the government was in:
“Defence in a competitive age’ and ‘Future soldier: Transforming the British army’ amounted to a change in the British army’s core outputs and a shift away from warfighting”
And
“The fundamental shift in the British army’s posture is from seeing its warfighting division as its core output, with the army configured around 3 (UK) Division, to the warfighting division becoming a contingent capability, with the force configured around the Ranger battalions and Security Force Assistance capability.”
He basically felt that the changes meant that 3rd division was was not going to be capable of generating an armoured division in the future..due in the main to the loss of armoured infantry…and support elements such as transport, clearly others feel differently, but when a senior member of RUSI is saying something this strongly it’s worth a listen…
He was also backed up by General Adrain Bradshaw…who said that the capability of the division was a “bit thin” and that essentially 3rd division was capable of sustaining a battlegroup in Eastern Europe and reenforcing it for a war-fighting engagement…but not it seems deploying a division.
RUSi did a good paper in 2020 on the future risk the army being able to deploy an armoured division…the key risk was that essentially every major peer army ( including the British Army until it went off on a tangent) follows a doctrine that to deploy an armoured division at a minimum you need 3 armoured regiments ( 4 being ideal) and six armoured infantry battalions…and that may be the army should consider abandoned the idea of the armoured division doctrine if it cannot realistically sustain an armoured division within present budgets and instead embrace the strike brigades ( have 3 strike brigades) paired with fires as a medium brigade concept..with a small core of MBTs that could be called for breakthrough…obviously that never happened and instead the army is going for a armoured division with significantly lower mass that peers, 2 heavy brigades and only 2 armoured regiments…backed by the the deep reconnaissance strike brigade….that is compared to every peer very very light on mass.
Oh I just found this, sorry for the slow reply! Just FYI: Ellipses (the ….’s) do not make your point clearer. I know what you’re trying to do, I used to do the same thing in creative writing, but it doesn’t work. Even in direct speech it’s not great, in long form explanations like this they’re much worse and make your point a lot harder to understand.
So moving Infantry out of 3 Div into another div is not a cut. Introducing 1 DSR meant that 1 Yorks, 3 Rifles, Scots Guards and 4 Scots got moved (all of them except 3 Rifles to 7 Light Mech Brigade btw). If you want to cut the losses incurred in implementing army 2020, fine, but those where not costs incurred in creating 1 DSR.
BTW Warrior CSP was cancelled in 2021, not 2020, and then the Infantry was reorganised in December). And yes, at that point they kind of needed to move the four battalions out of 3 Division (1 PWRR got moved into the division btw which is where you are getting the 3 Battalion number). The problem with keeping them there would have been their lack of vehicles, as the Boxer purchase could only cover 5 Battalions.
Strike, as opposed to DSR, was not about Deep Battle by the way. It was a close battle force that was designed to do long route marches. It had it’s origins in the French campaign in the Sahel, and the perception that Ground Close Combat forces would have to do long road marches. In expeditionary wars the idea was that self reliance and speed of manuever would be more important than fires, while in the European context the idea was that the Strike Brigades would be able to rapidly road march to Poland or Estonia while the AI Brigades could move up more slowly. Strike was so not focused on the Deep Battle that the only fire support they had was a 105 Light gun regiment each.
Next, no you don’t need to have infantry contact the enemy to fight the deep battle (that’s by definition the close battle and close fire support). The Deep Battle is much more about using ISR and destroying enemy forces either before contact is made with the FLOT, or priority targets behind the FLET after the close battle is joined.
Personally I’d disagree that Future Soldier reflected a direction away from War fighting, but that’s because I’m looking at both Divisions, and how 1 Div went from a grab bag to a much healtheir looking force, though still light on Artillery because:
The pinch point is not infantry.
I can easily reorganise the British Armies structure into 8 deployable brigades (3 Mechanised Infantry, 2 Light Mechanised Infantry, 1 Air Assault, 2 Army Reserve), each organised around 5 maneuver elements (typically 1 recconaissance regiment, 3 fighting elements and 1 Army Reserve element), while still maintaining garrisons in Cyprus, London, and Brunei, and maintaining ASOB and 11 SFA. That also doesn’t require any uplift in Infantry.
The issue is: CSS.
At the moment we only have enough CSS to support 4 regular Brigades, so sure we could have kept 3 Brigades in 3 UK division, but one of them wouldn’t have been able to deploy. Instead, given the CSS situation I’d argue we are now actually in a better position to deploy 3 Division as a whole, since 101 Log brigade now has sufficient forces to support both Brigade Combat Teams then we where pre Future Soldier (and even if not, the amount of Infantry and Armour in a Division has little to do with how deployable it is as a formation, or if it is it’s an inverse relationship.)
What General Bardshaw is talking about is an enduring deployment, where we are taking into account Harmony Guidelines etc. Which, yes, for a long term commitment like Afghan we are going to struggle, but that’s nothing new, a division has long been only a surge capability.
Note to self come back to this when not on phone.
Sorry, site preventing response.
Hi mate, we currently have 213 CR2s on the active list, ie 168 allocated to our current three armoured regiments (tank battalions in US-speak), and 45 split between the training organisation, the Repair Pool (RP) and the Attrition Reserve.
I don’t know how the army is feeding 148 of those 213 tanks to RBSL for their CR3 conversion, but clearly they are in batches. If a tank unit for example start by sending a batch of 20 tanks (just a guess) to RBSL, they draw on 20 replacement tanks from the RP to maintain their tank strength…and so on.
The army has not yet reduced (due to the constant defence cuts) down to two tank regiments, but when that happens there would be scope for more to go to Ukraine.
If we sent more to Ukraine now whilst we are still at three armoured regiments in the Field Force, then either an armoured regiment, the training org, the Repair Pool or the Attrition Reserve would take a hit. Maybe we should do that for the greater world-wide good?
The US has sent just 31 tanks out of its fleet of 2,509 active Abrams tanks! Plus there are another 3,700 in storage!!
[750 M1A1 SA, 1,605 M1A2 SEPv2, 154 M1A2 SEPv3. (some 3,700 M1A1, M1A2 SEPv2/v3 in storage)]
What’s your view on the CR2s in Oman, if Oman don’t take the upgrade then surely they should be convince to part with the CR2 sooner as they will become more costly to maintain and run as our fleet of CR2s gets converted. Let the US sell them M1s and we buy back the CR2s I know we don’t have the funds to upgrade them now but when Government eventually moves to 2.5% spending it could provide us with options, providing they don’t delay that increase until the upgrade lines close.
We sold just 38 CR2s overseas – a commercial disaster – all to Oman with some mods from the UK version.
Oman also has 80 M60s, all but 10 are the A3 version.
I don’t know if RBSL has offered to Oman to upgrade their CR2s to CR3.
Oman seem not to be that interested in having lots of the latest tanks, so may be lukewarm about upgrading the CR2s, but it is necessary to give them a greater lease of life. They need to make a decision soon as their CR2s tanks are nearly 30 years old.
If they don’t upgrade CR2 to CR3, then they may just run them on as they are just as they continue to run on their very old M60s. A logical decision might be for them to one day replace both ageing CR2 and their old M60s with a single tank fleet such as Abrams or K2. Alternatively, they might offer to sell their CR2s back to us, but I think that is someway in the future. Equally they may seek to buy from us our CR2s that don’t go through the CR3 programme.
PS. Just seen that in militarywatchmagazine.com on 17 Nov 2018 they reported that Oman had put out a tender to acquire 76 high end battle tanks, to replace the ageing British Challenger 2 and American M60. Nearly 6 years on all has gone quiet on that tender.
Sooooo…could we just have them back if we asked nicely?
I’m assuming hey wouldn’t be rusty…
Sorry, site preventing response.
You mention CH1s. I wasn’t aware of any of these being left in the inventory. I thought all but a mere 20 were sold to Jordan, and those that remained are either in museums or rusting gate guards?
Jordan had over 400 CH1’s at one point. Theirs only finally retired in 2020’s but they were locally modified.
We don’t have any that work that I know of.
Why would we have any CR1s? – they were declared Obsolete over 25 years ago. Replaced by CR2.
I never said we did have any? And I fully agree that keeping obsolete kit is a mugs game.
I pointed out that the Jordanians had a large supply of their own modded ones……
The Jordanian ones were what I was talking about.
👍
But shouldn’t the question be would they actually fair any worse on the battlefield today. Their are very few tank on tank engagements. Drones and Anti tank missiles appear to be able to disable or destroy tanks of any generation irrespective of how much armour they add or cope cages. Certainly 25 years ago they would have never anticipated how relatively cheap drones would change land warfare.
There might be few tank-on-tank engagements in the Ukraine war, but info on that aspect has been sparse. In other wars with peer or near-peer enemies, such as the two Gulf wars then tank on tank was very much ‘a thing’.
We have had anti-tank weapons on the battle field since 1918, gaining in effectiveness all the time. The design of Tanks and supporting elements and also tactics evolve to counter those threats.
I do agree that the cheapness of many attack drones is a game-changer. The British Army is well involved in counter-drone projects.
CRARRV are C1s with upgrades.
Yup
With a CH2 power pack – I believe.
There are a few CR1’s kicking about in the Military Show crowd, they do run but are obviously de-milled.
I think our Ukrainian friends need things kinetic!
Challenger 1 was declared obsolete well over 25 years ago, so they were disposed of as per MoD policy – we don’t ever keep kit formally declared Obsolete.
Nearly all sold to Jordan, but a few issued to museums and units as gate guardians etc. I hope the gate guards aren’t rusting – that would reflect poorly on the holding unit.
Chieftains had very poor Engine reliability specially the early marks also a bit slow but good Armour and very accurate gun .Think it would of punch it’s way against Russian Tanks.
You’re correct on the engine reliability but after the ‘sundance’ update was done it was a big improvement in reliability! Typically the govt put it off on more than one occasion but it eventually got done.
Sadly we didn’t keep the hundreds of Chieftains we had in Reserve ,it would of been interesting to see how there’d clash with Russia armour if passed on to Ukraine.
Chieftain engine reliability gradually improved over the years.
Given the challenges we have supplying sufficient 120mm rifled ammuntion for 14 Challenger 2s, whilst the thought of donating hordes of Challenger 1s and Chieftains is nice (if they still existed in storage), I imagine diluting a very finite supply of ammunition with less capable tanks would be unwelcome.
We dispose of kit once it is formally declared Obsolete. CR1 was declared Obsolete about 25 years ago. It was replaced by CR2.
I suspect the answer would be “Okay.” Remember that Tanks are not being used for Anti-Tank work in the main by either side in Ukraine, instead they’re being used for Infantry support and breakthrough operations. Which is why Russia can get away with using T-64’s and 55’s. By comparison a Challenger 1 is a very modern beast (also why the Leopard 1’s being used are not to be sneezed at).
Very good point, we based the obsolence of the CR1 based on war fighting 25 years ago. Ukraine has seen very few tank on tank battles and drones and Anti tank missiles appear to be capable enough to disable or destroy a tank of any generation.
But that’s nothing new. Anti-Tank munitions have always been able to destroy a tank of any generation up to the time the anti-tank munition was developed. Plus, tank on tank battles have always been the exception rather than the rule, there’s a lot more infantry out there than MBT’s.
Not sure if it’s the way you post but you come across as confrontational. I was paying you a compliment on your original post and supporting your perspective!!!!
Oh dear. That’s a shame. Never mind. Maybe get some thicker skin if you feel that me elaborating is confrontational.
(See; that was confrontational, learn the difference).
(Expat: So not offended that they resort to condescending misogynist language to try and bait an reaction. So, as we all can tell, definitely not offended lol).
Considering we now have western equipment inside russian territory I don’t understand why we are still limiting the use of storm shadow to just occupied Ukrainian territory.
Allegedly, it is the Americans who are placing restrictions on all Western supplied long ranged weapons. I think most people here would agree that the Americans both shouldn’t do that and shouldn’t be able to do that but at the end of the day if you are Ukraine you want to avoid annoying one of your more most generous weapons donors as much as possible. You also have to consider the fact that, regardless of the Americans, the French get a legitimate say in any use of donated Storm Shadow as it is an Anglo-French product.
The Americans can’t tell us what restrictions to impose on Ukraine on their British supplied weapons. Where is your evidence that they do?
We are a sovereign nation.
I’m not suggesting they tell us what to do, I’m suggesting they pressure Ukraine on how it utilises western-donated equipment and that they probably have quite a bit of influence given they’re the western nation with the largest munitions stocks. Ultimately it’s Ukraine who decides which targets to hit, it’s not like we would be telling them “you can only have these storm shadows if you promise to launch them at targets deep inside Russia”.
Apparently we have dictated Ts and Cs to Ukraine on the use of our gifted weapons, especially Storm Shadow.
Dont think the French give a damn about restricting them considering the stuff their President comes out with about sending NATO boots
There was a time where I would have agreed but Macron seems to have quietened down since he decided to turn France’s domestic politics into a European Brazil where the only choices are far left lunatics or far right lunatics who, in a shock to nobody, broadly agree with each other regarding Ukraine and the imperative of sucking up to Putin. Almost as if it has been Russian state policy to support its adversaries’ fringe political movements since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I hope the CHARRVs are on hand, I would not want a CH2 to be left behind for the Russians should one come a cropper. I assume UKR will pull back at some point once the Russians have been blooded here.
Lots of footage coming out which seems to suggest the Ukrainians are having little difficulty extracting mission killed vehicles. Admittedly those are lighter strykers and things but you would think the same would apply to heavier assets. Allegedly, new Ukrainian EW equipment has been playing havok with Russian FPV drones, to the extent that the Russians are now using FPV drones with fibre-optic tethers which as you can imagine comes with a lot of drawbacks.
The wire guided ATGM is back.
Who could have predicted that the ultimate anti-tank weapon would be what is effectively a very slow, wire guided command line of sight missile?
I mean, it’s not.
I don’t think they will. Previous incursions by the Rossia Svoboda and the RVL where lightning raids at battalion strength that where across the border again within days. This certainly has more staying power and if the ZSU where planning on giving up the territory they’d not be fighitng as hard to expand their bridgehead across the border, two weeks after the initial incurison, with Russian troops being redeployed. They’re playing for keeps.
Blimey. Thanks.
It looks that way…in reality now they know Putin was bluffing ( hopefully) in regards to tactical nuclear weapons it makes sense to draw the Russians into manoeuvre warfare across the northern boarder…not only does it give the Russian army conniptions around trying to manage manoeuvre warfare across a boarder that size..but it puts huge pressure on the Russian state in regards to civil defence ( something only Ukraine has really been drained on so far)…
It would not surprise in least if Ukraine don’t stay there for a while…it’s completely changed the dynamics…and Russia is going to have to invest massive amounts of resources in defending that boarder in future.
Yeah, I think Russia really only has itself to blame for this situation (specifically this operation). When they crossed into Kharkiv at Vovochansk they basically said “this huge border that hasn’t been an active combat zone since 2022 is now back in play.” and with Ukraine having to invest more resources into defending it’s Russian border, rather than just the frontline in the Donbass, it made sense to manuever in a way that forces the Russians to do the same.
Long term I don’t know if forcing the Russians into Manuever Warfare is the best idea. The ZSU don’t have much experience in that kind of fighting (the Kharkiv counteroffensive is the only example that I can think off of the top of my head), and by the looks of it this Op has already involved man of the ZSU’s best units. (IMO the only ones I haven’t seen that I might’ve expected is the 3rd OSB and the 79th ODSB, and the 79th is committed to the Donbas atm). So “?” about how much more manuever Ukraine can realistically bring into the field.
This is about shaping.
Forcing the Russian to move units to where the Ukrainians want them. The Russians are not terribly mobile so that tells you which units will be moved. The better units.
The Russians will have to do the obvious things as they don’t have the expertise to do the difficult stuff or the C2 to organise it.
The Russians and then funnelled where the Ukrainians want them.
I’m pretty sure that is how this plays.
It tells you something that the Russians are digging new defensive lines so far back. They are thinking more about containment than expelling the Ukrainians.
But we need to allow long range weapons use inside Russia away from the frontline they will be able move relatively unhindered. Its likely Russia will be making the same mistakes congregating troops, centralizing munitions stores and transporting in convoys knowing the Ukraine can’t touch them due to weapons restrictions.
Doesn’t stop the Ukrainians being ingenious.
UKR have been very effective at taking out ammunition dumps. The Russians are constrained by the railway infrastructure as they are not a tarmac mobile army. So yes, things will be near railheads and railheads are vulnerable.
Yep, this is more than a short-duration ‘raid’. The US Forbes magazine reckon there are 15,000 Ukrainian troops inside Russia.
Yep, they should have done this last year. A lot of resource went into the fail counter offensive and the lost time allow Russia to regroup. Problem was probably backing from their allies.
They have to play for keeps Russia will value its own land far higher than capture Ukrainian territory so Ukraine can negotiate from a much stronger position.
Easy to say, but there are reasons not to have gone into Kursk in 2023. For starters the border was quiet, and it remaining quiet was in Ukraine’s favour (Russia has now put paid to that by invading Kharkiv). Invading Russia gives them a bargaining chip, but cutting Crimea off would have been a much better result.
We supplied 2 CRARRVs to support the 14 CR2s, not CHARRVs (Chieftain ARRVs).
Thanks, Graham. Challenger is indeed what I meant, a I know the Chieftains are long gone.
I look forward one day to a CRARRV upgrade or replacement! Its ISD was 1988.
Such a vehicle really needs some ‘Chobham armour’ for once.
Interesting how this campaign is breaking away from the usual trench warfare and artillery duels, into maneuver warfare. Wondering if any of those CH2s will see any tank-on-tank battles.
No confirmation yet but the orcs are crowing they got one with a lancet drone🤔
Sky news reporting that a Russian Tupolev Tu-22M has crashed in Siberia
Those are some tired old airframes living in harsh conditions. I’m not sure they are renowned for their safety record.
Anything in English will never beat the greatness of reading:
“Schwere gefaechtre bei Kursk, Deutsche Panzer im einsatz.”
Is this invasion in danger of diluting support for Ukraine by some weapon contributors? This action has taken some by surprise but it could if not checked by Russia lead to an interesting standoff, giving Ukraine a better bargaining position if there are to be peace talks.
Just hope that the Ukrainian forces don’t get encircled inside Kursk. They’ll need to be able to maintain supply lines and return at some stage. Where to next, north or south, or a mad drive to Moscow? And hope there’s decent anti air/drone cover for this assault group.
They’re not going to Moscow.
That just emboldens Putin in front of his brainwashed populace even more, using the motherland invaded line just like how they twisted it in 2022 with the Ukraine Nazi line.
Article in the Mail on line this morning suggests a Challenger might have been destroyed, there are pictures but none of them seem to show anything other than different views and locations of a rather blurry tank.
The tweets I saw of this seem like Russian propaganda, as the kaboom seems to show in 2 different places pasted into one.
Are you sure I mean it’s in the DE and Mail so it’s got to be right surely?😉
Have you seen the THE SUN’s attempt😆
I know these are the ‘defence’ correspondents that wanted Typhoons flying off our carriers in the Red Sea😂
Yes, it’s all a bit unclear as is a lot of the stuff that gets posted on youtube and other sites.
Yes Daniele I was looking at the same tweets! its believed to be a cut and past , mash up of footage
Its dodgy
One image I’ve seen of the apparent wreckage shows lengthways grooves on the barrel which does align with the CR2, though honestly I think it’s too low quality to draw any concrete conclusions from.
I hope it is just Propaganda, too much bloodshed as it is.😢
Nobody can actually visually confirm if its actually a C2