Czech Republic, Sweden sign for Infantry Fighting Vehicles

Yes, indeed. I should have phrased my comment as suggestion or perhaps a question. I think we have ordered the Kongsberg RS4, which can be fitted a mortar OR a brace of ATgm but short of a turret they also sell a RS6 model which will take a 30mm cannon.

I read that we ordered the Kongsberg RS4 for the Boxers in the MIV role (was FRES UV back in the day). Don’t think RS4 can include a mortar, but it can take ATGMs or MGs or GMGs, and possibly a 30mm Chain Gun.
Not sure if we have ordered armaments for those Boxers that are to replace Warrior – hopefully they will each have a beefy stabilised cannon.

My error: no mortar but 40mm grenade launcher. Wiki documents that US troops think highly of the Stryker, which seems to me to be a Boxer analogue, though lighter.

I was attached to the Canada Army and was familiar with the Canadian LAV from which the Stryker was developed – good kit, and I am sure cheaper than Boxer.

Couple of additional points: I’ve read press reports that the US is thinking of supplying Stryker to Ukraine and the CROWS remote weapon station is an RS4 with Javelin. Makes sense to standardize with uncle Sam. As regards cost vs Boxer I guess modularity doesn’t come cheap?

https://armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_stryker_armored_with_crows-j_javelin_missile_turret_for_us_troops_in_europe.amp.html

Thanks Paul, Looks like the 30mm cannon is a Chain Gun? Are you advocating buying Stryker instead of Boxer? We have already rdered well over 500 Boxers.

You are right that modularity doesn’t come cheap – Boxer is a very expensive vehicle – about £5.5m a pop for the version with a MG in RWS, I think.

Yeh, I think that’s right. I believe it’s a chain gun. Not saying we should change from Boxer. It’s the RR offering in the wheeled IFV market – one of better decisions to rejoin the program.It’s German – bound to work; think Bosch electrics, Neff ovens, Mercedes, Aspirin, V2 rockets….Maybe Stryker was an option when we were evaluating VBCI.

Boxer is certainly offered at RR prices. I wonder if todays armoured infantrymen are looking forward to forego upgraded Warrior and trading in ‘standard’ Warrior for Boxer – they won’t be if their Boxer comes with anything less than a hefty stabilised cannon – and if the mobility proves to be a tad worse.
Boxers not required to work with the tanks is a different story.
Stryker may have been as good as Boxer and may have been a lot more affordable.

I understand your concerns re successor to Warrior. Although the RS4 will not take a cannon Kongsberg sell the RS6 model which sports the same M230 30mm used on the Apache. If that was considered good enough you might avoid the expense of going to a remote turret ..which I would guess would take longer to get into service and might also affect how many troops you could carry…don’t know enough about that to say.

Hi Rob, it would make sense to me if the MOD were to ask for a stretched AJAX to carry a full section armed with an unmanned 40mm CTAS turret. Given that the CT40 requires no manual input once rounds are loaded into the magazine, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to incorporate some of the 250 CT40’s going spare into such a turret. Minimal intrusion into the crew spaces, maximum firepower.

Imagine the meltdown on here if we ordered more Ajax! Makes sense though, Ajax becoming our recce and IFV platform. Boxer for everything else.

There was an element of mischief I admit but in the cold light of day a modded ARES plus turret would bring commonality for support, spares etc.
😁👍

God, Ian, please nothing to do with stretching Ajax! I predict that a revolution would happen in such an event.

Stretched Ajax has not been developed yet and it would take time and money to do so. The army cannot afford to lose any more time in getting modern AFVs. Stretched Ajax would have a high unit price. Where would your vehicle commander sit if turret is unmanned? Could he easily debus to command the dismounted section?

Hi Graham, I should have been more precise and called it a stretched ARES. Crew and Tactical commanders would remain as before.

Hi Ian, OK, yes. Big difference between AJAX and ARES. My points still stand.

I believe GD were trying to offer a stretched ARES to Australia for the Land 400 programme. As I’m sure you’re aware, the vehicle commander and Tactical commander in an ARES are below any “turret” level if fitted. They both currently are capable of controlling the SDW, so why not a 40mm turret? As per current doctrine, the Tactical commander will debus along with his section, leaving the crew commander and his trusty 40mm (and probably a L94 chain gun) to provide fire support.
cheers

Thanks Ian. I did not think that ARES had a turret – looks like it just has a RWS. I was also not aware that there was both a tactical commander and a seperate vehicle commander – that is a break from usual British doctrine.
Interesting that both commanders sit below ‘turret level’ or RWS level, I suppose, and that both can control the SDW,

Why not a 40mm turret on a stretched ARES (and make it our new IFV, rather than Boxer IFV?) The stretched wagon must be able to take and ‘eject’ 8 dismounts ie Tac Commander and 7 men.
Anything is possible but it would take lots of money and time to develop.

Hi Graham, if you read my previous posts you’ll that is exactly what I was proposing: a stretched ARES with a 40mm unmanned turret. You are correct in that the current ARES has no turret but a SDW (Kongsberg 151), controlled by the veh commander or Tac commander.
Cheers

Sorry Ian, I was not suggesting a stretched ARES – I was just replaying your own words, before I applied my comment. I don’t think it a good idea. Too much money and time to develop – and the Boxers to replace Warrior are possibly already on order – just hope MoD has ordered a version with a beefy stabilised cannon.

Well, we’re back to the idea of using some of the 250 odd CT40’s lying around?

Yes, thats an interesting point. Hopefully they (w/turret) can be ‘bolted on’ to the Boxers that are specifically replacing Warriors.

The way a CT40 works lends itself to an unmanned turret so integrating it into an available MOTS job would not be rocket science.

Thanks Ian. Would ammo feed come from inside the vehicle or be carried in an external hopper?

Without straying too far from Ajax, Ascod 2 would meet your suggestion would it not ?.

In essence you’re right but it doesn’t have the same protection levels, modularity or advanced electronics of ARES.

You might enjoy this video! Good to see Ben Wallace attending.

New boxer variants with Brimstone missiles and mortars.

Lots of options available, we just need to commit to something and start purchasing them.

We’ve ordered 623 Boxers so far with funding in place for 1,000 and an aspiration for up to 1,300. Plenty of room for variants such as these.

👍I always thought these would make a good fit.

We should have persevered with Warrior upgrade, to see us through the next 10 years, then bought a MOTS replacement, tracked IFV of course.

And yet the Ukrainians said that part of the reason for slow progress in Kherson Oblast was not enough tracked vehicles

Interesting, I haven’t seen that reporting before, I must admit. They’ve been asking for tanks and heavy armour for ages, but not specifically tracks as opposed to other AFVs from what I’d seen. After all, they’re in love with their HIMARS and CEASAR is popular from what I understand. I know that’s different from actual assault/manouevre forces though.
I guess the question is, what is the reason they’re giving for needing more tracked vehicles?
If it’s because of protection and armament levels, then Boxer is way better protected than the tracked IFVs that Ukraine are currently operating, and that French AMX-10RC is made to kill stuff up to T-72. So they’d theoretically be fine with either of those vehicles.
If it’s more to do with mobility, then tracks are obviously going to be a winner, but I honestly don’t know how much difference there is between something modern like Boxer and a tracked vehicle of equivalent weight. Having said that, there are plenty of videos of tanks buried in the Ukrainian mud, so tracks don’t solve the problem completely.
Did they say why more tracks specifically were required in the Kherson region?
That said, I’m not talking about scrapping all tracks in the British Army, but we want to get as much capability as we can. For the work that we’re mostly doing, which is different to what Ukraine is facing, I do think that wheels covers most of it more cost effectively than tracks. I’m all for having a core tracked capability too though, if budget allows.

Some more good news it seems.

“The UK is considering supplying Ukraine with British tanks for the first time to fight Russia’s invading forces, Sky News understands.

Discussions have been taking place “for a few weeks” about delivering a number of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tank to the Ukrainian armed forces, a Western source with knowledge of the conversations said.

Such a move would mark a significant step-up in Western support to Ukraine and could help prompt other NATO allies, in particular Germany, to follow suit.”

LINK

Wow, that’s pretty major! Would that be out of the ones that aren’t slated for upgrade to CR3 I presume? 227 – 150 (CR3 numbers, if I recall?) leaves 77 available, and Sky says 10 could be heading to Ukraine as part of a first batch. I’m a little surprised that the Army isn’t re-evaluating their numbers, given the Ukrainian war. But then, I suppose, giving them to Ukraine increases the likelihood that we won’t need to field a proper armoured division until the next generation MBT is introduced.
As the least upgraded of the 3 NATO MBTs (or 4 if we’re going to include Leclerc), it makes sense for it to go in terms of risk of loss. But it’s still quite a big statement and risk. There are plenty of things that could kill a CR2 in Ukraine, and that’s before you consider potential loss to mechanical failure, mud, etc. I’d rather not let Russia see Dorchester armour- even if it is a bit long in the tooth now.
Will be very interesting to see what comes of this

& pity the logistics chain for the Ukrainians of a new combat vehicle for only ~10 hulls … I fear the impact on their fighting strength could actually be negative rather than positive 🙄

True, it’ll certainly make things more coplex! I imagine they’ll be used as a single unit wherever Ukraine’s main point of effort will be, to at least try and make it more manageable.
Honestly, I don’t think it’ll make things worse, but it’ll certainly create headaches. I imagine they’ll go back to British maintenance crews in Poland for any work.

They will need to do Level 1 ie User maintenance and Level 2 ie LAD support in-country, plus recovery. Probably more, as it would not be realistic to transport a Chally to Poland for an E&MA change.

The fact that Russia has gone to war with Ukraine, for a unique set of reasons, does not of course mean that we, with NATO allies, is likely to also go to war with Russia, so there will probably be no re-evaluation of the 148 CR3 number.
I don’t think it follows that we can be sure we are unlikely to need to field a warfighting Division until all the CR3s are built ( 2030 is earliest for FOC).

I’d argue that we can be pretty sure we won’t need a heavy division (Tanks and tracked IFVs) until further into the 2030s to be honest, when whatever comes after CR3 gets fielded. I’m not an expert on everything, so I could be miles off, but here’s my tuppence worth of justification for my position:
I agree with you, that Russia invading Ukraine doesn’t mean we’re at greater risk of having to go to war with Russia. In fact, I see that risk as rapidly diminishing towards zero. Russian conventional capability has been shown to be a bit of a paper tiger, but also has been degraded to the point that they won’t be able to generate a force capable of invading another country for a decade at least (especially taking into account the sanctions in place, etc.). Expectation has always been some kind of limited fait accompli drive to re-unite Kaliningrad with the rest of Russia, or other similar goal. By the time this is over, they won’t even be able to manage that, let alone what they’ve tried to pull in Ukraine.
That leaves the question: Where else might we need a heavy division? China is the next biggest threat, but that’s islands in the South China Sea, not mainland. We wouldn’t be wanting to use MBTs and IFVs for that- the USMC have just stepped away from those systems in favour of lighter forces with long range precision punch.
Other than that? Another war in the Middle East? The only one I can think of would be some kind of falling out with Iran and Iraq again (they won’t go to war with Saudi), or maybe an intervention in Yemen? I don’t see us getting directly involved in either of those like we did with the previous Gulf Wars, but maybe I’m wrong. Central Asia might be the wild card in the mix; I’ve seen some articles that suggest a humiliated Russia will no longer have the authority/capability to keep a lid on the various tensions that bubble away in that part of the world. But we have limited interests out there, and I don’t see us going out there mob-handed to enforce peace.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that there’s no place for a “warfighting” division- which could include tracked and wheeled armour (in my head), until the British Army has the funds to procure a new MBT and IFV in numbers. But, for the next decade or so, I just don’t see major threats for us that can’t be handled with the current hodgepodge of Boxer, Ajax, the legacy fleets of wheels and tracks, and the small number of CR3 and Warrior that we’re likely to have. My hope would be that the Army uses this “downtime” to start from the ground up, re-equipping by priority to have a modern, fit-for-purpose integrated fleet of combat equipment that will do any job we need it to do. 

Thanks Joe. I might add to your scenarios list a possibility of UN/NATO involvement in a flare up in the Balkans, which would require heavy and medium armour.
I was in the army 1975-2009. We have used our armour (heavy, medium and light) a lot on kinetic operations since my early service in the army. Warfighting is something the army has done a lot in the last 40 years.

The single armoured or mechanised division (3 (UK) Div) is the army’s warfighting building block but I agree that the whole division is unlikely to deploy much if anything this decade – however kinetic (and deterrence) commitments might be at a lesser level.

I fully agree with your last point that the army needs to be re-setting now in a major way.

This is all so late in the day. I hear just a single sqn of Challys is being considered. It will still take much time to prepare these tanks and train UA crews and maintainers. They will need a reinforced REME fitter section too and some Attrition Reserve tanks. Not sure how they will do second line maintenance.

As I understand it the terrain was pretty much impassible off road without tracks, forcing the UA to use the roads much of the time. This may be less of a proble now that the ground is starting to freeze. I think the bottom line is that the UA just needs armour etc and it doesn’t care tracked/wheeled.

Ah, I see- although some of the videos I’ve seen suggest that even tracks didn’t guarantee progress in the mud!
I agree, they just want armour- don’t care how it moves along the ground, or at least it’s a secondary or tertiary consideration.

Having been in a position where a pair of Warriors under my command rescued 4 US Strykers. I would hold back on the wheels being better than tracks debate.

The scenario was that a Stryker went off-road near Al Faw (Iraq). However, there had been heavy rain the previous two days. So the sand looked solid, but was actually soft, almost mud like in consistency below the surface. Another Stryker tried pulling it out, got stuck. Another tried pushing that one out and got stuck. Each of the three vehicles were beached and we’re going nowhere. The fourth was having gearboxes issues, so didn’t even try.

We were approaching this comedy of errors with a pair of Snatch landies and a pair of Warriors. I was a pax commander in a landy. Stopped and offered assistance. The two Warriors already had the snatch ropes fitted. So after positioning, a couple of bods connected a Stryker each. Then they were literally dragged onto the road. The third was then also towed on to the road. As we were also going to Al Faw, we towed the fourth Stryker to camp.

Generally speaking wheeled vehicles do fine in most conditions. However, as soon as you add appliqué armour, which drastically increases its ground pressure. Wheels start to struggle as the added weight makes them break through the surface easier, as they have less contact area. Add to this mix a prolonged period of wet weather. Wheeled vehicles loose mobility really quickly. You can do tricks like deflate the tyres to increase the tyre’s contact area, which helps. Though these will still struggle as conditions worsen.

For off road mobility you simply can’t beat tracks. As the much larger surface area footprint spreads the weight more evenly, meaning you have much lower ground pressure. Even if your vehicle is three times as heavy. The main issues with steel tracks is they are very maintenance heavy, weigh a ton, stretch, are very noisy and generate vibrations. When the vehicle is over a certain weight to save the tracks and reduce maintenance, the vehicle is transported on a flat bed to where it’s needed.

However, lighter vehicles like the CVR(t)s due to their lighter weight can self-ferry. But will need track maintenance after a prolonged drive. The problem they had was over exuberant crews who tried to get 70+ mph on the roads. Which meant the tracks got hot and stretched.

There is some hope in expanding the distances a tracked vehicle can travel before it needs maintenance. This is through band tracks. The Norwegians ran a few CV90s in Afghan with band tracks as part of an operational trial.

According to reports the tracks made by Soucy did much better than expected. They ran quieter, were a lot smoother but also ran cooler over sustained periods. Meaning even though the road conditions had very rough and sharp stones. The tracks lasted significantly longer than the manufacturer had predicted.

One of the vehicles was hit by a controlled IED. It blew off a wheel and split the track. The crew were able to splice it together with a temporary repair kit and carried on. You can do the same with a steel track, but it takes a lot longer due to the track’s weight. Not great if you’re under fire.

Vehicle combat is not much different from that in WW2. Mobility is dictated by the surface conditions. Come early Spring, the great freeze turns into the great thaw. So the melt water saturates the ground and even tracked vehicles struggle through the quagmire.

Only vehicles like the BV series has any hope of traversing these types conditions. Though it would be interesting to see how CVR(t) copes with it? Though CVR(t) with band tracks would be an awesome machine. As the ground pressure would be reduced significantly due to the lower weight.

So yes, I’m still a little bit biased against an all wheeled combat vehicle system. If we had the money I would go for a heavy brigade (all tracked) and a light brigade (all wheeled) that work together in concert.

I take your point, and a very good lived example of the benefits of tracks over wheels! Band tracks sound like an interesting opportunity to make tracked vehicles more maintenance friendly and deployable- hopefully something that the British Army looks at for their existing and future fleets.
I wasn’t suggesting that tracks weren’t relevant or desirable, just that our budget and the acquisition choices Army have made over the last 5-10 years may necessitate a gap in some capabilities. Tracked IFVs may be one of them, with Boxer filling a gap as “not as good, but good enough” until a decent solution is found.
I agree that your solution of a heavy brigade and light brigade would be the ideal- just not sure that the current live acquisition programmes, cancelled programmes, hopeful future programmes, and budget will deliver that for a decade or so…

Boxer filling a gap until a decent solution is found – I like that!

We still have 60-year-old 432s running around in roles such as 81mm mortar carriage and armoured ambulance for the Armd Inf Bns.
I hope we don’t keep those Boxers as an interim measure for 60 years!

“I hope we don’t keep those Boxers as an interim measure for 60 years!”
You and me both, but I think we can both be pretty sure that it’s going to happen…!

We need truck mounted arty (in addition to tracked SPGs and lighter towed arty) but Caesar gun and crew has no protection ie no turret.

We need truck mounted arty but with crew protection, SPG, and towed 155. Plus wheeled and tracked rocket arty.

Simple answer is to remove the man from the gun crew and make it automated. Such a system exists in BAE-Bofors Archer system. Plus zBAe have shown the “turret” fitted to a MAN 8×8 truck as used by the Army.

Thanks Davey. Thats a weird looking thing, but I am sure it does the job. Add it to our shopping list!

The US Army are currently triaing the Archer mounted on the Volvo chassis. If you watch any of the vids on the system. It’s can be operated by a crew of two, though usually has three. It does requires a support vehicle for reloading, which is semi-automated. It has a very fast set up, fire and scoot time.

My issue with it is the Volvo articulated truck, as it limits the barrel to L39 calibre. This is because after firing the barrel is lowered and stored in protective box behind the cab. However, the version fitted to the MAN truck can use the L52 and longer barrels. As it’s stored over the cab’s roof. This is the version I think the RA should get.

Good additional point. L52 is the way to go.

I wholeheartedly agree in principle, but given the current state of the Army’s fleets and finances, I think there are greater priorities than tracked IFVs- especially given the threat profile that I went over in my other response to you.
I’d like to see the British Army as a force that can “do it all”, according to scaled ambitions that are realistic for our global interests. But I think that’s realistically a 10+ year plan, just like the RN have done with Carrier Strike. The cold war years of a very large army fixed largely in place (Germany and the UK by large proportion) casts a long shadow, perhaps, I don’t know. But the innovation and modernity of our land forces in the run up to and in some cases during both world wars compared to our allies and opponents was noticeable. We were the most motorised military in Europe, if not the world, certainly more so than Germany; our tanks were obviously first of a kind in WWI, even if they took a bit of a dip in places during WWII; Combined arms warfare was a British innovation during WWI that was built upon by the Germans in the run-up to WWII and then arguably perfected by the western allies by the end of the war. These days, our forces are very well trained and well equipped, our soldiers do everything asked of them. But we seem to be desperately trying to hang on to legacy mass, at the expense of capability and innovation. Hopefully this is just a temporary thing, or just a complete misperception on my part!

Thanks mate. We have to live with the decision that armoured infantry will in future be mounted in Boxer rather than upgraded Warrior – and I doubt we will ever go back to tracked IFVs unless the Boxers in that specific role (working alongside tanks) fail.

I was a Cold War warrior and did 4 tours in Germany. I am personally ‘over’ the BAOR/BFG era. What we did (having a Corps of 3-4 armoured divisions in Germany) made sense when we faced the Warsaw Pact eyeball to eyeball.

We are down to just a single armoured/mechanised division which will have 112 CR3 tanks and also wheeled APCs/IFVs instead of tracked IFVs. I don’t see that we are hanging on to a lot of armour – pretty much, the bare minimum. Hopefully together with our other field force formations etc we will be taken at least half seriously by our allies, even with this modestly sized capability.

I think it will take a long time to reset the army into a force that is fit for purpose across all scenarios, but I hope it won’t take as long as 10 years.

I realise I should be a bit more careful what I say- yourself and the rest of the BAOR fulfilled a really important role and the mass was required. I’ve no doubt that what is happening in Ukraine now would have happened many times over across Europe if it wasn’t for the BAOR and other allied armies in Europe. As you say it made sense in the context of staring down the 3rd Shock Army!
It’s the period after that particular threat had gone that I was talking about them holding onto the same mindset. I don’t think we’re holding a lot of armour now either, I’d say the current 227 CR2s seems about right- the CR3 numbers are an absolute bare minimum. The problem to me is that we tried to hold on to more than that for too long, starving modernisation and upgrade programmes of cash and resulting in the situation where we have to cut to the absolute bone now.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and I certainly don’t see all the ins and outs either. But having read on here and sites like Think Defence, the number of cutting edge capabilities that fell by the wayside to retain mass in the army seems rather high. N-LOS guided missiles, drones, GBAD, all that kind of thing, neglect of artillery improvements. We’re coming late to the party in these very relevant areas, even though we were looking into them 10, 15, sometimes 20 years ago!

Thanks Joe. I think the reason why some think the army retained a BAOR mindset after 1991 was purely because a lot of heavy metal stayed in Germany for a very long time.
My Canadian friends said that their formation in Lahr (they only had a single brigade in Germany) moved back home very quickly and they were amazed that we still had a sizaable force level in Germany.
The reason – not enough barracks, ranges and training aeas in the UK available in 91/92! Not because the army had a ‘stuck in the past’ mindset.

BAOR was in 1991 a Corps of three armoured divisions (plus Corps Tps, HQ BAOR and National Support Elements) – totalling 55,000 in West Germany and 5,000 in Berlin.

As soon as the Cold War ended (USSR dissolved in Dec 91), planning commenced to do a major drawdown and then executed – Corps HQ became HQ ARRC and moved to the UK and two divs were repatriated. This took to May 94 when BAOR became re-titled BFG and comprised just one armoured division (with HQ BFG and NSE), totalling just 25,000. That was a pretty fast Phase 1, just 2.5 years, to achieve repatriation of 35,000 troops and a heck of a lot of armour and other kit. Huge compromises were made in fitting this in – a few redundant RAF stations were used but there were no spare/empty army barrracks available. Many argue today that provision of Ranges and Training areas today is barely enough and they are all far too small – Salisbury Plain Trg Area (the largest in UK) is tiny, compared to what we had in Germany, Poland and Canada.

The next bit was far harder due to acute lack of UK real estate.

Phase 2 was to get that single div in Germany repatriated and this took until 2020 to fully accomplish. Again, not because the army was begging to have an armoured div remain in Germany and to have an obsolete mindset but because there was not enough space in the UK.

Not sure we have hung on to too many tanks – there has been a constant reduction in numbers. We had 900 Chieftains from mid-60s, bought 435 CR1s fom 1983, then 386 CR2s from 1998 (but mothballed many in 2010 to reduce to 227 now), and are now to have just 148 CR3s. Fleet size reduced to 1/6th what it was in the 60s/70s.

Not much mass in the army today!

Agree, what happens when you eventually have to face someone with more than a sharpened mango?

Davey, I don’t see how your comment responds to one of my comments? Much as I like mangos!

I guess you didn’t watch Blackadder goes forth?

Oh, I remember now!

Hi Daniele,

Mate, I wouldn’t dispute or disagree with most of what you have posted. I was just looking at it and taking it as a given that the idea was to have all the right ‘enablers’ attached to each brigade. Thus I could see what might be achieved, certainly aligned our capabilities closer to what the French and German armies are set up for. That it became a tool for cuts doesn’t surprise me.

We were always going to downsize to a certain degree over the last decade or so, but what is a shame is that it went so deep and certainly with army procurement so very very wrong and cost us our armoured forces.

As I have posted to Graham below, if we are keeping tanks and Ajax, then why not tracked IFV’s and ‘fires’? If not then what purpose does Ajax serve that a wheeled version/s of Boxer can’t? Forget the financial costs for a minute, if we are going all in wheeled, why do we need Ajax and its brothers?

Totally agree that we have far too many C2 derivatives currently ordered, which restricts the numbers of Infantry vehicles we can buy. Cant understand why some of those C2 versions of Boxer aren’t offloaded onto something less expensive – just like the French and Italians do, and they have far more experience of wheeled forces then we do. That way we could generate some 8-10 Infantry battalions in Boxer.

Would also like to see one of the LBCT mounted on Vikings when the time comes to finance MRAP replacements. It would certainly help with reinforcing the LSGs as a Company of ‘Royals’, whilst excellent chaps, can’t do everything.

Funnily enough, it was enablers again that got chopped in A2020R, a brigade sets worth, as they shifted from 5 deployable brigades, 1st, 12th, 20th, and 2 Infantry Bdes from 1 UK Div, 7th and one other, to 4, 12th, 20th Armoured, 1st Strike, and the SEG.

And some from 16AA and 3 Cdo at that time.

I’m in complete agreement regards C2 Boxer, I know little on vehicles but I believe Patria 8×8 for example is cheap as chips compared to a Boxer. How many could be bought for supporting roles and Boxer concentrated in more than a paltry 5 battalions?

Maybe there are valid reasons again against such an idea, I don’t know.

We keep buying eye watering expensive solutions where I’d like to see some OTS cheaper along side the gold plated if they’re good enough.

I don’t think we’re going all in wheeled out of desire or as best solution, it’s because they’ve so mucked things up it’s what was left in Carter’s eyes wanting wheeled wacky races to Tallin from Catterick, the original home of Strike.

It is, a mess.

The first of the 148 CR3s is scheduled to be delivered in 2027 (IOC) and all of them by 2030 (FOC) – certainly a very slow programme (the Americans designed (without CAD), tested and built Saturn 5 in less time!).
It is a little unfair to dismiss them as refurbished vehicles – they are being remanufactured to a much higher and more modern build standard.
Assuming we maintain T56 regiments, then 112 of the 148 will be in the Field Force.
We always buy more AFVs than are needed for the Field Force alone. The Delta (ie 36 tanks) comprises:
a. a number for the Repair Pool
b. a number for the Training Organisation
c. a number for the Attrition Reserve (was called War Maintenance Reserve (WMR), formerly).
We do not keep obsolete equipment – once CR2 is declared ‘Obsolete’, not ‘Obsolescent’ as that is an interim state, then that old fleet is centralised at Ashchurch and offered for sale, or is otherwise disposed of by gifting or scrapping. A few tanks are sent to museums and units as gate guardinas and to REME as recovery hulks.
So many people love to think there are huge hangers somewhere with hundreds of old tanks and other AFVs – not so. There is not the space or the funding (which would be considerable – happy to explain) to do that.

I hear that only a squadron of CR2s is being considered (ie 14, not 10 (not sure where that figure came from) – Given that we bought 386 and declare 227 as in-service, then losing 14 tanks is no big deal. We could send many more without affecting our own readiness. I think we have about 3 written off CR2 hulls, so 383 vehicles – 227 is for UK service, so should be 156 available, unless some vehicles have been secretly disposed of somehow. So we can supply more than 10-14 and no need to think about restarting a CR2 build line some 21 years after it closed (that would be impossible anyway). Many of those 156 will be in very poor condition and missing many parts robbed to leave a ‘Christmas Tree’ of a tank.

It is bad that this has been thought about so late in the day – it will take time, money and effort to bring 14 tanks up to standard, to train UA crews and maintainers and to get the tanks to Ukraine with all the support kit and ammunition etc.
Also there is a need to consider what support equipment to send – a UK sabre sqn would have a fitter section equipped with a CRARRV, Warrrior FV512 Repair Vehicle, FV432 – and trained technicians. Backing them up would be personnel from LAD Main (in UK parlance) such as metalsmith, electronics technician etc. Backing them up would be Second Line maintainers. There will need to be a massive spares drop to include heavy Engines & Major Assemblies (E&MA). Is Rishi and Ben thinking about all this too? In short, it will take months to field CR2s into the UA. I think it better for the Europeans to offer up Leo2 and for the German Government to grant this export permission.

Hi Graham, brilliant reply cheers. I thought my rant would start a good debate.

From memory and insights from my cousin, who was REME and supported the Scots Greys (though can’t call them that anymore), said the logistics tail to support the Chally’s in Basra was huge. He did mention having UK Chally’s robbed for spares for the deployed ones, wheels was one of the big demands. The rubber “tyres” on the road wheels was wearing out faster than expected.

I do think you hit the nail on the head though regards to crew training. It takes months for the crew to gel, let alone where each crewman has to have a thorough working knowledge on how the tank operates. Especially the turret crew, as they have to be fully aware of what moves prior to and after firing the main gun. Plus there’s the 2 day course on the boiler.

Realistically, if we wanted to give Challys to Ukraine we should have had the crews in training last year. Ready for the likely Russian spring offensive. I do think the official rumor is more of a political move, aimed at Germany. Poland has said they will donate their Leopard 2s to Ukraine. However, they need permission from Germany to do so and so far Germany has said no! Poland has over 245 Leopard 2s, from A4s to A5s. They did start an upgrade program for their Leopards, which mirrors the A6.

They have plenty to spare. Besides they are replacing their fleet of T72s with a 1000 K2 Black Panthers. Plus they have also signed a deal for M1 Abrams, which are going to be the latest Sep 3 version.

We as a country have never really held older equipment in storage. Where unlike the States, you can park aircraft and vehicles in the desert for decades with next to no corrosion. Sadly, our maritime climate means a vehicle must be kept under cover, but also moisture regulated. Which then costs money.

I do wonder if the jigs for Challenger were destroyed, or are they still around at the back of a shed. I do know that BAe scrapped the majority of the Hawk jigs after the final aircraft left production. There’s no money in keeping them just in case! How difficult would it be to restart production of the jigs were available? Do we still have people with the fabrication skills?

Hi Davey and a great reply from you too. These politicians don’t understand the lead time to deliver and commission a sophisticated capability.
Scots Greys – your cousin must be ‘mature’ as they shut up shop in 1971.
Someone else has siad that Poland is definitely supplying some Leo2s so they have clealry got German Govt permission. I think we might withdraw the CR2 proposal as Leo2 would be better for the UA – for reason of ammn availability – and a percetin that Leo 2 might be a little more reliable.
The last CR2 was built in 2002 – I could not believe that BAE has kept jigs in a corner for over 20 years. Why would they do that?

Can BAE fabricate heavy AFVs? They have not had much practice – they last built Trojan and Titan Engr variants in 2003/4 – but they are remanufacturing CR2 into CR3 now in conjunction with Rheinmetall, however this is not constructng a tank ‘from scratch’. If we wanted to field more CR2s we would refurbish those that are mothballed; it makes no sense to build ‘new CR2s’ from scratch even if BAE had kept the jigs – so many parts would be unavailable due to obsolescence and the cost would be eye-watering – thats even if the jigs had been kept.

Hi Mate, my cousin was with the Dragoons up to 2012. When he decided (told) being WO2 he had to either go or go commissioned. So he went down the brown shoe route. He always called them the Greys, even though technically they weren’t .

I think this one thing the Army gets right. After spending X number of years a a warrant, your next step is commissioned, as it gets a wealth of knowledge within the service. The RAF don’t enforce this and you can stay being a warrant for years. Which then clogs up the promotion ladder for everyone else. Trying to remember if the Navy have this rule?

As far as I’m aware, I don’t believe Germany has authorized any Leopard 2s going to Ukraine, Leopard 1s yes. Poland have already given over 200 of their T72s to Ukraine. If they do get the nod. Will they be giving the unmodified A4s and A5s or the newer PLs. Apparently Finland are also asking to offer Leopard 2s. I honestly do believe giving a Sqn’s worth of Challys is the right decision. If they are sent they’ll soon burn through ammo in no time. Which means 120mm rifled ammo will become even more scarce than it is now. With only BAe providing the Charm round and Belgium HESH. How quickly can they be replenished? It’s also the following logistic train. Will they have people trained up by the REME to maintain and repair the tanks? Will they have recovery vehicles? Do they have a transporter to get from Poland to where it’s needed etc, etc? There’s more to giving them the tanks compared to keeping them operational.

I know it’s wishful thinking in restarting a production line, even if it was possible. But if the Spring Offensive goes Russia’s way. There will be a rush to give Ukraine anything to stem the flood. If we give them 50 Chally’s. That leaves us perilously thin in heavy armour. Do we have enough spares to give them and keep our remaining ones going?

Hiya Davey, I like your ‘brown shoe route’ phrase! I got fed up being called a Rupert – didn’t fit with me being a comprehensive school boy from Crawley.
Of course as we know only a %age of WOs get commissioned – not sure how many though. The LE guys were great – so much experience – it made sure the G4 side ran on rails having QM a nd QM (Tech) being ex-rankers.

I agree the army has it right providing a 22-year career and then saying up or out at age 40. I experienced ‘greybeard’ RAF WOs in their mid to late 50s at MPA – and thought it was all wrong – they had aches and pains and were unfit and an old mans mindset. (Hard to say that when I am now 67, but I felt that when I was in FI as a Major in my early 40s).
Thanks for the info about Poland getting ‘ze authority from Berlin’ to supply Leo1 (my God, they are too old for war).
I see on lunchtime news today that we are deffo supplying 10-12 CR2s. UKR will probably ask for more.

I share your concern about getting through the 120mm rifled ammo. Decades ago we talked about it being plentiful, but probably not now.

AFAIK, no UKR tank crews or maintainers have yet undergone CR2 training – complex kit and this will take many, many weeks. I researched that the training done in summer 2022 by UK to UKR (manly Inf) amounted to a three week training course: ‘learning battle winning skills for the front line, as well as basic medical training, cyber-security and counter explosive tactics’.
So I guess tank crew and maintainer training might be squeezed into 4-8 weeks-ish, but where? In Poland with the eFP BG (they are probably too busy and under-resourced to give trg) or back in the UK?

Just for a squadron of CR2s, the UKR army will need a fitter section – I recall that in the British army (I was REME) this was a tiffy in a 432 (rammed with Pubs, STTE, maps etc) plus a WR 512 plus a CRARRV – total of about 8 guys. UKR may use different vehicles but they will need an almight ARRV. Then you need some specialist help from UKR equivalent of LAD Main ie metalsmith, electronic tech in ERV etc.
Then you need equivalent of a slice of REME Second Line with spare E&MAs and vehicles and tlrs to fit them, and ability to fix tels kit etc. Then you need to be able to support the 512 and CRARRV or whatever UKR uses. Don’t know if UKR has tank transporters (they must have) but they may not take a 72 ton Chally. Hopefully Rishi and Ben know all this stuff and have squared all this away!
It is totally not possible to restart a CR2 prod line that closed 20 years ago. No need to anyway – we have a fair few CR2s in storage – should be able to supply 50 – just that many will have been stripped for spares in the last 24 years of service. Those that are complete will still need a lot of TLC before they can be shipped.

I left in 2009, so I don’t know the spares situation. I doubt it is good.

This should all have been discussed Govt to Govt and planning launched 4-6 months ago. Politics gets in the way of military planning unfortunately.

And I don’t doubt you and share your concerns, however, will raise you one point:

How often do we see manoeuvre warfare in the Ukraine in videos?

Latvian would be torn up by armour, wheeled not so much and although I have not been to the Ukraine, it would be interesting to know what type of roads they have – roads in the UK are all metallised, Latvians have often used compressed stone?

Over 95% of Ukrainain roads are described as ‘hard’ or ‘paved’..

‘The whole network of all automobile roads (roadways) consists of some 172,400 km (107,100 mi) of which 164,100 km (102,000 mi) – have hard surface or 95.19%. The existing road network was mostly built (established) sometime in the 1960s and 1970s. For comparison, in 1940 the highway network of Ukraine consisted of 270,700 kilometers of which only 10.8% contained a paved surface’.

Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_Ukraine

…however combat generally occurs off-road.

Semantics. We have metallised or not.

Your point is?

You asked what type of roads they had in Ukraine. I answered. Don’t bother to thank me for doing the research.

My point? about combat generally occurring off-road, do you mean? I mean that ability to move along roads, depending on their construction, is only one factor relating to success in war – it relates to the ability of an army to move. Combat generally occurs in open country and ‘the going’ is as much of a factor there too ie the mud etc.

Oi! Touchy or what?

Consulting wiki is not research.

Living in the Country – yep, I’ll take it.

Your generalisation that combat normally occurs off road is not reflected in several areas… Solidar, Bakmut, Kherson to name but three.

General mud has a role to play, both sides are fighting around it.

Ukraine needs more fires to interdict orc resupply..

David, You seemed to be very interested in military forces moving on roads, and I was trying to help you with your query about what sort of roads there are in Ukraine.

Whilst some attacks occur against forces on roads most occur when forces are off the roads. That can include urban areas as well as rural areas. I am very well aware of combat in the urban areas you mention.

Manouevre warfare can be conducted in both rural and urban areas.

Agree that Ukraine needs more fires.

Graham,

I shall explain, as members of the SAS, this very Ranger was told we were off to Salisbury Plain for APC training; 3 Chieftains appeared out of the morning mist and we were told to chamber… and off we set, I had wisely placed my feet on the gun to get some balance whilst sat on the cupola.

Soon, I was bounced off perch, slammed my wedding tackle on the barrel managed to wrap my arms around the barrel b4 going full turtle, with an astonished driver telling me to hang on for my fecking life…. which I was already doing.

Later, I was nearly mown down by a scimitar which had driven from London towards Salisbury Plain on… the A303(?), the driver had fallen asleep and had not seen, the by now decidedly twitchy RMP frantically waving his maglite.

I survived service in the Saturdays And Sundays.

As a STANAG teacher, one of my Slovak students was a Colonel of Artillery, it was him who asked why our fires were still tracked – 23 years ago; I thought it was a good question, back then.

I feel we need Armour, but, would have gone for CV90 and Leopard – others prefer the Abrams; however, given the HIMARS, why do we need tracked arty?

Clamber on – auto correct.

I like the story – most of my travels in army transport were uncomfortable, especially in A Vehs.
As a Reg, I had a respect for the TA (later Army Reserve (not a great fan of the name change, BTW)). I remember being on Ex Lionheart (1984) in Germany and seeing a TA RCT unit rock up in the middle of dense German woodland having driven with few breaks from the middle of Scotland – they were exhausted but cammed up and got into defensive routine very quickly. Great lads – very professional.
In 2008 I was COS Camp Bastion and my FP Coy was 2/3 TA, including the OC – they protected our huge camp superbly and most of the TA lads had far more operational time than I had.

We got MLRS M270 about 1985 to operate in support of armoured divs in Germany – operationally vital equipments deployed forward were tracked as they offered optimum mobility and armoured protection and NBC protection. They also performed exceptionally well in the desert conditions on GW1. GMLRS added improved accuracy and longer range from 2005.

HIMARS is a much more recent equipment and was fielded by the US in 2010. Being truck-mounted it is lighter (less armour protection than MLRS) but only has 6 rockets rather than the MLRS’s 12 rockets. The Ukrainians love it as it has a high road speed (53mph; MLRS is 40mph) and is less maintenance intensive than MLRS.

HIMARS is suited to a predominantly wheeled force and where mobility and protection and weight of fire can be at a lower level than MLRS.

HIMARS is obviously not a replacement for MLRS – they are for different types of force structure. We should have both. We were developing a truck mounted rocket artillery system, LIMAWS(R) but defence cuts killed it off in May 2008.

Other armour – I am no great fan of Abrams – the GT engine is very maintenance-intensive, is thirsty and the fuel resupply task is enormous (its mainly why we rejected it in favour of CR2). Older models did not have a GUE (Aux Engine) for silent watch. Older models (particularly export versions) have below-par armour and many have been destroyed in combat even by inexperienced irregulars (google M1 tank losses). However the very latest M1s are so much better.

Later model Leo2s are very good, but there was never a right time or political climate to buy them.
CV90 IFV – very good bit of kit – well sorted and with a lot of experience. It is mystifying why it was not actively considered when the Warrior upgrade was cut.

You mention Abrams, not sure if it is Task and Purpose but the next generation of Abrams will field electric drive for overwatch!

Life has changed for us oldies, and I feel both you and I have been involved in some interesting times.

Electric drive! Whatever next!
Certainly have been interesting times – I am glad I did my bit in the Cold War (which we won) and again in Afghanistan (although that result was somewhat different).