NATO Secretary General in Oslo: “no lasting peace’ if tyranny prevails over freedom”.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed the importance of supporting Ukraine, including with more weapons, in a speech to the Annual Conference of the Norwegian Confederation of Enterprises in Oslo on Thursday, 5 January 2023.
“Weapons are – in fact – the way to peace”, said Mr. Stoltenberg, adding: “there will be no lasting peace if oppression and tyranny win over freedom and democracy”.
But it is not only this pattern that did not surprise us. At NATO, we also had precise intelligence about the build-up of Russian forces along the border and their concrete plans. We made this information public and warned about a possible invasion for months. We repeatedly made significant political and diplomatic efforts to prevent war. But President Putin still chose to attack.
NATO was prepared.
Since 2014, we have carried out the largest restructuring of the alliance since the end of the Cold War. Deployed more NATO troops in our member countries. Increased the readiness of our forces. Established new defence domains, such as cyber. And not least, NATO Allies have been investing more in defence. In addition, Finland and Sweden are on their way to join NATO.
Hours after the invasion, we activated our defence plans and significantly increased our military presence, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. We now have even more soldiers on high alert. This is not to provoke a conflict, but to prevent the war in Ukraine from becoming a full-blown war between NATO and Russia. And to remove any room for misunderstandings and misjudgements in Moscow about our ability and willingness to defend NATO territory. Strong defence secures peace.
NATO and NATO countries also make significant contributions to Ukraine. Norway is one of the countries that contributes. The military support Norway provides makes a difference and is noticed. If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will be a tragedy for the Ukrainians. But it is also dangerous for us. The message to him and other authoritarian leaders will be that if they use military force, they will get what they want. It will make us more vulnerable. There will be no lasting peace if oppression and tyranny win over freedom and democracy.”
Further to the above, Sky News is reporting that Wallace has today offered UKr 10 Challenger II tanks. As if we could spare any….
Hmmm…if true, wonder whether BW could conceivably have formulated a plan to liquidate current inventory, in order to force (participation in?) future MBT development?? 🤔😳 If so, somewhat breathtaking in audacity. Alternatively, could simply be inventory reduction of MBTs not slated for upgrade.
We are only looking to offer up a single squadron – thats not exactly liquidating the entire inventory.
True enough for Round 1. However, if this evolves into a 15 Round title fight… Difficult to prevent Ukrainians, involved in an existential battle for survival, from requesting ever more support.
Easily. With over 200 I believe still around and just 2 Type 56 Regiments planned going forward down from current 3 ( Plus RWY ) there will be surplus.
We bought 386, currently declare only 227 in-service (following several defence cuts) and are only rebuilding 148 to CR3 standard. We have plenty spare!
Interesting commentary last night on radio 4. In that there are no good decisions. The only way out of this mess is a Ukrainian victory. Putin and his orc army cannot be allowed to win. Therefore we have to ramp up our military-industtial base to supply Ukraine with everything it is asking for. Including tanks and advanced air defence systems.
40 Marder, 50 Bradley and an undisclosed number of AMX10RCs are not going to turn the tide of battle.
Rest assured Russia’s spring and summer fighting season attacks will involve hundreds of thousands of conscripted troops and thousands of rusty old hulks of t64/72s. Ukraine needs heavy armour in the shape of western MBTs. I think a donation of 80 Challenger 2s and whatever we have in reserve in terms of C1s or even Chieftains should be refitted and given to Ukraine. We can order or replace the C2s with the new German Panther or better still build our own new tanks? I think the new Panther are likely to be more rapidly available.
The US could donate old model Abrahms in their hundreds whilst France could probably donate 80 leclercs and Germany hundreds of leopard 1+2s. Without adequate heavy armour there is little hope of Ukraine pushing Russia back to its pre war borders and winning.
We have donated enough to Ukraine to stop them being defeated. Now we need to donate and train the Ukranian army to win. Otherwise all we have is perpetual warfare and Putin knows the Western alliance will run out of goodwill and patience if he just plays the long drawn out attritional war.
In summary a NATO strategy of massively ramping up our military-industtial base to supply Ukraine and ourselves with replacements is needed now.
We face Russia down now or we face a combined Russia/Chinese axis in the 2030s. We either prepare and reinvigorate our military-industtial base now including increasing our military power, resilience and attritional reserves now or we face conflict with Russia and China in the 2030s without the capability for a drawn out high intensity war.
👍👍
The only CR1 and Chieftain Tanks left in the UK are in Museums and with private collectors, hardly enough to make a useful force I’d imagine.
Bravo, agree completely w/ post. Did not realize UK maintained reserves of C1 and Chieftains; amazing foresight by Army.
I’d be surprised if we did tbh I thought they all went to oman
There were lots of Chieftain Tanks of different marks exported to various countries in the Middle East over the years, still must be plenty of survivors dotted about, but CR1 was only exported (gifted) to Jordan.
There used to be a Chieftain in a pub car park near Chattenden. A team of ex army mechanics kept it in working nick and it was used in films and documetaries. It even had a disabled Gimpy on the turret. There must be others around
Jordan paid for the CR1s (but not a lot!).
Oman bought 38 x CR2s, the only export order. We sold nearly all CR1s to Jordan.
Interesting, wonder whether Oman will choose to upgrade to CR3 ultimately, or alternatively, a different MBT?
I am sure the US will do a good deal when the time comes with selling a late mark Abrams or the slighter lighter and much newer GDLS MFP (Mobile Protected Firepower) system. I can’t see them buying CR3 somehow.
I’m not aware that we do. If so, I’d like to know where they’ve been stashed all these years.
We have reserve CHII MBT at Ashchurch which are not in the forward fleet with the 3 Armoured Regiments, at Armour Centre, ATDU, and no doubt a scattering of older Tanks as gate guardians and as targets on ranges.
Foresight from the Army? You joking!
I’m not even sure if the LTF or the RWY has any either or uses those from the frontline regiments.
HOw many CH2 have Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land got? How far on are they with the upgrade?
I’ve no idea, just recall the upgrade is painfully slow.
Daniele, we don’t keep obsolete kit. There would be no advantage and it would cost too much as well as using up what little AFV storage we have, particularly since AVSD Ludgershall closed all those years ago.
CH (which is the official army abbreviation for Chieftain of course, not Challenger) was largely disposed of in 2 tranches – in the mid 80s (when CR1 came in) and mid 90s (when CR2 came in).
CR1 largely disposed of by sale to Jordan in the early 2000s – a few around (non-active list) as recovery hulks, gate guardians, targets (as you say).
Thanks Graham, as I suspected.
I’ve heard rumours via my research over the years, some 1st hand, of various “Strategic Reserves” of older stuff but I’ve not put much stock into any of it.
One source even told me of stored V bombers! 😆
Occasionally stuff slips through the net but not complete equipments. It was always said that, years ago, Donnington had a shed (very big shed) and no-one knew where the keys were.
Finally in the mid-80s (I think) someone forced open the main door to satisfy curiosity and found a number of grease-filled barrels with Brown Bess muskets inside – could be an urban myth though!
Funnily enough, I’ve heard of this shed at Donnington. Parts hace been redeveloped now into the DFC.
Stafford is another one.
We don’t keep obsolete equipment. It would give us no advantage and would cost a fortune to maintain large old fleets.
Half the Chieftains (ISD 1967) were scrapped in the early 80s (from 1983) when CR1 came in – and we operated a mixed CH/CR1 fleet. The other half of the CH fleet were scrapped in the mid 90s when CR2 came in.
CR1 fleet disposed of, largely to Jordan, in the early 2000s.
Actually, rather thought that to be the case, hence, the implicit note of surprise in my answer. Good to have the definitive answer. 👍
In general we do not keep old kit – we certainly do not keep kit that has been declared ‘Obsolete’. I was Equipment Support Manager for all tanks (less CR2) and tank variants – around 20 years ago – During that time I disposed of the last few Chieftains (about 3 gun tanks in R&D roles and the CHAVRE and CHAVLB as they were being replaced by Titan/Trojan) and all the CR1s.
The talk today is of gifting one squadron of CR2s (that is 14 tanks). No-one is talking of gifting 80 CR2s. Even if we did, we would not replace them, as they can be those outside the ORBAT, in storage.
Future tanks for the British Army – have you not heard of the programme to create 148 CR3s?
You are perhaps in a singularly well situated position, due to previous experience, to answer the following hypothetical:
How long would you predict a force of 148 CR3s would be able to remain a credible force, if currently substituted for UKR MBTs, all other conditions being equal? Care to speculate re identical force of Abrams? LeClercs? 🤔 (The time estimate may well not vary substantially, regardless of design.)
I was the MoD’s Equipment Support Manager for Tank Derivatives and also the recently retired CR1 in 2002-3. An ESM manages the fleet, arranges modifications, controls the spares supply chain, sources Special Tools & Test Equipment and plans and executes Base Overhauls etc. Not sure that totally qualifies me to answer the question but I’ll have a go.
Duty rumour is that Sunak and the MoD is considering gifting 10 CR2s to the UA. A strange number as a (British tank) squadron is 14 tanks and you would need a few additional tanks too. We are not of course looking to put 148 CR3s into Ukraine!
Our 148 CR3s should be finished between 2027 (IOC) and 2030 (FOC) and will include two tank regiments (battalions in US-speak) totalling 112 tanks (56 per unit) in the Field Force, the remainder (36 tanks) being split between: the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Tanks are lost to combat and the fleet drawn down by: bogging in, losing some other battle with terrain, breaking down, running out of fuel, being damaged in minefields, receiving a K-Kill or M-Kill from enemy attack (by direct or indirect fire from a ground or air asset – or IED strike).
Track record – pardon the pun. British tanks crewed by British crews (ie British/British) have long had a reputation for survivability. My research found that the last time British/British tanks were lost to enemy action was losing 5 tanks in the Korean War! But best not to be complacent, especially in the light of new methods of attacking armour.
Running out of fuel is less likely. CR2 is quite economical as the Main Engine is diesel and it has a GUE for use when leaguered up.
Recovering a tank that is bogged or damaged in a minefield or otherwise stuck in difficult terrain (fallen off a bridge etc) is easily accomplished by CRARRV. I would consider that much mine damage was repairable as belly armour was reinforced some years ago during Op TELIC and suspension units are easily replaced as they are not torsion bar.
Now the elephant in the room – loss due to enemy action by direct or indirect fire or IED. Very hard to be specific. I think this is one for wargamers. CR2 had Dorchester Level 2 armour when first fielded but I am not sure if this has been improved since, hence I cannot really proceed. Sorry to run out of steam! The British handle their armour tactically very well in all-arms groupings.
Abrams – hmmm, even more difficult and much would depend on the armour fit. A significant number of Abrams have been lost in combat but it has been claimed that such tanks when crewed by a non-US crew often had a low spec armour fit than a US Army tank. Some reports say around 100 Abrams were lost in GW1 and GW2. In 2014 around 100 Iraqi M1A1M Abrams were destroyed or damaged in combat against ISIS. Many more have been lost since then and some Saudi-crewed tanks have also been destroyed. Mine damaged Abrams would be lost for a long time if torsion bars needed replacing. Quite a good chance of Abrams running out of fuel in Ukraine AO due to thirsty GT engine. Older Abrams have no GUE, so have to run the GT just to charge batteries.
Leclerc. Not sure but many consider the armour to be less effective than Challenger armour or that fitted to US Army Abrams.
As for the Leopard, the Turkish Army have lost 8 Leopard 2s in the same day in an assault in Al-bab and 2 more outside of Al-bab.
Incomplete answer but I think CR2/CR3 if well handled tactically in an all-arms grouping would fare very well and probably would survive/remain in action for longer than Abrams, Leclerc or Leo2.
Thank you for the detailed answer; attempted to frame the hypothetical to answer two questions 1.) To assess possible UK performance, after CR2 retrofit, against Russian tank forces in a future scenario similar to current UKR conflict, and 2.) To assess possible UKR performance, utilizing CR3 and UKR crews and tactics against Russian formations. Your answer has provided some useful guidance.
Believe implicitly that there will be continuing UKR requests for armo(u)r from any/all NATO sources. The original request may be kept to squadron level, but, inevitably, it will not end there. Would anticipate that all surplus UK tanks and ammunition will eventually be ceded to UKR. One benefit of this effort will be the probable expedited conversion of all available CR2s to CR3 standard. Compatibility w/ NATO standard munitions will be a valuable residual benefit.
Did not realize the cumulative number of Abrams battle losses; read an article on Leopard performance w/ the Turks. LeClercs a total unknown to me.
Many thanks. I gave as good an answer as I could but would be interested to know what hobby wargamers could come up with- they apparently have quite good algorithms and look-up tables.
I think it a fair posssibility that UK would withdraw from contemplating offering UKR a squadron of CR2 if the Leo2 user community step up to the plate – on the grounds that ammn is easier to source for Leo2 and there is a perception that Leo2 is the most relaible western tank and to minimise a wide variety of tank types.
Conversely it would be a great way of disposing of our surplus CR2 and we could learn lessons to feed into the CR3 project.
Potentially, RUSi simulations/analyses? 🤔
Always thought realistic wargaming scenarios would be a slam dunk success in the gaming market, and perhaps training for the next generation of tacticians. 😳
RUSI