On the 25th July 2023, during a Ministry of Defence question session, Tom Hunt, the Conservative MP for Ipswich, queried whether there were plans to advance the rollout date of the Challenger 3 battle tanks to the Army.
James Cartlidge, The Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded, confirming that the original plans are going as scheduled.
He stated: “The intent remains to build 148 Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks, as set out in the 2021 Defence Command Paper. The programme is on schedule to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2027 and Full Operating Capability in 2030.”
Cartlidge also added that the number of Challenger 3 tanks would remain under review to ensure the Army’s Main Battle Tank fleet meets Defence’s needs.
Recently, a contract was awarded for the procurement of key hardware for the next phase of tests for a state-of-the-art rocket and missile protection system, the Trophy Active Protection System (APS), for the Challenger 3 tanks.
The APS, supplied by Rafael, will be tested and integrated with the Challenger 3 tanks to provide enhanced protection against rocket and missile threats.
The unique feature of the APS is its ability to detect an incoming rocket or missile in less than a second and to counter-attack with its own ammunition while identifying the source of the hostile fire for immediate response.
Strange question, why would there be a plan to advance the production schedule anyway??
In a related way, as many of us have hypothesised, with plans to procure only 60 Trophy systems, there is clearly only a plan to deploy at (re-enforced max) Brigade level in the future with single Armoured Regiment at its core.
This talk of having a Division ability ‘soon’ is utter horse shit, does anyone actually still believe the spin that spills out of Whitehall these days!
The devil’s in the detail as they say…
Because with war in Ukraine rolling on and the spotlight briefly focused on our own military capability, a lot of people are looking at defence programmes and going “ready 2030+?! we need it sooner!”
Agreed, the army deploying at division level solo without an impractically long warning is effectively impossible. However, retaining division-level experience and infrastructure is key to maintaining any sort of land-based NATO command role.
Exactly. To be taken seriously Divisional at the minimum is essential.
We still provide framework nation support to the ARRC, quite considerable RS And RLC assets too.
Unfortunately chaps, a purchase of 60 Trophy systems tells you all need to know….
Its all just spin as the overall personnel numbers continue to slide.
I suppose, with the risk of general war, with call back of reservists and mobilisation of the AR, we could form divisions, not too sure what we would equip them with, do we still have pitch folk manufacturing facilities, are there enough broom sticks to tie bread knives too???
Fork candles?? 😳
APDS Fork Handles! HESH Hoes.
Bless you.
They could always use the trusty pick helve 😂🤣
And more importantly the Command. COMARRC is always a Brit, DCOMD always US and the COS also a Brit., a Maj Gen to boot. The ARRC is the only truly viable NATO Coros HQ in Europe and having a viable UK Armd Div within key to the role.
When the minister said the MOD was looking at MBT numbers he did not necessarily mean more CH2 conversions, so don’t be surprised if it may be less than 148.
Absolutely.
DSACEUR has always been a Brit.
Perhaps Tom Hunt thought that there might be a plan to expedite production as there is the most significant war in Europe since 1945 happening.
The figure of 60 was mooted 2 years ago – I wonder if that is still the correct figure.
I suspect it is but there is nothing to stop MoD buying more… as an urgent operational requirement. Personally I think the APS should be fitted as standard on all CH3 permanently. But I bet they will be installed a theatre entry standard upgrades..
They are never going to deploy all 148 at the same time. The APS will be like the armour packs, machine guns etc. Only put on when needed.
What more telling is that 60 will be max deployed
So if a few get knocked out in action the replacements wont have any APS. Makes sense.
It was said a couple of years ago that the ability to deploy a warfighting div was planned for 2025. I am sure that has been knocked back by now.
Not unless they are planning a similar trick to the Rangers 250 man “Battalions”.
So perhaps a Division is now battalion sized Graham??? Who the hell knows, they seem to make it up as they go along these days…
To be fair, specialist units are often less than 500 or so. 22SAS is a case in point, with each Troop being just 16-strong. But 250-strong for a non-SF unit is stretching it a bit!
In my day a division was 20,000 – 25,000 strong when reinforced to bring units up to WE (War Establishment). Now Ben Wallace has talked about the 10,000 strong div.
What is the thinking behind the 148 number does anybody know the logic?
No logic, short-sightedness, penny-pinching, and willful ignorance of the fact that there is a war going on in Europe.
We should be upgrading all the hulls we have including APS and then team up with Rheinmetall to develop/procure the next generation.
Very true 👍
Not so simple as that when the ORBAT is considered.
I would assume that is three regiments.
That is the total needed to equip the two Regiments plus have a modest maintenance and attrition reserve.
I haven’t been following manpower cuts for individual regiments.
Should I read this as the manpower has been cut and so the tanks are being cut to size or the regiments are the same size but the reserve is shrinking?
Edit: just read Dan the Mandelli’s below comment about the conversion to Ajax.
Exactly.
..and some to equip the Trg Org.
There is no thinking anymore. The army, governments of all persuasions and MOD have been thinking for twenty years instead of doing. That’s why the army is now incapable of deploying anything much beyond a brigade of old obsolete equipment.
Yes. Island nation. No historical large scale main battle tank usage since WW2 by the UK. Tanks are obsolete on the modern battlefield. Other NATO members already based in Europe have much larger tank fleets. Need any more reasons?
Would make sense if the Navy and Air Force were big enough.
They arent.
What history are you reading? The UK is probably 3rd on the list of major tank users post WW2 after the US and USSR. The ONLY army in NATO with current institutional memory of Divisional Armoured Warfare.
Tanks aren’t obsolete. Not being able to combine them in a full spectrum operation is asking for trouble – both Russia and Ukraine have struggled to truly combine arms, hence massive tank losses.
Mmm if you are talking about actual combat usage ? If so I think Israel, Iraq and Iran would have more usage than us.
I’ll give you Israel. Iraq and Iran are interesting as a case study, because although they used tanks in the Iran Iraq war, there was actually very little manoeuvre. Combat became very static.
USA, URSS-Russia, China, Israel , Egypt, Syria Jordan Kd., India, Pakistan, Angola, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine, Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Azerbaijan all with more tank combat than UK.
Alex,
I think you need to give some details against each country – many of us need convincing. For example, when did China last use tanks in combat?
Since 1990. UK deployed 221 tanks in a division on Op Granby, and 120 tanks in a division on Op Telic. UK also deployed tanks in kinetic operations in the Balkans, several times.
I would say we had deployed tanks on more operations than the Americans – and had the most combat experience operating tanks amongst all ‘western’ European countries.
In the Yom Kippur War Israel fielded 1700 tanks, Egypt 1020 (700 more in reserve) and Syria 1200.
Thanks Maico.
We were talking about NATO and also about usage at div level.
Has Iran done a lot of tank warfare except for the Iran-Iraq war (Sep 80-Aug 88)?
Besides Granby, and Telic and the BAOR you mean Frosty? Oh dear. It’s almost like you’re spouting things you don’t know again…
Desert Storm-Large armoured UK tank formation deployed.
221 CR1s deployed plus thousands of other AFVs.
Did you miss the entire cold War where we had tanks based in Germany? Or the gulf wars where armour formed the foundation of uk ground forces? Maybe your script writer missed those off frostski…
Tanks are not obsolete sigh! Only those go don’t know or understand warfare think that! Tanks will develop, TTPs, passive/active defensive systems, combined with tactical OSR/UAV l, combined arms etc. I suppose you think when the shield was developed their was no need for the sword any longer!
Yeah and President Zelenski has clearly been shouting ‘ no no please don’t send us anymore of these totally obsolete dynosoric relics to defeat the Soviet hoards , I’ve only been playing to the audience don’t you understand ? What we in Ukraine really need is loads of hyper expensive ASW frigates and a CSG to boot. War on land in Europe is very obviously a thing of the past. Don’t you watch Sky News??
Not sure if that was for sad Frosty or me?
Appols Airborne def for the delusional Mr Frosty not for you ! I have a huge respect ( and love) for the RN and have spent a large part of my career in ‘purple’ jobs including a stint with CHF so it really saddens me how totally blanked to reality the ‘naval lobby’ are on here War is about politics and people live on land, that is why it begins and ends and is decided there .This ‘island nation’ cr*p really gets me – just how wide do they think the Channel is? Asides from the Falklands which again was only decided when Paras and Marines marched into Stanley, Bosnia, Kosovo , Sierra Leon, Afghanistan, Gulf War 1 and 2. Just where have they been serving for the last forty years – but oh yeah that’s the answer – they haven’t. Sitting on their butts writing blogs – armchair warriors to a man .
Sorry to say if you told that to the troops at Dunkirk, Singapore and D Day and they’d have laughed in your face.
The Navy is also a deterrent force.
Why do you think the Argies thought it safe to invade the Falklands in the first place?
In the information age the position of main battle tanks will be impossible to hide. A heavy tracked vehicle will be a sitting duck. Hidden, distributed and rapidly mobile forces using drones and light vehicles can surely inflict more violence and cover more ground than a tracked vehicle? The shield is battlefield intelligence.
Absolute chuff, and by stating that shows two things, your lack of subject matter experience and knowledge!
So which countries are scrapping tanks?
Well that depends on how you define scrapping ? Russia has discovered a new and novel way of doing it and then the nice folks in UA upcycle them for future use.Which just proves that Vladimir Vladimirovich is a true environmentalist.
As for already done so. Belgium has scrapped or sold all of theirs and are busily trying to buy some back. Holland is down to just 18 MBT which is a bit odd as they have more ARVs than Tanks now.
happy Friday😀
You clearly think the tank deployments on two Gulf Wars were small scale? 221 tanks deployed on GW1 and 120 on GW2.
If tanks are obsolete do remind me which nations have scrapped them? Why are we seeing tanks on the modern battlefield if they are obsolete – in Ukraine?
How many British fast jets have dogfighted since the Korean War? So consider Typhoon and F-35 obsolete – scrap them?
How many times has the Navy undertaken warfighting since 1982? So scrap the entire Royal Navy?
Great yet simple answer mate, but alas will never get though to those who have an agenda to push!
Mr Frost has an agenda to push alright, he’s trying to keep his ass from being shot off in a water logged trench in Ukraine, or have his skull explode from a Himars handshake!
If he can convince Graham and Airborne to get rid of tanks, he gets an upgrade to his Lada (sporting wheel covers and cable ties) and a one year deferment from conscription…
Has anyone ever noticed that there is always one.
Like I don’t mean “there’s one in every crowd.” But there’s always exactly one Russian troll account on this website. First there was the guy who claimed to be islamic (I forget his name now) who’d cry islamophobia every time you took his arguments appart, then shortly after he dissapeered Johnsky showed up. Johnsky gets banned, Frosty shows up…
Frosty has been here a long time. Pro Russian, no. Critical of UK, maybe.
Yeah hey dumbass I can check when your first post was so don’t lie.
And Pro Russian? Yes. Being paid by the Kremlin? Almost certainly.
Nope, you’ve been here 2 months, pretty much since Esteban was getting his ass ripped every time he trolled! Then boom, new troll appears with exactly the same agenda!
Well let’s look at today, trying to make general enquiries regarding potential launch platforms for meteor, you will be asking for a what three words location for our nuclear weapons storage sites next, oh, anyone know any good launch codes comrade 😂😂😂😂
Ikbal?
Ah yes.
The troll farm UK desk only has one Stalintone PC and monochrome monitor, hence one UK troll at a time….
It’s not looking good for Frosty, trench foot is calling……
Riva is a good vehicle, remind me of UK car? Oh yeah the Rover, nice.
You take what you’re issued with Frosty, it will be a T55 next my morse tapping friend and free entry into the turret flying club…. Enjoy….
Mate you’re bad, you know that bad! Stop teasing him with a Lada, you know damn well the next chain in his promotion is the increase from 2 litres to 5 litres of 2 stroke per week!
You’re quite right mate, getting my MSB promotions wrong ……
Don’t forget the extra potato ration, of course none this happens unless you and Graham admit we don’t need tanks……
Ah mate he’s going to be disappointed with the promotion board this year then, as I know we still need tanks and I’m no SME on armour! I reckon Graham should have the final word as he is more knowledgeable than me on armour 👍👍👍 old Frosty is going to need to do a bit more shnecking!
Agreed. Based on sand
The UK lost in the middle East. Iraq was worse after the UK invasion than before. The UK and US created global terror. Tanks did nothing to influence the outcome. If the UK in 2030 had 50 tanks or 600 tanks the global outcome would remain the same. The UK is NOT a global “player”. The state of Texas is more powerful than the UK
Yeah I can see how the Vatnik would think that living under a Dictator who regularly used Chemical weapons on his own people would be a good thing.
Ah diddums is Frosty getting like Esteban with his pro US fetish anti UK rhetoric! I see you are still too afraid to answer simple questions!
By 2030 Russia will be reduced to horse and cart operations and throwing stones, 18 months into your ‘ special operation’ Russia is down to using T55’s, what’s next, rob museums of T34’s?
Russia has become a laughing stock and a joke in the international community.
Just look up little MSB puppet, your spy master is cutting your strings, you get thrown into an army truck next heading for a world of hurt…
By way of wider explanation.
We currently have 3 Armoured Regiments.
They are known as “Type 56” as that is the number of Tanks each Regiment has when deployed as the core of an Armoured Bde.
The rest of a tank fleet will be in maintenance, in the training organisation at Bovington, known as the “Armour Centre”, at the Land Warfare Centre for Ops training, or in store, either Ashcurch or Munchengladbach, both sites having CHE hangers for vehicle storage.
Since 2015 the plan has been to reduce the number of Armoured Regiments to just 2, and convert the KRH, Kings Royal Hussars, to an Armoured Cavalry Regiment on the Ajax family of vehicles.
This decision was taken by General Carter, not a popular man.
So the 148 figure takes all the above in mind, furnish 2 Regiments, and have a small remainder for those other organisations.
I’m a believer in sea and air power as of greatest concern for the UK, so this reduction to 148, for me, is not the disaster some make it out to be.
We are not a land power, and rarely have been.
However, we should be able to deploy at Divisional scale, and that is why I hope the 3rd Regiment is retained and some changes to the plan occur in the upcoming Wavell report, which will outline changes to the Army.
As JC has mentioned, getting only 60 Trophy systems, for now, implies Brigade strength deployment at best regards armour.
That is how far the British Army has fallen..
Do you know how large the CHE hangars are?
CGS mentioned that he wanted to end WFM, presumably that would free up a lot of space in the CHE hangars for the 79 not to be upgraded and any others that could be saved. Hopefully we don’t make the same mistake we did in 2010 and scrap surplus vehicles. It really makes absolutely zero sense if there are vehicles of the same type in service.
We always dispose of vehicles and other equipment (by gifting, selling or scrapping) that have been declared Obsolete (not Obsolescent as that is a different thing).
Scrapping a vehicle that’s recently retired is one thing, scrapping vehicles that are the exact same as vehicles you still have in service is completely crazy.
I completely agree. Someone high up ordered a number of CR2s to be scrapped in 2010 or earlier – when the vehicles were barely 10 years old.
Was that early 2010…or late 2010 ….
reply to myself I see you said “2010 or earlier” so that would be Brown then…I assume CH2 wasn’t built in his constituency.
Don’t know. It was pretty much a state secret at the time ie highly controversial.
I think it was all after 2010.
I read a report saying that in 2010 345 were in service with another 40 in deep storage. Whether they were serviceable or even saveable I don’t know but at that point none had been scrapped.
Hopefully it was the older tanks that were scrapped, of course even the oldest tanks would be 15 years old maximum.
I assume any out of service CH2s that haven’t been scrapped have been sitting in bad conditions for more than a decade with CHE obviously prioritising in service vehicles (something to thank WFM for).
The drawdown of the CR2 Fleet started before 2010 – makes some grim reading -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delivering_Security_in_a_Changing_World#:~:text=The%202003%20Defence%20White%20Paper,aftermath%20of%20the%20September%2011
Of the 386 CH2 ordered, 1 was lost in Iraq- there’s some grim photos of it on the roadside- and 345 were in service before the 2010 SDSR. I heard 40 were in deep storage which could just be in a non CHE shed in which case they would be in terrible condition but none had been scrapped.
Oh my, that is a shocker – somehow I had missed that.
84 tanks (and 48 AS90s) withdrawn as consequence of 2003 DWP – the tanks would have been about 5 years old, as ISD was 1998.
Mate, I have been mentioning this repeatedly. The army cuts, to Tanks, to SPGs, were going on long into Labour’s watch way before 2010.
Yep, you are right. How can governments of either stripe seriously claim that the first duty of government is to provide for the defence and security of the people and the nation.
Wow, you sometimes wonder don’t you.
To me, it is criminal to scrap vehicles when the type is still in service – and to scrap vehicles that are only 10-15 years old is even worse. If the Orbat shrinks and fewer tanks can be crewed then still keep the entire fleet in case of major war.
I hope out-of-service CR2s and in-service but held in depot tanks are in good storage conditions, preferably CHE, but I have no info on that.
I very much hope your right. To make a Challenger 3 you need a Challenger 2 so every veh we have in storage we need to retain. If it is only 148 that will not be enough to equip the third Armd Regt (KRH) so will rule out being able to deploy a balanced three Brigade Armd Div. Could still do it if we moved to the German and French Type 44 model rather than the UK Type 56 Regt but that’s another debate. A UK Type 44 Regt would still allow for 3 X 14 CH3 tank Sqn and if you made the fourth Sqn an Ajax Sqn would still be a pretty potent mix. The addition of Brimstone overwatch would of course be very nice to have. Point is even if we do stick with the current 148 upgrades to CH3 we need to retain every CH2 we have in storage to allow us to rectify and generate more if in any future conflict we are shown to have got the maths wrong . From only.limited operational experience of such things – IMHO.
It is only 148 CR2s to be upgraded to the CR3 standard. Yes, that is of course not enough for a third T56 regiment. My point is that we should have a third regt in a proper third manouevre brigade and that means we should convert more than 148 tanks.
The UK once had Type 44 regiments so that is not a new idea – it would mean 132 in the field force and 16 elsewhere would not be enough.
A novel idea to have a sqn of Ajax in an armd regt – they will of course have a Troop of 8 Ajax in the Recce Troop. Your idea of a sabre sqn of Ajax is intriguing – but what would they do? Not recce, not supporting Infantry – so doing what? Destroying lt/medium armour?
Brimstone overwatch would be the long-awaited successor to CVR(T) Striker. Definitely very useful to take out enemy tanks at longer range than the Challys can.
CH2 should be the top of the list to store in CHE as it’s the hardest to start a production line to replace. It’d have been better to have scrapped a thousand CVRTs than to scrap those 150 CH2s.
In Future Soldier there’s 3 regiments worth of tank crews but only 148 CH3s. New crews are much easier to train than new tanks are to build if there’s no production line.
I am sure that CR2 is top of the list for CHE for the reason you state and also the value (£) of the vehicle. The high percentage of electrical and electronic systems on the vehicle would also benefit from low humidity storage.
In FS there are 2 regular armd regts (RTR in 12 ABCT, QRH in 20 ABCT). Are you counting in the armd reserve regt (RWxY) in 12x? This was once known as the armd delivery regt and is now known as the armd reinforcement regiment. Their role is to provide trained tank crews as BCRs and officers/SNCOs as watchkeepers. They do not deploy as a manouevre tank regiment, so do not need or have 56 tanks.
I agree that 148 tanks is too few for the 2 manouevre tank regiments, Trg Org, RP and Attrition Reserve ie I suspect that the Attrition Reserve is far too small.
Many of us also think we should retain 3 manouevre tank regiments, one per manouevre brigade in 3xx, ie to reconstitute the third manouevre bde and abandon the deep strike recce brigade ‘experiment’, its guns going back to a DAG and the Ajax going back to Div and Bde formation recce use.
My thought process exactly mate.
I don’t mate.
I know Aschurch had too many vehicles to fit in and many were left outside in leaky unmaintained sheds getting rusty.
Not surprising as at one point there were over 7,000 vehicles and plant, boats, on site.
Graham will be best to comment.
I assume Ashchurch will start to get even more busy with all the vehicles leaving service but the CHE’s will clear out to leave more space for CH2s which I assume out of all the out of service vehicles there will have priority on the assumption WFM will actually go.
The asbestos roofs were in a poor state, visitors got shown the one posh climate controlled building, once the tanks are crammed in leaky sheds with birds pooing on them hard to maintain. batteries go flat sights get damp etc !
Btw, I read your reply re artillery on email but could not find the comment on the site to reply. So thanks, anyway.
Cheers mate 👍
It was just a really long way of saying K9 is the best option in terms of capabilities and UK industrial input.
It’s only downside would be MFP has to replace L118 in 7 LMBCT and 4 LBCT so would obviously be really unsuitable in such units.
Yes, Ideally we have 2 Regs of K9 and 2 of Archer. Then L118 gets a big upgrade. L118 remains with 16AA and 3 Cdo.
2 K9 Regs. 2 Archer Regs. 2 MLRS Regs. 2 Light Gun Regs.
Has a nicer look to it!
And if only they properly expanded the SHORAD and MRAD and we had a 2nd Reg of HVM and Sabre too. Not happening.
Going to have to find another artillery regiment somewhere. In fairness it isn’t impossible, Future soldier increased the Army by 500 to 73,000 which I’m pretty sure saved 32 reg RA.
K9a2 is by far the best vehicle for the armoured brigades, but unfortunately as always compromises have to be made. I think the biggest priority right now is to get 16x and 7x to be a GRF as the best they can. Armoured Brigades are a long way off being operational so if we want to have a credible army for the next ten years those two brigades have to be readied.
Ideally for both that means the Brimstone mounted on Extenda Mk 2.
For the former lots of light vehicles and Hawkeye to replace L118. Even if just used in an Airborne role, artillery is probably the most important to be vehicle mounted.
For the latter heavier MRVP vehicles and Archer to replace L118.
I was hoping 7X goes to 3XX, and gets an upgrade.
4, 16, 3 Cdo as GRF, with 102 in support.
There is also an L118 Regt in 7 (Light Mech) Bde and 4 ( Inf) Bde as well.. Even given those we have gifted to our Ukraine friends we still have a fair number of barrels to meet our needs when it comes to light forces that is. There’s also the saluting Batteries at the Tower, Hillsborough, Cardiff and Edinburgh Castle if push comes to shove – and oh yeah I forgot those on Gib lol
Yes, I’ve covered the LG Reg with 7 Bde, commenting that I hope it is upgraded to Archer considering the Bde is Light Mechanized in Foxhound, so give it wheeled SP artillery.
I’d like to see the A2020 plan restored for 3 UK.
I’d like 7 Bde restored to the level of the other 2 BCT.
It has its CS CSS already.
Retain the 3rd Armoured reg instead of converting to Ajax, so there is it’s Armoured Reg.
By doing that, the 4 planned Ajax Armoured Cav Regs become 3, so a Recc
Reg is possible to add to it, one for 12, 20, 7 BCT.
One of the two HBCT has 3 rather than 2 Boxer Bns. Create one more and we are back to 6, same number planned for Warrior AI before the 2015 Strike Bde cuts came in.
With 6 Boxer Bns, that’s 2 per HBCT.
7 LMBCT other Inf Bns could be used elsewhere, or, the headcount used to form additional RA formations?
On 4 BCT, that formation has mostly reservist CS CSS, including its RA Regiment. One if the great fails of FS for me.
You’d then have a “proper” Division of 3 manoeuvre Bdes, and the DSRB could be split up amongst them or just be what off is, a DAG, nor a “Bde” like what the Army has done trying to make it look like a proper Bde. It’s not, it has no CSS beyond a REME Bn.
1 UK becomes the GRF.
16AA.
3 Cdo providing the “forward presence” mentioned in the upgraded DCP GRF plan.
4 Bde. LI mass. If only Regular CS CSS could be found for it, you’d have a Light Division alongside 3.
I lose count, but I think there are 3 LG Regs with the AR, from which those saluting batteries are found.
Don’t forget the HAC LG Battery!
It all makes sense to me any way!
(Don’t forget you need to equip the Reserve Reg’s too).
I’m losing track mate, of what. We talking guns?
Yes. You’ve got 2 Light Gun Regs (I assume for 16 and 3 CMDO), but don’t forget the 2 Reserve Light Gun regiments and the reserve MRLS and AS90 ones.
Yes, that’s right mate, I was ref to 29 RA and 7 RHA.
I thought there were 3 LG AR Regs? 103, 104, 105?
One of those AR Regs ( forget which ) is the reg allocated to 4X isn’t it, as that Bde lacks regular CS CSS, while the other, I think that provides formed Dets and guns 7&8 to the regular Reg supporting 7X.
Don’t recall where the other fits in, hang on….augments DSRB?
101 on MLRS provides a Battery each to the 2 regular MLRS Regs so they can sit with DSRB too.
AS90 in the AR….. Isn’t that like the RWY, just IR’s not complete Batteries with actual guns allocated? I’ve not read of the AR having any AS90.
A thought, developing from my earlier suggestion the other week that “maybe” 7X goes to 3XX and gets upgraded. If it did, and 3 XX resumed having 3 Bdes as it should always have – 7,12,20, would we need DSRB? Could DSRB then be disbanded, and its guns and MLRS placed in 3 Div DAG and other elements of it used to try to flesh out 4x?
Have a look at my thought process which I outlined to Pongolo above. What is your analysis? Any issues with it?
104 Reg was supposed to convert to SPG’s in order to support 1 DSR.
I don’t see 1 DSR disbanding. 7 is already a big formation, 5 infantry battalions and a cav regiment. Adding 4 Ajax and Jackal battalions would make it a a very big and unwieldy formation, same goes for 4 (more so as it has 6 battalions).
104, right, wasn’t aware of that.
Course not re 7X, I was thinking of it and 4X getting even bigger. I thought, maybe a standard 3, or 4 ( as in 16x ) Inf Bn Bde and either distributing the other infantry units or disbanding and creating more CS CSS.
Example, and just throwing ideas out there, with 7X having 5 and 4X with 6, could some of those move to DSRB to give it infantry? Akin to the convo we had about giving it that 3rd Armd Reg.
It always was a massive mistake to close the vehicle depot at Ludgershall (in the 90s, I think). It had the A Vehs and Ashchurch had the B and C vehicles. Ashchurch is quite a small site but at least money is being spent on it now. I visited in 2002/3 to see how my CR1s were being looked after at the time of their main disposal to Jordan – and it was not a pretty sight.
I don’t know how big the CHE-equipped hanger(s) are but I guess it would be a small percentage of the total. Hopefully the modernisation happening at the moment will increase CHE provision. Daniele is right in saying that often many vehicles are parked in leaky sheds and also a good number are often parked outside in the open.
https://www.defenseadvancement.com/news/uk-mod-awards-contract-for-british-army-vehicle-storage-facility/
Apparently it’s being expanded to hold 4,100 vehicles in CHE.
Seems like the asbestos was a blessing in disguise.
Thanks Louis. Very impressive that so many vehicles will be in CHE – that surprises me.
Only a few years ago MoD was considering selling the site to a housing developer. Where would the vehicles have then be stored!
The asbestos really was a blessing in disguise.
38 old sheds being demolished. 12 new CHE facilities. One of them is 165mx99m no idea about the others.
I think the plan was to ship all the vehicles to Germany when they closed Ashchurch!
It has taken so long to spend decent money on Ashchurch – the refurb plans sound very good.
We do of course have some vehicles (and other kit) in Germany, but to move all stored vehicles there is mind-boggling – how ridiculous.
I heard that too. All to Germany. With all our armour concentrated around SPTA….🙄
I’m sure they would have then just reduced the numbers even more to fit the sites they had….
Cameron had a stupid idea of storing them all in Germany , think his chum wanted to build houses on the land . The site is contaminated with asbestos in the soil so would not be viable !
Exactly what I heard. So if chum had built on the site, the army would have no vehicle depot in UK. What would have been next to move to Germany – ammunition depots?
I’d not seen this. Cheers.
Good post Daniele, When I was serving (up to 2009) there were very few of the sheds at Ashchurch in good condition. I visited there in 2002 or 2003. My CR1s were in hangers that had broken windows, large puddles and quite a bit of mud on the floor, birds flying in and out of the broken windows. The vehicles were very close parked to each other (virtually touching each other) and could not be easily accessed for any reason. The sheds were of course unheated. I don’t think CHE had been installed at that time. I would guess that today very few of the hangers at Ashchurch or in Germany will have CHE. Big money is now being spent on Ashchurch.
About bloody time! It is a strategic asset. And, like our discussion on Ludgershall a few months ago, it has rail access. Those places need enhancing and a proper RLC railway capability restored and expanded. STRE Reservists still do that role but I’d like to see more.
Never neglect the enablers!
Incredible to think only a few years ago MoD was mulling over selling the Ashchurch site a few years ago – word has it that a Tory party donor wanted to buy it and build a couple of thousand houses there!
A few links from the oldest to the newest statement/article:
https://hmvf.co.uk/topic/25112-ashchurch-central-vehicle-depot-nr-tewkesbury-to-be-sold/
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/military-base-near-tewkesbury-270m-4263646
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/883646/Information_regarding_the_MOD_s_vehicle_depot_at_Ashchurch_in_Gloucestershire___2020_01347.pdf
https://www.skanska.co.uk/about-skanska/media/press-releases/264091/Skanska-awarded-contract-to-deliver-modern-British-Army-vehicle-storage-facility
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/marking-the-first-demolition-at-mod-ashchurch
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/significant-progress-at-mod-ashchurch-for-the-vehicle-storage-and-support-programme
This may be based on the number of power pack and final drive assemblies available without building new ones !
Good question. It is two Type 56 regiments, so 112 in field force units. Then somehow the other 36 are split between:
a. The Training Organisation
b. Repair Pool
c. Attrition Reserve.
Rather more than 36 would ensure optimum resourcing in these three areas.
I think the tank regiments have now moved back to T58 structure, or at least a 4 armoured squadron structure.
Routinely tank regiments have invariably comprised four squadrons but of course the T38 and T44 were not.
T58 makes more sense than T56 – four sqns of 14 tanks and two for RHQ.
Two armoured regiments plus a quantity (too few in my opinion) for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
What happened to Ben Wallace saying they were going to look at an uplift in numbers?
Still ongoing.
When Wavell reports, we will know. As in, retaining the 3rd Armoured Regiment rather than its long planned conversion to Ajax.
Staying at 3 Regiments would surely mean a slight uplift unless they slash the numbers per reg.
I sadly wouldn’t put it past the decision makers to retain a 3rd regiment but hollow them out.
Personally I think either have 3 proper regiments with reserves for training and attrition (180-200) or don’t bother at all!
Ha! Yes me neither.
I agree, I want to see a 3rd regiment, simply because a Division has 3 manoeuvre brigades, and 3 Div effectively has only 2 plus DSRB.
Each Bde should have an Armoured Regiment.
This was the correct A2020 plan until General Carter ripped it up.
It’s been articulated by more knowledgeable people than me in the past but it’s really hard to see why even a smaller regular army of 73k can’t do better than 4 combat brigades containing only 2 armoured regiments.
If they were prepared to radically amalgamate/ditch capbadge’s to rebalance the infantry/supporting arms ratio and cut down on duplication/waste and kit out however many brigades could then be formed and supported with Challenger, CV90, Boxer, (an IFV variant of either to replace Warrior) and Foxhound with Archer, MLRS and Sky Sabre providing support the British Army could quite easily be in good shape.
It’s not a lack of funds or lack of options that hampering any positive change…..it’s glacial and bureaucratic procurement coupled with an institution that refuses to change and sacrifice any sacred cows to modernise and find a role.
Absolutely. The cap badge mafia is alive and well.
Capbadges have been amalgamated since time immemorial, including the most sacred of cows. Some have not survived 30 years. I am not spotting the duplication that you do – please explain.
The last amalgamations occured around 2006 when the regular army was around 110,000.
Since then they have cut larger regiments down to single battalions in some instances and rebranded others as having specialist roles so they could be reduced to 300 soldiers or less.
Interesting that Defence Reviews since 2006 haven’t advocated another round of amalgamations.
I agree that it is a nonsense for a Regiment to consist of a single battalion – although counting in the AR Inf battalions as you must do, are there any single battalion Regiments? DLR and MERCIAN and RWELSH has I think 1 reg and 1 AR bn. To be credible I think you need at least 3 (Reg &AR) bns per Regt.
I agree the 300-strong specialist battalions (Rangers) are an oddity but surely they have the Ranger capbadge rather than a historic one?
Is the Wavell report the same as “Future Soldier Next Steps” that is supposed to be published this autumn?
I can’t find much on the scope of Wavell, but the wording on the army’s website makes it sound far reaching.
I was not aware myself of “FSN Steps” so unsure there.
Wavell, to me, outlines how the previously stated changes and enhancements to things like AD, C-UAV, SHORAD, MRAD, and the wider RA will actually play out at unit and sub unit level, and any changes to the overall organisation of the ORBAT.
I do hope they make an effort to improve because having even a 73K army with only 4 deployable Bdes with CS/CSS seems ridiculous, and an Armoured Division of just 2 Bdes and, in effect, the DAG and other groups attached.
A Division should have 3 manoeuvre Bdes, with the rest held at Divisional level or with Corps Troops ( Which in effect is our current “Field Army Troops” as we no longer have a Corps )
Bravo!
The resignation from his position and politics in general speaks volumes to what happened I fear.
Maybe the man’s give up with our government .🙄
I read that Russia is now down to its last serviceable 1400 tanks (from 3500 before the Ukraine war). But it is estimated that they can roll out about 200 T90-Ms per year
Russia won’t be running out of Tanks anytime soon – they are still able to Build New and Upgrade legacy examples.
Yes that much is true, They still have dedicated factories producing new Tanks, while we are struggling to update the few we have left.
It shows that industrial capacity is just as important as military capabilities.
really upgrade them with out the thales kit and other hi end stuff they source from the west? all the thermals and commanders sights apparently contain western components
Yeah but they still have the facilities to produce the tank itself, I am sure in time they will find alternatives to the electronic bits they can no longer source from the West.
Bringer of facts wrote:
Russia has 2 factories which can build tanks (yes 2 more than the UK)
UralVagonZavod aka UVZ (which is around 855 miles east of Moscow)
Omsk (around 1300 east miles from Moscow)
Of the two UVZ is the main tank factory and is capable of producing around 20 tanks a month
Omsk, is much smaller, where the T80 was built and is now used primarily for refurbishing and upgrading older tanks as well as building niche vehicles such as the TOS-1A flamethrower
Much has been made of Russian claims that they are suppling over 200 T90Ms a month. But using actual data supplied by the Russians to the media, that figure was reduced down to 55 new build and around 70 refurbs for the past 16 months. Yes it’s a lot more than what NATO can build over the same period, but the fact remains, Russia is the one at war, Russia is the one losing armour at a horrendous rate and even if they were knocking out 200 tanks a month, they would still require a full year of elevated production levels to make up for the losses they have suffered so far. But the biggest issue for Russia isn’t replacing armour, its replacing trained personnel and as we have seen the poor quality of troops Moscow is rushing to the front (shades of Paul Hardcastles 19) is simply resulting in higher casualty figures. Which might explain why Moscow has just announced they are increasing the age of conscription for 27 to 30 in which to garner a larger slice of manpower. But going back to the main direction of your post, yes you are correct in stating that industrial capacity is just as important as military capabilities. The problem for Russia is, it also has a huge raft of other issues to think about (Not sure if this is pertinent , but it has been reported that Mosocw is using prison labour in which to increase tank production, the Germans did something similar during WW2 and found to their cost, that, that wasn’t such a good idea.)
Indeed, I believe the figures to be around 20 tanks rolled out a month, including new T90Ms and upgraded/refurbished older models.
The UVZ factory is dropping all non-military production to concentrate purely on tanks, Russia says it is aiming to have production figures of 1500 a year…which I don’t believe is achievable right now.
Yet again your research and knowledge far outstrips mine, but I bet I drink more rum than you and struggle to maintain concentration and interest by the third “home measure” 😂👍!
Airborne wrote:
“”but I bet I drink more rum than you””
I’ve a few bottles of rum in the kitchen my go to at the moment is Signature Rum
Bought the following these past few months (for scientific purposes I should add) and not impressed with them:
The Kraken Black Cherry & Madagascan Vanilla Black Spiced Rum
Spice Hunter Mauritian Spiced Rum
PHRAYA Elements, Premium Dark Rum,
NO.1 Old Caribbean White Spiced Rum
The lad next door thinks I’m great, as I palm off stuff I don’t like onto him. That said my absolute favourite is Rosemullion Spiced Rum, which I also buy as presents for rum drinkers. (that said a lot of people are into gin, cant stand the stuff)
Mate that’s a selection of varied flavours! Not much off the shelf stuff is nice but Navy Rum is still a solid drink! I do love the Rumbullion, the spiced, wax top, no coke, little ice, touch your lips and savour. Sacrilege to put coke in it like a few of the off shelf specials! As for Gin……🤮👍
Industrial capacity is FAR more important than military capabilities. In all wars the side which can produce more weapon systems faster than the enemy can destroy them, Wins the war as in WW2.
Industrial capacity won WW2 for the Allies.
Plus if they were running too low I’d expect the likes of PRC etc might donate some of their older tanks, T55s etc.
Does that include the inflatables?
The thing about items like tanks is that it takes a long time to replace them if they are no longer in production. So you have to have the replacements available before they are needed. You need at least 3 levels: Current use, Replacement for battle losses/’normal’ wastage, Vehicles required for any potential wartime expansion. We just seem to be going for the first.
I don’t get how it works during the conversion process, which obviously won’t happen instantly. Will people be trained while conversion takes place, so we can field mixed Challenger 2 and 3 regiments, or will it happen one regiment at a time, with training complete on one before breaking in the next one, or will it be big banged?
If a war kicks off in the middle, will we always have two tank-equipped regiments?
I assume one Regiment at time, one squadron at a time.
I would imagine its a squadron going to a conversion course and being re-equipped with Chally 3 at the same time.
I keep hearing that Regiments have been (are being) reduced to 50 MBT’s each, is that right?
Not heard that?
Evening Daniele and Graham, I can’t bloody remember where I first heard it now, possibly the rumour mill. From a few different sources though…
I regularly shoot with a chap who’s currently involved with certain aspects of the forthcoming downsizing and he pulled a rather ‘sour’ face at me a few months ago when I brought it it up….
Sometimes a look is more telling 🤔
So… If I was a betting man….
I think your surmise about conversion is a good one – quite likely. I had not heard that regts will reduce to 50.
I guess it depends on panic and desperation.
It is the price we are paying for letting our dedicated AFV factories close down.
Hopefully, partnerships with Rheinmetall and similar companies can get us back up to having some local manufacturing/upgrade facilities.
The only thing letting us down is domestic design.
RBSL is making new armour, turrets and cannons for CH3. It’s also making hulls for Boxer.
Elsewhere Horstman makes suspension and David Brown transmission.
The only other constraint would be engines. To my knowledge Perkins lost that capability so the only domestic AFV engine production is RR that builds MTU engines under license. Of course there’s nothing wrong with using a foreign engine which is what Korea has done with K2, K9 and K21 until domestic companies have learnt enough building under license to design their own engines.
We need more capacity than we have. Currently, it will be 4 – 6 years to upgrade just 148 tanks.
Capacity is quite easy to step up. One of the reasons the order is taking so long is because if they rush and complete them very quickly, a lot of new workers will be hired who will all then have to be let go. I suspect RBSL and the Army are waiting out for an IFV order for Boxer so they still have turret manufacturing capability.
Edit: I suspect the army are also hoping for an increase in numbers so having a slower production rate gives them more time.
That does not make sense to slow pace the CH3 upgrade, the threat of conflict is very real now, so we should get it done asap. UVZ is producing and upgrading 20 Russian tanks per month right now
This is not an obsolete vehicle we are talking about though. CH2 is more than good enough against the Russians.
Got once the MOD will get a vehicle in service before the vehicle it’s replacing hits 30.
Funding is in place for a total of 1,016 Boxers.
I can’t see the CR3 order size increasing.
Neither can I, but once the CH3 upgrade production line shuts down there is zero chance of an increase.
Good to know all those Boxers are funded, it does seem a huge amount for just 5 battalions though. 1,304 is the requirement but that probably doesn’t include the Air Defence, bridging or possible artillery variants so the total requirement is probably north of 1,500.
That number will also furnish other Regiments CS elements, much as the 500 plus Ajax variants will furnish more than jus the 4 Armoured Cavalry Regiments.
I’m hoping more Inf Bns get Boxer myself, looks at 7 Inf Bde.
Of course but it’s still a lot more than what’s needed for 5 infantry battalions and 2 brigades CS/CSS.
Less than 1,800 FV430 and Warriors covered 12 later 11 infantry battalions and 6 later 5 brigades CS/CSS and that also included roles which Boxer doesn’t cover and will be covered by the ASV that will replace FV430.
7x does need to be reroled as 3xx needs 3 manoeuvre brigades.
It has 5 infantry battalions so 3 could be reroled to provide a brigades worth of CS and CSS. 4x would then split into 2 brigades each of 3 infantry battalions.
Hi Louis,
FOC for CR3 is 2030, so I guess it will be a while before they shut down the build line. I was expecting DCP2023 to give clarity on whther extra CR3s would be authorised as a consequence of the war in Ukraine, but it sems we are waiting for Project Wavell to report – should be within a few months.
By no means are all the 623 (523 + 100) Boxers on order for the Inf Bns
https://www.forces.net/news/how-many-boxer-vehicles-are-order
Of the Tranche 1 (Qty 523) order – only 85 are Infantry Carrying Vehicles – enough for two or three bns. Many of the 523 are for Other Arms.
Are you sure the RBSL is making the cannons? I read somewhere ( a defence webpage) that UK was now unable to make heavy guns.
Which is not surprising the last 4.5″ naval gun was probably build in late XX Century and 120mm rifled guns for Challenger 2 would have be there abouts with some replacemnts made in XXI first decade?
I’m pretty sure that originally came from BAE who obviously have a reason to say that.
Production of M777 ended recently with the last order being 2016 for 145 but only 25 to be built in the UK and the rest in India.
Of course the entire M777 wasn’t UK built but most of the manufacturing was with the US fitting out.
The latest I could find online was BAE saying they might close the factory in 2021- with that presumably having already happened.
You are probably right that RBSL doesn’t build the cannons but I don’t think it really matters. Even the US use Rheinmetall cannons on the Abrams. I guess it just wasn’t economical for RBSL to build the guns under licence.
Ok. I have found the article in Shepard media
By BAE like you said:
The barrels from the 40 scrapped CR2’s were boxed up and likely still in storage somewhere. Also the hulls converted for challenger 3 have a turret with spare barrel on .
Beyond CR3.
I am sure we can recreate tank design expertise in the UK, but MoD needs to sow the seeds with Industry – mutually work on some concepts, get some Technology Demonstrators commissioned etc.
Some limited AFV design work has been undertaken with: CR3 (more so on the Rheinmetall side than the BAE side of RBSL, though); Boxer; and a whole lot more with Ajax (notwithstanding that ASCOD was the ‘point of departure’ for the design).
Being an observor on the Franco-German next tank project is not an adequate substitute to the above even though it is still worth doing.
The loss of the multiple classic Tank (AFV) factories has been a mighty blow – they had so much more of a suite of capabilities and facilities than today’s Assembly Halls.
Of course MGCS can be built in the UK anyway with KNDS UK subsidiary but it’s a really unimpressive vehicle so I think that’d be a terrible option.
Industry is definitely recovering, just needs support from the MOD with design as you say. Work for CH3 replacement should probably begin 2030ish at the earliest to give enough time to replace CH3 fairly fast as those hulls will be pretty tired. If IOC is 2027 they shouldn’t be in service for more than 10-15 years.
Sorry but RR absolutely do not build MTU engines under licence from anyone. And that is because MTU is an actually a fully owned subsidiary of RR Power systems and has been since 2014.
No licence needed to build your own products, it’s also a very profitable part of the portfolio.
We always forget that some of our big companies such as RR and BAe are very successful multi nationals with lots of subsidiaries.
You just need to look at the the engines for the B52J upgrades to see what RR is up to they will have 8 RR F130’s each.
Cheers mate 👍
Easy to forget how large those RR is.
MTU of course also builds diesel engines for maritime use some of which will replace the Wärtsilä engines on T45 in PIP.
It’s way more than that all the T26, all the T23 ASW, and just about everything else that floats. Even Russia was buying them pre 2014 !
And then we get to the MT30 which is a hell of an export success Canada, Australia, Korea, Japan, Italy and the USN are all signed up fitting them.
People forget exports aren’t just about finished systems it’s what is put in them. For example 8 T26, 9 Hunter class, 15 CSC all powered by MT30 and MTU.
I would think in times of war JCB would switch to military production and apply best practice manufacturing techniques to knock out a foreign tank under license. Liberty ships were a British designs made in America after all. in the 1930’s Morris motors where approached to build a factory at Castle Bromwich which could be flipped to Spitfire production (now the Jaguar factory). What’s interesting is the government didn’t approach existing aircraft manufacturers, why? Because Morris knew how to mass produce not knock our a handful to items per year. Its all very well have a token tank production but those low volume techniques won’t apply to higher volume production when its needed.
Only modern equipment is several generations more sophisticated and complicated than it was back then. Plus our manufacturing base isn’t there.
Armstrong Works in Newcastle is still in existence,Pearson Engineering reside there and they have just announced the purchase of an 800 ton Press so options still exist.
It may be, but I can remember when it stretched for miles along the Tyne, from Newcastle along Scotswood!
We have tanks in Unit Establishments (Field Force and Training Org), tanks in the Repair Pool and Tanks in an Attrition Reserve.
There are currently no tanks to expand beyond three armoured regiments. In the CR3 era there will be no tanks to expand beyond two regts.
‘Cartlidge also added that the number of Challenger 3 tanks would remain under review to ensure the Army’s Main Battle Tank fleet meets Defence’s needs.’
I take that to mean as it won’t be here for 5-7 years were hoping the Urkranie war will be over so we can reduce the total…………….
Am I supposed to be disappointed it’s not been accelerated or relieved it’s not been delayed?
Both… and… neither… Lol 😁
60 trophy systems on order is the key.First 60 C3s get Trophy,MOD hopes Ukraine war is over or at ceasefire so they can slow down or cut the final numbers delivered.Another example of MOD fudge, delay,fence sitting etc.Reality is UK still doesn’t have a coherent,definitive geo- military- political plan for next 30 years.Cant face down Russia and China simultaneously ,can we?.UK defence is short of everything , equipment,ammunition,personnel,everything is delivered late,over budget.Perhaps conventional defence needs to be treated the same way as the nuclear deterrent in that the next 30 years of operations/capabilities are planned and ring fenced financially. All main political parties would have to have some input on the set up.This tied to a massive reduction in what the UK did and was expected to do in the defence world.Also maybe planned Buying Off The Shelf for every purchase would make the money go further??
Would make sense if our Navy and Air Force were correspondingly big enough.
They arent.
Memo to MOD: ‘Must try harder!’.
Why are we refurbishing a tank that is 40 odd years old and no longer in production. I should imagine getting spares is going to be a nightmare .Gulf 1 3RTR stripped there Challengers for spares.
It’s not as if there are no new tanks out
there .Leopard. Panther South Korea tank. New with spares available.
We can’t keep cutting tank numbers.
Micky wrote:
“”Why are we refurbishing a tank that is 40 odd years old and no longer in production””
The Challenger 2 tank entered service in 1998 making it 25 years old. It is actually one of the youngest MBTs in service
Leo 2: 1979
M1 Tank: 1980
Leclerc: 1992
Ariete: 1995
T90A: 2004
K2 Black Panther: 2014
T90M: 2016
The problem the British military has with the Challenger 2 is it was never upgraded (which is a common trait for the UK) that said it was designed around ceramic armour which affords it better all round protection than other tanks such as the Leopard 2 tank which was designed around the philosophy of taking on mass Soviet thrusts into Germany resulting fast moving armour with more armour at the front with weaker sides and rear , which as we saw at the battle of Al Bab (Syria 2016-2017) wasn’t proof against ATGMs striking the sides. The Germans (and Swedes) had known of that weakness and added additional armour to the sides resulting in the A5 ,A6 and A7 iterations but as we saw the other week a Lancet loitering munition (chemical warhead of between 3 to 5 Kgs) hitting the side of the turret of a Leo A6 was able to disable it. Which might explain why Germany has rushed an order for the Leo A8 which is based around the improved A7 that was sold to Hungary . The K2 is an unknown so far, yes it is good on paper, but lets not forget that when the Uk took on the Chally 1 everybody laughed at how poor it did at a tank shoot in Germany in 1987, and then 4 years later in Kuwait, that tank which came last at that tank shoot gave sterling service killing 300 Iraqi tanks for no loss including the longest range kill for a tank, its replacement the Chally 2 saw one attacked with 14 RPGs and 1 Milan in Iraq , after 6 hours of repairs it was back on the streets patrolling again. Other than the Israeli Merkava 3 (without APS) I doubt any other tank (including the M1A2 SEPv4 ) could do the same.
And that is the tragedy, such a great piece of kit as Challenger 2 was so hastily thrown away in the 2010 defence review.
Well, 40% of them were.
Don’t forget the ones before as well. 7 Armoured Sqns I recall.
Just for balance. This is not an all Tory party by any means. The armoured cuts started before 2010.
Graham did suggest, on another thread that wasn’t the case.
Morning Simon. Sorry, not clear on your meaning, what wasn’t the case? That cuts to the armoured warfighting elements of the army were NOT happening pre 2010, or are you agreeing?
Because they most certainly did, to 4th Armoured ( which was withdrawn to the UK and changed to Mechanized ) and 19 Mechanized ( then became Light, as it lost all its armour ) Bdes as well as 1st and 12th AI Bdes Tank and CVRT formations.
Any tank can be disabled by a Lancet or do you think Challenger or any other tank have heavy armor in top of engine deck, or its sight is armored to resist it?
One data point do not mean much.
No tank can be operational after a side, rear hit by Kornet.
Tanks are getting the same treatment as battleships.
Without APS they can’t survive. I also should note that without an indirect fire capability its usefulness will suffer compared to new technologies appearing.
Technologies that improved the precision of long range fire and that Lancet is an example.
The tank is facing the biggest problem in its history and long range precision fire is much worse challenge for it than the vulnerability to new HEAT charges.
Alex wrote:
I don’t think I mentioned that the chally 2 is invulnerable , I simply pointed out that it was designed from the ground up later than others (which included combating chemical warheads the staple of Russian armour fired from a 125mm smoothbore gun, which are larger than then warheads carried by loitering munitions) In contrast the Leopard 2 was designed during the70s based around German tank designs from WW2 fast moving armour, which weren’t designed to stay in place but rather blunt a mass attack and then use speed to either pull back to the next position or carrying out a fast moving attack into the enemies rear. This is why the Leo 2 has more armour at the front than at the sides, even the A5 and A6 iterations where the arrowhead frontal armour increase subscribed to that mindset, with the sides seeing very little improvement. The Russians have targeted the side armour of the Leopard 2 for that reason alone.
The difference with the Challenger 2 is it comes with formidable armour (I’m not saying it is indestructible ) which as we saw in Iraq is enhanced by 11 tonnes of additional armour modules as we saw also with the warrior. The only other western MBTs which are fitted with additional hybrid slab add on armour modules is the French Leclerc Tanks in use with the UAE which were fitted with AZUR urban warfare protection modules when they sent them in to Yemen.
And the M1A2 Tusk program.
To my knowledge, such a package has never been fitted to the leopard 2 (but the Greeks taking lessons learnt from the Ukraine came out with the ASPIS-NG armour system in march of this year)
Regards this statement:
No tank can be operational after a side, rear hit by Kornet.
Define operational, the object of armour is foremost to protect the crew inside, if the tank is damaged, and is then repaired where does that fit in with in the great scheme of things. The modular Kasag armour on the Merkava 3 and 4 tanks is designed to be replaced quickly in the field if damaged. On my vehicle recognition course at Larkhill we were regaled to a video of a Merkava 2 pummelled by repeated Hezballah missiles strikes , it then popped smoke and drove off.
The example I gave of the Chally 2 which survived 14 RPGs and a Milan and was back on the streets after the LAD had their way in hours shows that it can survive multiple strikes.
Yes I agree with you that times are changing on the battlefield, but this is a process which has been ongoing since Captain Cave man picked up a club in which better the odds against the other fellow.
But going back to my initial post, I simply pointed out that as of this moment in time, the Chally 2 can take a punch on the chin better than the Leo 2 in responce to Micky C post we should replace the Chally 2 with the Leo 2 or K2
Every tank has more armour in front than side.
The Merkava 2 was probably being hit by crappy Sagger that did not hit anything important. like wise Challenger.
Merkava 4 initial version (without APS) was defeated at hand of Heezbollah with Kornets in 2006.
For example it is not possible to armour the wheels, the tracks so that is right there a mobility kill and if you don’t own the terrain at end of the day it is a captured tank and maybe a captured crew.
Alex wrote:
“”Every tank has more armour in front than side.””
The point I was addressing was the design philosophy of the Leopard 2 tank , which alone out of all modern day peers (until the arrival of the Indian irjun) had a slab faced front which clearly shows that the Germans placed great faith in such frontal armour, everybody else used sloped frontal armour. As I pointed out, the Germans knew they faced thousands of Soviet tanks to their front and that the main threat was also their front.
That mindset slightly changed with the A5 iteration which saw extra angled (arrowhead) armour added to the front of the already prodigious frontal armour of the Leopard 2 and with a little more attention paid the side armour. However, the only nation which tried to address that weakness was Canada which heavily armoured the side of its Leopard 2 A5s with extra MEXA panels.
Alex wrote:
“”The Merkava 2 was probably being hit by crappy Sagger that did not hit anything important. like wise Challenger.””
A supposition doesn’t excuse the fact that the Israel Merkava survived multiple strikes from ATGM. FYI, the crappy Sagger in Hizballah service is actually the much more potent Iranian clone Raad which comes with improve electronics and a double warhead. It was the most widely used ATGM during the war of 2006 and when the Israelis pulled out of Lebanon in 2006 they left behind around 40 vehicles most of which had been destroyed or disabled by the Raad. Everybody talks about the likes of the Kornet, but actually they are not as common as people like to think.
Again allow me to reiterate, the subject matter I was on about was the Leopard 2 tank and its armour lay out which sacrifices armour at the sides and rear for more at the front.
40-odd years old? You are thinking of CR1 (not CR2) that was fielded from 1983.
A key part of the CR3 project is managing any obsolescence of the CR2 parts – such parts will be binned and replaced by modern alternatives.
We are re-manufacturing a very capable (but ageing) tank.
Many Leopards (albeit older ones, A4s?) were destroyed by rebels in Yemen in Dec 2016 – are the newer ones as survivable as CR2/CR3? However maybe that is not fair – Kornet is a very capable weapon.
Not enough…..we always fall short…our defense procurement always is wrong..Ajax…HMS Prince of Wales…F35..
“the number of Challenger 3 tanks would remain under review …”. I fear potentially downwards as much as upwards. I read somewhere (maybe this website) that the British Army now has only 158 Challenger 2’s nominally left on strength after the 2021 scrappages and the early 2023 Ukraine transfer. Perhaps that excludes a few tanks already in the hands of RBSL, but would it be possible to increase that 148 by enough to field three rather than two regular armoured tank regiments? I’m dubious. Also, money is being saved by only converting only the CR2’s who a survey identified as being in the best material condition. Fixing the more worn, battered and damaged hulls will be very costly.
The BA has more than 158 CR2 Tanks i can assure you .,if i could learn to format lists properly and had more time i can give you some key numbers,but for now 386 produced,302 of ALL conditions left before 14 were donated to Ukraine,227 in the current operational fleet,148 to be converted to CR3.👍
213 tanks on the active list following transfer of 14 tanks to UKR. Some of those will be with RBSL.
The decision to convert just 148 has nothing to do with how many CR2s were in good condition.
I find all these posts interesting but not sure if everyone is missing a glaring point that armour in this latest conflict has not been a game changer, whether it is the mass mobile junk heaps of the Russian divisions or NATO armour, The use of trained anti tank teams, drones and effective artillery seems to be what demoralises units and gain ground.
I know the Tank is in our hearts after all we invented it, but with all the cuts going on perhaps we need to concentrate on upgrades and increased artillery and anti tank weapons.
The big question is who will we be fighting next? And will a couple of hundred tanks make any difference.?
Oh one last thing why aren’t the Ukrainian military using giant viper to breach minefields? Or was it never as good as it was cracked up to be?
They are using the Viper to breach MFs mate and in regard to armour, has it been a game changer? Hard to tell if both sides have it, imagine if only one side did, then it would be a game changer for sure! The tank is a relevant today as any other platform, and the same as any other platform or system it adapts, changes and moves with the times! TTPs change, adapt and mirror the oppositions efforts at the same! At the end of the day it comes down to training and correct tactics! For example, both me and you could have a covert Glock 17, and if we draw at the same time I’m confident my skills, drills, knowledge and experience will give me that extra second to put two rounds into your chest (with a slightly slower and more final one to the front of your face) not being disrespectful but trying to give an example, cheers!
Thanks interesting to know they are using viper, I get what your saying ref armour, I think what I was getting at is that we all can have a wish list and bemoan the fact that our government has effectively destroyed our armed forces capability to project power, but we will have to decide what we can afford, armour is great if you have dominance in the air and the other resources,
that means a proper budget and procurement of the above, I can’t see that happening any time soon.
ref the Gunfight I am afraid you would probably miss with your first round using the Glock 17 where I would have double tapped your face twice with my CZ. Lol , the Glock maybe light but that’s where it ends.
I enjoy our chats.
Lol I have to agree, a number of successive governments have fell for the peace dividend bullshit, and we are weaker now than ever! The RN, then the RAF should be priority, but the Army still needs to be able to deploy a war fighting division which it cannot! As for our gunfight, it’s a covert job, my jacket zip is already undone, I have a waist holster and you are 30 feet away……no problems, like I said it’s all down to skills, drills, experience and training…..and I will follow it up with the good old fashioned, always effective kick in the nads 😂😂😂😇! Cheers 👍 (and as we are trying to shoot each other some fucker turns up in a tank)
Lol I love it, well it won’t be a challenger tank that turns up at this rate. they will all be in the work shops. Skill, drills and experience is a valid point, but never go into a gun fight thinking you are the only one with those attributes, that’s just what Putin did, !! Look where that’s got him. Cheers I’m off to sleep, gotta get up stupid o clock tomorrow, speak soon.
Did I mention I also have a grenade? Night night Micky boy, keep one eye open 😂😂😂👍 PS I know a few chubby tankies who are confident their gorgeous lump of armour ate fully serviceable at this time!
Ate? FFS predictive txt crap!
Cheers mate, I will sleep with my CZ under my pillow just in case.
😂👍
Korea Redback IFV wins Australian Army order.
Of note:
30mm Bushmaster gun
2 Spike LR launchers in turret
Ironfist APS
Some advanced Elbit sights with heads up displays and integrated with battle management system.
Also of note is that the order was roughly halved before contract was signed.
It was a required number of 450 cut back to 129 by thr aLP Goverment
Thanks for the numbers Col. So an endorsed Australian Army requirement for 450 IFVs is cut to 129 by a politician on a whim. Unbelievable. Australia is now less defended. A capability gap has been created. Just the same as happens here though.
One can only hope of more batches being ordered down the track
More batches of Boxer are expected as funding is in place for 1016 units – and the current 623 order can only equip 2-3 battalions out of 5 with the section carriers variant.
CR3 – I had expected DCP 2023 to make a statement on CR3 numbers as IR23/DCP23 was meant to consider the war in Afghanistan. We must wait for the Project WAVELL report seemingly.
Enough tanks for three regiments and some training tanks. In 1989 we had three armoured divisions
…and up to 1982 we had 4 armoured divisions in 1 (BR) Corps. Also let’s not forget the armd bde in Berlin throughout the Cold War, additional to the Corps.
If I’m right a lot of cut backs were ordered by the government in the 80s 90s Army Navy and Air Force,we are leaving the UK into a weak Force in General and other countries will notice this which if we came under attack say from Russia,we wouldn’t be able to defend efficiently.
Their we have it under review we have seen this government last year have spend the lowest level of funding compared to other countries in europe of just 2% just to keep ticking over. however cuts stilling coming and our armed forces having to cut now for future projects compare to other countries we are becoming a third rate country for defence no wonder the US are not happy with these cuts and we can’t keep having the US to fill the gap .