British tanks have arrived in Poland, their aim is to deter Russian aggression and to fill in for tanks Poland has donated to Ukraine.

14 Challenger 2 tanks assigned to ‘A’ Squadron of the Queen’s Royal Hussars arrived in Poland today.

The British tanks will be integrated into the Polish 21st Podhale Rifles Brigade, 18th Mechanized Division for six months as part of Britain’s growing military presence in eastern Europe since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The below tweet, translated, says:

The transfer of the British Challenger tank company to south-eastern Poland is coming to an end. The last tanks and accompanying vehicles will arrive within the next dozen or so hours. Tankers from will train with sub-units of the Iron Division.

Britain deployed Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks to Poland to allow Poland to supply Ukraine with T-72 tanks.

“We are looking more at what we can do to backfill in countries such as Poland, who may want to send heavier weaponry to help defend the Ukrainians”, Prime Minister Boris Johnson told a press conference in India back in April.

“We are looking at sending tanks to Poland to help them as they send some of their T72s to Ukraine. We’ve got to look at what more we can do military, we’ve got to keep intensifying the economic sanctions – we want to make sure there is wave after wave of intensifying pressure on Putin.”

The Ministry of Defence said the same month:

“These would be deployed on a short-term basis and operated by UK personnel to bridge the gap between Poland donating tanks to Ukraine and replacements arriving.”

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
171 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JOHN Withill
JOHN Withill
1 month ago

So we are filling gaps in Polands’ tank forces …what are we doing to replace our own ?

Chris
Chris
14 days ago
Reply to  JOHN Withill

We’re temporarily back filling for Polish tanks donated to Ukraine, Poland has ordered the upgrade of more Leopard 2A4 to Leopard 2PL standards to replace the T72s donated to Ukraine.

Here in the UK we’re a long way from the NATO frontlines in Poland and eastern Europe. I think we’ll be ok. If it comes to us needing our own tanks on our own soil, the proverbial has well and truly hit the fan.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago

I know they are only there to fill in gaps, but only 14 seems like such a pathetically small number. I struggle to see how Poland couldn’t fill that few in themselves.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago

This is just one Squadron, there may be other squadrons deployed to other parts of Poland.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Nah, the rest of the QRH will be going to Estonia if anywhere.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

I think they might have mentioned if that was the case.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago

Given that I’d rate a ChallyII at about 5+ times a T72 it might not be so silly?

TBH it might be a lot more than that given how easily the T72 is killed by NATO weapons. I’d suggest the converse could well be true and the Chally is close to impregnable to Russian tank rounds – the real ones that is.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
1 month ago

I agree, Ch2 vs T-72 is a bit like comparing a WW2 Tiger vs Sherman M4, in this case, the T-72 being the mediocre tank. Having said that, it appears a lot of the knocked-out T-72s were attacked from above or behind. So it would be interesting to see a hull down to hull down slug out (where the T-72 has reactive /enhanced armour) would work out

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago

First of all a T72 has to hit a Chally – sights: digital vs Cold War; and – real world effective range of gun – Chally would hit and kill before T72 could hit; and – effectiveness/consistency of rounds: this is something that doesn’t get enough air time. If you want to hit a target reliably you need rounds with highly repeatable characteristics. Cold War stuff that has been averagely stored won’t behave like that. Good for flattening schools and hospitals but not much use taking out on a one-shot-one-kill basis – you need to pepper the area and hope… Read more »

johan
johan
1 month ago

Have to remember they are there to replace the 14 tanks that Poland sent to the Ukraine.
its not the UK defend everyone who has failed to spend their own money to defend themselves.
As could be twisted as a act of invasion by Russia.

have to see the Bullshite spin that Russia applies

Jason Bannister
Jason Bannister
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

Poland has spent considerable money on its own defence, perhaps, the lack of UK defence spending is manifest in the paltry numbers we are sending to Eastern Europe as a show of NATO unity…

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

Not at all, we spend much more than Poland on a more rounded and niche capabilities! To talk of “paltry” numbers shows a lack of understanding of the rather bigger picture!

Jason Bannister
Jason Bannister
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

As a percentage of their GDP, Poland outspends UK. Poland has had to replace its legacy Warsaw Pact Eqpt and has made significant improvements in both quality and capability, whereas UK capability and ability to project Land Combat is reducing. What is blindingly obvious is that UK buys High End Capability, but buys too little. Both Ukraine and Russia have lost massive amounts of Eqpt and both are still in the fight. We have too little Eqpt to stay in a prolonged High Intensity fight with a peer. A dozen CR2 to Poland and 2 BGps to the Baltic changes… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago

Like I said we have more capabilities than Poland, which suck up funds, and which are seen second only to the US. Should we spend more, more wisely for sure! Do we have depth and sustainability, nope! Do we all know this but unable to change this, until our elected morons also see and understand it yep! There is one factor which few European NATO members also match and that’s the willingness to use the available kit and people and the preparedness and understanding that we will accept losses of both while doing it!

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago

14 Chally 2s could probably defeay 100 T72s though. The fact is against Russian junk these tanks will prove deadly.

Ian
Ian
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Mr Bell
After Cameron’s cut backs. , we only had 14 batteries that held a charge

peter Wait
peter Wait
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian

Cameron only real job was marketing outside politics and he thought the ASCOD was impressive lol

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  peter Wait

Yeah marketing thanks to his wife’s father at that.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Im glad otheres recognise him for the abolute charlatan he was – complete tosser was ‘call me Dave’ Cameron.

Mac
Mac
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Maybe in isolation…but 14 C2’s against 100 T72s, all at once?

C2’s are good but they wouldn’t overcome those sort of odds, in the same way Panthers & Tigers couldn’t overcome massed numbers of inferior Shermans.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

14 Chally 2s could probably defeay 100 T72s though

Haha, how?

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Ha ha why not? Tell us in your experience how this could not happen? It could, it could not, how do you know?

dave12
dave12
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Quite easily actually you obviously not a astute student of Iraq’s T72 performances against the CH1 and 2 nor do you seem to be up to date with Russia’s dire performance and training.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

Since when there have been performances of T72 vs Challenger in any way relevant besides anecdotal small data sample?

Challenger2 have never been in any meaningful combat.

dave12
dave12
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Right so you are forgetting Gulf war 1 in which the CH1 took out many T72’s and also broke the world record for the longest tank kill , CH2 took out a squadron of iraq T72’s in the Iraq war all of which no loses in both wars in fact CH1,2 has the best combat record and the T72 half the size of CH2 because for one the CH2 has protected ammo compartment, something the T72 does not have, hence they cook and launch their turrets on every time they get hit, add Dorchester armor to the CH2 , its… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Agreed, another chip on his/it’s shoulder handbag swinger 👍

Chris
Chris
14 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Alex, you’re either trolling or massively ignorant, either way it’s not a good look for you. During the Iraq war the Challenger 2 suffered no enemy losses, surviving multiple attacks that the Ukraine war has proven would have been total losses had the tank been the T72. Only one Challenger 2 has been lost in combat and that was a blue on blue where another Challenger 2 mistakenly attacked it. On one occasion a Challenger 2 was hit by 14 RPGs and a Milan anti-tank missile and survived. It was repaired and back in service 6 hours later. On another… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by Chris
Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

It happened in the Gulf War, most Iraqi tanks got knocked out.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

That was proven to be folly in ww2. German tigers and panthers would knock out allied armour with ease but not before being flanked and ultimately wiped out. Quality can make up for numbers to a degree, but only to a certain point where sheer numbers overwhelm the superior tech.

Simon
Simon
29 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Air power and lack of fuel were more of a problem

agracier
agracier
1 month ago

Never reveal all information to the enemy …

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago

14 tanks is a complete embarrassment. And with only HESH… Against modern era tanks… That’s just sad.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

They also fire APFSDS rounds

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Yeah that’s why the UK is pissing away money on the new turret. With the new gun. Yeah it’s really epic how amazing they are right now.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

HESH has always been the secondary round. APFSDS is the primary round.

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Care to enlighten us where you come from. It’s noticeable you usually come on here to post similar derogatory comments using language that suggests you are not a natural English speaker? Wind up merchant?

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  DMJ

Just another negative troll with a rather sad agenda! Internet warrior, but like Alex S!

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  DMJ

Racist much?

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Caught troll plays the racist card!!!!

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

How is that racist? Asking you which country you are from, it’s more nationalistic than race! Grow up and learn about racism before throwing that pathetic card into the ring!

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Oh dear more misunderstanding of the reasoning behind the backfilling. And HESH oops wrong yet again! Never mind eh.

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Why is the UK pissing away money on the Chally three with a completely different gun if it is so amazing? Yeah those 14 tanks will be devastating. But keep hope alive.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Oops again you seem to be confused, where did I say it’s amazing, I spoke about HESH and your lack of subject matter knowledge! Come on do try to keep up and stop the useless deflection answers when you know your wrong and not current!

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Keep up you muppet Chally 3 will have the standard nato calibre gun🙄 but of course you knew that didn’t you? As for pissing away money pray tell us your solution to our tank procurement?
Mind you you will probably bang on about Leopards or M1 both tanks that their respective nations are working on replacing in the next 10/20 years won’t you.

Cognitio68
Cognitio68
27 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

You shouldn’t underestimate HESH. You wouldn’t typically use HESH to destroy another tank you’d use an APFSDS round. However historically during the first gulf war HESH was sometimes used in an anti armour role because it was good enough to take out Iraqi T72’s and you’d also get a nice big smoking tank once you hit it. The army was finding that they couldn’t always tell if they’d hit a tank with a sabot round since it wouldn’t always brew up. Tank and crew would be dead but not noticeably dead from a long distance.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

It’s not just about numbers, it’s about showing willing and showing capabilities with partner nations! Poland is fast becoming the well equipped tip of the NATO spear and working closely with them, sends a message both to the Polish military and people and to potential aggressors ie that Nazi regime headed by Putin! Cheers.

George Parker
George Parker
1 month ago

In 1991Challenger 1 was more than a match for Iraqi T72. I assume Challenger 2 is even more than a match for any current Russian armour, with the possible exception of the T14 Armata. Even that modern vehicle would suffer if it is not fully integrated into an all arms battle group. The very problem Russia has faced in Ukraine. One thing is certain. They will learn from their mistakes and make changes. Resulting in battle hardened, experienced frontline troops. The above notwithstanding, the main threat to Challenger 2 in a NATO Vs Russia war would not be Russian armour.… Read more »

Emilio Meneses
Emilio Meneses
29 days ago

The message is clear: the UK is committed. According to the principle: “Too few to win, too many to let them die”.

Redpole
Redpole
1 month ago

Fourteen tanks… terrifying. Operation “lambs to the slaughter” continues.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Lambs with teeth though, enough to make the Orcs soil themselves.

johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Sat at home in your Audi and keyboard, makes you a Keyboard Warrior

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Emphasis on Red, clearly.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Johnsky’s new account I see.

JohninMK
JohninMK
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

No, I’m still here.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Condemn Putins invasion.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

14 Challengers to replace 200 T72 tanks is quite an upgrade in lethality for the Poles. We could have probably just supplied far less Chally 2 and they would have been as lethal as all those T72s combined 😏

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

You can’t supply less than a squadron otherwise you would have no support. But we should have sent more than a squadron – thats pretty feeble.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Well the Poles are well able to send Putin a running but the tanks they are getting from the Germans who after all can’t even supply their own forces presently are going to take time being delivered. The Poles are the third biggest supplier of weaponry to Ukraine so some temporary backfilling is very sensible to make sure their defence is maintained at high maybe higher levels with the useful idiot in Belarus blathering on.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

Oh dear more misunderstandings of the reasons behind the deployment!

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Redpole

And we’re also sending many thousands of rape alarms for the Polish women and kids in case the Russian rapist army decides it’s got more cannon fodder from their jails to backfill the many thousands of dead sad sacks, and then try to invade!!!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

We bought 386 CR2s in the late 90s. Today we can lay our hands on just 14 to deploy as a show of force to Russia. Pathetic.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Did you even read the article??

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Clearly he didn’t otherwise he wouldn’t have made such a fool of himself.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, I am capable of reading a brief, non-complex article. In what way have I made a fool of myself in stating that 14 tanks is a pathetically small number of tanks to deploy forward in the NATO area as part of NATO’s show of force? Most other people have said the same in this thread. You must think that a single squadron of CR2s is a lot. Do you have much military experience?

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Capable of reading but clearly not capable of understanding wider context. Most other people here have agreed that the Challengers are more than capable of combating superior numbers of inferior Russian tanks.
I’m guessing you peeled spuds?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, peeling spuds was not part of my Sandhurst course. I served 34 years in REME, got a degree in mechanical engineering on a vehicles-orientated course, did 4 postings to BAOR/BFG working with armour and was an Equipment Support Manager in Tank Systems IPT in Andover. In my civilian career I worked on armour projects for Abbey Wood and worked on CR2 LEP for Rheinmetall. Please remind me of your military background. The point I have made and others have too is that 14 tanks is a small number to deploy to Poland (who I understand are sending perhaps 200… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Agree. Wallace did make a good point during the Defence Committee questions though. When asked about mass? His response was, is it better to have something that looks good on a parade or something that can protect itself? This I believe was him alluding to having a smaller force, but with a better means to protect itself against, the same type of attacks Ukraine inflicted on the Russian masses. He did list off quite a few as he saw it clear deficits with the Army. Which were GBAD, ISTAR, EW and deep fires. What has not seen yet, is any… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks Davey. I like and respect Wallace – he served for 7 years and got a MiD for an excellent job leading a patrol that captured an entire Provo ASU in NI. I remember hearing ‘we will have a smaller but better army’ from Options for Change onwards. It began to grate quite quickly over the years. Certainly the army has those deficits that you mention, ranging from equipment that has aged but not been upgraded to outright capability gaps. I agree that it is interesting the TES kit has not been fitted – maybe that would send a too… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I don’t disagree. I just can’t see with the way things are currently, that the UK will be getting a larger Army during peacetime. Unless Russia becomes an real existential threat to NATO again as per the Cold War. It seems we have become too expensive to have in numbers. Yet it is always the “manpower” element of the Army, that continuously punches above its weight. For the Army to grow, there needs to be political will coupled with a vision. This could change, depending on gets to PM in a few months time. Although the sending of one Chally… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks Davey. I like all your comments. One of my concerns is that the army can do less as time goes by – the army could not now do an enduring brigade+ size operation such as Op HERRICK, Afghanistan, without the addition of the whole of 3 Cdo Bde and/or at least 6,000 Army Reserve soldiers. General Sanders, new CGS, talked of this being our ‘1937 moment’ however by 1937 we had been rearming for around 3 years and still had 2 more years grace to get fully up to strength and to modernise equipment. We won’t have 5 years… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

You’re more than welcome. For me, part of the problem is the reserve, or lack there of. The UK’s reserve of men and material is too small. I think this is something that the DS should be seriously looking at, especially in the current climate. Fine if we have a small “fully equipped force”. But and its a huge but. If we face the same levels of attrition and casualties that Ukraine has been sustaining, even as part of a larger NATO force. Our Army would be combat ineffective within 6 weeks. We simply could not sustain suffering 500 casualties… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
30 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks Davey, I would very much hope that we would not handle our ‘invasion’ as badly as the Russians and would wring more out of our air force such that they not only achieved air superiority very quickly but also started to ‘attrit’ enemy second echelon forces – and that we would handle armour within a combined arms battle with our infantry suppressing Infantry-operated anti tank weapons. However it is wise to ponder on our ability to weather a long high intensity conflict that is less manouevrist than we would like. Much greater minds than mine have suggeested that we… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Don’t mention options for change, that started the slide downhill till it became a momentum of its own and dragged thousands of people and kit with it! If I hear “more lethal and agile” once more I will head for the hills!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Don’t get me wrong: I’d love UK to be able to send 100 Chally2 to Poland. That would be a very strong message to anyone.

I also agree mass has a tremendous quality of its own. If you have numerical superiority and technical superiority you have highly effective conventional deterrence.

David
David
1 month ago

I’m afraid only the US can check both of those boxes. For the rest of NATO, it’s one or the other.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Sadly so.

But the conservative leadership race has some of the more credible candidates talking about raising defence spending.

Hopefully, that becomes a promise that has to be matched by all.

I’m still hopeful be could get all the Chally II and the full workable reserve upgraded.

As we all know that cost of upgrading units #139 -> #3?? Won’t be double as the main cost is in getting #1-#10 fully developed, upgraded and accepted.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

👍

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Good morning Graham. First, thank you for your 34yrs of service; you clearly have a the experience to draw upon for discussions such as this. I’m not questioning the decision to send 14 CR2s to Poland; those in the know picked that number for a reason. My concern is when we drop from the current 227 CR2s to 148 CR3s, what would have to be given up to send the same 14 to Poland if we had only 148 CR3? In your opinion, when we do fall to 148, how many do you think could be deployed at any one… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
30 days ago
Reply to  David

David, thanks for the compliment. There are of course 14 tanks in a squadron which includes A1 support from a REME Fitter section and an SQMS Team. A tank squadron is, practically, the smallest armour component that could be deployed independently of its parent regiment although that support element is the bare minimum. They may have deployed with a slice of A2 and B echelon support which would be non-standard. Others criticise me for carping but it is a small amount of armour, although we do also have troops deployed on eFP elsewhere in Poland and also in Estonia. The… Read more »

John Mayall
John Mayall
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I have a lot of military experience & I have seen first hand what the Chally can do mate! 14 C2s would make anyone think twice!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I don’t think many read the articles or do any further research on the issue. A squadron of 14 tanks has arrived in Poland for 6 months. No where does it say that’s it. I doesn’t mention how many more tanks are deployed elsewhere. Can probably find the folks moaning about 14 tanks are the same saying that the tank is dead and should be retired.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

With only 3 regiments, due to reduce to 2 when KRH convert, the fleet is getting plenty of usage. I hope the reduction to 2 is cancelled, given the delays to Ajax.

Graham is no fool given his background with Britsh armour, he must have missed the thrust of the article.

dave12
dave12
1 month ago

Yes well said Graham knows his stuff and shares my worries of a reduced tank force , still wiki has still got us as 227 CH2 , no need to reduce more and having familiy members as gunners on the CH2 ,they say the CH2 is still formidable even to modern standards.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  dave12

Wiki has 227 tanks on the active list – that is correct as far as the current ORBAT stands. That will reduce to 148 CR3s in time.
[We bought 386 CR2 in the late 90s. A good number of tanks – RP, Attrition Reserve and retired tanks – are sitting in the Ashchurch vehicle depot]

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I’ve always wanted to have a good snoop around Ashchurch to see what’s still stashed and see if it’s looked after and useable!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Bit of both I hear. They have some CHE I believe and other areas where the vehicles are left in shit state under leaking roofs. Needs a refurb, bit it’s great asset is the railway access.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

Yes, I’d read of this. I used to do lots of FOIA myself though never inquired here!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Very interesting and alarming that there was no earlier discovery of this problem. Disappointing that the FOI request only focussed on contamination (presumably by asbestos) and not on building condition, otherwise the issue that Daniele mentions might have been raised and attracted attention.

Simon
Simon
28 days ago

Had a quick look on Google earth and it seem a number of the buildeing are being fitted with new roofs

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
28 days ago
Reply to  Simon

That is pretty much what I would have guessed as it was 50/50 asbestos cement roof panels or asbestos insulation.

If it is roof panels I’m not surprised HSE are not that bothered.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
27 days ago
Reply to  Simon

Very interesting.

I guess the original idea was stop storing military vehicles as they would be made on a just-in-time-basis either by our mates in China or on a 3D printer…..maybe not….

Good thing we did keep it as I think we will be fixing a lot of it up pronto once PM is PM – she will make last two and the membership don’t like Rishi who doesn’t like defence. At least PM will give defence increases.

Simon
Simon
27 days ago

All I can see from her on defence is she is standing by the party manifesto to spend 2%

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

I always imagine dark corners hiding very old kit from years ago, ideal for a snoop about lol

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

To be honest I’ve indeed heard 1st hand of such a place, but it wasn’t Ashchurch. And as I’ve never confirmed the story either way I’m not mentioning where just in case.😉

Even the urban exploration lot wouldn’t get near it.

Oh I’m a tease! 😆

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

With your encyclopaedia knowledge of pretty much all things mil, I’m sure you have some very useful intel on any number of places! Oh and I do enjoy watching a few of these urban explorers cutting about in old military and civil defence sites! Would love to have a go, but would probably get lost/stuck/arrested/break a bloody leg….delete/insert chosen bad luck 😂👍🇺🇦

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Lol all of the above.
Yes, 28 days later I think is one? Some of the Muppets have been killed inside old places, dropped down deep shafts. It’s fun to watch and they go into some interesting places but it’s illegal for a reason.

Slava Ukraini!

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago

Still be good fun!!!!!!! Cheers mate 👍🇺🇦

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
27 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

All the very old stuff was cleared out in the 90’s once Treasury ruled on costs back on retained assets came in.

I’d be interested in how a non functional tank hull is valued on the balance sheet!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

I went to Ashchurch quite a few times as an Equipment Support Manager in Tanks Systems Support IPT in DLO Andover 2002-2003. I managed all non-CR2 tank derivatives (CRARRV, CHAVRE, CHAVLB, Cent BARV) plus did the disposal of CR1 and a tiny number of residual CH MBTs.

Conditions varied from hangar to hangar, let’s say.

Last edited 1 month ago by Graham Moore
Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Cheers, quite interesting time I bet!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Thanks Daniele, but I don’t think I did miss the thrust of the article.

The article talks of our supplying a sqn of 14 CR2 tanks to Poland to integrate into one of their brigades (as backfill) to enable Poland to supply T72s to Ukraine. I got that.

My comment, similar to many others, is that 14 tanks is a pathetically small number for the UK to supply to NATO’s forward area as part of NATO’s show of force.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Except it isn’t? It’s in addition to the EFP in Estonia.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I realise that it is in addition to EFP in Estonia. The article was all about Challenger tanks to Poland.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes but you can’t view them in isolation.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi Graham. I saw it a bit differently, in that considering that parts of the remaining 3 regiments are already deployed in a couple of BGs to Estonia then 1 more Squadron is not insignificant given how small the force is now?

I think the regiments still have 4 armoured squadrons plus HQ Sqn.
So we only posses 12 Sqns to tanks to start with.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Hi Daniele. I see your POV, aggregating our eFP effort in Estonia and Poland with the subsequent and recent deployment of an armoured sqn to Poland as a backfill, and contending that we ae not doing badly overall. As a significant NATO member I feel that a single squadron (one-twelfth of our active fleet) to Poland is a small scale effort, no matter that others laud the relative quality of our 20-year-old unmodenised tanks. A problem with deploying a single squadron to Poland is that it will ordinarily deploy with thin support, so-called A1 support – a REME fitter section… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Indeed. Without it, it matters not how many tanks, SPGs and men you have.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

Unrelated Daniele but I think you where talking about the lack of capability in Phase 1 establishments to take on Ukranian volunteers the other day, did you see the news that 11 SFAX are taking over that tasking?

IMO perfect job for them, low threat training missions is what the SFA’s are for, and it would have been criminal to have them and not use them for this. Also am thinking this will be a good argument to keep 11 SFAX and ASOX in any future reviews.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Morning Dern. Saw a headline that UKR had arrived in UK but didn’t read it.
Yes, I was asking if Phase 1 had the capacity.

Agree, seems madness not to now they exist.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

Right, just read up on it.
Says at 3 sites including one in NW England. Not difficult for some of us to ID despite them understandably not naming locations in the press.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Monkey, we react to the news we have today rather than speculate that we might be supplying a lot more than 14 tanks to Poland. In the army we were taught never to speculate or create rumours, but to deal in facts. To me, 14 tanks is a pathetically small number. I certainly do not think that the tank is dead solely because the Russians don’t know how to use and support the inferior tanks that they have and that the Ukrainians have some anti-tank weapons which they use well – I have consistently championed heavy armour that is handled… Read more »

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

A very valid point in general about people not reading the articles or doing any research. People often rant on here on this basis or ask questions a simple Google search would answer

Last edited 1 month ago by DMJ
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Yes, why do you say that? The article talks of our supplying a sqn of 14 CR2 tanks to Poland to integrate into one of their brigades (as backfill) to enable Poland to supply T72s to Ukraine.
My comment, similar to many others, is that this is a pathetically small number. Clearly you think a single squadron is a massive amount? Robert, do you have much military experience?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi Graham. Yes, 14 years in the RN. It’s what the Pols have asked for to fill the gap. It isn’t 14 Challengers against the whole Russian Army. It isn’t pathetic, and as you well know, we have a considerable number of Army/RAF personal and equipment deployed across Eastern Europe alongside our NATO allies. This is just one small part of it.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Biggest European NATO contributor to that deployment I read.

As usual, HM forces can step up and actually deploy, regardless of overall numbers. They are not for show like some.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

We are always there when it counts. 🇬🇧

Simon
Simon
30 days ago

As you say that is the inportant point, being able to deploy abroad. Same as having a blue water navy.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

That’s nearly as many as Amatas in the whole Russian Army despite them supposedly in mass production for some years …. Well until at least they had their serious problems in Syria and are having to be re engineered to sort them out so we won’t see any of those in Ukraine let alone Poland. But agreed ridiculous how casual over numbers we are being.

John Stott
John Stott
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

You know as far as Russia is concerned, first use of “tactical” small yield nuclear weaponry still forms part of their doctrine. Always has been the case. So numbers games on the ground do not really count. If they felt they were losing they would not hesitate. That makes the numbers game being banded around as a bit daft to me. And realistically, if Nato ever got into a conflict with Russia? That country sucks up invaders as history proved at least twice. At least some Nato members are playing hardball, Poland is a good example. The addition of Finland/Sweden… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  John Stott

NATO wouldn’t be do foolish as to attempt to invade. Napoleon, Hitler invaded because they wanted to conquer Russia.
NATO is a defensive alliance, all its needs to do is defeat Russia by rendering it incapable of continuing military operations against neighbouring countries. It’s a vast land area but it’s manufacturing capabilities, population, and economy are dwarfed by NATO’s.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes but Kaiser Wilhelm and Emperor Meiji both succeded, we need to stop buying into the idea that everyone who invaded Russia failed.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Neither succeeded in invading and conquering Russia. Small bits yes, but that’s akin to saying Nazi Germany invaded Great Britain on the basis it occupied the Channel Islands.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Really? Did the conquest of the Channel Islands force Britain to Surrender? Did it cause massive territorial concessions? Did it mean a collapse and change in governement? No? Then it’s not at all akin to saying Nazi Germany invaded Great Britain on the basis of occupying the channel islands. In 1914-1917 the German Empire outfought the Russian Army and brought the Russian Empire to it’s knees, and ended with the collapse of it’s government and resulted in the handing over of a huge area to the central powers. How is that not invading and conquered? The Japanese invaded, beat the… Read more »

Uninformed Civvy Lurker
Uninformed Civvy Lurker
1 month ago
Reply to  John Stott

NATO doctrine in an invasion by Russia ( as NATO isn’t going to attack Russia ) would be to hold Russia and push them back to their border. NATO wouldn’t be pursuing Russians back into Russia in an attempt to capture Moscow. The “Russian sucking up invaders argument” doesn’t t hold up. Also to escalate the conflict to nuclear because you invaded Poland and NATO are pushing you back to your border , with no intention of following you into your territory and not threatening your cities is a massive escalation and puts your entire existence at risk, simply because… Read more »

John Stott
John Stott
1 month ago

Then you do not understand Russian thinking clearly. First use is a reality and they would not think twice about it.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  John Stott

You’ve been listening to far too much Russian propaganda. No. T
hey won’t commit mass suicide.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky
Last edited 1 month ago by Chris
Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Make more of an effort to understand the deployment mate and it will assist your future comment quality and contribution, cheers.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Sorry previous abrupt post finished by accident prior to completion, I believe it’s more to do with supporting the Polish who are currently becoming the tip of the NATO spear. 14 isn’t much, could we have sent more, nope it would be a struggle due to our limited numbers and our ongoing deployments to the Baltic states. But it gives Poland and the Polish people the physical presence of UK heavy armour, and proof that Poland as a valued and critical member of NATO have now come off age. Apologies for the previous brief and rather abrupt reply, spazzy finger… Read more »

BobA
BobA
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

I take what people like you and Daniele are saying, but I agree with Graham. I think a single Sqn is too limited to be effective, even if operating in a foreign Bde. It’s the logistical issues and combat persistence that is the issue. We all know the limitations of operating away from your own logistic chain. Whilst I understand the point of context, esp given our wider deployments we shouldn’t lose perspective- concentration of combat power is a key principle of war. Yes it increases our overall commitment but I think that’s only valid from a force generation perspective,… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  BobA

Agreed, despite my avatar and history I’m a serious believer in heavy armour, in force, able to take and hold ground and act as a mobile reserve, with the added consideration of the moral factor! Even if we wanted to deploy more, for any reasonable length of time we probably couldn’t generate many more if we wanted! As Ukraine has shown (reminded and proven again) numbers do matter and I’m every area in our militarily we are lacking them! Cheers Bob.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Thanks AB. Thought I did understand the deployment, well I understood the article. Fully understand the Chally sqn deployment is backfill for the Polish in order to release T72s to Ukraine. Our deployment is certainly a gesture, as much a political/NATO Alliance gesture as well as a military one. I also recognise that we have had British personnel contribute to eFP missions in Poland and Estonia for some time and that the Challys can be seen as an addition to that, so we therefore shouldn’t feel the recent tanks contribution as too slight, overall. Different ways of looking at it… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I just seen Ron’s question, similar to my question.
So it seems, as a matter of cost to bring back to service?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
30 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I cannot see Ron’s question. Are we talking about the feasibility of bringing back retired CR2s to service? More than a cost issue. Many of those tanks will have been stripped for spares and thousands of parts would have to be ordered – lead times will be long and some of those parts won’t have been made for years, so unless obsolescence management was top notch there would be a problem. The time taken would be huge – just to evaluate the conditon of the retired fleet would take enormous time and effort. Who could do the work of evaluating,… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Mate as I’ve said to Bob above despite my history and avatar I’m a firm believer in Armour and all it brings to the party! We are wafer thin in just about everything and if we needed to be reminded (some do/did) numbers do matter, despite what tech and force multipliers we have. Cheers.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
30 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Cheers AB.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Could the Army get the other 160 of so CR2 not in service, back in service? Or have they been scrapped or sold?
I appreciate learning from others with the subject knowledge like you Graham.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
30 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Hi Meirion, My role in the Tank Systems Support IPT in Andover was in 2002-2003 and I left the army in 2009, so I am somewhat out of date. We bought 386 CR2s from 1998. I am quite sure that one tank was destroyed in the friendly fire incident in Iraq and one or more were very badly damaged in incidents in training such as the breech explosion at Castle Martin range. So a very small number (probably under 5) will be unusable from that perspective. When we reduced to 227 active tanks as a consequence of defence cuts (SDSR… Read more »

Something Different
Something Different
1 month ago

Need three armoured divisions with Abrahams, CV2000 and PzH 2000

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago

Good. The number Poland is hosting are not the point. It sends a political message.

Ron
Ron
1 month ago

Does anyone have an idea how many Ch2s we have in storage. If I remember correctly we had about 450 of these in the 1990s. To be honest if we were to have only two front line units of Ch3s I would have a reserve brigade of Ch2s. They are still more than capable to take on the backbone MBT of the Russian force’s. Then again I would rather have 280 Ch3s in five units of 56 each forming a heavy division and a further 112 for a reserve unit/training and maintance. For the size of the Uk and its… Read more »

Simon
Simon
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

I believe there were 386 purchased. there have been a couple of losses, so few then that now and that assume none have been scraped

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

We bought 386 CR2s from 1998. Qty 1 was destroyed in the friendly fire incident in Iraq and I know of no others destroyed, sold or scrapped by smelting. So we should have 385. 227 are declared as in service following defence cuts and CFE treaty – a mix of: UE (3 Type 56 regiments but to reduce to 2 when KRH re-role/convert) Trg Org RP and Attrition Reserve (was WMR). So there should be 158 (385-227) retired tanks in storage in Ashchurch (they will be in various states of repair and some will be ‘Christmas trees’). RP and Attrition… Read more »

Simon
Simon
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

There were a couple of nasty training accidents at Castle Martin range, that may have written a couple off

p_thomas
p_thomas
29 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

In 2015-16 we did FOIA replies to various party’s regarding armour numbers, disposals, at that time the govt wanted to fully dispose of 72 challengers. At the time we thought that’s a stupid idea. And someone did make a mistake of admitting it had been out forward

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago

Despite some of the usual pessimism shown on here I notice the Poles have not refused the offer of a Sqn or our tanks to help out for a time!

peter fernch
peter fernch
1 month ago

Oh Please do you really beleive a squadon of 14 tanks are going to deter Russia . Why do we keep kidding ourselves the we being the press and Mod that we have the numbers to frighten anybody ..Make beleive

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

Modern?

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

T62,T72?

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

More modern than the vast amount of rapist armour that’s knocking about being loaded with stolen fridges and tellies!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Yes modern. Do you know what systems are on a challenger 2? Do you understand how they operate as part of a larger force but are also able to make there own decisions when needed. Add into that the constant training and it makes the modern challenger 2 tanks one of the most respected armoured elements in nato.

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Just stop. There’s a reason they are being replaced but only in a tiny number. The UK people always love to think that their kit is the finest in the world. Stop gobbling up the things that your government feeds you. In a real war. The alleged world-beating . It just looks sad.

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

What govt do you listen too then?
A good few of the posters on here have actually served their country on said systems and have more knowledge on capabilities than any govt minister!(comrade)

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

They are not being replaced, they are being upgraded, all nations upgrade their military equipment….according to your beloved government the T14 Amarta is a world beater …..and yet it is not being used in combat.

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

Wow that’s a handbag post if I’ve ever seen one! That chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy!

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

I love the tumble weed moments of silence when you get handed your arse by another poster and you have no answer, as you realise your knowledge is limited. Your posts are just angry “ my missus got banged by a Brit squaddie” gum bumping sound bites! Do make more of an effort, and if it makes you feel better, Brit squaddies bang a lot of wives/GFs, your not special. Cheers 👍

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yeah, i know what is in Challenger, outdated armour, outdated sights, outdated FCS. Good gun albeit with no future.

It is less old than a T-72 but it is not modern.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Still superior to any T72, the CH3 will be even better.

Airborne
Airborne
30 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

But the chally has a well trained crew who are concentrating on soldering and the mission, and not wondering who they will rape next, hoping the stolen washing machine and fridge don’t fall off the turret, and who think combined arms warfare involves looking out of the hatch seeing another turret fly past them, on fire with the arms of the commander (12 months served Sgt cough!) flailing about, then that’s the difference my little troll (who changed his avatar to support a post by his previous avatar and who says he is from Portugal then decides he isn’t) TROOOOLL… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
30 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I wouldn’t go as far as to say outdated in my opinion. It really depends what it’s compared to. The expect enemy it would face would be a T-62, T-72, T80 or variation of them. Now if it’s being compared to a brand new development of a tank things could look at bit outdated. But the challenger2 isn’t going to be fighting against a leopard 2A7, latest Abrams. By all accounts I’ve seen the challenger 2 still does it’s job just as good as allied tanks. It’s budgets really. The uk could of developed and made 500 new top of… Read more »

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

More modern than the T72, T80, and T90A tanks being fielded by Russia.

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  peter fernch

You do realise that the ‘14’ tanks are not going to be taking on what’s left of the Orcs army all on their own don’t you?🙄

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago
Reply to  peter fernch

They will be supplementing Polish Armour, so they would not be alone if Russia attacked.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

Which ever way you look at it it’s a P.R. exercise to show support for an old ally and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But watch the Polish vodka lads.

David
David
1 month ago

On a separate note, does anyone know how Ploland is replacing the T-72s sent to Ukraine? I read somewhere that they might be getting Abrams but not sure if this is accurate.

AM
AM
1 month ago

First of all, I hope that it’s only the first batch of hundreds of tanks to replace the ones donated to Ukraine; secondly, I would like to believe that Polish military will be gradually trained on how to operate them, so that they can be used in the field without engagement of British forces, and last but not least – it should be translated as Podhalanian Fusiliers Brigade not Podhale rifle brigade, I believe.

Glenn Hahn
Glenn Hahn
29 days ago

So Poland sends the Ukraine 240 tanks and 100 Armored personnel carriers….Britain sends Poland 14 tanks to “back fill”