Steel cut on Challenger 3 tank turret as production starts

Yes assuming the army completes all the purchases under future soldier they will be in good enough state. In a NATO world our principal responsibility is the North Atlantic and Norway. If China kicks off at same time we may be in a position of having to handle this area with little assistance from anyone else. No one needs a British armoured division in Eastern Europe. Russian submarines cutting cables and pipelines could cripple the UK very quickly. That’s where the defence budget should be focused. Home defence comes first.

UK geostrategic position has been to ensure no one power gains complete dominance over the European continent. In order to achieve this some land forces will be needed to support our European allies and for good politics. Out of the three largest powers in Europe, UK is currently the only one most willing to get their hands dirty. Also, Americans have historically always been a bit sensitive about getting involved in European wars.
With this in mind I feel that UK armoured deployments to eastern Europe will be rather necessary and important, although maybe not on the scale of a division. As one point, the presence will help encourage other allies to step up, it will also show our eastern neighbours that they are supported and also provide potentially vital operational capabilities to our allies.

But the shopping list is large, I’m a bit out of date, but in recent history, we have needed funds to ensure basic servicemen numbers are met and to ensure adequate supply of spares. Neither of which are sexy, but both are essential. Following this, further capabilities in the undersea domain would be nice.

That’s a very pre 1945 Geo politics view of Europe. The reality is Europe is United under one power structure the EU. Russia’s tiny industrial base and shrinking population has managed to take it a whopping 25 miles across the Ukrainian boarder before getting bogged down. It has zero chance of posing a conventional land threat to Europe and the EU is easily big enough to look after itself with no help from the US or the UK. I just don’t see the relevance of use for British armoured division especially when the threat from the Russian navy and China is so acute.

Agreed, the danger is a naval assault which goes much further than 25 miles. Few civilians to get in the way and the winner takes all as has been the case throughout history. I would double up on SSN’s,ASW and marine RPV’s etc. In fact almost anything that floats.

What you write is reasonable. However, the reality is that ‘Europe’ has the United States to thank for its defence after 1945 because this is in the United States interest (and the U.K.’s). Otherwise the record for Europeans combining to defend themselves is scant, driven by an impulse that was always and remains politically imaginative rather than militarily realistic. N.A.T.O. it is.

I think the tank has gone the way of the battleship and horse.

Horses you say… the 500+ horses the British Army still fields alongside 148 tanks.

🙂

What!? No donkeys!?

No, but we have several hundred donkey whallopers… 😉

A man on a horse with a NLAW maybe the way to go. In rough terrain or forested land i can see they would be quite effective.I would put my money on the horses.Certainly worth investigating.

Your grandfather was a Cossack.

Thing about horses is they are clever than people, one bang and they are off at full pelt in the opposite direction and bugger the guy on top.

100% correct tanks are finished .

If the tank is obsolete why has only Belgium discarded it?

They are obsolete finished cannon fodder for 3 rd world armies

Peter, you cannot be a serious commentator on the armed forces with a comment like that.

The battleship is obsolete – no-one has any, none are being built, they were superseded by very different ships without the battleship’s drawbacks. The tank is only obsolete if no-one has any, none are being built and they have all been superseded by different AFVs.

Only Belgium has scrapped the tank and not because it was ‘vulnerable’ or because its role was better carried out by another AFV type – they wanted to save money. No other nation is scrapping tanks and the ‘axis of evil’ nations (Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) – potentially the West’s enemies – have thousands of them.
The new Russian Armata if and when fielded in quantity may very well be the best tank in the world.

Some have woken to the fact that there is a counter to the tank – well, the first counter to the tank was designed in 1917 and fielded in quantity by Germany in 1918, so an anti-tank weapon is not new. There are many counters to the tank and have been for over a hundred years, as there are counters to each and every other vehicle, weapon or the dismounted rifleman. Does not make all of them obsolete, otherwise no-one will have an army.

A sub can sink a frigate – we still have frigates. A MANPADS can down an aircraft – we still have aircraft.

The tank is the best protected weapon system on the battlefield so it is less vulnerable than everything else. I would rather be in a tank than a 4 tonne truck on the battlefield.

In terms of role, there will always be a need for a highly mobile, well protected vehicle with a large direct fire cannon, which can deliver shock action, destroy enemy tanks and support the infantry. That is the tank. It will only be obsolete when all armies scrap them.

Have to look at way Russia has employed its tank formations. In some places Ukraine has also purposely flooded areas. But mostly Russians are choosing to stay on roads. In a more conventional war, the tanks would having a better day. So no, I don’t see the tank becoming obsolete. Akin to recent arguement S400 etc would make 4th gen fighter jets all obsolete.

Was is Stalin who said “quantity has a value of its own”. Its old doctrine and bad tactics which has largely contributed to Russian losses. Together with no integration with airborne assets.

Pleased we are sending more NLAWS. Ukrainians like them more so than Javalin in most engagements (urban). On some of the captured tanks, the ERA is missing. Allot of the Russian kit is poorly maintained. Maybe via corruption or lack of funds. It’s old but still be more effective if they weren’t so tatictally inept.

Finally people are starting to wake to what the actual threats are, as you say it’s primary the job of the EU and the land powers in Europe to look after the eastern flank. I think somewhere inside the MOD they understand this hense why your only getting 148 tanks. We need to be navy and air force heavy with a smaller army equipped with the best but in numbers we can afford and actually need

You advocate our army to be small – well it is, so you must be pleased. Putin must be pleased too.

No on the contrary I’d love to see the army expand 2x but alas Whitehall is taking defence for granted again. With our budget and needs unfortunately the army has to play support to the other services, now that doesn’t mean they need to shrink further just if we want the best equipment there has to be a trade off

With any military operation there is the concept of the supported service and the supporting services. Thus Op Corporate (Falklands, 1982) was a navy lead, with land and air forces supporting. Op Granby (Gulf War 1) was an army lead, with navy and RAF supporting.
Each service needs to be strong enough to assume the lead role when tasked. If there was a land war in Europe (or elsewhere) in which NATO played a part, then the British Army would need to be strong enough to be a credible lead service. A country with a budget the size of the UK should be expected to be able to field at least one expeditionary division (but we can’t at the moment, so thats embarrassing).

What RN and RAF-led operations do you foresee in the near to middle term?

The moment the government decided that we would play a supporting role in a coalition, in all current and future conflicts was pretty much the death of a larger army. All we need is to generate one American style heavy armoured BCT, hense 148 figure. There really is no need for 2-3 times that number what with the budget being what it is, no I know we should be getting more for our money if you look at Europe for example but these tanks with aps and smart ammo are obviously a lot more expensive than 1980s tanks where we could afford 900 of them. The threats we face now are a lot more numerous than they used to be, where global terrorism requires a certain response that is totally different to say deterring Russia. The mod need to make the budget fit for as many threats as possible and unfortunately in our modern age things like cyber and undersea cables are now more prominent than a large armoured “fleet in being”to deter future aggressive states. In an ideal world we would have a large army but we are where we are with that, and things like expeditionary warfare special forces and carrier strike are now our trump cards and where the investment should be.

I could hardly disagree more – the defence of our continent is hardly some EU only issue that the UK can now distance itself from because of Brexit.

No – as a NATO member state the UK has a unambiguous obligation to the mutual defence of other member states. Therefore, were Russian air and ground forces to attack NATO states in Eastern Europe for example – hardly a unthinkable scenario given current events – then surely we would be expected to react to that situation in a appropriate, timely and military useful manner.

Do you think it all likely that any NATO state under such an attack would be at satisfied with a fellow NATO member that was unable to assist them practically because they had spent all their defence budget on aircraft carriers and submarines that they were fond of but were of little, or indeed no, immediate use?

It seems quite obvious to this observer of the defence scene that all NATO states – UK included – urgently need to rebuild a significant field force in Eastern Europe, much as we once had in West Germany during the first Cold War. So a British Armoured Brigade (or 3) in Poland etc would I think be very welcome development as far as I’m concerned.

Europe maybe big enough, but it’s not good enough. Who’s supplying the most and the best -the UK and the usual Johnny come lately Americans. I cannot see that ever changing because the people who want a United States of Europe are the same people who view the world through rose tinted spectacles.They think you can do deals on gas etc with those passively threatening to nuke you. A cosy chat will settle everything mentality.Ask the Ukrainians what they think of that.

The ones who are “Johnny come lately” in this are the Brits. The US has been providing billions, yes billions, in financial and military aid, not the paltry amounts the UK has been giving Ukraine, since 2015. Only until the invasion were the Brits to be found, then, as usual strutting around pretending that the meager amounts they were furnishing Ukraine are of a crucial nature when the US has been there for years with billions.

You can’t criticise us Brits because the Americans stump up more than we do – they are a superpower with an economy an order of magnitude higher than ours. However until Biden’s signature yesterday on a huge aid package, we were the largest humanitarian donor.
From http://www.gov.uk: ‘7 March 2022 The UK pledges extra £100m in aid, UK now the largest bilateral humanitarian donor to Ukraine’.

The point was about timeliness. We delivered lethal aid and training teams before the Americans, from early 2015 under Op Orbital.

However it is not a competition.
We should all pull together.

A greater concern is that UK and US seem to be ignoring the obligations made in the Budapest memorandum of 1994.

What glue have you been sniffing? If it wasn’t for the UK, US and Poland setting the precedence with the sanctions. The EU would still be floundering over trying to make a decision. Especially over the gas debacle. Or Germany initially preventing arms supplies from the UK. If anything the EU was pressurized into agreeing with the sanctions. The conflict in the Ukraine has highlighted the intractability of various factions within the EU in trying to make a quick and all inclusive decision.

Consider the EU’s reaction to the fact finding mission that the Polish, Czech and Slovakian leaders undertook to Kyiv to meet Zelensky. Van de Leyen and Macron looked like they were going to throw their teddies out of the cot, when asked during a press conference. Why did they feel that they had to undertake such a mission?

How would Ukraine’s forces have performed without the significant amount of additional arms supplied by EU countries, if they hadn’t finally relented on the sanctions and providing help? The NLAWS and Javelins provided by the UK and US would still make a difference. But without the food, small arms ammunition etc provided by the EU. I would suggest that the Russians would have already encircled Kyiv.

I agree that this conflict is hurting Russia’s ability to counter NATO. They will struggle to replace their stocks of Iskander and Kaliber missiles in the short term. But never underestimate the resolve of desperate men, especially those whose plan of recreating a modern CCCP has become a cluster-fcuk!

Unfortunately it’s still accurate, one of the reasons for the UK’s opposition to the EU’s ever closer union policy and against having a European standing army.
I would gently disagree regarding how United the EU currently is overall. Yes there is regulatory harmony, but politically and culturally there are definate splits and differences. You can see these clearly from the initial EU state by state responses to the Russian aggression.
Very interesting points concerning the true strength of the Russian armed forces. I too wonder why they aren’t doing so well in Ukraine and whether this is symbolic of Russia being weak or for other reasons, e.g. low moral and poor logistical planning. I do paint the Russian navy with the same brush, yes they have lots of kit, but their modern equipment numbers are modest. One wonders if their navy would fare any better than their armed forces. China, however, is a different beast all together.
I do disagree with the Statement that the EU can look after itself without the UK or USA. Currently I think the splits and divisions in the EU would be taken advantage of by any adversary. You do have to wonder whether Germany would have stopped nordstream 2 without UK and USA pressure, personally I doubt it, but am not privy to the behind the scenes info. Likewise, you have to wonder whether Germany would have supplied any weapons without external pressure.
If you took UK and USA out if the equation, I do not think that most of the EU has ‘the will to fight’ . Based upon their current split policies to China and Russia.
Yes, undersea capabilities are one of the vital war-fighting resources. But as with anything the limitations are costs and for submarines build space. I think looking into underwater drones is a very sensible option, however I still feel the purchase of a few DE subs would be worthwhile. Even for that though you are talking hundreds of millions. I think, for the cost, and the strategic benefits it would give, upgrading at least another 50 challenger tanks would be worthwhile.

I think that strategic imperative has returned, though not in the dame way. If the EU unifies strategically and militarily (which would be a disaster becuase they have no hope of being unified strategically enough to be effective; hwo can 27 countries formalise a strtategy and choose where to deploy their forces?) then that pushes UK influence out of europe, which France seems intent to do. The way to combat this is to champion nato and be a big enough military power to always give us a seat at the table

Most of the EU countries disagree.

John, do you think assigning a British division to European defence is a lot? It isn’t. Shame we could not today field a division though, more like 1 or 2 brigades/BCTs. Army intent is to be able to field a warfighting div in 2025, as I understand.

Evening Graham, I think it is all relative. A division is usually quite a large unit, from what I understand you would be looking at around 4-500 tanks for an armoured challenger division (as we were talking about tanks specifically in earlier comments). If we had to stop Russia alone, a division would feel rather small. As things stand though we are not alone so I feel our role is more to show willing, chivvy mainland Europeans to pull their weight and get involved, and to provide a significant ‘sting’ so to speak. I think we could achieve this with the deployment 1-2 tank regiments (50-100 tanks). I suppose in a nutshell the goal is providing the minimum force possible so that adequate funding can be allocated elsewhere. As we have lots of allies in europe I think the cost to benefit ratio for the uk of deploying a division would be too high.

John,
A division (Maj Gen commanding) is a formation not a unit (Lt Col commanding).
We don’t have armoured divisions (by description) now, however a division would be considered reasonably well equipped with tanks if it had 168 tanks (a regiment per brigade) and very well equipped if it had 224 or 280 tanks (ie 4 or 5 tank regiments in the div).
Not sure where you get the idea of 4-500!! We only have 227 declared and that figure is reducing to 148.
We deployed 221 tanks to Gulf War 1 (many of which were attrition reserve and not used) and 120 tanks to Gulf War 2.

Are you suggesting that there is a scenario where UK would attempt to stop Russia alone?? We are in NATO – if there was an operation against Russian forces we would not be alone – there would be 29 other countries alongside us.

Our role currently as regards the current Russo-Ukraine war (in additon to sanctions) is in continuing to provide a presence in Estonia and Poland with eFP, and to continue to supply Ukraine with weaponry and other warlike stores.

If the balloon really went up (we would not balk at the cost of supplying whatever we had). If NATO was in conflict with Russian forces for whatever reason, our role would change again. We are best at providing flank protection (RM in the north of Europe, RN in the south) and positioning as much heavy metal as we can as part of a SACEUR strategic reserve in the west of Germany (Sennelager/Paderborn hub) with RAF prepared to strike from UK bases and perhaps German bases – however greater minds than mine may have a different deployment option.

Name one other NATO army other than the US that has living operational experience of Armoured Divisional level warfighting? Name one other NATO army that can conduct all-arms operations at Brigade level and has done so in the last 20 years (maybe France). And now you realise why the British Army is needed by NATO in Eastern Europe. There is a gang on here that seem to wish the Army away, but it is still the case that wars are ultimately decided on land and in the NATO context, it’s vital. I’m not naïve (or arrogant) enough to say that the Royal Navy and RAF are irrelevant – I fully get their value, but we’re dreaming if we think we can put all of our eggs in those two baskets either as an individual nation or in the NATO context.

And for those who think we can just give PIDS to the RM… I spent 5 years in that Brigade and although individually very capable, they’ve always struggled a bit when it comes to true combined arms above Coy level. It’s just not what they do, they are fundamentally a raiding force and they’re really good at that.

Yes but those operations were outside of NATO, also remember we did not deploy and armoured division the second time but effectively and armoured infantry division. The US itself only has one armoured division. Armoured divisions are slow to move and their logistics are terrible. Tanks are still useful but they are not the core of the force any more and you need to ask if the logistics of getting a tank there are worth it for the capability of a 120mm gun. Countries in area like Poland and Germany should supply the majority of the heavy armour forces well countries like the UK and US supply key enablers, expeditionary forces on the flanks and supplemental army forces in the main theatre . I think we should have tanks just not armoured divisions or large permanent forces guarding Poland.

I believe the US has 3 armoured divisions on paper.

Nonetheless, the point that BobA made is that regardless of what *should* be the responsibility of Continental NATO, the reality is that those divisions are every inch as suspect as the Russian BTGs that have been entertaining us the past month. So no, I disagree that “the EU can look after itself without help from US or UK”.

Furthermore, the British Army should retain the ability to defend its interests unilaterally to some degree, and while a naval and air focus is natural for an island nation, 1 credible armoured division plus all the enabling bells and whistles is surely not much to ask for.

In a nutshell 👍

Absolutely spot on.

In fact on paper the US have 4 armoured divisions as well as 2 Stryker divisions (not including national guard).

At last someone on here speaks some sense , to my knowledge we haven’t lost an RN sailor in action ( at least at sea) since 1982. There have been over a thousand British soldiers and yes some RM killed in action since with many, many, more horribly wounded too. Every major conflict we have been in since has been conducted and decided on land. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War 1 and 2 to name but some . In all of these the British Army has taken a leading role and although valued our European allies have provided very much a supporting cast. It is for this reason that we are so valued by the US not for the contribution we make at sea. People need to stop playing fantasy fleets and acknowledge where the real threat lies – it lies on land.

Think some in the SBS might disagree with you wrt Royal Navy losses.

I think I acknowledged that when I stated ‘ and yes some RM’ . Point still stands, those losses occured occured on land.

Good points. When did the navy last sink an enemy ship? When did an RAF fighter last dogfight against an enemy ‘plane? Contrast that to the huge amount of army involvement in kinetic wars over many decades – our tanks have been in action many times.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1629.html

Could Britain deploy a Division today?

Britain and France would both struggle.

As to combined arms Royal deployed to Falklands and 2* Gulf and acquitted themselves well.

The Army just pished 10,000 pids up against the wall because they could not fill the places but wanted to maintain the braid structure; total braid arrogance that lost the armed forces the lot.

And I was Green.

No, we can’t deploy a Division today, but we can deploy 2 divisional headquarters that actually function. My point is that we have the professional memory to do it and manning, equipping and training a Division is exactly what we should be doing in NATO (and what we are valued for). When you talk to German (and Polish) staff officers, they fully recognise that their organisations have never actually done it for real. They recognise the real life experience that the British Army bring to the party.

And yes, in the Falklands (40 years ago) 3 Cdo Bde did do some combined arms, but the armour was 4 vehicles. What people don’t accept is that the RM are not an army. They don’t have all of the arms – they are in essence an elite infantry Regiment. They hold niche skills (like amphibious planning – I annoyed a Bootneck Col by telling him that the load plan for an LC was just the same theory as a 4 toner 🙂) and Mountain / Arctic etc but you wouldn’t get the same effect by just transferring PIDs to them from the Army.

Thanks for engaging, appreciate it.

And it is true that the German Command Major, Armoured, really enjoyed his time with RTR in Poland… and added, ‘Ze were talkin bout challies all ze time, and I am, wat ze fuck is challies’ Then he started laughing.

Yes agree although we are never going to need a large especially static European Style army, the days of the BAOR or even the BFG are in reality over. But that does not mean the need for the British army to deploy at scale are over (There are plenty of places in the world that may explode and need significant western intervention).So we do need an army that can generate in extreme need a full functional Meaningful (divisional) sized armoured/combined arms force.

So we need to ensure are armoured forces are up to the job, Russia has just proven what happens if you send out of date MBTs into a modern battlefield. So we don’t need lots of MBTs but those we have need to be able to survive on a modern battlefield, so this investment is needed, but I did think it was going to include some kind of active defence system as well ? 153 modern and available MBTs should be better than many hundreds of out of date or not maintained hulks.

Other than that the army really needs investment in a lot more long range fires, New medium rotor, Ajax or something being sorted, warrior upgrades. As for dropping it to an active force of 72,000 that’s a very small force indeed to generate a deployable division from as well as the standing commitments.

Although that does not stop the navy and airforce having all they need as well, it should not be zero sum game of one service benefits.

Well said Sir, thank you for your service

“There is a gang on here that seem to wish the Army away”
Looking at a map of NATO-land, in its fullest sense, the UK is now firmly located in the middle of it. The UK needs deployable land forces which can help re-enforce our NATO partners. The benefits of large scale pre positioning of our land forces seems questionable when we don’t know when or where they would be needed. So I’m presuming we need the capacity to relatively quickly transport and sustain our land army in NATO-land. That’s a real logistical problem which isn’t the army’s sole responsibility to resolve. So I don’t think people want to do away with the army it’s just that the geographical parameters have changed and with it so must our thinking.
I wouldn’t disagree with anyone who said only having 140 MBT’s seems irresponsible but I would also ask how can we currently transport and sustain a larger force, when and where they are needed, in a timely manner.
I think I heard correctly that NATO is going to be reviewing its posture. Hopefully from such a review we may get some guidance.

Yes a point I have been emphasising for some time mass tanks is the priority for Germany Central European members and even France, our priorities should be specialist and flexible forces and kit including anti tank weaponry to help support those main players and a core armoured force as back up, but priorities need to be on and underneath the waves and airforce assets to protect the Northern approaches and to blunt aerial threats all over Europe and able to engage land threats from the air.

Good news

Martin,

Where is it written that our primary areas of responsibility are the North Atlantic and Norway?

Who is saying they don’t need a British armoured division in Europe? Not the eastern Europeans, that’s for sure.

Home defence? Are the Russians about to land on the Kent or Sussex beaches?

UK responsibility has always been in the north since WW2 & BAOR. NorthAG is under British command. As for armoured divisions, forget it! The days of armoured divisions & mass tank battles are over as far as the UK is concerned, putting 1 AD in the field takes massive logistics & logistics is the key to any success in battle. Air & sea power are fundemental to UK security not a huge standing army mate, & I’m saying that as an ex squaddie! As you intimated, no one is going to invade the UK (no country on earth has that ability) ergo, we need the means to attack any enemy at range in overwhelming force.

Hi John, On the navy side I thought RN traditionally had Eastern Atlantic as our sea space AOR with the US largely taking Western Atlantic. Not heard of Northern Atlantic as a AOR. Is the sea space still carved up like that?

On the army side, NORTHAG rings a bell and I know that the British area (garrisoned areas and operational areas) in BAOR days was the ‘North German Plain’ ( Iserved there 4 times) but surely that is ancient pre-1991 history. We no longer have any troops in Germany less a few amphibious Sappers and Depots & Training Centre staff.

I was aware that the RM had an operational role in Norway/High North – but not the army.

I am aware that we have not had a division with the word ‘armoured’ in its title since the 1990s, but have had two deployable divisions with some modest amount of armour – 1st and 3rd in recent years. I know that we cannot field a warfighting div now but the army has an aspiration to be able to do so by 2025. It will of course have some armour in it – I hear we are coming down to 2 tank regiments only.

I am not sure we have ever had a large standing army – the Government seems determined to keep it small and to make it smaller.

Its a brave man who suggests that we won’t use tanks in combat again – we have deployed our tanks operationally a lot in recent years, and they have fired a lot of rounds at the enemy, unlike the navy!

Hi Graham, all I can say is that when I served in the 80’s NATO tactics were based on the last major fight (WW2) but as we have seen, technology has increased massively since then & numbers don’t count any more, the Israeli’s have proven that, let alone NATO (I last was in combat in Iraq) & I saw what air power can do to a highly mechanised armoured army. Times change & the Russians haven’t, they are not in the same league as any NATO army, they are outclassed in everything. Ukraine is proving that point now & Putin’s talk about using nuclear weapons is his only & last way of saving face in his eyes. Nice to talk with you mate, John

Have to agree

By the way, you are right in everything you said, the RN was responsible for the GIUK gap of the north atlantic & the RM were earmarked for the high north (at brigade level) the Commando’s do have a large Army input as far as numbers & support go & obviously our SF go a long way too!

Very true. The Russian submarine threat is where the most danger lies for the UK .The Panzer Grenadiers can handle the Russian armour

Bravo.

The AS90 is being replaced by the South Korean K9A2 155 self propelled guns.

Cancel Ajax and buy something that works….

…or fix it.

K21

Just watching the footage of the NATO Ex Northern Guard in Norway. Lots of good footage of Norwegian CV90 . Always thought we should have replaced both Warrior and Ajax with CV90 . A proven reliable vehicle with a 40mm gun and carries a full load of dismounts – eight I believe . Part of the BAE systems family too.

Really? I thought the tendering competition wasn’t even due to start until near the end of the decade. Where have you seen this?

In about a decade as per usual. Allegedly.

Did you not hear the Russians have lots of army kit and are using it aggressively? Need to spend money on our tiny, badly equipped army, not on P8s and underwater vehicles.

I would argue we need to spend it on all areas, but if we don’t defend the seas and the cables that lie beneath it then we are royally screwed given how much we import and the necessity of those cables.

we should absolutely have a bigger better equipped army but in the absence of a very large increase in budget we have to prioritise. unfortunately it seems any increase is way off if at all, it’s likely we’ll be cutting more not increasing anything given inflation. It’s a sad state of affairs.

OK, good job no-one expects us to commit our army to operations in eastern Europe then.

UK got far tools to work with quality far better than quantity every day .

Far tools?
British Army needs more quantity of everything and some decent kit – most of the combat vehicles and artillery are 30-50 years old and mostly unmodernised.

Here here to that acknowledge the threat is where it’s at. We need P8’s sure and could always do with more but our P8,s combined with Norways and some US forward deployed can prob cover the Greenland – Iceland- UK gap and ate sufficient for now. Maritime and Air have done well in recent years while the Army has been pinned down on COIN Ops in far away lands and it is our ‘heavy metal’ conventional forces that have been allowed to degrade. The need is to re-build the deployable armoured Div that’s at the core of the Army and CH3 combined with a proper AS90 upgrade or replacement are the right tools for that – but as for CH3 148 is just not enough.

I think he was only ever likely to be leaving the kremlin feet first even before this.

Yeltsin only made Putin his prime minister because he promised that he wouldn’t prosecute him once he’d stepped down – and Putin had discredited the public prosecutor who had been investigating Yeltsin. Could Putin find a successor who’d make the same promises? Very doubtful, as Yeltsin only faced financial crimes. Putin’s long list of crimes, both internationally and against the Russian people is too long to overlook. Putin knows that if he ever surrenders power he is doomed, so holding onto his position is an existential issue.

Indeed his heightened ‘popularity’ now would plummet the moment anyone succeeding him let out even an inkling of the truth about what he has done. The army and police already hate him from what I read today from a long term Russian political analyst it’s just that they have no influence any longer only the FSB are remotely close to the centre of power and few of them had any real idea of his intentions so little trust beyond a close coterie of extremist cronies but no organised authority that would dare put their heads above the parapet as it takes time to organise opposition and that’s where his strength lies like Stalin he can get wind and strike it out before they become a threat or even upon an inkling of becoming one. Why there is such incompetence all around him mind even Zhucov was banished for a while when he dared offer warnings to Stalin and ironically was forced to implement the same monolithic tank tactics in Berlin that commanders are doing now. Both suffered terribly accordingly.

His only way out is within Russia or in the handful of states willing to give him both a home and be able to protect him. Not sure even China would actually want that ‘honour’ North Korea perhaps. The moment he started this invasion a safe haven in any western Country was cut off at the hip, so Biden’s words whatever one thinks of them, have changed nothing in that regard. Keeping power is his only real defence and that’s where the danger lies if truly cornered.

Let’s be honest russia has a long history of brutal dictators one after the other. Putin will at some point hand power to a choice successor or he will have lined up a replacement for when he goes feet first. It’s not like anyone else in Russia with power is in any way liberal or liable to embrace the will of the people.

They also are a high producer of some pretty significant raw materials such as Food staples and hydrocarbons, As well as defence industries that unpleasant people will still buy from and which China and India are just going to keep buying from Russia no matter what the west says. So unlike NK it’s not a state that will completely crash, but it’s likely to end up becoming A big part of any Chinese hegemony. Just not great all round really.

Also he’s a 20 year entrenched totalitarian, who has a mass following so he’s not likely going anywhere soon.

Maybe. So you think the Indians and Chinese are wowed by the amazing Russian tech?

TBH in a lot of areas both countries are probably in advance of Russian tech and just didn’t realise it.

Russia does have the accumulated research base but it is a fixed feast. The only reason the Chinese don’t have all that is that you can’t hack a filing cabinet!

It’s not so much the tec as industrial base and manufacturing of some key areas, especially for India as it’s not really a high tec economy and It’s defence industry is mired in crap and grift. But the big thing Russia has is It pure raw resources and Russia has a shit ton of those, Now 20 years ago it would not have mattered as western liberal control of the world economic systems meant we could still effectively isolate Russia as we did with the USSR. But the reality is China and India are not going to let the western democracies cut them out of a raw materials and food bank like Russia. They will and are just finding work arounds and will build up trading in non western currency.

This is all gold for China, they have been slowly moving away from trading dependence on the dollar and have for a few years been developing trade with Russia that’s outside western currency.

TBH the big winner out of all of this is China it plays Utterly into their geopolitical requirements, they will have a major playing in raw materials and food production that has a land boarder with them and is cut off from western trading. It literally could not get better for China.

Its a stupid move for Russia all round really, as Russia could have been a huge economic and influencing powerhouse as part of the Western hegemony, but it could never get over it’s loss of empire and was crippled by the corruption and grift left over from the Soviet Union and the grifters had to blame someone and that was the west. As it is Putin and his crowd have sold Russia to China.

An excellent appraisal of the long game Jonathon……sadly.

Let’s forget about what Russia is doing then.

The trouble with this current conflict is that if it expands to a NATO on Russia convntional conflict then the mainland UK will be under direct attack from long range Russia air power such TU-22 equiped with cruise missiles. The difficulty is that the RAF will struggle to defend key military and civilain targets in the UK such as power plants, air bases and air ports, Naval bases and ports etc as well as provide a reasonable air contribution to any NATO activity in Eastern Europe.

The simple fact is that until both Russia transitions to a liberal democracy (and hopefully avoids bankrupt nuclear equiped failed state during that transition), and China does the same then the UK taxpayer better get used to military spending taking an ever increasing portion of the budget. The RN, RAF and Army ( as well as enabling capabilities such as cyber and space) need to be well funded, and have very clear long term plans about increasing leathality, agility and logistic capability.

You have an interesting ‘take’ on this. Putin is struggling to make much progress in Ukraine with 3/4 of his entire army. I find it inconceivable that he would seek to take on the whole of NATO, by invading a NATO country.
If that did happen I don’t think it follows that Putin will attack all 30 NATO countries (such that the UK homeland is attacked).
If that did happen I don’t see that the RAF defends specific localities in the UK – they would surely seek to deny penetration of UK airspace by the aggressor.

I do however fully agree with your second paragraph.

NATO membership requires our forces to fight anywhere in the NATO area – that includes the whole of continental Europe.

Let’s do the stuff were good at. And this time I’m grateful for the ballistic sub we have out there.

But I’d like sound of 200 upgraded tanks more than just 148… even 150 sounds better with 50 more in reserve. It’s not too much to ask for, is it?

It is when again government put defence on the back burner

Hi Fosterman, you posted something interesting and similar on Saturday afternnon but it has gone. My view is that our tanks are not just a force in being, but they actually get used. Hard to remember a time since 1982 that the Navy fired a shot in anger or that an RAF fighter was engaged in a dogfight. Our tanks have been in many kinetic combats since 1982. I am sure NATO expects a country of Britain’s weight to be able to field at least one warfighting division with AFVs in prominence (not that we could do that this week or this month). Granted we cannot justify 900 tanks as we had at the height of the Cold War but 148 is just 2 armoured regiments (battalions in US-speak) plus training and attrition stock. We deployed 221 on Gulf War 1 and 120 on Gulf War 2. Think we need at least 300.

It’s not unrealistic in terms of cost either. It should be achievable with only a modest increase in spending.

The key is to spend correctly where it matters.

And don’t fall into the trap of over complicating things. Previous conflicts keep on proving the fact that plenty of what is good enough wins the day over very small numbers of over engineered expensive status symbols.

We had 28 SSK/SSN attack subs in 1982 – hard to believe now.
A force of 7 Astutes, when maybe 2 are alongside etc means 5 subs that are taskable, one of which will be protecting the bomber SSBN So 4 subs to cover the Seven Seas. It is ridiculous.
Definitely need to buy some SSKs with AIP, even if they are pre-owned.

Agreed, really should be as basic a requirement as a drivers seat these days.

Agreed, there needs to be enough kits to do the whole fleet. Rafael also do a Trophy Lite, that is meant for recce vehicles down to the size of a Humvee. It may only have a single reload per turret, but it would make all the difference in an ambush.

Not only did the Canadians do a U-turn on retiring the Leo 1 and replacing it with the Stryker MGS, they soon afterwards bought the Leo 2. Both Leo 1s and later Leo 2s deployed with the CF to Kandahar province.

Good knowledge on the T-Gewehr!

Taps nose.

Absolutely and from an Airborne warrior very well said. We had our Warriors ( as in IFV) with us in 2004 but after Phase 1 Ops entry Ops were over which thanks to our heavy metal and unlike Mr Putin’s were achieved with almost zero loss we were patrolling as light role on Snatch. Whenever it kicked off however , at MAK or Three Mosque Roundabout for example out came the WR backed up by CH2. There was only one Squadron of tank remaining in theatre at that time but that was enough. Even a single troop supporting your dismounts brought awesome punch to the fight. What people forget about MBT is it’s just not firepower that they bring; their optics give full coverage surveillance capability day and night , excellent comms , and unlike fast jet they don’t f*CK off and leave you when it gets dark or starts to rain. There are also other small but essential capabilities that are often overlooked like the ability to re- charge your batteries that light role Infantry just don’t have. We need more MBT not less.

Here, here. Somebody talking sense from experience.

This is an ever changing, dangerous, world. We need options. I would also argue we need our own national design and production capability for MBTs – not rely on the Germans or Americans.

Imagine how the world could go. Just in conventional terms Russia/China in the Artic/Canada, China going into North Australia… let alone Estonia or Finland. You may laugh but think about it and the need for something doing that does the MBT thing.

But do you want the Polish tankies let off the leash?

I’m sure they will keep professionally constrained David….

Well doubt many senior NATO commanders speak Polish… bit like the BoB 😉

On a serious note, the Poles are calling nonsense on Russian claims about directing the war at the Donbass.

Hopefully, diplomats will address things behind the scenes with Biden in Warsaw today.

Let’s hope so David. The Poles are straining at the bit!

I wonder how many have taken ‘leave’ and slipped over the border to join the international brigade?

I don’t blame them, if you’re young, have the training and drive to do something, then why not….

OUTSIDE of Falujah

Nope. USMC Tanks went into the city to provide support to the Infantry. Quoted below are just three instances from various parts of fighting in downtown Falujah, where the USMC itself says it used M1’s to support their infantry in Urban fighting:

Johlan District Break In:

At 1926, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines, launched its as-
sault into the Jolan District, following the battalion’s
two main tanks through a cut in the berm west of the
train station. Company K, 3d Battalion, 5th Marines,
provided support-by-fire from the apartment complex
while Company I passed through the breach in amphib-
ious tracked vehicles behind a section of Marine tanks
from Company C, 2d Tank Battalion. Company L, simi-
larly equipped, attacked along the river toward the palm
grove. After dismounting, Company I overwhelmed
insurgents fighting from the Jolan cemetery and then
seized the Ma’ahidy Mosque.7

Northeast Falujah:

A platoon of tanks attacked down the center of the road. Both companies encountered heavy sniper fire and determined groups of insurgents who waited in ambush or attempted to maneuver behind them. Company C’s commanding officer,
Captain Theodore C. Bethea, ordered the weapons pla-
toon and tank platoon to attack south along Phase Line
Ethan in direct support of 2d Platoon, while 3d Platoon
attacked south, adjacent to 2d Platoon. First Platoon
protected the company’s eastern flank. The company
now formed a “U” shape that afforded maximum fire-
power to the front with the west flank guarded by tanks
and the east flank guarded by 1st Platoon

Fighting into the southern part of the city:

Company A, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, attacked south
down Phase Line Frank with tanks and amphibious ve-
hicles as Company B attacked southward down Phase
Line Ethan from the Iraqi National Guard complex. 208
The battalion faced heavy resistance from determined
foreign fighters: “There were enemy from the west,
from the east, from the north,” battalion commander
Lieutenant Colonel Brandl recalled. “We were basically
fighting a 360-degree fight.”209 Company A encountered
heavy rocket-propelled grenade fire as it entered an
alley nicknamed “hadji alley.”

(Oh and to remove any doubt: Phase Line Frank and Ethan where in the middle of the city)

Correct and the advantage that CH2’s rifled gun has over smoothbore is that it can fire HESH. Ask any tanky what round he (or she) would have up the spout as first use round and they will always say HRSH. Equally good at taking out enemy armour, structures or dismounted Inf. Plus unlike APFSDS it’s effectiveness isn’t depleted with range .

Yes. Losing HESH is sad. A great all-rounder and given urban warfare the ability to make a big hole in a building ( if said building survives at all) is a highly useful breaching tool.

DM-12 is light years better.

HESH is ancient crap, utterly overmatched by modern programmable natures.

Yes this has been short sighted ness for multiple governments….its not rocket science though.
The man in the street could have done a better job MOD procurement wise…and still ended up with a more credible force for less £

It’s not far off rocket science, procuring very complex AFVs.

Wasnt talking about the complexities of the tank, I ment buy more and save more by diluting the NRE across more vehicles.. that’s the bit the man in the street could have got right 👍

Aaagh, I see. Yes, we should have done that. We deployed 221 tanks in Gulf War 1. If we ever wanted to do that sort of operation again we would need about 300 to allow for a training fleet, repair pool etc.

👍, my fault…was a late night rant and thin on detail.
I only think we’ve 250 in use to go at anyways and some of those will be highly canabalised I’d imagine.
Does anyone have a definitive number on reserve hulls etc in storage?…
Cant imagine the other retired CR2’s have simply been cut up for scrap.

UK has declared 227 active CR2s for some time although 386 were purchased. I believe only 1 has been scrapped and none have been sold. Many in storage will have been partially stripped for spares.

Cheers Graham, no brainer to look at circa 250 to CR3 spec then to make this cost effective. Maybe we’ll do this over time, but surely cheaper as one contract (although UK follow on orders may be part of the small print?)
Realise the contract does allow for export sales which is good…but outside the very very limited overseas operators of the CR2 who would likely buy the new turret for retrofit?..

True, thats why people call them the £1bn warship.

Why bother with infantry then? Clear them off the battlefield. He is either in a vehicle or on foot. He fires at anything that moves. Very difficult to hit a moving target. Expensive way of knocking out one soldier.

Darn. Please see above about Wikki info – I inadvertently replied to myself! It would be interesting to know what historical source and research you are quoting?

Just found this debate days late. As a student and researcher of the eastern front you are spot on.

You’re going off the numbers for the entirety of Operation Citadel which as I pointed out was laregly not Tank on Tank, as the Soviets where fighting from prepared defensive positions for most of it. While I don’t doubt Glantz and House’s numbers at face value, simply put: It doesn’t distinguish what killed a tank (or even what was lost due to mechanical breakdown).

My numbers refer to Prokharovka, which was for a long time considered the largest “tank on tank” battle in history (It wasn’t, but history gets mixed up in pop-culture), and sometimes gets incorrectly spoken about as the point where the battle turned (it didn’t, the Soviets got a bloody nose).

I kind of explained this in my earlier reply, so I’m not sure why you are correcting my numbers on Prokharovka with the entirety of the Kursk offensive?

Even if only a small proportion of the total tanks lost were by direct tank on tank action it is still considered the largest tank battle in history. The German Panther tank, built by Porsche, was over complicated and unreliable. The T34 was very basic and simple to operate but expendable because of the huge numbers involved in the battle. I had certainly no intention of correcting your numbers on Prokharovka; I am talking about the battle that goes under the name of Kursk.

Biggest Tank Battle does not mean “biggest tank on tank battle.” Which is the difference I’m trying to point out to you.

I know you are talking about Kursk, but Prokharovka is part of Kursk and the only time major German and Soviet armoured formations clashed directly, and where the myth of Kursk being Tank-on-Tank largely comes from, which is why im focusing on it and why its actually quite a small part of thr overall offensive.

Also can we please not do the T34/Panther comparison. Ignoring the fact that panthers where only ever a minority, there was a reason wartime t34s went around with spare transmissions strapped to them. (Also nothing that requires a hammer to change gear can be considered simple to operate).

If Kursk wasn’t the largest tank on tank battle could you quote me one that was. The battle of Wounded Knee perhaps? In the end it all comes down to definitions and semantics. I’m a retired Chartered Engineer and have every right to do T34/Panther comparison without a bye your leave from you.

Hey everyone we’ve got a chartered engineer here! We’ve got a chartered engineer here!
See? nobody cares.
At the end of the day your comparison was nothing but myths and sterotypes, which is why I dismiss it, and your profession being an engineer does not qualify your opinions unless you happen to have specificially studied the Panther and T-34, and from your comments it’s clear that you haven’t.

Which is why you are getting spitty, it’s not a good look. If you want to have a grown up discussion I’m happy too. I’ll point out once again, that Kursk wasn’t a “Tank-on-Tank” battle. I’m tired of pointing this out to you.

You really are getting worked up you arrogant, rude little man. A pedant would be a good description of you. What qualifications do you have? Probably an O level in divinity. A non-entity posturing as a defence expert. How dare I question your undoubted superior knowledge in all things. I am indeed a very naughty boy! Now, how about a friendly tête-à-tête on a T34/Panther comparison over a nice cup of tea and some Osborne biscuits.

Oh no. Name calling. Whatever shall I do (it’s about as intelligent as the rest of your ranting).

Billy, comment in a civil manner or do not comment.

You’re German aren’t you – a name of Dern. I’ve looked up it’s meaning, it suits you. As I’m not allowed by you to do a T34/Panther comparison, as you have already done it, I shall instead do an Elephant/dung beetle comparison. Much much simpler. I intend to publish a scientific paper when I’m finished. I will let you know when that happens and then we can compare notes. How to wind up a German.

Funny, again you’re wrong. 🙂
I’ll point out you’re the one who is wound up and upset.
Also thanks: I picked the name myself (although it’s English not German so you can’t even do that little bit of research it seems).

This is over.

I agree – it is.

Sorry George but if somebody is so arrogant and pompous that they consider themselves the only expert in town then I have a right to reply.

Morning Graham, what you say sounds very probable. The second hand vehicles option is thought provoking. I imagine the press would have a field day.

RCA carried out, enhancements proposed and trialled, platforms undergoing acceptance testing.

We are talking about Ajax, right?
Why has the MoD not announced this fantastic news? Sounds like all the problems are over then?