The British Army currently operates four armoured regiments equipped with the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (MBT), according to a response from Lord Coaker, Minister of State for Defence, in a written parliamentary question from Earl Attlee.
The British Army maintains two armoured brigades:
- 12 Armoured Brigade Combat Team (12 ABCT)
- 20 Armoured Brigade Combat Team (20 ABCT)
These formations each contain Challenger 2-equipped regiments. Coaker confirmed:
“There are currently four armoured regiments in the British Army that are equipped with the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. They are The Queen’s Royal Hussars (QRH), The King’s Royal Hussars (KRH), The Royal Tank Regiment (RTR), and the Reserve armoured regiment, The Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY).”
Regimental Assignments
The Challenger 2 regiments are split between the Army’s two armoured brigades:
12 Armoured Brigade Combat Team (12 ABCT)
- The King’s Royal Hussars (KRH)
- The Royal Tank Regiment (RTR)
- The Royal Wessex Yeomanry (RWxY) (Reserve)
20 Armoured Brigade Combat Team (20 ABCT)
- The Queen’s Royal Hussars (QRH)
Transition to Challenger 3
While Challenger 2 remains in service, the Army is in the process of transitioning to the Challenger 3 as part of its modernisation plans. The upgraded platform will replace Challenger 2 in frontline units, with the first Challenger 3s expected to enter service by 2027.
For now, the four regiments continue to operate Challenger 2 tanks within the Army’s two armoured brigades, forming the core of Britain’s heavy armour capability.
Four.
They’re inflating the figures somewhat.
The RWY, as I understand it, is not “Equipped” with Tanks.
It provides crews as BCR?
The 3 longstanding Regiments equipped with CH2 from 2010 on have been scheduled since 2015 to reduce to 2.
Another gift from General Carter.
But 4 sounds SO MUCH better than 2, doesn’t it.
Absolutely Daniele. We don’t have enough tanks in running order to equip.two regiments. To equip three, the number per regt would need to reduce from 66 to 44. Which is a pretty flimsy complement for a so-called ‘armoured’ brigade.
The Royal Wessex Yeomanry doesn’t have any tanks. They would normally be issued from reserve on mobilisatione, but it doesn’t sound like we have any runners in reserve, as they were struggling to find 148 serviceable ones for the Challenger 3 upgrade.
Anyway, as you say, the RWXY’s role is to provide trained battlefield casualty replacements, not act as an additional tank regt.
A lot of the stuff that comes out of the MOD’s PR department is deliberately misleading to the point of verging on dishonesty. It seeks to present a rosy picture to the House and public..I suppose Lord Croker can hardly say;
‘I wish to apologise to their noble lordships today for the run-down state of our main battle tank fleet, which we have inherited from the previous administration. Of our total stock of 213 Challenger tanks, under 150 are in serviceable order. We currently have three tank regiments, but have had to reduce the complement of tanks per regiment from 56 to, at most,.44. There are no operational Challengers in reserve to replace any lost in conflict.
The result is that our warfighting division is weak and ill-equipped in armour. The Ministry has no plans at the present time to remedy this weakness in numbers. The 148 serviceable Challengers are being upgraded to Challenger 3 standard and the number of tank regiments is planned to reduce from three to two….’
What a kicking he would get from his noble chums if they were aware of the real.picture behind the MOD’s rosy, deliberately misleading PR.
We are here, so the readership who may not be so clued up on the orbat and what it does and does not comprise, may be given the reality, and not HMG MoD SPIN.
I will always call HMG out.
They are past masters at it.
Your post on the true state is excellent.
So, from Cripes’ post, ” ….. 213 Challenger tanks, under 150 are in serviceable order”. So, this must mean the difference; 63 C2s are right-offs, are they? Is there anyway the C3 project can bring these back to life, or would they just be too expensive to do so? Awful that we have nothing in reserve (nothing declared anyway).
Some will be beyond repair, yes, such as some of those stored rotting away at Ashchurch due to the state of the buildings there.
DP. No. An unservicable tank is not necessarily a write off, fit for the scrap yard. A tank can be U/S for very trivial reasons – it may need a radiator changing or a track changed or just tightened. It may need the drivers seat or a periscope replacing. Some U/S tanks will of course need more than a few hours work.
I do not understand the comment that we have nothing in reserve. We have Atrrition Reserve tanks with current CR2. If we have three regiments of CR2 and they are all Type 58, then 174 tanks are assigned to the Field Army. With 213 tanks on the active list then there are 39 tanks split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. I do not know the split – this info is not published.
In the CR3 era, then there are just 32 tanks split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. I suspect that RP and AR will be rolled together, given the small numbers.
Hello everyone🤍 I work as Hiring Administrator, and my office is looking for a new staff who wants to work remotely from home or at our offices. The main role is reviewing and approving apply requisitions, entering candidates information in to the company system, which can be part-time/full-time with an Weekly wage of $1850 (For full-time) .work at 6pm-11pm $350_$400 per day.The job is flexible and can be done on weekends. Great for new moms, retirees, or anyone looking for a side job or working from home.
If anyone is interested Visit here…… 𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐏𝐚𝐲𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐡𝟏.𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞/
Adding onto Graham’s point: I’ve seen 432’s that where “not in serviceable order” actively being driven on public roads. Not only can a vehicle be U/S for the small reasons Graham mentioned, it can even be U/S because it’s past it’s inspection date.
Cripes, it is very rare for availability figures for army equipment to be released by MoD to the media. Last time it happened for tanks was last year – about April. MoD reported to HCDC that we had 157 CR2s available (or nearly so) out of 213. Around 70%, which is what I would expect.
If it were still about 157 now, then we would have enough to equip two regiments with operational tanks.
How is it that you say we have an establishment of 66 tanks per regiment. I thought it had gone from 56 to 58 in recent years (I seem to recall that Dern said that), which would be 4 sabre sqns of 14 plus 2 for RHQ.
I am not aware what the Platform Presentation Standard for CR2s offered up to the CR3 programme amounted to…but I doubt they all had to be fully servicable, with the army ‘struggling to find 148 servicable ones’. An entirely new turret and gun is fitted by the contractor so that might mean that a donor CR2 could lack a turret and still be acceptable for conversion.
It is inconceivable that there would be no Attrition Reserve CR3s. We have always had Attrition Reserve AFVs. But it won’t be many. If we have two Type 58 regiments under FS, then 32 tanks will be split between the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. If I were still an ESM in TSS IPT, then I would be forced to do some double hatting ie to merge the RP and Attrition Reserve stocks.
Scam scam every where but don’t worry , every one is not a cheater, very reliable and profitable site. Thousands peoples are making good earning from it. For further detail visit the link no instant money required free signup and information…….__
For more information about online businesses,
go to.…… 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
Yup, mild uplift per Regiment is happening, can’t remember the source, but could find it again if needed.
My 66 is a typo, elsewhere I say 56.
The strength of a tank regt was 56 – 3 squadrons of 18 plus 2 at RHQ. I don’t know if it is now 58 – 4 squadrons of 14 plus 2 at RHQ.
If we take the 56 figure just now, the future Orbat looks like:
Regt 1 – 56
Regt 2 – 56
Field training squadron (formerly at BATUS, said to be moving to Sennelager, but since then silence) – 20
Trials and training – 16
That totals 148, which is the number being upgraded to Challenger 3. i.e. the barest minimum.
That leaves 65 Challenger 2s in the sheds. It was reported that the army was struggling to get 148 operational.tanks for the upgrade programme. It puts a question mark over the state of these 65 in the sheds. I think you may be working on how maintenance was done in the past. The impression is that these 65 have not been maintained, with some cannibalised for parts to get the 148 serviceable enough for the Ch3 upgrade.
Hi Cripes
Can I suggest that the struggle for 148 serviceable tanks for upgrade might have more to do with the contract wording…
I would suggest that the contractor would want to know precisely what they were going to get handed to them to be upgraded. After all they would not want to have to ‘survey’ every vehicle that came into their factory and then write 148 individual quotes for the upgrade, which is what happened with the T23 frigates and we know how that affected the costs and availability rates…
Cheers CR
Cripes, My summary of tank numbers being UE+Trg Org+RP+Attrition Reserve is that from the time I was in the mob. HQ Army can of course cut the cake differently and create ad hoc training pools such as that Field Trg Sqn (ex-BATUS). But it doesn’t mean there is no Attrition Reserve just that it has been taken out of Ashchurch and given a different role as a peacetime expediency.
Reiterating my point about whether there really was difficulty in finding 148 tanks good enough for conversion…we don’t know what the Platform Presentation State was, but it certainly would not require all 148 to be fully serviceable in every area.
The 65 tanks in the sheds should have been maintained, as they are in the active fleet, but the reality is that a readiness figure of no more than 70% could be expected.
Cannibalisation should have been done first on the very many tanks in the inactive fleet – 159 from the 2010 review, and subsequently fewer than that. But I am not naiive enough to suppose that some of the 65 on the active list were also robbed for spares over the years.
BTW, do you know what the latest WFM situation is?
It was reported last year, Telegraph I think, at the time HMG announced the 14 Challengers for Ukraine, that we only had IIRC 157 serviceable CR2s.
What does ‘serviceable’ mean? I take it as tanks that can roll out of the sheds the moment they’rr needed. We can all have our different guesses at the maintenance state of the 65 in reserve. But if the 157 figure was correct, it means we have 9 operationally ready tanks in reserve and 56 in need of anything from minor repairs through to major works.
The main obstacle is likely spare parts. Most of the 14 supplied to Ukraine were reported by the Ukrainian Army to be non-operational due to lack of replacement parts. I would think that most of those at Ashchurch have already been cannibalised for spares.
It is also possible that maintenance on the reserve tanks has been allowed to slip as another cost-saving measure.
The question to Lord Croaker should be: how many of these tanks are fully serviceable and immediately available if required? Of course, HMG won’t say, on grounds of security, but I would be surprised if he were to claim that all is well and all are available.
Graham makes the point that 70% or whatever would be a standard ratio for reserve equipment but, if the 157 is correct, we are clearly miles short at present.
Perhaps he did not even know that Daniele – When it comes to the reserve element. Me being sarcastic, but can you blame me..
Kings Royal Hussars will lose its tanks and re role to Ajax next year also, and there are plans for RWY to lose a squadron
Indeed. That has been delayed from years back. I hope it’s cancelled, and MBT Regs stay at 3, and Armoured Cavalry Regs stay at 3, as was the original A2020 plan before Strike wrecked the lot.
I didn’t know about the RWY Sqn loss. Do you know which?
Hi Daniele, the ‘elephant in the room’ is what would you equip the third armoured regiment with if it were retained? Not enough CR3s!
All you could do is go back to Type 44 or Type 38 regiments.
I’d settle for that, if the CH3 number isn’t increased. I don’t know how many that are not due for updating could be?
NATO want us to field 6 “Proper” Brigades, not the 4 plus 2 paper ones currently.
I’m hoping a 3rd Bde is reconstituted as Armoured, with that third Regiment.
The RWxY has already lost the Sqn. It was Y Squadron (formerly the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry). However, this was an amalgamation rather than a loss, as they were absorbed into C (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) sqn. So in theory, there is no real loss here in terms of number of troopers.
Thanks.
I get paid over $220 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I would be able to do it but my best friend earns over $35,000 a month….➤➤➤ CLICK ON PROFILE
I have been told by a retired RTR WO2 that all we have serviceable is 48/49 Challenger 2s. Iserved in the Fourth and the Fist Royal Tank Regiments. The Politicians are lying to us.
James, how would a retired tankie know for sure how many servicable tanks there were in three armoured regiments, the trg org, adhoc pools in Germany and UK, and the Ashchurch depot?
The figure of 48/49 is beyond belief. If true it would reflect appallingly on crews, regimental and trg org MTs, first and second line REME, and the ESM.
The message is still not getting through! You could accuse me of alarmism but the international situation is dire and 2027 for CH3 is too bloody slow along with the obvious lack of a long therm increased fleet. Let us hope CH3 ISD will be speeded up and additional vehicles added to the fleet (from current CH2 hulls) at the end of the planned run of 148.
Maurice, we are where we are. If the balloon went up today, we would deploy with CR2s, albeit some or many have been lost to the upgrade line. CR3 FOC is 2030, by the way. 2027 is the IOC date.
As Daniele says, this is literally lying and essentially pig swill..I do hate weasel words. The royal Wessex are not a deployable formation, they are only there to provide reserve tank crew replacements to the 3 actual challenger regiments.
It would be a very good idea if they could actually fully deploy as a reserve regiment, but that is not how the British army does reserves and they don’t have the MBT numbers to do it anyway.
And soon we will only have 2 type 56 regiments and only enough challenger 3s to equip 2 regiments even if HMG saw sense and changed their minds.
In reality 2 regiments is not even enough for a sustained deployment of 1 regiment as part of an armoured brigade, it essentially means the British army is giving up the ability to sustain the deployment of an armoured brigade and surge some sort of armoured division.
From an effective army contribution to a European battlefield point of view converting all the challenger 2s to threes and keeping 3 MBT regiments is crucial and considering a challenger 3 costs around 5 million vs the almost 25 million of any other modern MBT its insane not to convert them all.
I believe the German army did this under Ursula Vande Lying not every regiment had tanks and they reputedly had broomsticks for machine guns for a while. Only once mad Vlad has actually taken some NATO territory will people wake up. Germany has taken a huge step forward today but again the devil is in detail as 500 billion Euro is for defence, roads bridges solar farms etc
As a retired quartermaster infantry officer ammunition reserves and vehicles held in BAOR before the wall came down only existed on paper.
Brian, you cannot be serious. That was not my understanding. I did 4 tours in BAOR. All BAOR/BFG units held their PE of vehs (no WFM in those days). Veh Depots at Monchengladbach and Viersen were full. Ammunition depots at Sennelager and Pombsen etc were full. Not saying there was a strong amount of stuff behind them, though.
I’m actually getting very nervous about the upcoming SDR, common sense says it has to come after the spending review which is delayed till June. You can’t announce anything until you know you have the budget for it and a solid line of payments from the Treasury.
Starmer has committed to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 which is a great soundbite but what can they actually do in just 18 months.
I’m willing to bet that any extra available money will be just swallowed up by the existing shortfalls, or at best add a few extra items to existing contracts.
So maybe they tag on all the rest of the CR2 to the CR3 upgrade, 24 new Typhoons and the 2 MIA E7 and a couple more frigates.
And that’s it really !
However I have in the darkest part of my mind another theory for the SDR delay, if Trump gets a peace agreement then it all gets quietly shelved and U.K / Europe go back to sleep ! Pessimism is rapidly setting in.
That and no more cuts I’d happily take mate, as a start.
To be honest if we had a 220 challenger 3s for three regiments, 24 more typhoons so they can realistically run 7 front line squadrons and have 9 T 26 and 6 T31 on order as well as 5 AEW aircraft that would be a good start for 2027..
You never know they could probably fit in 300 life extended warriors to keep the AI battalions. As that’s probably only 600 million.
I was at Sandhurst on Saturday, there’s an old Centurion tank parked up there, throw that in as an extra and get it working again 😁
Well considering Russia are still actively using its peers in Ukraine…..
It’s a shame they don’t have the CH1 in storage to get Leo4 style upgrades to increase mass short term until longer term solutions are created for the 2040s.
Should have been Leo2A4 style upgrades
To add to ATJohn’s comment below. It would have been interesting to see what could have been done with the CH1s that Jordan had put in storage?
Absolutely.
Agree your and ABCs thinking. I thought the idea was to retain Warrior (Armoured Infantry) until it was replaced by Boxer ( Mechanised Infantry). The build rate for Boxer is so glacial we must surely keep Warrior effective for quite a while. The frigate production lines generate jobs, economic growth and exports: they are protected. As is the embryonic armoured vehicle industry. What with agent Orange in the White House and for jobs, I think the odds favour Typhoon increases rather than F-35. I’d put money on Babcock building the Patria 6×6 in the UK and a Norwegian order for T26.
In terms of the SDR you’re spot on, time really isn’t on their side and the most important thing currently is determining the direction to be taken and which issues will be addressed both urgently and mid term so that progress can actually be made, rather than using the excuse of waiting on the SDR.
It’s difficult to anticipate the SDR considering the information around is speculation with little to no leaks, it could go any way. One bit of information I saw recently was Nicholas Drummond in a reply on X stating that that supposedly the SDR will be seeking 14 AUKUS subs for the Navy, whether that is reliable who knows at this point, it was surprising coming from a Land industry consultant/commentator. Whilst the increase in subs would be great I can’t help but think within the 2.5% envelope that will cause significant strain or cuts elsewhere, but if there is any truth to it, it also indicates there could be larger changes than expected, however considering the risks of near term conflict this change would have zero impact and would leave me wondering what would be done to address short term issues with the budget constraints.
I’ll say it again just because I can – and even more so now given the current international situation and reliabilities: The UK needs to start the design and production of the CH4. i.e. Re-kindle UK heavy armour industry (possibly with CAN/AUS). Dump RHEINMETALL, LOCKHEED M, and THALES (who also produce sights for the Russians). Yes it will cost but we have it before and at least all the benefits would go to the UK, and we are capable of producing a world-beating MBT fit for the 21st Century.
Agree. I personally think uk should design a modular chassis to be used for all the main heavy medium variants capabilities such as tanks , artilery , ifv . The tech in the uk still exists . Challenger chassis can still be built in uk if required . And we could use these vehicles to equip all the reserve units and if any good the frontline units, all with the same kit . The ukrainian war has shown that standardisation on mass is the way to go. And really more medium light weight vehicles by the thousands
Agreed.
There was an offer on the table to build new hulls for the CH3. I am guessing that it would be a conventional layout hull so minimum risk. Use the current upgrade program to start the ball rolling and develop a new hull.
Two options for a new hull. Conventional, engine in the rear or Merkava style with engine in the front. Given the rapidly developing situation I’d go conventional layout. CH4 would simply be the new design turret on a new build hull. I’d then open the production line up and build as many as possible as I recon Ukraine will need a few in a hurry when Putin tries again. He hates the idea of an independent Ukraine so I expect a Ukraine War 2 as a minimum, possibly worse, in 2 to 4 years time.
If it comes to a show down between eNATO+C and Russia + NK then we are going to need as many, Tanks, IFV’s, mines, mine clearing systems as we can lay our hands on. Also, entrenching capability, drones, arty coming out of your ears and… well the capability to sustain at least one heavy and very capable armoured div.
Thought just occurred, mine clearance by rolling barrage, could that work?
Cheers CR
One issue the U.K. seems to have is a lack of defence contractors willing to invest in themselves and create concepts for land platforms without a government contract funding the development from the start. It would likely be a much easier sell if there was atleast a concept with some known capabilities and ball park figures to developed with some of the work already done to reduce risk of moving forward.
In Europe you have KNDS and Rheinmetall developing multiple programs for next gen tanks (Leo2aX or 2A RC/Kf51/Leclerc Evolution) plus the government funded MGCS, Italy picking up the KF51 highlights this works when there is a concept to consider.
Considering the development time of the European MGCS program, work realistically would already need to be underway developing the CH3 replacement for the 40s. If the U.K. defence industry doesn’t step up on their own the likelihood will be that the Government will leave it too late then be left looking at European platforms, with a lot less benefit to the British industry and economy, you would think a designed and made in Britain sticker would be an easier sell if they atleast had a tangible concept to show.
…and yes and most of what is left of the UK defence industry has been shorted to death/taken over by overseas hedge funds or asset stripped to death.
UK Gov needs to reverse the rot. Limit overseas ownership of critical strategic defence capabilities and assets, and set frameworks for th ere-industrialisation of the UK defence sector. Unblocking investment bias would help too.
I agree we need more commitment from the defence industry, but I would suggest that the inconsistent political approach to defence in the UK is not a good environment for private venture proposals. Having said that, on the naval side industry concepts do appear. A good example is Babcock producing a design variant of the T31 as a partially worked up proposal for the T32, which appears to be hooked up in the MoD / RN concept phase. MoD and the services need to get a grip and cut out the dicussions and make more decisions… Allowing the military to over specify kit doesn’t help either. They need to be sensible and avoid ‘designing’ the solution by writing hundreds of pages of requirements. Let industry come up with the the solutions…
Cheers CR
Rolling barrages were used during WW2 in the North African campaign against Rommel to try and clear mine as an alternative to engineers crawling forward and setting Bangalore torpedoes to set of mines. Sometimes the compression wave from the shell’s detonation would activate the mine. However, it wasn’t wholly guaranteed, as a near miss by shell after cratering the ground would either lift off the mine and fling it. Where sometimes it would explode other times it would just sit there waiting. The cratering would also send debris/earth/sand to cover the mine. Depending on how deep the mine became buried it could still be activated by a vehicle driving over it.
This led to the Army to develop the Giant Viper mine clearing system, which was a rocket, that trailed a hose containing plastic explosive. Which when laid on the ground, would detonate and take out the majority of the mines. Which was then followed by a vehicle pushing a mine plough, to push the mines aside and out of the way, thereby clearing a path through a minefield for vehicles.
With the advent of heavy lift Octocopter drones, perhaps there’s an opportunity for the drone to carry and deploy a PE filled hose over a suspected minefield.
..exactly! I’ve got one for sale on eBay the MoD can buy if they want to do trials. 🙂
Thanks for that DaveB, very interesting.
I like the idea of drones delivering the exploding hose. I am aware that the mines have got very clever of late and as such present mine clearance with a real headache. Post mine clearance charities are going to have a hard time in Ukraine I recon. Dogs have been use with some success in Ukraine, but it is hardly a battlefield solution.
For me the combination of arty, mines and drones seem to have had a significant impact on the shape of the Ukrainian battlefield and eNATO is trailing behind in terms of breaking this triad…
Cheers CR
..I would add in as much anti-drone defence as possible, and have provision for carrying two types of drone: one tethered for situation awareness, and one FPV for offensive stuff.
There is no doubt that inefficiency in areas like Health, Welfare and Defence need to be addressed. But, in my view, they can only go so far and the reality is that we need to accept that taxes across the board need to rise in order to pay for the level of service we expect and in the current climate need, with regard to Defence. There has never been a clearer time when Si Vis Pacem Parabellum was more apt.
Increase taxes further and you smother the economy by pushing down aggregate demand and increasing the hurdle rate for investment to the point of making it totally unviable.
Borrow more and the gilt market will shoot yields through the roof as they have at multiple points across the last year. The gilt market is saturated and investors are extremely dubious about the UK’s ability to fund growth through debt, and rightly so.
The only path forwards is cutting state expenditure and that has been made abundantly clear. The only question is what your priorities are. In my opinion we are not in that soft warm world post-1990, foreign aid, welfare and triple locked pensions are a luxury that cannot exist in the world we now find ourselves in. Cut them to fund defence.
Not sure where all the talk of serviceable challenger tanks comes from maybe MoD spin again as I am told only 25 are actually serviceable.
Brian, where do you get this info from? Who is it who tells you?
Only 25 tanks serviceable? That would be a shocking indictment on all our Chally crews, Regimental MT staffs, their REME support at First and Second Line and the Equipment Support Manager.
The army’s equipment availability stats very rarely get into the public domain. The last time was about April 2024 when MoD declared to the HCDC that 157 tanks out of 213 were operational or very nearly so (ie need a small amount of User or REME work).
Enough already, looks like we will be deploying thousands of troops on a high-risk enduring mission to Ukraine- lets just be done with this fiasco- all C2s to C3 standard, all fitted with Trophy APS sets from the word go and stop with the stupidity already.
Well there is a surprise Mr Putin has made Mr Trump look a bit of a prat. Maybe now the Reverend Starmer will drop his hilarious Blairite hubris and realise that Vlad is a deceitful liar and there will be no lasting peace in Europe so he had better start spending big and spending well FAST. His coalition of the willing is a really embarrassing mantra.
Given some of the newbie posters comments on BAOR and 25 Challys operational seems JinMK, Haroldski etc are making a comeback…..🥱
I did wonder.
Always highlight a negative. With a western sounding name.
We originally bought 386 Challenger 2. We apparently now have 213 (serviceable or otherwise).
So what happened to the other 170 ??
Many were scrapped when almost new.
6 Armoured Regiments reduced to 5 when 19 Mechanized became 19 Light around 2005-2007 timeframe.
5 Armoured Regiments became 3 when SDSR 2010 turned 4 Mechanized and 7 Armoured Brigades into Infantry Brigades.
The 3 remaining due to reduce to 2.
14 given to Ukraine.
Here we are. Nice work HMG…..
That fact that we are even thinking 3 regiments is a difficult proposition and hard to maintain is just insane really. A baseline for the British Army should be that it can constitute and deploy for a sustained period a full armoured division with three full armoured brigades ( each with 1 MBT reg, 2 AI battalion, 2 mech battalions, armoured mobile fires regiment, long range precision fires regiment, armoured cav regiment, medical, engineering/electrical regiment, logistics regiment, air defence regiment)… but that means it needs more that 3 MBT regiments as it needs spares…to be able to deploy 3..essentially that’s why the 97/98 defence review went for 6 regiments…and that is how many we should have had…now we struggle to even envisaged a path to 2…which means in reality due to other deployments the British army would struggle to deploy and maintain a full armoured brigate…
Once it fully transfers over to only having 2 MBT regiments and only Mec infantry battalions..I’m not really sure you could say the British army was capable of deploying and sustaining even one of what anyone else would call an armoured brigade. It’s not great.
MOD lies, smoke and mirrors and half truths, no one gives a str8 answer any more. Just more fools and others at the top kidding them selfs they command an army rather than scrap yard of broken down/lacking spares and numbers rust buckets. Too many on here just seem not to admit what sorry state things really are those at the top can not face it or admit it.
I am holding out hope for the defence review but they all seem to end up a numbers game with the CDS and that lot rubbers stamping any thing they are told to agree with. Boils down to weak leadership, lack of honesty and lack of investment covered up over the past 20 years.
Past due, bringing back mandatory National Service.
Watch how fast flights back to other Countries happen.
Time to arm to the teeth.
Long overdue.
That’s for all services.
Nuclear missile sites being re-armed after 20 years.
Look to South Korea to quickly arm us with Ships, Howitzers, etc.
Quickly and cheaply.
In addition.
Don’t buy overpay for U S. Stealth fighters. Once a war starts they will be more out of theatre downtime than in with costly repairs. Cheaper and more effective to make stealth missiles.
What the Russians and the challenger 3 programme have shown is the concern that you should never just scrap old MBTs as you can modernise and bring them back for pennys in thhe pound compared to building a new MBT..just consider a challenger 3 conversion is almost 5 times cheaper than an Abrams.
To much strategic thinking there, best to sell it on the cheap then be stuck trying to buy high end platforms with new production lines that take years to set up and then more years of low rate production to deliver the kit when you need to expand mass quickly.
Surely the reserves would have been better off with previous gen equipment like CH1 (potentially upgraded like the Leo2a4) rather than having nothing and hoping the under funded and equipped regulars have kit remaining for them to step into.
Even now there won’t be any plan to retain Warriors in reserve once they are replaced.
Jon, we do not have the space or money to keep Obsolete equipment.
It’s pretty clear that for the next four years we will definitely be on our own when it comes to defence and the priority should be for a top class anti missile defence system capable of shooting down ballistic missiles with drones for an offensive capability. The Royal Navy should have more missile/laser capable frigates to protect the carriers and if we are really serious on defence another nuclear missile submarine.