Only a few months ago the UK promised to supply 14 Challenger 2 tanks
to Ukraine, a move which helped persuade other western nations to
supply their own tanks to aid the fight against the Russian invasion.
Challenger tanks have been in Ukraine for some months now.
Since then the floodgates have creaked open, albeit sometimes slowly,
and parts of the UkrAF have been re-equipped with NATO armoured
fighting vehicles, most notably German-built Leopard 2 tanks, donated by
various European countries, and American Bradley infantry fighting
vehicles.
Written by Lt Col Stuart Crawford, a defence analyst and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The equipment from the west has been sufficient to equip up to 15
Ukrainian brigades, each of perhaps 3,000 personnel or more and about
250 vehicles of all types. These brigades are considered to represent the
Ukrainian operational reserve, ready to exploit any breakthrough of the
Russian defence lines if and when it happens.
Ukrainian soldiers have also been taught how to operate their new
equipment and trained in the western way of war, in combined all-arms
operations where the various arms and services combine to best effect.
We now know that some of these brigades have been committed to battle,
if only by the photographic evidence of Leopard 2s and Bradleys
languishing burnt and forlorn in Russian minefields. A significant number
of these abandoned vehicles, however, can and have been rescued and
repaired.
What we are yet to see, though, at least from open sources, is any
evidence of the Challenger 2s in action. They may well have been, of
course, and have managed to survive unscathed so far, but I doubt it.
They are just as vulnerable to the mines and UAVs which seem to have
taken out some of the Leopard 2s.
We have seen other British-supplied vehicles in action, notably the Alvis
Stormer tracked vehicle which carries the UK High Velocity Missile
(HVM) which has proven potent against Russian helicopters. And in a
more sombre note there are photographs circulating showing British
Mastiff armoured troop carriers destroyed on the battlefield.
But no sign of the Challenger 2s yet. The BBC’s defence correspondent,
Jonathan Beale, who is in Ukraine, Tweeted recently that he had asked
two Ukrainian generals in charge of operations where the tanks were and
was told they didn’t have them. They must be somewhere else,
uncommitted so far.
I don’t think we should read too much into this, though, for there could be
many reasons why they haven’t seen battle yet. They could, for example,
be allocated to a formation that hasn’t been committed, or perhaps their
different logistic and training requirements may have slowed down their
deployment.
Who knows?
In fact some people do know. Since beginning this article I have been
informed from two sources that the British tanks are training with a
UkrAF airborne formation. This unit is also equipped with the US Stryker
and German Marder infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). None of these have
been seen in battle yet as far as I am aware.
Plus we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the 14 British tanks donated to the
UkrAF are a significant addition to their combat power; they’re not,
sufficient only to kit out a weak-ish squadron-company group given
sufficient mechanised infantry and supporting arms. Their true value was
the symbolism of the gift and the subsequent galvanising of other
European countries into similar action.
President Zelensky reportedly asked the west for 500 tanks, and I think he
may have got 300 or so. He might have been better advised to have asked
for 1,000 in the hope that he might just get the 500, but we’ll never know.
We should also note that Britain’s donation here has reduced our
pathetically meagre number of tanks down to 134 which might be
deployable, plus a slack handful of others in training and trial facilities.
This is far too few for a country which seeks to be a recognised regional
(ie European) military power, let along a global one.
We should be looking at a fleet of about 500; any fewer than that and our
armoured regiments will be unsustainable in the sort of combat seen in
Ukraine. As I have written before, the UK’s current 134 tanks might last
a week if we were lucky.
Matters will not improve either when Challenger 3 replaces our older
tanks. Planners are looking at a fleet of 148 which might begin to trickle
into service from 2027 onwards, although experience suggests that 2030
is much more likely.
Yes, Challenger 3 will incorporate a brand new turret featuring the
German Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore cannon, a gun that I and my
colleagues recommended be adopted way back in 1988 when the
Challenger 2 programme was in its infancy. Better late than never I
suppose, and there are other modernising enhancements to sights,
protection, and mobility.
With the prospect of Ukrainian Challenger 2s going into action soon
we’ll know how good they are and what they can do. But the UK needs to
sort out its tank fleet before it’s too late.
Great article, thank you!
👏🏻 I endorse this article and give it the official Hermanos seal of approval for being grounded in reality😃👍🏻 The big takeaway for the delusional Ukraine promoters in here who were convinced those tanks were rolling all the way to Vladivostok. Plus we shouldn’t kid ourselves that the 14 British tanks donated to the UkrAF are a significant addition to their combat power; they’re not, sufficient only to kit out a weak-ish squadron-company group given sufficient mechanised infantry and supporting arms & the UK needs to sort out its tank fleet before it’s too late. Aye abso F&*€@£g lutely the… Read more »
Stuart comments that: Ukrainian soldiers have also been taught how to operate their new equipment and trained in the western way of war, in combined all-arms operations where the various arms and services combine to best effect. Difficult to achieve the above in a counteroffensive against one of the worlds largest militaries, or any half decent one in fact, without one of the most critical elements, namely effective aircover, for which the Ukrainians perennially await. I am aware that many commentators, here and increasingly among those generally considered ‘uninterested in matters military’ (by politicians at any rate) *, increasingly highlighting… Read more »
Yer ‘tiz
Good Afternoon, LP. I did submit a response to your above earlier, but received a banner that it’d gone into the Spam folder – a 1st 🤔. Trust George’s team manage to extract and post soon enough.
Rgs
Ah much better my tuppence worth (Gold plated) has returned😉
Aye Double G I bid you good day sir always a pleasure to hear a reply whether good bad or indifferent👍🏻 Having been involved in some epic ding dongs over the years with characters who funnily enough no longer appear on here or felt they had to change their names through embarrassment 😂
anyhoos your other comment not yet visible I have no disagreement with your take on matters.
🏴🇬🇧
Cheers. Double G – may well adopt if need to go incog any time👍
Maybe but – The 14 C2 tanks given to Ukraine would hardly have made any difference strength to the pathetic 148 C3 we have now .
Alright son I’m no fan of the reduction in numbers but one thing I believe in 100% is the 148 you call pathetic wipes the floor with any peer adversary you know why ? Because we Brits are straight up the greatest nation on the face of this earth and nobody defeats us ever so please reflect and stick pipe smoke 👍🏻
🏴🇬🇧
I never got a notification so I never saw your answer. I was not calling C3s pathetic – It was the numbers that was pathetic.
But we don’t have any C3s yet?
No and that is worse, Starts in 2027 with full Operating Capability in 2030.” That is sad.
Sadly, there is not a chance of the UK getting more than 148 CH3s and that is due to a universal blind spot in both the Army and MOD. Someone somewhere convinced the Government the MBT was a dead weapon system on the modern battlefield, hence the current pathetic fleet status. In fact, the concept of just enough is prevalent throughout the UK’s three services. The current mindset is dumb and not fit for purpose even with a raging war in progress at the centre of Europe.
it is sad to see that we invented the tank and we should have been at the forefront of evolution on and with them but, typical MOD and ministers who do not have a clue have ruined the very concept, everyone else has gone mad increasing the defense budgets and quite a lot of those budgets are for tanks ifv,s and artillery, meanwhile we have gone backwards, no ifv,s a few tanks and as of yet a mixed bag of artillery,while cutting boots on the ground..
The wilderness years all over again and the constant answer to the vexed question, ‘War as we knew it is all but over’ the emphasis must now be on cyber and other high-tech threats. Admittedly, that is true but the war in Ukraine is not over and the NATO border has grown expediently as a result. These extended regions will need an international component if they are to be properly patrolled against any future Russian adventure. Sadly, Russia will continue to harbour ambitions of expansion long after the current conflict is resolved if Putiniusm is allowed to remain in charge.… Read more »
👍
Very true post 🇬🇧
It is not only the MOD and ministers, it is UK culture.
Treasury . Its still Thatcherite Central
No. Tell me how many citizens care about defence…
Do the people of France or Italy care about defence either but both those countries have the defence infrastructure humming along nicely supporting the military . Italys navy is well supported such as a new 38,000 ton Helicopter amphib vessel the Trieste and 3 x 18,000 LPD starting construction.
Even better to be in the forefront of whatever deals with tanks, no?
I agree, in Normandy attempting a breakthrough with massive air superiority we lost 400 tanks in three days. We need to double up on everything with massed reserves because the way this is going we are likely going to be involved whether we like it or not. The USA is going wobbly and the future is increasingly murky.
I’m old enough to remember many military depots around the country with huge sheds supposedly full of tanks, artillery and trucks. Slowly but surely they have been closed and replaced by houses or supermarkets. The peace dividend you may say but too much has been cast without a second thought. Before Lugershall was closed hundreds of tanks were stored there awaiting their fate and most died by the cutter’s torch. The UK Government is embarrassed by military inventories due to social pressures and anti-war lobbies that constantly complain about the total waste of public funds on defence.
I remember Ludgershall very well and went there once, when serving. Great large site – quite near Salisbury Plan, with a railhead. I don’t recall tanks being cut up. Many 432s, Abbots, Strikers, Chieftains etc went to private collectors, ‘experience’ centres and museums (at home and abroad). Some redundant CVR(T)s were sold to Spain, Ireland, Chile, Venezuela etc All CR1s (less a few to museums and gate guards) to Jordan. All A Vehs on the active list moved to Ashchurch. I don’t think HMG reduces military inventories (and head-count) due to embarrassment – it is to save money, which enables… Read more »
Agree w/ proposition that economics is dictating defence policy,. Would presume that if Big Ben, ex-Army and a successful politician and administrator, was unable to convince HMG to provide additional funding to increase the number of CR-3 conversions during the midst of the largest European land conflict since WW II, no realistic circumstances would permit an increase, short of an actual invasion of UK. At that point, any decision re tank conversions would be irrelevant. 🤔
MBT in the UK, if we are using a CH2 on our shores we have lost allready. better bet for Apache
Apache is good, but we need air superiority to allow it to operate. That is risky considering how few operational fighters we have. Few warships, few aircraft, few tanks, few troops. All is setting us up to fail. Is that what all the Russian & Chinese money we’ve courted & the Tories accepted has boiught, or is it our home grown imbecility & ultra monetarist dogma to destroy the state? We are a permanent member of the UN security council, so have a standing responsability to provide muscle where needed in proper & legal causes. Without a strong armed force,… Read more »
I find it baffling that the IR Refresh 2023 and the resulting DCP 2023 which specifically looked at the war in Ukraine did not advocate increased defence spending/uplift of manpower & kit especially tanks. Sunak and his mates in the Treasury had nothing therefore to either agree to or reject.
Don’t you presume that every word of IR Refresh 2023 and DCP was pre-vetted through Treasury and PM’s office before release? The hypothesized machinations of HMG would make Machievelli blush. 🤔
You know HMG all too well! Hopefully Project Wavell will be more forthcoming and recommend increases but if it wasn’t said in the 2023 IR and DCP, Treasury will not play ball.
No! They didn’t cut defence funds due to social pressure or anti-war lobbies. They made cuts in the defence sector because it’s always the first to go, then education and the health sector. When you have an over-bloated government with thousands of bureaucrats and pencil-pushers from Cabinet ministers, special advisors, Privy Council advisers to the Monarch, civil servants you need to make cuts somewhere. Even some of the Cabinet positions are pointless… eg. theres a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, three seperate Cabinet offices for each of those regions. And they all employ secretaries, advisors, drivers… Read more »
Social pressures are always at the route of government policy regardless of party. The elephant in the room is the perception that in peacetime defence is an unwanted burden and this is not just privy to the UK. However, when a military crisis hits the headlines the recriminations begin about the parlous state of our forces. The UK’s mountain of bureaucracy is unique and needs a dam good pruning but sadly, the savings won’t find their way into the MOD’s coffers.
Money could be found elsewhere, For instance, I think we should put stricter rules on foreign aid where we do not give anything to countries that have nuclear weapons (e,g Pakistan) and or / sizeable armed forces.
…or very expensive space programmes!
Count Ukraine’s payments and aid as ‘foreign aid’, but instead its coming out of Defence budget
Go figure
Thats the Home secretary you are thinking of.
The individual secretaries of the smaller regions dont amount to much as of course they have their own governments
148 is the number of the existing that can be upgraded, the rest are current in various states and configurations. Hull numbers
The numbers to be converted to CR3 is based on two armoured regiments as per FS plus what is deemed sufficient for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
rumour has it Ukraine has reverted back to there own way of fighting instead of how the west fight,s..Mainly down to the fact Russia have managed to heavily fortify positions and laid mines 3 or 4 deep on top of each other in places, making progress slow, As for the challengers maybe they are waiting for a good opportunity before unleashing them, Or maybe UK gov told them to be careful with them in the hope Russia does not capture one,Russia already have a pretty intact cv90 so i would not be surprised if that is sent to China or… Read more »
Ukraine has only just (within the last few days) started to commit its main force (10th Corps).
That’s just an excuse for the politicians to distance themselves from the Ukrainian losses and setbacks on the battlefield. When UK announced they would deliver only 14 Challenger 2 tanks, I predicted they wouldn’t be sent to the front lines but would be used in the rear for training purposes and PR photo-ops. If you remember soon after that announcement in May the Challenger 2’s were filmed tearing through dragons teeth defences and they claimed these were Russian defences on the front lines, yet if you look closely at the video footage you will notice they are newly erected dragons… Read more »
It was never claimed by the Ukrainian or British MOD that these videos were of the challengers on the frontline. That was pure speculation from uninformed commentators. Plenty of Ukraine-supporting commentators were saying that the videos were not from the frontline. It’s not some big conspiracy theory…
It was never claimed that it was combat footage? Where did get that from?
See my reply to Andy, above…
“Russia have managed to heavily fortify positions and laid mines 3 or 4 deep on top of each other in places, making progress slow…”
I’ve often wondered whether or not the Ukrainians pounded or harassed these defence works whilst they were being built? Surely constant artillery fire poured down on the Russian army would have slowed or stopped construction? Just a thought…
Well I think the issue (for both sides but the Ukrainians more) is that artillery ammunition is lacking, hence why the Ukrainians have been targeting supply dumps as they can get more value from their limited stocks.
I could make many comments but shall stick to just one or two.
It was decided, after a quite thorough and analytical review (Options for Change), that the British Army needed 386 CR2s for the post-Cold War world. Why do we now need 500 tanks?
Where is the evidence that we would lose 134 excellent & well-armoured tanks in combat in a week?
Agree, but I would like to see the entire remaining challenger 2 fleet converted to challenger 3. As we have had the conversation a number of times that 148 is too few.
Fully agree. The carefully worked out figure for the post-Cold War army was for 386 tanks.
Hi Graham Odd but I can’t reply to your reply to me. Maybe it is seeking approval. So for the main I’ll wait, but will answer one of your questions. Why 300 ? Well we are rebuilding 148 CR2, if we add 300 new build hull that gives us 448, which allows us to field 2 full Armoured Divisions of 158 (3 x 56) so 316 plus training and spares for replenishment. When you are kick starting a commercial system you need sufficient mass to encourage participation. If it was me and to ensure continuity of production I’d add an… Read more »
Hi Rodney, I see your angle now. 448 tanks! That is more than the CR2 fleet (originally 386) or the CR1 fleet which was bought in Cold War times (Qty 435). It would have been had to justify 448 in the later half of teh Cold War, let alone now. Treasury would not stump up the budget for an extra 300 new tanks and there isnt the manpower to crew or maintain all those additional tanks. Hard to justify two armoured divisions – what is your thinking there.. Definitely need a new ARRV as CRARRV is over 35 years old… Read more »
I can see two armored divisions being barely enough. One in Estonia and one in UK with rotations of units every few months. One to fight and one to carry on. Or one to guard Estonia and one to follow up the Litoral response group which the UK chooses to deploy. Russia started this current war thinking that it could win. We need enough force to make them know for sure that they can’t win. That’s how deterrence works. The rot didn’t start in 2014 with the Russian take over of Crimea it was already in evidence in 2012 when… Read more »
Absolutely no-one expects the UK to field two armoured divisions. One div in Estonia? NATO asks us to station a BG there as a tripwire – don’t need a div to be a tripwire. Usual rotation is after 6 months. RUSI recently painted 4 possible scenarios for deployment of a LRG. None to be seemed to suit the follow-on of an armoured div. “The Royal United Services Institute provided four example uses for a Royal Navy LRG in its publication, titled Requirements for the UK’s Amphibious Forces in the Future Operating Environment, which are:[9] The removal of a Russian force that has landed… Read more »
Where you pull the crew from. ???????
Sorry Jon. What does that mean? What crew? For ABC Rodney’s 448 tanks?
we dont have the crew numbers for those tanks
The third armoured regiment still exists and crews 56 tanks. So we can crew 168 tanks in total today.
No desire to build new CH3s when the design study is out on the Future MBT.
When was the figure of 386 decided on, 1991 or much later?
The world has changed massively since then, hence should the number of tanks needed.
Wiki: “ In June 1991, the UK ordered 140 vehicles, followed by a further 268 in 1994; these were delivered between 1994 and 2002. The tank entered operational service with the British Army in 1998 and has since been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq. Yes, the world has changed massively since 1991, beyond the end of the Cold War. We found ourselves fighting the Iraqi army at divisional strength (twice), deployed armoured forces to the Balkans three times. Thus confirming the ongoing usefulness of armoured forces. We engaged in long-running COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan, which focussed the eye away from armoured… Read more »
Definitely the thought of Russia going on the war path was not predicted or expected and it was also not expected they could barely take over a 25% of a neighboring country.
Underestimate maybes but also the main ground threat to us doesnt exist anymore.
We arent going to go invading Russia and Russia cant take over Europe as originally thought.
NATO, a defensive organisation, has no intent to invade Russia and had none to invade the USSR.
Russia has no interest to take over Europe but has frequently invaded or militarily interfered in neighbouring or nearby countries just as the USSR used to.
We need to side with friendly nations even if they have not joined NATO.
The Berlin Wall (part of the Iron Curtain) came down on 9 Nov 1989.
Wiki: “ In June 1991, the UK ordered 140 vehicles, followed by a further 268 in 1994; these were delivered between 1994 and 2002. The tank entered operational service with the British Army in 1998 and has since been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Iraq.
Again, Where do you think the 148 Came from strange number why not a round 150. condition survey on the Remaining hulls, and dont forget the variants. only 148 chasis are suitable.
It is a bit of an odd number…the 2 type 56 armoured regiments need 112 tanks…that only leaves 36 tanks for the training establishment, for maintenance pool and an attritional reserve. That’s just not enough hulls for all that…personally I think the 148 may simply be how many they could get converted with the specific allocates budget and not how many then need as in really for the two type 56 regiments you want: 112 tanks in the regiment 12 ish for training establishments 20 in maintaining pool 30 attritional reserve thats around 175 hulls. Essentially we should be keeping… Read more »
Evidence? Are you for real? Have you been watching this war unfold? Tanks are now very vulnerable to numerous weapons. What evidence are you looking for? We, UK, are so weak now it is scary. All 3 services are undermanned and underfunded. In this day and age we need to double our fighting soldiers and really man up on equipment.
I have been watching this war very carefully. Many Russian tanks and other AFVs that have had poor logistic and engineering support and have been ineptly tactically handled (not used in Combined Arms groups), have been poorly camouflaged and which have not used cover where it is available – have been destroyed in quantity. Anti-tank weapons are not new – the first one was fielded by Germany in 1916 and the first ATGW in the late 1950s by France – so the vulnerability of tanks is not new. Drones with an A/Tk capability are new – and the Russians are… Read more »
Crawford, Never saw combat, which kind of proves a point.
It kind of gives you ammunition for innuendo, but it kind of proves nothing. Play the ball not the man.
He talks Cold War tactics, i went to School doesn’t mean i can teach. living in a different war when Defence was a huge cost
A bit harsh. I served 34 years and was only posted to a combat zone once (6 months in Afghan, at the age of 53). It’s luck of the draw if you see combat – the Infantry/Paras of course see a lot of combat – or did before the end of Op Herrick. I was of course very frustrated at my lack of Ops time over 34 years. Stuart served in the RTR from 1979-1999, which included a stint as a staff officer in HQ British Forces Middle East during the first Gulf War, so he was not far from… Read more »
Harsh but true he comes out with some right old Cold war stories. yet if someone was shooting at him, wonder what he would hide in. LEP2 or CH2. we know the answer. he is a clickbaite consultant
I have been watching this war very carefully… Your whole text seems farcical like if there is some bizarre place that makes combined arms some sort of magical wand that denies artillery precision of today against post WW2, the range of 1973 ATGW vs today , plus drone and loitering ammunition. And then the magic camouflage how do you think it is possible that a tank a metal object cannot be detected by the many radars in battlefield? For some weird reason you also think that 134 tanks are impossible to loose in one week. Well i will tell you… Read more »
Alex, clearly I should have been doing some wargaming to understand the perils and pitfalls of CA warfare. What do you recommend for a beginner like me?
😀😀😀
😀👍 Not sure if Alex knows your history mate.
If he is a professional he knows already the huge number of tanks losses in peer to peer combat unless the enemy is incompetent or have structural deficiencies like the French in 1940.
And today tank combat has no big secrets while in 1940 it was only a bit over 2 decades from first tank.
Alex, I was waiting and hoping (for a few days now) that you would tell me about your wargaming experience which I could learn from. You seem to have gone quiet. My posts have never before been described as farcical. It is not farcical to conduct (and advocate) Combined Arms (CA) manouevre warfare to gain benefit by greater likelihood of achieving the mission (and quickly achieving it), maximising the strengths of certain equipment and minimising their weaknesses (vulnerability). Do you understand how CA operations can do this, or do I explain? I don’t see magic has much to do with… Read more »
Now that was a reply! 👊
Thanks mate! Now off to enjoy the weekend!
Agreed but how do you solve the personnel shortage, Navy is now the most popular choice to enter. RAF is busy ticking boxes, Army no one wants to be told what to do. funding for all current and ex is your budget
Hello Graham M, it’s that thorny old issue again. Options for Change was a badly concluded assumption leading to too many assets being consigned to the tip. I agree with 500 MBTs and always will and as an ex-tank man, I suggest you should too!😀
Hi Maurice, I have never heard that we should have kept all our Cold War inventory and head-count following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the freeing of eastern European countries, and the enlargement of NATO. I was serving then and was broadly content with Options for Change as the Threat had clearly changed. Defence cuts since then have only been about saving money not about relating to the Threat. Wher do you get the 500 figure from? We bought 435 CR1s from 1983 (middle of the Cold War) and ran some Chieftains on… Read more »
Agreed. The manpower requirement alone would be impossible for the current recruitment levels of the army. That or convert most of the other regiments of the RAC to operate 500 Tanks.
And people forget or are unaware of the other vehicles an Armoured Regiment operates. So additional up lifts in the Ajax or Boxer orders needed too.
It’s fairy tale stuff. A slight uplift to around 200, so most of the current inventory, and in the process retaining the 3rd Armoured Regiment, would be realistic and feasable.
All agreed. We can only justify one division configured as ‘armoured/warfighting’. I have always thought that an armoured div should have around 200 tanks (including attrition reserve).Definitely need to retain the 3rd armd regt within a proper 3rd manouevre bde, as we have both said before.
Agreed mixed fighting force, a Mobile brigade Tanks as proved by Russia, if you had 500 and send them in without support, day 1 of your Idiot tactics you would lose your 500.
When Options for Change was published we still spent 3.6% of GDP on defence. Calculating requirements without accounting for budget is why we have expensive kit in too few numbers. There’s no opportuntity to say, given the budget I’d rather have 400 medium quality tanks than 148 expensive ones. We look at specification and quantity divorced from each other and from the budget, and all too often end up with neither.
We spent 3.6% in summer 1990 as we had not yet started full rampdown from Cold War spending. The start point for a project is the Service Requirement, which states the quantity required and the ‘spec’ to generate an effect. It is then that horse-trading starts and the MoD gives up ground on numbers as Treasury will never agree to fund the initial figures. Given our taut manpower we cannot man a lot of equipments. Also we need to have very high capability equipment to offset the small crew numbers/equipment numbers. Our tanks have to have a much higher kill… Read more »
Ha yes. And I know we have at least one, or possibly two, Tank Transporter Squadrons left in the RLC.
19 TT Sqn at Bulford.
People never think of the supports needed to maintain such a force.
I count only one – 19 TT Sqn in 27 Regt RLC. Not sure how the FastTrax PFI fits in with its Sponsored Reserves (AR) drivers and maintainers – that is surely additional to 19 TT, and called up by MoD as and when required – I think for both non-exercise tank lifts and General/Major War. Previously 7 Tk Tptr Regt RCT (RLC from 1993) existed – the regiment consisted of 16 Tank Transporter Squadron, 3 Tank Transporter Squadron, 612 Tank Transporter Unit, 617 Tank Transporter Unit (Polish civvies from the MSO, a strange lot), 607 Mobile Civilian Transport Group,… Read more »
Concur on 7 RLC, 9 Sqn I had as fuel & GT Sqn.
Yes, I too had another look, can only find 19TT.
Yes, another stealthy cut of key enablers happened.
Graham, I think I may have misunderstood your post. I thought you were arguing in favour of 386 tanks, rather than using the number to contrast against 500, which on a reread I now understand your point to be.
It may not be a bad thing to have more tanks than you can crew or maintain in the field, to keep a reserve and to cover attrition. I don’t know if the 148 includes enough, but 386 felt like too much.
My comment that 386 tanks delivered 7-10 years after the Cold War ended is its own statement that 386 tanks were deemed necessary for the post Cold War army. The regualr army was reduced from 160k to 120k in light of the Russian threat disappearing (!) and that 120k figure was deemed necessary. That was as a result of Threat analysis. Since then the only cuts to the army in men and equipment has been to save money to put to social programmes (health, education, social services, debt servicing) and not because of a reduction of threat. Indeed arguably the… Read more »
I would agree with your assessment of why 386 “feels” too many, and I certainly concede “feels” is a pretty dumb way to come up with a number anyway. However, I don’t believe that threat assessment is somehow scientifically used to come up with the number of tanks needed. First, there are multiple ways to counter any threat and cost always comes into the equation at some point. A purely threat-based assessment simply isn’t enough. We should seek the best solution we can afford. If we now have less than 60% of the budget we had back then, the equation… Read more »
Threat assessment has to be the start point in determining what force structure an army (or air force or navy) requires. Military Tasks may be generated outside of a Threat assessment – there is a military task to provide troops for Public Duties, and one for having military music and an aerobatics team etc. Threat assessment should identify the effects that we require to counter the threat; I agree that there are many ways to counter a threat not just ‘we therefore need x tanks and y IFVs’ etc. Then the mix of capabilities to achieve desired effect is considered,… Read more »
its the like of old Crawford, Well in my day we had 3000 tanks and 9000 planes and 3000 warships. UK is a Partner in NATO together they have the numbers, if you still think Calvary charges are the tip of the spear. MODERN WARFARE passed a lot of people by.
If Challenger 3 won’t start to enter service until 2027 (at earliest) is it not better to purchase Leopards straight from the factory rather than extend the service life of the very old chassis of Challenger 2?
Do keep up this has been discussed over and over again🙄just to recap the CR2 hull will under go a complete refurb with upgrades to engine and suspension,the actual hulls are not ‘very old’ they are in most respects newer than the hulls that are refurbed for Leo 2 or M1s! The author of this article will continue to bleat on about Challenger as he is/was a Leopard fan.
Unfortunately that Train left the station years ago when the CR3 was chosen over Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams. I actually think we will end up with a better tank than either but in insufficient numbers to be effective. The real Elephant in the Garden isn’t the choice of the CR3 nor the inadequate numbers that are or can be produced. That is just a symptom of the underlying condition. It is the lack of vision in not using CR3 as an opportunity to regenerate our own ability to design and produce our own AFV’s. To do that we really… Read more »
Very good ABC, agree entirely with you.
I agree with you that we should and could produce a Ch4 using adapted parts from around the free world. Its not rocket science.
Future MBT design and feasibility between UK/Germany/France. also USA/Canada/UK/Australia/Japan. current MBT is a out of date model.
My recent armchair curiosity about ajax boxer warrior and ch2 . Has confirmed that the uk does indeed still have all the skills to build excellent afv ifv and tanks at competitive prices. We still have all the skills production lines for armour weaponry chassis suspension engines and other bits and bobs. It just requires simple will power and good management.
The problem is when you reduce your requirements to 148 MBT’s, you are effectively producing a bespoke UK solution. A sales cul-de-sac. As our armed forces are now so small, with corresponding small fleet requirements, it makes it harder and harder to justify the huge cost of bespoke UK equipment, as it will just eat the entire defence budget. There’s no point designing a brand new MBT because we couldn’t possibly sell it, why, because the unit cost would be excessive , as we can’t produce the platform in the numbers that would make it attractive to any potential customer.… Read more »
this is very valid point. The UK MOD seemingly has gone under the wing of General Dynamics USA and Rheinmetall Germany for most of our new heavy modern tracked and wheeled vehicles, so at the moment i think we could say the UK has chosen USA and Germany to align with. With 1 GD production plant and 2 Rheinmetall plants in the UK. I think Pearson Engineering UK are building manufacturing the Turrets and the Ch3 will be put together at Rheinmetall Telford. So at least many skills are still retained in UK if we have a brainstorm. I think… Read more »
Small orders, sadly, yes.
I recall it being said in the 70s or 80s that the British Army was a minority buyer of LandRovers! The bigger customers were farmers and NGOs.
Vickers Defence Systems used to make high-spec AFVs for the British Army and cheaper equipment for export (Vickers MBT Mk 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and ARVs). Customers (mainly of the Mk 1 or Mk 3) were: Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, India, Kuwait, Iraq. Long time ago, I know! But an idea (of a two-tier product range) still worth pursuing.
I think the problem is called our government 👍
all the same mate, makes you wonder how they all got it wrong.
Whether the end result offers the capability or value is debatable but there is massive investment going into our Armoured Vehicle Industry – GDLS in Wales,RBSL in Telford,Pearson Engineering in Newcastle to name the obvious ones.
LMUK in Ampthill (was Hunting Engineering) is a main player in terms of building medium-weight turrets.
WFEL (was Fairey Engineering) in Stockport is co-making Boxer and have built a new facility.
I am not over-pessimistic. We need to re-generate ability to design & develop complete vehicles from scratch…and live with the fact that we largely have Assembly Halls and not ‘Tank Factories’.
Just to get it up to date. WEFL (which was Fairey) became a subsidiary of German company Kruss Maffei Wegmann, which has since merged with the French Nexter, forming the company KNDS, nominally held in Holland.
WFEL is now KNDS UK.
Simples!
Thanks mate. Think you have mentioned that before. Hard to keep up with these constant changes. Anyway, more important is the number of manufacturing sites for AFVs in the UK, even if they are more akin to assembly halls rather than proper tank workshops.
From the above
‘It is the lack of vision in not using CR3 as an opportunity to regenerate our own ability to design and produce our own AFV’s’.
There was an early & I believe logical assumption on this site that indeed the small numbers of CH3 would be instrumental in such such a regeneration. Clearly that requirement has in no way diminished under current, and multiplying, national security risks. Is there evidence that the MoD has failed in this axiomatic vision that you’re aware of?
Regards
Would it be cost effective/worthwhile to design, tool up and build 300 ‘new’ CR4 tanks? Or better to buy off the shelf tanks from Germany or Korea?
Both options are difficult – to design,develope and manufacture a Brand New CR4, if it were possible, just wouldn’t be cost effective in the numbers the BA would need,but Buying off the shelf from abroad would make sense in most situations but would be politically unacceptable.
The amount of waste and time that has been lost in the past due to sensible options being ‘politically unacceptable’!
We have bought foreign kit off the shelf many times before but not tanks since the acquisition of M4 Shermans in WW2.
Given that CR3 FOC is 2030 and could well be in service to 2050 or so, then CR4 is a long way off. It’s maybe a bit premature to speculate that we would buy German or Korean tanks in about 20 years time.
Agreed as it stands. The point is that when we do need a replacement, or if we decide to increase the size of the tank force rather than reduce it, we will have to decide whether it is worthwhile to make our own or buy in. And believe me – 20 years will arrive faster than you think. To have a new British designed tank in service for 2050 we need to start initial development work now!
I meant 30 years (ie. 2050 is about 30 years away). It usually takes about 10 years to initiate project, design, develop, test, bulk manufacture and field a new tank – so start in 2040, rather than now.
I suspect that it may be a collaborative tank.
I was thinking (but didn’t make it clear) that wouldn’t expect anything to happen until 2030 – I wouldn’t expect anyone to start thinking about it until the CR3 was fully operational. How long would depend on how ‘new’ the new tank was – Challeger itself was based on the Chieftain,so we have had 3 successive tanks that are basically just major upgrades.Starting from scratch I think that 10 years would be optomistic. As for collaborative tank – yes, that would be the only way I can see to make it viable. But if so, same issue you have re… Read more »
Look at the problems the euro countrys had with buying off the shelf from Germany having to ask permission to send them to Ukraine what we should have done Is set up a tank production line yes we would only order 150 or so but imagine if we had that line wouldn’t Ukraine buy anything we could produce
True. But we have the same issue with Typhoon and F35. If we could sell enough to make a profit, going alone fine. However, our defence policy shouldn’t be based on a possible Ukraine scenario. It should be based on our own defence needs – and that involves financial restraint when it comes to developing things that we could get cheape (and at least as good) as we can make ourself. If we need enough of the things to make it cost effective, or if we can guarantee sales – fine, do it!
300 tanks when we would struggle to man them 150 CH3s future MBT is on lots of countries wish list. Buying from Abroad is a complete loss of tax payers money, if they assembly them in the UK from parts employs uk tax payers and pays back into the system
👍
We do of course have the Land (military equipment) Industrial Strategy, but that was very broadbrush and shied away from detail. True that we do not have to build every part of a vehicle – I don’t think any AFV maker or car maker in the world does that. Turret is quite a challenge to make if it includes castings. Key would be finding a company (BAE springs to mind) that would set up a tank factory rather than an Assembly Hall, both being quite different beasts. Pearson Engineering are in the former BAE Newcastle tank factory, but Pearson is… Read more »
Two points – firstly there are no Leopard 2 Tanks ready to be purchased straight from the Factory,new orders are piling up but it will be years before deliveries can be made,the means of production have to be ramped up.Secondly the CR3 will in effect have a Leo 2 Base Turret as it’s core so in effect we will have the best of both worlds.
I have high confidence in CR3 being an excellent tank, but pity they cost so much, the army has to wait so long for them and that there will be so few of them.
I think that CR2 is better than Leo2 (especially in terms of survivability and maintainability) and that CR3 will also be superior to later versions of Leo2 or its Franco-German successor, MGCS.
I suspect we are pretty well stuck with the numbers of C3 as no Politician will commit to building more. But recently those same Politicians have committed massive amounts of money to protecting and regenerating capabilities for the future. So the big question has to be what follows CR3 ? If we look at the CR3 as a short term bridge to a new design Tank built in collaboration with another user then that would make sense. Everyone is talking about Franco/ German, US or Korean MBTs but they really don’t fit in with our way of designing tanks. If… Read more »
That’s an interesting suggestion. Putting effort into a new line of modular lighterweight armour could merge traditional strengths of both countries. Challengers have a reputation for durability that even the Israelis would want to take notice of, but would they give up on their old chasses with forward engines for the Mk VI or would we be willing to adopt it? I’ve read that Merkavas have inherited a lot of idiosyncrasies. At the end of the day though, I wonder if tanks designed to fight over small distances in the Middle East should end up the same as tanks designed… Read more »
If you take a look at the Merkava it has virtually the same range as the CR2 and is slightly slower. But in terms of Chassis, Weight and dimensions it is very similar. It does have a fairly unusual layout but like us the Israelis value the survivability of the crew.
Merkava 4 is the only tank currently with top armoured turret against ATGWs.albeit not the major ones.
While the Ethos of both Tanks was similar there is no direct lineage from the Chieftain to the Merkava.You are right Israel did Trial the Chieftain but the Merkava was a clean sheet design.
The only chance of increasing the 148 number is if Project Wavell recommends it. I agree that CR3 may be a short term bridge. In some ways CR1 was in that it was replaced only 15 years after its ISD by CR2. What would CR4 look like? We are observors on the Franco-German MGCS but it does not seem to be cutting edge and the timesacel does not fit with us. Many Korean fanboys advocate K2 Black Panther but again the time line does not fit. A US tank based on the Abrams X technology demonstrator – maybe…or a UK… Read more »
2027 is only 4 years away. Tank hulls rarely ‘wear out’ – occasionally they can become distorted slightly in exceptionally hard use over decades (very, very rare) or welds can crack but re-welding is done at Base Overhaul and is very standard practice. Hulls of FV430s and M113s are still in service 60 years later. The hull is the least important part of a tank.The important bits on a tank is everything but the hull. CR3 will be excellent but this project should have been done a decade ago and to all of the CR2 fleet. I doubt even the… Read more »
Think the main issue is CH2s were built in 2 batches and in different locations, so some tolerances are not the same with the Hulls, older models were the 1st to become 140 1st order followed by the 2nd of 268, of these 22 chassis are or were driver training. 33 Titan conversions. 35 Trojan, CRARRV was around 50, now some of these were based on CH1 chassis but REME did confirm that these early options would be swapped over to CH2 Chassis. which just happens to number 140. ???? leaving a poss of 268 chassis for conversion recorded loses… Read more »
Certainly CR2 was built both at Newcastle and Leeds – but to a master drawings pack. It beggars belief that each factory would have built a slightly different tank, dimensionally. Jigs would have been made to a single master drawing. Titan and Trojan (33 of each) were not gun tank conversions (they were a bespoke design) and they were not built at the same time as the CR2 gun tanks – they were built just a few years afterwards. 81 x CRARRV were built not 50 – they were based largely on the CR1 hull (bespoke design not a converted… Read more »
I’ve read Leopard 2 is even more expensive. Where does the money come from to buy them above the commited 1. something billion that CH3 is costing?
Cranky Crawford is a Lep fan, bit like lusting after your brothers wife because she is a little slimmer and runs faster. the Numbers were compared. LEP 2 and the start up and entire package compared to CH3s was you would get 50 Lep 2s for the same price of the 148 CH3s Cranky even mentioned lease and return on the MBT. he ignores the images of destroyed Leps posted over the net.
Given the number of Leo2s in Yemen, Syria (Al-Bab) and now Ukraine that have been totally destroyed in combat, I would much rather be in a Chally2.
The main question needing to be answered is where do we think the next conflict involving the sort of numbers of all arms is going to occur, and will we be in it alone or with NATO?. I don’t see another 1940-45 scenario happening so will our NATO allies be using their armour in conjunction with ours? Then we need to ask ourselves what weapons better suits an island nation wishing to project power across the globe. The bottom line will always be what is most cost effective. from observing the Ukrainian conflict it would seem sensible to have a… Read more »
The Integrated Review is supposed to look ahead in the way you advocate, but we should not just look to the next conflict (but that has always proved difficult), as the next tank will be in service for 20 or more years. I doubt many in 1955 would have forecast sending tanks to Suez just the next year, or those in 1989/90 knowing that we would be joining in a US-led MN coalition ejecting the Iraqi Army from Kuwait by warring in the desert in 1991, followed almost immediately by operations in Bosnia then Kosovo, then invading Iraq. Forecasting the… Read more »
It’s an unanswerable question, Mick, at least with any accuracy. Who would have predicted ten years ago the need to arm another country to fight a war we aren’t even in? Who predicted Afghanistan, the outcome of a surprise attack on the twin towers? Or the Falklands? Wars sometimes come where you think, but often they don’t. We need to be ready with flexibility. If we heavily bias our forces to fight the expected battles, we may be heavily biasing them against being able to fight the unexpected ones.
Very good point, but both Afghanistan and Falklands didn’t require main battle tanks in numbers. I do agree that all arms need to be capable of operations sadly we don’t have politicians that either understand that or even care due to short sightedness and abject stupidity.
Col Crawford is right in his inference that our planned tank fleet of 148 is pretty pathetic by any yardstick. All the leading NATO nations apart from the UK are expanding their heavy i.e. tracked armoured infantry brigades, for good reason. The reason is that, apart from Poland, the other nine eastern European border countries have very small populations and therefore limited financial/military resources. Quite apart from Ukraine, if Russia stirs up grey zone agitation, as a prelude to armed insurrection as per Donetz and Crimea, in the Russian-speaking parts of Estonia, Latvia Moldova, or its political satraps in Bulgaria,… Read more »
Spot on very true ,other nations increasing there IFV ,Tanks not sure what our game is 🙄
2017 was the Year of the Navy, and it seems like the Navy has had a few more good years of procurement since. Bravo the RN for largely cracking procurement, although clearly not everything is 100% perfect. The RAF and especially the army need to get ‘on point’. I am concerned at the RAF’s loss of C-130s, the small number of fast jet squadrons and Wedgetails and Poseidons as you are. The army is virtually a basket case, with a very poor history of AFV procurements and upgrades in the last 20 years, as well as savage manpower, tank and… Read more »
I don’t want our Tanks just thrown into the meat grinder. As I commented a while back, this is like Kursk all over again. Going into prepared positions knee deep in minefields on a front with the Dneiper on one flank and the Donetsk on the other. With no air superiority. No wonder the UKR are taking their time. The lives of their troops matter. I also remain concerned as to just what intelligence Russia and China would get with a captured example. The Challengers will be used in the Ukrainians own time, when they’re ready, with any caveats we… Read more »
Agree, Russia aimed to bog the war down, unfortunately they have the man power edge to do that and Ukraine cannot and will not spaff away its army to break it…It would matter less but the Ukrainian campaign season is short and if the US election goes the wrong way next year Ukraines support will be cut off at the knees.
I heard somewhere that the challengers are part of the 10th corps/army/grouping and so far only the 9th corps has been sent into battle. More of the better trained units are in the 10th presumably waiting for a breakthrough or a counter attack.
CH2s are to be used as defensive and not offensive action only.
Is that right. I’d not heard of that condition. I agree with that.
The CR2’s have rarely been seen for whatever reason – only small snippets available – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYJ1ggOTer0
“”The BBC’s defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale, who is in Ukraine, Tweeted recently that he had asked two Ukrainian generals in charge of operations where the tanks were and was told they didn’t have them. They must be somewhere else, uncommitted so far.”” Maybe the Ukrainians had good reason not to trust the BBC with such information, such as: Goose Green Informing the Argentines that the bombs they were dropping on British Ships werent fused correctly and so were not detonating, not to worry once the BBC made them aware of their error, they soon put things right. Or even last… Read more »
So true
Remember the BBC announcing the bomb article .Hope Argentine thank them for it 🙄
Which neatly misses the point that the info must have been given to the BBC by the military; but hey, let’s bash the BBC.
BBC correspondents were entrenched with the task force. They saw what was happening with their own eyes and ears and probably put 2+2 together. And made a concious decision to broadcast it.
And that is pure conjecture or a counter factual.
The BBC were invited to sit in on sit rep briefings on the gentleman’s agreement that they wouldn’t report what they heard. Instead they diverged sensitive information which cost lives. The MOD put in place restrictions into the information the BBC received after that, complete with censors on their embedded personal during subsequent campaigns, this we saw at first hand during the first Gulf war , when before any report the BBC prefaced with “ this report was compiled under Military censorship” As for a bash at the BBC, I have the right as I am forced by law to… Read more »
Spot on.
I would hope that embedded correspondents are selected for their understanding of history and with rules of engagement that prioritise operational security.
Col Crawford’s view is that we need around 500 tanks. How many do we actually need? In a 3 sabre sqn regiment, you need 56 in total (3 sqns of 18, 2 at RHQ). We should add a troop of 4 as HQ reserve, taking the total to 60. We need 3 regts as the basis for 3 armoured infantry bdes, which is the absolute minimum 3 Division should field. We really need 4, like the Italians are increasing to: one of their brigades is an armoured one with 2 tank regts, giving the division some armoured punch. Additionally we… Read more »
Why are we needing to forward deploy battlegroups? Poland is buying tanks, Germany is a bigger economy, France is a similar sized economy, the Netherlands and Belgium are on the same land mass etc etc.
Personally, we should have more SSN, surface escorts. MPA, anti ship missiles and bolstered amphib and airmobile units to support the Norway flank, and high Arctic.
Let the “eu army” bear the cost.
Lots of cheap wheeled vehicles with Brimstone, arty and MLRS , and hunter killer drones would be a better bet.
You obviously think that NATO has got it wrong then deploying battle groups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, etc. They are there as part of NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence, basically a tripwire that would trigger a Clause 5 response if crossed. They deliberately involve all NATO members to demonstrate Allied resolve and unity, so the UK leads a multinational battle group in Estonia, as does Canada in Latvia, Germany in Lithuania, the USA in Poland etc. One key reason they’re needed is the limited population and military capacity of most of the border states. Estonia’s population is just over… Read more »
If you push that argument, no need for a Navy or Air Force either. The “EU army” has far more destroyers, frigates, 5th generation airplanes. It can protect Norrway and UK better…
You are looking at this nationalistically. NATO doctrine is forward defence. Hence forward depoyed BGs. We are part of NATO which defends the Euro-Atlantic area and also we in the UK have a history for assisting continental neighbours against aggressors. We have a very combat experienced army. Why would we not deploy a BG forward in line with NATO doctrine? This is not a case of Poland and Germany are nearer Russia so they must do most of the heavy lifting – and we can do other stuff miles from ‘the front line’. It does not work that way. All… Read more »
I agree with most of what you said, but your last sentence seems to draw a specious boundary around the nature of the war, which I don’t see as just encapsulated fighting between Russian and Ukrainian troops on Ukrainian territory. It sits in a larger context of an information war between the autocracies and the democracies, which has hard power expression. It’s Von Clausewitz. The autocracies are trying to unbalance the global status quo and will use hard power or the threat of hard power to further their ends. The Royal Navy is instrumental in ensuring that Russia does not… Read more »
Jon, I was focussed on the current air-land conflict in Ukraine as that is what this thread is about.
But, yes, it is fair to look at this in the round. To square up to Russia and challenge aggression, we need to engage in every domain (including the Information War, cyber, sanctions etc) and across a wide geographical area – hence there is a place for the Navy in this, peripherally, at arms length.
Indeed. We provided the BAOR to over contribute to the central defence of Europe. So absolutely time for Germany to pay it’s way alongside France. Unusually the former US president was factually correct about this funding shortfall by nations that chose to invest in their industrial success not defence. Our contribution to JEF is rational and aligns with both our capabilities and relationships. If the French and Germans don’t support a very credible British NATO secretary general they can’t be surprised that we don’t prioritise what they should do. We already have collaboration with France at industrial and military levels… Read more »
If you don’t want to contribute then you might as well go full ireland and shut yourself off from everyone.
We’re in NATO, and one of the biggest players in NATO. That means we deploy to the eastern front. The attitutde you have is effectively saying “If you live near Russia you should be on your own.”
Such a small force with non standard ammo isn’t worth the logistical burden of deploying at the front. They’ll be used as a reserve somewhere to blunt any breakthrough. At the end of the day they were a political gesture rather than a serious military commitment.
The above post encapsulates everything that needs to be said with a brevity sadly lacking in the above article
Leopard 2s also have non-standard ammunition as the Ukrainians do not use 120mm smoothbore ammo in their T-series tanks.
The Ukrainians have to supply 100mm rifled ammo for M55S, 115mm smoothbore ammo for T62 – and 125mm smoothbore ammo for T64, T72, PT91, T80, T84U and T90 – so providing 120mm rifled for CR2 and 120mm smoothbore for Leo2 is just 2 more types of ammo to add to the mix.
I agree that 14 CR2s was a paltry number to donate – we should have supplied 25 or more.
They are all available in greater numbers though so there’s value in adding to the logistics burden.
The 14 was only ever a political gesture to speed up the delivery of leopard 2.
If we are assuming that the main threat to our tanks are mines then we should be more focused on anti-mining equipment as I think many of us think our tanks are better one-to-one to Russian tanks (ignoring T14). What happened to that anti mining spinny thing that we were using in the Gulf war? Give Ukraine all of our de-mining equipment. And if our main threat is Russia, what is the point of us keeping it for a rainy day?
We proved our tanks are better than Russian ones in two Gulf Wars. I would guess the flail systems are in storage in a UK depot somewhere.
The Russians are reportedly using densly planted double and triple level mines and remotely-detonated anti-tank mines as well as scattered anti-personnel mines. Would something like the Aardvark that flails at lightly distributed anti-personnel mines work, or would the Russians simply wait until they drove over a choice spot and remotely detonate an anti-tank mine under it, turning it into anti-mine scrap?
Jon, In situations like this you ; 1) Bypass the place altogether 2) Send guys in at night to clear a path 3) Use something like a Python Minefield Breaching System (replaced the giant Viper) to clear a path that said there are videos of the Ukrs using US supplied M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) The use of a flail is usually reserved for when an area has been taken and clearance can be done in slow time. In an advance on a well defended position speed is of the essence so rollers and mine ploughs would be used… Read more »
1st attempt sent to purgatory: Jon, In situations like this you ; 1) Bypass the place altogether 2) Send guys in at night to clear a path 3) Use something like a Python Minefield Breaching System (replaced the giant Viper) to clear a path that said there are videos of the Ukrs using US supplied M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC) The use of a flail is usually reserved for when an area has been taken and clearance can be done in slow time. In an advance on a well defended position speed is of the essence so rollers and… Read more »
I hate purgatory! Thank you twice.
The names Python and Viper reminded me of the WW2 Bangalore system used to clear obstacles, but on looking them up they appear a lot more sophisticated. Phew!
4) don’t give them the chance to prepare minefields or defences.
The Aardvark company claims the flails work on At as well as AP mines.
https://aardvark.group/amcs/
Politics surrounds the EU. Counties like Latvia and Lithuania voted as part of the EU in a way which results in the Northern Ireland mess. We got no favours ( and probably shouldn’t expect any), so in one sense why are we concerned about basing tanks in the Baltic. Let Germany , France and the countries that played hard ball chip in. Let the EU Nato members who won’t pay 2% chip in. Poland will buy 1000 modern MBT, if Ukraine joins the EU, and at some point Nato , their tank fleet and combat experience army will join. So… Read more »
The Northern Ireland ‘mess’ is entirely of Boris’s making. He pretended that there wouldn’t be a tariff border down the Irish Sea but of course that was the only available solution. We voted to leave the EU and thus be outside their tariff barrier. We can hardly blame the EU countries for our actions and their trade consequences! The problem is that your stance confuses the EU with NATO. The idea that if Europe doesn’t play nice and help us out of the jam we have got ourselves in, we won’t help them militarily, alas won’t cut any ice in… Read more »
I think if the British public were told or understood a couple of skysabre batteries protects our vital infrastructure. They would choose GBAD or a few ABM equipped destroyers off our coast then pie in the sky ideas of basing 1000s of troops and buying 300 MBTs at £10m a pop to defend continental nations. I don’t object to doing the Nato bit. But it should be the northern flank. At one stage we based 70k service personel and families in Germany and elsewhere, pumping billions into the German economy which wad stronger than ours. If choices need to be… Read more »
Not even sure how many skysabre batteries we have but would think most in Poland, one in the Falklands .Would be wise to Get more of theses platforms .There again what don’t we need for our Armed forces 😕
Funny you should mention Skysabre. Surface to Air missile systems have really come of age this past year inside the Ukraine and with a real life conflict in which to hone their skills (Thanks Russia) I can only presume that much has been learnt in which to make such systems even more potent. Which brings me to this tweet I saw the other day
It was interesting. You can ground launch AMRAAM via NASAMS so someone though ASRAAM…Hold my pint, opened up the garden shed and cracked on. Ok range isn’t going to be the 50km for air launch but its going to be pretty respectable. If its the early version of ASRAAM there are loads around as they are due to go out of service and are being replaced by the latest Block 6 version. On a side note integrating such a launcher it into a Sky Sabre battery/command system would be an advantage to UKGBAD. Its now been proven that a ground… Read more »
Have a look on the drive warzone website. They have an article about a supacat 6×6 with an asraam launcher on the back. A few are in Ukraine. I don’t think they have many but it’s a good addition and has good mobility.
All this British ingenuity going on, why doesn’t more of it make its way into the British armed forces? Some other country will do it if we don’t. There’s even the Supacat with a HLMRS like system done back a decade or more ago. Now look at how popular it is, especially the wheeled. UK industry should get more backing and rebuilding what we used very good at.
How can it get to the Army? First, we are always overspent on the big stuff and don’t put funding aside for opportunistic purchases, only for research and testing. Second, we suffer from an abundance of process and governance, with insufficient delegation. The answer to things having gone wrong in the past seems to have been let’s layer the process with more governance and hierarchy to make sure it doesn’t happen again. This ensures decisions are taken furthest away from the point of knowledge by people whose jobs mean they don’t have the time to master the detail. So it… Read more »
Jon, you are so right. The amount of bureaucracy and governance is what kills all but the main players in defence. As you say, if just a small percentage of the budget could be allocated, with limited paperwork to SME’s to design and build some of the more “British Garden Shed” companies we would be back up there with world leading technologies. Sadly you need to submit paperwork greater and more in depth that the old Encyclopedia Britannica to even get an invite to present your ideas.
Morning farouk ,shows what can be done thanks for that 👍
It’s not a tweet it’s an X😂😂😂😂😂
Just wait 10 seconds or so.
The EU could have quite easily taken the pragmatic route that Ireland and NI are on a landmass separated by sea, and there was really no “risk to the single market”. The EU nations decided on a power grab to stop divergence, and so k would have been quite relaxed in pointing out that the battlegroup guarding Estonia would have been bought home.
Agree to differ David. I am not anti-Europe, not militarily isolationist, and not a ‘little Englander’, so cannot share your views or bother debating them.
100%
This approach of a landmass separated by sea would have made Good Friday a very, very Bad Friday. Trying not to ignore that US didn’t like it either, so not all EU fault
Your introduction was a load of tosh. Latvia, especially, rued the day that the Bluffer pushed through brexshit, as most sane people on these islands rue it today. The Baltics have always been trenchant in their support for the UK. Should I have one misgiving, a la Helmand, we took on a far flung piece of earth which in war will be difficult to resupply, and no escape. The UK has investigated resupply by rail, I know someone who rode a train from Poland to the Baltics and reported on the material state of the line – several months later,… Read more »
There is also the question of reliability of the new Challenger 3? in 2001 I was attached to a tank regiment that went to batus for a major exercise with the then brand new Challenger 2, we had numerous breakdowns due to the variant the British Army uses, with cooling problems and dusty conditions blocking filters! All these problems had to be ironed out at great expense rather than getting the right variant in the first place!
All new complex equipment has teething troubles. PoW?
Any Mechanical Issues with the running of CR2 will be well known and mitigated by now,20+ years of service experience learnt.The only unknown with the CR3 is how good the new Turret will be.
“We should be looking at a fleet of about 500; any fewer than that and our armoured regiments will be unsustainable in the sort of combat seen in Ukraine”. But that is not the strategic role of the modern British Army, in the context of NATO it provides battalion size battlegroups (often including one company of Challenger’s) to act as forward deployed tripwire formations and high availability rapid reaction forces, occasionally up to Brigade size. The supporting “mass” is provided by the USA, and perhaps Poland and Germany in the near future. Reforming a 1980’s style I (British) Corps with… Read more »
I don’t think anyone is proposing to form a UK corps. The UK, Germany, Netherlands etc would serve in the ARRC.
There doesn’t seem much point in having 500 tanks – as the article’s author recommends – if you are not going to then use them. 500 is enough for several tank divisions, which in turn usually form an Armoured Corps. Alternatively, if most of the 500 tanks are mothballed and stored pending the UK becoming directly at war with Russia, I question whether their purchase is the correct prioritisation. Assuming 150 CR2 to CR3 conversions at £6 million each, and 350 new build CR3’s at £20 million each, we are looking at c.£8 bn worth of MBT’s in procurement CAPEX… Read more »
eFP is just one part of NATO’s posture. Because UK contributes to eFP does not mean that it does not provide anything more than up to a brigade in addition. 70% of our forces are committed to NATO on average.
The provision of ‘mass’ is not restricted to the US currently.
I fear that provision of ‘mass’ for land warfare is actually restricted to the US currently. Turkey is currently next up as far I can see. For the avoidance of doubt, my Armchair General view is that the old rule of thumb that everything should be provided in three’s applies to tank regiments as much as warships and aircraft. But in the face of other urgent priorities, the MoD apparently just doesn’t have the money to increase to the CR3 buy to the necessary c.225, or then maintain them in service.
A superpower is in a category all of its own. Certainly the US brings mass to every military operation it does.
Then you have the countries with large but not enormous armies and hence mass in artillery or tanks or whatever – Turkey, Poland, France. [No longer is Germany in that ‘club’]
For the rest of us we have to pool or aggregate resources to create mass.
We are stuck with a 73k army with 148 tanks. Good job we will always fight alongside NATO/UN/US allies, such that mass is collective not national.
I keep hearing of the “14” Challenger 2 tanks sent to Ukraine. In fact the count was doubled to 28 tanks, a few months later.
It’s just 14. But if you can quote any official source for 28, I will apologise for doubting you!
It was the official line to send 28, but apparently the number was rowed back for now. Link from defensenews.com
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/06/double-the-challenger-tanks-for-ukraine-british-mod-says-no/
UKR thought somehow we were doubling to 28. The 28 figure only came from UKR not UK sources. UK denied the 28 figure. We have only sent 14.
Well that’s what it says in the report I put here earlier. I DID read it through before posting the link!
Hmmm… believe that while a minimum of 500 MBTs may be a necessary precondition for meaningful UKR advances, it is by no means sufficient. Supply of mine clearance equipment should be among the highest equipment priorities of NATO. Obviously, the resupply of vastly increased supplies of munitions is self evident. In addition, NATO sources have critiqued UKR for not following NATO combined arms assault doctrine. Er…exactly how the hell is that supposed to work, w/out at least first establishing air superiority, if not dominance?!? Shall we coin a new phrase (e.g., semi-combined or partially combined arms)? Anyone here receive instruction… Read more »
How can quickly trained troops handle the sophisticated combined arms battle using a hodge-podge of NATO/Soviet equipment, when even the Russians can’t handle significant air evolutions using their own equipment? By 2025 the Russian position will be so entrenched it will be next to impossible. So how about adding air transport to move the battle? If you can’t get around, perhaps you can get over. Especially if you could dominate in the air locally, maybe overnight. It is the US (and UK) policy that marines don’t storm defended beachheads anymore but go around or over. Maybe the Marine Corps should… Read more »
🤔 Your concept of airborne assault/paratroop capability is intriguing and ambitious. Suspect that it would require a significant commitment of time and effort by NATO.
Do not foresee direct outside assistance for UKR, unless either the Orcs use WMD, or manage to trigger Article 5 response. However, my cristal ball has proven to be somewhat cloudy. 🤔
I don’t think the mix of equipment in CA warfare is an issue for Ukraine. It is their lack of experience at doing CA manouevre warfare, but at least they are up against a foe who is clueless in that regard. Rather worrying to be contemplating the war in 2025! You are concerned at the Ukrainians’ slow progress and think they need AT to jump over Russian positions. There is no safe place for AT to land. UKR is being cautious as they don’t want to lose to many men and equipment too soon. They want to determine the precise… Read more »
You may be right about a safe place to land. It was just a thought not an expectation. As for who might break first and join the fighting in Ukraine, Poland came to mind. Depends on how (or if) the Belarus/Poland situation warms up. But it doesn’t really matter who. The question is will every NATO country allow Ukraine to fail without taking the next step, or will someone jump in? Might they make the determination that it’s containable as long as Russian land isn’t touched. But if it’s going to happen anyway to break a stalemate in 2025, it… Read more »
Yes, if you jump over Russian forces to land your C-17 and A400M Atlas, you will be landing in the Sea of Azov.
Plenty of NATO countries allowed the Soviet Union to take over Afghanistan in Dec 1979 and to invade Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014.
If Poland is attacked from Belarus by Wagner group, they would possibly cross the border into Belarus on alimited operation (high rsk though) but I doubt Poland would enter Ukraine to assist Ukraine forces against Russian forces.
The tank is dead. The threats are too numerous, too capable and will improve significantly in the years to come. We should donate the rest of our large slow logistically draining targets to Ukraine and be the at the forefront of the post-tank era. We will never sanction the wholesale losses in blood and kit necessary to wage war in this old outdated way. The game has changed.
People were saying the tank is dead in 1916 when the first AT weapon was fielded by Germany, also when the PIAT and US bazooka were fielded in WW2 and when the French introduced the ATGW in the late 1950s. Now the new threat is from drones. They have had some success, helped by poor Russian tanks and their handling, but drones are vulnerable too.
If the tank is dead, remind me how many nations have phased them out?
Whether nations have yet phased tanks out is not an argument for whether they might in light of the present conflict. To develop and retain a credible tank now requires an impossible hedgehog monstrosity in the vain hope it will, at some point in a conflict, overmatch the opposition’s equally impossible hedgehog. Any future tank capable of fulfilling its primary roles in the face of sophisticated drones, not just today’s almost and actually home made first generation attack drones, the enemy’s version of excalibur, of javelin, NLAW etc will also sit useless while any enemy with a brain adopts deep… Read more »
Your final paragraph contradicts your first post?
Not really. I’m saying that we or anyone else could choose to build the ultimate tank but it is unaffordable in the small numbers we would operate, eye-watering in the large numbers China or the US would need and in any case would be surpassed quickly by the rapid advances in the means of their destruction. They’d be behind the curve from the off. Kit has to be reliable, maintainable, affordable and effective … fit for role. But even if reliable and affordable are achieved … what is the role … capabilty .. and is an uber expensive, heavy, hard… Read more »
I think a balance is needed. That means retaining the capability, because getting rid entirely causes great problems when it is needed again. And they will be, otherwise nations would be dropping them, and they’re not. So balance, keep them, but in limited numbers, as the army is doing. I want a slight increase in Ch3, no more than we have in Ch2 now, simply to enable a 3rd manoeuvre Brigade for 3 Division. Priority should be in RA, in AD, in EW, in Sigint, in AI, and Drones, as you say. Which is what we are doing, as FS… Read more »
Agree on artillery …. but what is the ‘tank’ capability we should keep? We should not be looking for a task for our equipment but the equipment for our task.
Morning. As I suggested in my post, 3 Regiments. The same as we have now.
No increase, just maintaining the capability.
This drone anxiety has spread like a pandemic. I can almost hear Pte Frazer saying ‘we’re all doomed!’ I think I once counted nearly a dozen ways to kill or disable a tank. The attack drone is just one more novel weapon that has to be countered. The Ukrainians are developing a growing (though not 100% effective of course) counter-drone capability. You think there has not been tank-on-tank manouevre warfare since Kursk or that it exists only in Staff College dreams? Seriously? Gulf War 1 and 2, for starters. The tank is only of use in an infantry support role?… Read more »
You wrote .. “You think there has not been tank-on-tank manouevre warfare since Kursk or that it exists only in Staff College dreams? Seriously? Gulf War 1 and 2, for starters.” Let’s address what I did say, not what I didn’t. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one here who was also in the gulf … as a 7Bde FOO at the time. I left the RA after BC of a cdo bty and a tour as Senior IG and spent the next decade as an RAC reservist officer including command followed by GS. I’m not completely ignorant on the… Read more »
Thanks for the very interesting post. Most of the changes we are seeing with equipment and munitions are just evolutionary, such as RWS, unmanned tank turrets, OTA & Fire & Forget shoulder-launched A/Tk weapons such as NLAW – and some are a tad more ground-breaking such as unmanned ground vehicles, attack drones. Not enough examples of radical change in equipment design, as you say. Interesting idea that peer or near-peer opponents may or should conduct asymmmetric warfare which has generally been the province of insurgents. A strike on BZZ with its single runway and without the alternative of RAF Lyneham… Read more »
I’m going to give you a big no sorry wrong there me old China! See previous replies to similar comments. But briefly platforms and weapons adapt, passive and active defensive systems, tactics, training etc, all adapt to new and different weapon systems. If the tank is dead, what about other big armoured platforms, AS90,Ajax, Boxer, Engineering vehicles, and not just armour, HETs are also bloody big, fuel tankers, bridging wagons are big……anyway you know where I’m going with this. Cheers.
I gonna give you an agree, in a sense ….. that all these systems are large heavy targets, easily tracked and targeted not least asymmetrically long before we get them across the channel and ever after. Armoured warfare requires by necessity a huge and sluggish build up and work up. In the past we could keep most of the delivery and assembly out of range but those days are gone. Too slow into action, too obvious, too vulnerable. Too fat and too late, too expensive to use, too expensive to lose. Platforms adapt, sure, but unless you protect to the… Read more »
Not a fan of old Crawford and his rather whining ways! He continues to swing that “I was a tankie officer” so he will always know best! Maybe yes but maybe know as his time in tanks was 25 years ago. But today he is along the right track (excuse the pun). Yes we do need more tanks, but not the large amount he states. What we do need for the tanks (and all other very expensive and time consuming to construct armoured vehicles) are active and passive defensive kits (trophy etc) ready to be fitted as required. We all… Read more »
Yep it’s that old problem money again💰🙄
Yep, nice summery there and I’m 100% in agreement. On the LI Bns, for example. 7 LMBCT has 5, and 4 LBCT has 6. Do they need so many? Our AI Bdes had 3, and so did 16AA til that was increased to 4. How about reducing each to 3. So that’s 5 Btns worth of PIDS to create – as an example. 1 RA Regiment. 1 RE Regiment. 1 RLC Regiment. 1 REME CS Bn. 1 RMP Pro Coy. Assign them to 4 LBCT, and we now have anotger deployable Bde with, crucially, it’s own regular CS CSS, which… Read more »
Top response full of info as per normal mate. Cheers.
Interesting point about 4 light brigade having 6 infantry battalions and 7.light ‘mechanised’ having 5. Sounds excessive on paper but I suspect it’s a lot of double counting by the MOD. Of the 6 in 4 Bde, 2 at least are not available, one is in Brunei (1 GHU), one in Cyprus (1 LANCS). Deployment plans are changing so rapidly that I can’t see which battalion is the second one in Cyprus or the resident infantry battalion in Northern Ireland or the two public duties Guards battalions, but they must be included in these 4 and 7 brigade numbers, otherwise… Read more »
Hi Cripes. Yes, good points, and lots to address so I’ll respond with my thoughts on each? “Of the 6 in 4 Bde, 2 at least are not available, one is in Brunei (1 GHU), one in Cyprus (1 LANCS). 1 have 1 RGR at present in Brunei, and in Cyprus 1 PWRR and 1 LANCS. Assume I’m not out of date and they’ve moved. On the 4 LBCT point of Cyprus and Brunei Bns being “unavailable”, to me it depends how you look at 4 Bdes role, and assumes the Bde musters and deploys from the UK as a… Read more »
Okay so: Keeping track of Cyprus is not hard, it’s listed in the Future Soldier Document who is going there when and for how long. I don’t really bother putting that kind of info into my orbats, suffice to say 1 Battalion from 7 and 1 Btn from 4 will always be in Cyprus. In effect the actual “deployable” (assuming CS/CSS) strength of 4 and 7X is 5 manuver units each (1x Light Cav, 4x Infantry btns) which puts them pretty much in line with most other British Army Brigades (AI= 1 Recce, 1 Armoured, 2-3 Infantry btns. AA= 4… Read more »
Ahhh yes, good point re the Incremental Coys, we discussed that a while back.
Should also have mentioned that the 1st Btn the London Guards sits under the London District as well, no idea how much use is made of them but, if tracking PD’s is your thing it’s worth mentioning.
Ah yes, the old London Regiment.
To be fair, I try to track everything.
Update, I count 31 Bns. Some may now be out of date as they move station so hope Dern sees this to correct any errors. 12AI – 1 MERC / 1 RW 20AI – 5 R / 1 RRF 7 LM – 1 SG / 1 YORKS / 4 RRS / 1 R / 2 RA / 4 I – 1 GG / 2 RRS / 1 CG / 2 R / 1 RGR / 16AA – 2 PARA / 3 PARA / 2 RGR / 1 RI S Ops B – 4 R / 2 PWRR / 2 LANCS… Read more »
Goodness, your knowledge is immense!
You are quite right, total is 31 bns, I’m always forgetting 1RRF.
3 questions:
1. What is ‘LD’ ref Welsh Guards?
2. What is ‘Ex Bn’ next to 2 YORKS – assume exercise, testing the mini uavs, but is that a temporary deployment or a new army role?
3. Where are the 3 training bns at Catterick? These used to be 3 regular bns but I no longer see them in the Orbat, do they still exist or have they been replaced by some ersatz arrangement of contingents?
Just made an extensive reply but it is “awaiting approval”
Morning. My long reply earlier is still in moderation, so just a short one instead. 1/ London District. 2/ 2 Yorks is the army Experimental Battalion, grouped in the E&TG with the various TDUs like ATDU,ITDU,RETDU,CSTDU and so on. 3/ At the ITC at Catterick there are 1st and 2nd Battalions, and the ITC Support Battalion. All part of the Infantry Training Centre which sits under the School of Infantry. It must be noted these are not like other regular Infantry Battalions of the varied administrative Infantry “Divisions” that are in the Brigades, these are training formations, with Companies from… Read more »
Nit pick: 1 PWRR is going to re-roll to Boxer under 20th AI, Lancs is to remain under 4X.
Also 4 Rifles, 2 PWRR, 2 Lancs and 1 RRS don’t exist anymore.
Not at all mate, I need it, keep me in line! 😄
Re the Rangers, I’m in the habit of still listing them like the format with the RRS Bns in keeping they’re old IDs.
So thanks, I’ll remove the refs.
Yep, all about the enables, No good having 500 tanks if we have only 99 HET’s.RA very short of equipment etc etc.
Agreed mate.
You are not going to get 500 HETs!
I think 99 HETs is quite a lot.
Another reduction of Light Role Inf Btns? There aren’t many left. 😛
Should the Royal Armoured Corps not be renamed to the Royal Armoured Brigade?
(I’ll git mi coat!)
Of course we have dozens more CR2’s in storage and could easily supply Ukraine with a whole regiment or more. Yes, they are not impregnable, and while in a tank on tank situation they are a very tough nut to crack, mines – who’d have thought – and overhead drones as we are seeing can knock out anything. From below and above the tank is proving highly vulnerable. The Ukranians have been unable to breach the minefields and pour through and both sides are lacking any impetus it would seem.
They might mothballed the challenger 2 tank when the 3 cones out ..even given the 2 a upgrade..you have 300 tanks then..be most cheaper and viable option for a reserve tank
When CR2 is declared Obsolete (about the same time CR3 comes out) they will be withdrawn from units and moved to MoD Ashchurch and then disposed of asap, by sale, or gifting (or in last resort by scrapping). How do you have 300 tanks then? You don’t. You have 148 CR3s.
CR2s as a Reserve tank – no such thing. They will be gone.
Some of the CR3s will be earmarked as Attrition Reserve.
We do not keep Obsolete equipment.
I started my working life at Royal Ordnance Factory Barnbow. The whole production facility was modernised and privatised. Now most of it seems to be a housing estate.
The UK capacity to produce MBTs is a fraction of what it was. A significant order needs to be offered to develop the infrastructure and capacity to become a significant manufacturer of tanks and other FVs to support UK needs.
It is not a capability that can be built up overnight and procurement needs to be improved and enhanced significantly.
If future orders (beyond CR3) are even less than 148, would any company invest in setting up a tank factory? Maybe if it were to be a runaway export success too.
Came a cross very odd Article last night reading that in a disclosed location an Ukrainian reporter was checking out 60 Chieftain tanks in July getting fixed up .I kid you not guys could they really make there way to the Battlefield ,check it out .🤔🇬🇧
The only place that would currently have 60 chieftains in ‘running order’ could really only be Jordan with their Khalids!
There were about five articles on this subject one give the impression the 60 Chieftains were somewhere in UK.However Jordan was also mentioned say they have around 300 in storage,but don’t want to be taking sides.So I wonder could the UK buy them from Jordan and gift them to the Ukraine ?
I thought it was odd that some Leo1s were gifted. Chieftains have a better gun than Leo1 and better armour, but its so old and reliability would be very suspect, with spares being quite hard to source. Still UKR will take anything.
They’d have value even as camouflage dummies or stationary gun emplacements.
Yes, thats a fair point.
Leo1s were mentioned in the Article as Chieftains and Leop1s were in service at the same time,giving Leops more mobile but Chieftain bigger gun and more Accurate even now they range finder top noch it’s big let down was Engine trouble which we all know ,your right spares would be hard to come by unless Jordan have kept them in big nice box. And word has it the Ukrainians will take anything on offer.🤔
Khalid has a different engine to chieftain, it’s fitted with a condor V-12 and has a completely different engine compartment. Wiki says Jordan ordered 274 after the deal with the shar fell through so who knows?🤔
Yep. But Chieftain engines did gradually get more reliable over the years – but always was behind Leo1 in terms of engine reliability. Pack change on Leo1 was much quicker too.
Any link to the article ? 🤓
Just Google Chieftain Tanks and the articles will come up which we’re from July 👍
That was pretty much a non-story,the Ukrainian Journalist in question didn’t know the difference between a Chieftain and a Challenger Tank.
Yes. Nor would most to be fair.
I can not think why if all this information is true is disclosed for the enemy to see.
Tank design needs to evolve as a result of this war. Tanks are not obsolete, but they are now vulnerable to a new generation of anti tank missiles, drones and new techniques for laying mines. Tanks need to evolve to encompass systems that detect and neutralise drones and ATGMs before any impact, such as high energy lasers, as well as having systems to detect mines. The technology is there and these new designs need to be built in sufficient numbers as autocratic regimes are once again pursueing territorial ambitions. The ‘peace dividend’ years are over. Re-equipping our military would also… Read more »
Tanks have always evolved to become ever more survivable since the first A/Tk weapon introduced by Germany in 1916. I agree that tanks are not obsolete – if they were due to ‘vulnerability’ then everything that was less well protected would be also obsolete – which would be ….everything.
The Cold War was over in 1991. I view the ‘peace dividend’ years to be 1991-c1995.
There’s an article analysis of the defence paper
https://www.defense-aerospace.com/looking-for-scarce-nuggets-in-uks-new-defence-command-paper/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=les-newslettertotal-derniers-articles-de-notre-blog-11
Tusa is a bit of a mixed bag, but usually worth a read. He expresses his views as though they were proved fact, but if you know that and are expecting something closer to polemic than carefully objective journalism, there are nuggets in there worth digging out. The area I have the biggest disagreement with him is on the Euro-Atlantic vs Asia-Pacific balance. He seems to feel that if we can’t do a lot globally, we should do nothing. “[Global presence] will either be very low tech, OPVs or light infantry, or it will be exquisitely small. And at a… Read more »
Everyone wants more tanks because it looks “sexy” to have them. But based on lessons from Ukraine, we might do better to focus on more mundane enablers such as having enough artillery shells for a long conflict. I’d stick with the numbers of CR3s but increase the number of arty platforms.
Correct. RA assets, EW. Intelligence, and other CS CSS assets should all come before Tanks.
By offering a near handful of MBT’s the British got others better placed to stop sitting on their hands; that is all it was about. From the beginning of this invasion the U.K. has been determined to help Ukraine resist. I do not see failure except for Putin’s vaunting ambition. Tanks were invented to break the stalemate of trench warfare. They did not. That came when Germany re-started the manoeuvre war in Spring 1918. The present situation is another stalemate. I see no possible breakthrough before a moral collapse. It is an artillery (tubes, missiles) slog for the present; significantly… Read more »
Ridiculous numbers of MBT in the British army , less than 140 units, the same as the ridiculous numbers of RAF fighters around 160, Britain is no longer a global power except for the Navy but don,t worry , in some future defence review wich as usual means more cuts politicians maybe they decide sell/mothball one of the Carriers and the disposal of one or more SSN and everything solved , the Navy can be excluded as a global power too In a quick decisión.
Agree a bunch of Monkeys could do better🐒🐒🐒
We are low on numbers but challenger 3 should be a decent step up from the challenger 2, more than 148 would be better but we can hope the MOD change there mind and upgrade more. The RAF has around 107 FGR4 Typhoon which is one of the best fighter jet on the planet, again the number should be higher, a tranche 4 order of 40+ would be great before we start work on tempest but it still is a strong force which I think other air forces admire/respect. Navy is getting decent investment for T26/T31/T32/T83/dreadnought/AUkUS subs, I can’t see… Read more »
Dropping a carrier? I know Cameron wanted to do that way back, but surely no-one is talking about that now?
The army needs a lot more new kit than just CR3.
Cameron and is little pupit mate and those before really did the damage .Always through if only you could put all the PMs from 1991 in front of a panel and shoot Questions at them to hear how they would defend cuts. 🙄
It’s worth noting that the Navy is not yet getting investment in T32, just some concept development money, and they aren’t even getting that yet for T83. Investment in 13 frigates over twenty years (2015-2035) is certainly something, as are the SSNs and five OPVs too. Oh yes, and the delivery of two carriers (so easy to forget). But the Army also has had billions thrown into armoured vehicles over the last twenty years and that it has nothing to show for it should not lead the Army from navel gazing to naval gazing, as it seems they are wont… Read more »
Why on earth should we be a global power?
Most of navy is in port, with just enough manpower to operate the ones that can still float on their own. Sell both carriers if anyone is mug enough to want them.
Similarly, the army can’t man the orbat it complains is too small and won’t man the orbat it is reduced to. Armoured regiments are nearly as undermanned as the infantry.
The airforce … lets not go there; that’s just embarrassing.
And we are still pathetically useless at making proper use of reserves