News

Dec 12, 2023

Where have the Challengers Gone?

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

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.

Δ

Δ

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 »

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 🇬🇧

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 »

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).

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 »

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.

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.

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.

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 👍

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’.

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!

👍

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.

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 »

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?

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 »

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.

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.

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 »

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.

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.

Morning farouk ,shows what can be done thanks for that 👍

It’s not a tweet it’s an X😂😂😂😂😂

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!

“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 »

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/

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 »

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💰🙄

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.

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 .🤔🇬🇧

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

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.