UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 05 Oct 2018, 19:35

During the Iraq war, didn't the Bradleys kill more tanks than the M1's or is my memory shaky?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Oct 2018, 21:22

I believe you are correct.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 06 Oct 2018, 13:02

They did indeed, although that was very specific circumstances that permitted that to occur. (Only one side had any real night fighting gear leaving the Iraqis helpless to ATGMs from KM away, huge open plain with little cover to interfere with ATGM use, and the Bradleys were only as bold because they had M1s right behind them to counter any sudden attack anyway.)

I wouldn't regard it as the "rule", but a crucial detail on the means that everything works together. Bradleys alone couldn't have handled it.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 362
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby whitelancer » 06 Oct 2018, 17:17

Ron5 wrote:During the Iraq war, didn't the Bradleys kill more tanks than the M1's or is my memory shaky?


Has anyone got a source for this thanks?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Oct 2018, 18:10

whitelancer wrote:Has anyone got a source for this thanks?


While the comparison might well be true (tactics put the Bradleys to the front), let's remember what we are trying to slice & dice:
" published immediately after the war by US Central Command, the Iraqis lost 3,700 of 4,280 tanks, 2,400 of their 2,880 armored personnel carriers and 2,600 of their 3,100 artillery pieces."
- as for tanks a majority was rendered inoperative by the air campaign. Engineers mopping up (destroying abandoned tanks) alone account for 10% - but here we may have some double accounting as no one kept tabs for the original reason (air?) for them being abondoned.
- we are thus talking about how the c. 30% of the total, due to ground forces in action, were destroyed

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Oct 2018, 21:34

With sufficient fire power the "Strike" Brigades could possibly hold their own, but as has been recognised by the Army, the present planned organisation falls well short of what is required. So until then we really need to hold on to the CR2s until either this is rectified or some provides funding to bring the AI Brigades into the 21st century. Across the Army as a whole the peacetime mentality of the MoD and Treasury seem to be happy to let its ability to delivery a suitable level of firepower against a fie, especially peer level to diminish as a means of finding savings. I just hope that we never find ourselves in a situation where this comes back to bite us.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby SKB » 07 Oct 2018, 23:46


(BAE Systems) 3rd October 2018
We have unveiled Black Night – a working example of our vision for the proposed upgrade of the British Army’s Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2018, 20:12

Once a knight, always a knight. Twice a night, you're doing alright.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Oct 2018, 08:21

Update soon after the outing of the Black Night https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... nly-looms/ states
- that all the design details were handed in in Sept
- the current phase draws to an end at the end of the year (we get to see the other prototype?)
- but moving to tender might take another Qrtr... or 2. Driven by the MDP? Force mix being a driver for how many will be needed, and if fewer, then the fixed budget can be divided by a lesser number, affording more goodies (mainly new gun, APS or both?) to be included

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby SKB » 07 Nov 2018, 05:55


(Forces TV) 6 Nov 2018
Personnel from the Royal Tank Regiment have been testing their skills in the Omani desert, as part of Exercise Saif Sareea 3. The exercise has been years in the planning and is the UK's biggest military exercise for almost 20 years.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Nov 2018, 07:50

The kit fitted to the CR2s is quiet interesting, especially the side skirts. They seem to have evolved from those in GW2 being a lot deeper so they do the roll of the sheets used to reduce the wear and tear due to sand in the running gear. Is fitting a RWS standard on all operationally deployed CR2s now, I cannot remember see them fitted to the CR2s in the Baltics. It may be getting less effective but it is still a fine looking Beast.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Nov 2018, 08:18

Small detail, has passed me unnoticed so far:
". Each competitor received two units for that purpose: one to be used as a fully operational vehicle, and one to be exploited as a demonstrator of the new solutions for all the obsolete components needing to be replaced."
- so whatever they decide to do with the demonstrator (and this can be iterated, sure), the bidder is in a position to evaluate any performance loss against the "original issue"

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Nov 2018, 10:40

Lord Jim wrote:The kit fitted to the CR2s is quiet interesting, especially the side skirts. They seem to have evolved from those in GW2 being a lot deeper so they do the roll of the sheets used to reduce the wear and tear due to sand in the running gear.

They are the same side skirts from Streetfighter, it's just they don't have the ERA mounted on them.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Nov 2018, 23:21

Cheers for the info, I am not up to date with the full TES set up for the CR2. Makes you wonder why the eight or so CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Nov 2018, 08:59

Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out


Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 958
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Nov 2018, 18:29

Lord Jim wrote: Is fitting a RWS standard on all operationally deployed CR2s now, I cannot remember see them fitted to the CR2s in the Baltics.


I think we're going to have quite a few spare from the Panther in due course. A lot of platforms that had them mounted in Afghan had them pinched from Panther.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Nov 2018, 00:22

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out


Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?


Putin must be hoping Labour get in at the next election, having a nation with a Nuclear Deterrent but stating that it would never be used must appeal to him. We really need to stop this touchy, feely, politically correct Bull****.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Nov 2018, 00:42

Lord Jim wrote:We really need to stop this

Or just simply send the GMLRS that can spoil the parade in Central St. Pete
... or stop the very first INF treaty enroachment in its tracks (though they are actually wheeled?):
Prvi raketni sistemi "Iskander" u Južnom vojnom okrugu | Svet ...
www.novosti.rs/.../planeta.299.html:468 ... istemi-I...

17 dec. 2013 - ... raketnih sistema "Iskander-M" za raketnu brigade tog okruga, u Pokrajini Krasnodar na jugu Rusije. ... Banja Luka 17. decembar 2013.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Nov 2018, 09:41

Lord Jim wrote:Cheers for the info, I am not up to date with the full TES set up for the CR2. Makes you wonder why the eight or so CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out.

It might seem counter-intuitive, yeah, but there's really no point in doing so. Anything hitting the side in a peer conflict is going to go through, side-skirts or not. It's just excess weight at that point. They're designed for counter-insurgency more than anything else, to reflect RPG-7s, possibly RPG-29s.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 09:55

RetroSicotte wrote:for counter-insurgency more than anything else, to reflect RPG-7s, possibly RPG-29s.


Certainly. But also what happens to a tank force advancing through wooded areas. As for Estonia, I guess we will be using the reverse gear, so no hostiles on the flanks ;)

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Nov 2018, 10:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Certainly. But also what happens to a tank force advancing through wooded areas. As for Estonia, I guess we will be using the reverse gear, so no hostiles on the flanks ;)

Anything Russia would be firing at tanks won't care if there's the Streetfighter ERA or not. Every MBTs side modules like that is aimed exclusively at older yields more commonly found in the middle east. Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 11:20

RetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.


Yes. The other thing to note is that Russia has omitted ERA from their recently modified tanks, from those angles on the turret that are in any way sloping downwards
... to keep any "close protection" infantry, or even the tank crew handling reloads safe? Or what might lie behind it?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Nov 2018, 12:43

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.


Yes. The other thing to note is that Russia has omitted ERA from their recently modified tanks, from those angles on the turret that are in any way sloping downwards
... to keep any "close protection" infantry, or even the tank crew handling reloads safe? Or what might lie behind it?

Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants. :p

Although if it's the most recent Relikt ones ('M' designators), then it's mostly just down to a redesign of how the ERA functions compared to the Kontakt series.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Nov 2018, 17:56

RetroSicotte wrote:Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants.


Indeed. The more frequent 90S with a T-80 in this one
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2CWZFvF-l1E/ ... 1%2580.jpg


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests