FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

And for those who are interested, here’s a good thread on the findings of the investigation into the live fire exercise incident on the CR2 in 2017 at Castkemartin with the link to the official report below that


https://bit.ly/2VJkD4k

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Has it been set in stone yet how many units will get upgraded or is that been held off on now that in 6 weeks odd both may and most likely Hammond will be gone.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

Jake1992 wrote:most likely Hammond will be gone.
Haven’t seen anything else concrete yet but apparently announcement coming shortly; and we can only hope for the latter point..

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

If we omit from
"improvements over the existing Leopard 2A7" the Leopard2 part (and add V for verbessert to the A7... which version does exist)
... we get Germany's 1st tank that was "there" before Cambrai happened

Ohh, how things do go round
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

I'm not sure how they can decide on the contract when the Competitions and Market Authority investigation doesn't conclude until the 13th June.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

CameronPerson wrote:And for those who are interested, here’s a good thread on the findings of the investigation into the live fire exercise incident on the CR2 in 2017 at Castkemartin with the link to the official report below that
Having just read through the report it seems it was an accident waiting to happen, I would like to make a couple of points'
The first concerns the Design Authority and the DE&S, neither seemed able to provide any useful information to the inquiry, bar a single report from 1986. This I think highlights a paucity of knowledge and expertise in both industry and the MOD. A result of policies followed by various governments for many years to the detriment of the Armed Forces.
The second point concerns the Whole Fleet Management policy adopted with regard to Challenger 2. The report never considered this but I regard it as a major contributing factor in the accident occurring. Let me explain.

Badger Sqn went to the ranges with 9 Challenger 2's half the number required to equip a full sqn, this had a couple of consequences. First it meant that no crew had their own tank which they were responsible and accountable for. Rather they were it seems allocated to a particular Challenger as and when required. Which obviously means continually swapping vehicles. Secondly for those not actively involved their was little for those personnel to do so concurrent activates were arranged in this instance First Aid training on a separate range.

On the day in question the crew allocated the particular challenger completed their firing successfully but then the Commander and Gunner left the range to do something else while the loader and driver cleaned the gun as they expected no further firing to take place. It then appears the loader also left the range. In consequence when that particular tank was chosen for the Experience shoot no crew was available to conduct a proper hand over as should have occurred. As the Commander of the Experience shoot you would expect him to use his own tank and crew but of course he didn't have his own tank and his crew may not even have been available. in consequence the crew did not understand the condition of the L30 which led directly to the accident.
To sum up. I would say crews not having their own dedicated tanks was an important contribtry factor in the accident. Hence the whole idea behind whole fleet managment and how its currently carried out is flawed. Icidently the report mentions technical problems I wonder if they may also at least in part be attributed to the same cause.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:of course he didn't have his own tank and his crew may not even have been available. in consequence the crew did not understand the condition of the L30 which led directly to the accident.
An awful thing to read
... put all the bean counters through basic training, before they start in the desk job!

Would not cover tank crewing, though :(
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: To sum up. I would say crews not having their own dedicated tanks was an important contribtry factor in the accident. Hence the whole idea behind whole fleet managment and how its currently carried out is flawed. Icidently the report mentions technical problems I wonder if they may also at least in part be attributed to the same cause.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Whole Fleet Management is not the reason for sloppy drills, failure to follow authorisation procedures and failure to maintain the safe configuration of the platform. It may have hidden one of these failings, but it is not the cause of it, nor does it mitigate in anyway the other issues that conspired to a fatal incident.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not an expert on this, and will not lean either way.

However, the issues at first pointed out are reminiscent of swapping crews on navy (forward deployed, and not only the RN) ships
- more often than not the experiment has been dropped?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote:I wholeheartedly disagree. Whole Fleet Management is not the reason for sloppy drills, failure to follow authorisation procedures and failure to maintain the safe configuration of the platform. It may have hidden one of these failings, but it is not the cause of it, nor does it mitigate in anyway the other issues that conspired to a fatal incident.
As far as the Inquiry could establish the relevant drills were carried out correctly. Their was no drill to confirm the BVA was fitted. Failure to stow the charges correctly was both stupid and unnecessary but did not cause the accident, it did of course increase its severity. The platform was left in a perfectly safe configuration by the previous crew just not in a condition. in which the L30 could be used, as they didn't believe it would be used (if they had thought it was going to be used again they would not have bothered cleaning the gun). The major contributing factor was the failure to conduct a proper Hand Over/Take Over, however as most of the previous crew were not on the range this could not have been done. Should they have therefore selected another tank, perhaps, but were the crews temporally allocated these other Challengers available to carry out a HO/TO we don't know. But remember that tank had already been used a couple of hours earlier so the assumption would have been that it was ok to use. Why was a HO/TO required at all, because crews were constantly moving between tanks, why were they constantly moving between tanks, because they only had 9 available when they should have had a full sqns worth of 18, why did they only have 9, because of Whole Fleet Management.
I should point out I am not arguing with the conclusions of the inquiry, I think from what I can tell they did a good job. Nor am I arguing that a similar accident could not have happened without Whole Fleet Management. What I am saying is that in this case Whole Fleet Management was a contributing factor and made a such an accident more likely than not having Whole Fleet Management.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Even if WFM was not a thing, would a sub unit take all its tanks to Castlemartin ranges for training? While accountant bashing is fun, it doesn’t change the fact that a pound spent on one thing is a pound not spent on something else.

The stand out piece for me was the fact that there was a drill to load a vent tube manually while the safety case for the gun was apparently based on the assumption that vent tubes would only ever be loaded by magazine. The disconnect between users and designers is worrying.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: As far as the Inquiry could establish the relevant drills were carried out correctly. Their was no drill to confirm the BVA was fitted. Failure to stow the charges correctly was both stupid and unnecessary but did not cause the accident, it did of course increase its severity.
Fitment of the BVA is in the drills, the issue is that there is no system interlock that prevents firing without the BVA fitted. So it is clear that drills were not completed correctly and the system design failed to mitigate that.
whitelancer wrote: The major contributing factor was the failure to conduct a proper Hand Over/Take Over, however as most of the previous crew were not on the range this could not have been done. Should they have therefore selected another tank, perhaps, but were the crews temporally allocated these other Challengers available to carry out a HO/TO we don't know. But remember that tank had already been used a couple of hours earlier so the assumption would have been that it was ok to use. Why was a HO/TO required at all, because crews were constantly moving between tanks, why were they constantly moving between tanks, because they only had 9 available when they should have had a full sqns worth of 18, why did they only have 9, because of Whole Fleet Management.
I should point out I am not arguing with the conclusions of the inquiry, I think from what I can tell they did a good job. Nor am I arguing that a similar accident could not have happened without Whole Fleet Management. What I am saying is that in this case Whole Fleet Management was a contributing factor and made a such an accident more likely than not having Whole Fleet Management.
I again disagree wholeheartedly. A weapon system in its simplest form, a rifle, still requires the person taking control of the weapon system to complete NSP. Even if the weapon system is handed over, you still do it because you are ultimately responsible for that system.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote:Even if WFM was not a thing, would a sub unit take all its tanks to Castlemartin ranges for training? While accountant bashing is fun, it doesn’t change the fact that a pound spent on one thing is a pound not spent on something else.
Well these days who can say. What I will say is that in the past a Sqn or indeed a Regiment would have taken their full complement of Tanks and other vehicles and they should do today.
mr.fred wrote:The stand out piece for me was the fact that there was a drill to load a vent tube manually while the safety case for the gun was apparently based on the assumption that vent tubes would only ever be loaded by magazine. The disconnect between users and designers is worrying.
Going back to the L11 their was a drill for loading vent tubes manually, so the designers should have know that was likely on the L30. Its really surprising that this problem was not picked up during the trials and development process, or failing that by the Gunnery Scholl when the necessary documentation and drills were put together.
RunningStrong wrote:Fitment of the BVA is in the drills, the issue is that there is no system interlock that prevents firing without the BVA fitted. So it is clear that drills were not completed correctly and the system design failed to mitigate that.
Fitting the BVA is not in the action drill or the prove the gun drill, which are the drills that the crew would have been expected to carry out. Checking the BVA was fitted should have been part of the Prove The Gun Drill but it wasn't. The fact that the gun could be fired without the BVA fitted was obviously the primary cause of the accident.
RunningStrong wrote:I again disagree wholeheartedly.
While not the main factor I am sticking to my opinion that Whole Fleet Management was a contributing factor. So I think we will have to agree to disagree.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: While not the main factor I am sticking to my opinion that Whole Fleet Management was a contributing factor.
... and the doing away with "the Establishments" another. As mr.fred pointed out the interaction between designers and end users seems to have gottento be far too remote (just like in the early days of the telegram, when the lines got too long, repeat stations needed to be added; we have done the opposite. And that happened that far back that I would challenge the contributors to name the mentioned establishments).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

Selling off or closing down the various Research and Development Establishments was very much a false economy. The MOD lost an enormous amount of knowledge, experience and expertise in many areas, not to mention the physical infrastructure.

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

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

Post by Qwerty »

Aircrew receive flame retardant clothing for their role.

Hopefully armour crews will now get the same or similar.

NOMEX is also available in black (in case the RTR are reading...)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Qwerty wrote:NOMEX is also available in black
Indeed, also in lightweight weave. So that I tipped one Arctic Survival producer about it, you know shelters tolerating fires close to them.

Did they ever say a 'thank you'?
No, perhaps afraid that I would ask for a share in the revenues
... and I just :cry: wanted one for myself
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Could the fact that crews do not train on the range as much as they used to do, also be a factor? Have drills not been kept up to date as with less training there is less cause for feedback about what could be done to avoid this, or how to do something better/safer?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Could the fact that crews do not train on the range as much as they used to do, also be a factor? Have drills not been kept up to date as with less training there is less cause for feedback about what could be done to avoid this, or how to do something better/safer?
I would say not, since the loader and commander were both instructors, the drills were followed (absent the charge handling) and something has to have gone wrong for there to be feedback about avoiding it.
More training might have meant that this showed up sooner, but there would be no reason to expect that it would be any less severe.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by whitelancer »

NOMEX was issued many years ago to a small number of personnel, never progressed any further as far as I am aware. Cost I expect. The use of pure cotton would be a step forward, but they do seem to like to use artificial fibres, probable for durability. At one time they were pure artificial fires, polyester I think, wouldn't like to be caught in a fire wearing them!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

The current black coveralls used by the RTR are 35% cotton and 65% polyester while standard camouflage clothing is 75% cotton 25% polyester. Neither are treated with fire retardant. The report notes that there is not stated clothing standard for operating AFVs and that the clothing worn by the crew was not a factor that caused the accident, made it more likely or made it worse, but rather it was noteworthy in that it may cause or contribute to future accidents, with particular reference of concern to the higher synthetic content of the RTR black coveralls.

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

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

Post by Qwerty »

You’re right Mr Fred, clothing wasn’t a factor of the cause.

Clothing exists that can mitigate against the burns received by the crew.
Not sure by how much after 5-8 seconds trapped inside of a propellant inferno?

Clearly not as urgent as the training and safety standards requiring suitable revisions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:what could be done to avoid this
Jumping up to a different level: we are headed for a defence budget in which kit (proc & support) account for 40% and is headed towards 50 (Dreadnoughts and all that).

It should be:
1/3 kit
1/3 manpower
1/3 (getting back, onto the topic) readiness and training

Ugh! And the Penny will not drop... anytime soon, as the changes that would need to be made are so radical that only a perceived ever-lasting peace (like the 10 yrs between the Boer War and WW1) would ever allow them to happen.

We did get to a good start half a decade after the Berlin Wall falling (the 97-98 review), but...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

According to Jane's, the programme to upgrade the Challenger 2 will be delayed for a period of two years to allow further studies into exactly what should be included in such a programme.
https://www.janes.com/article/89675/uk- ... on-delayed
On the face of it this is a good thing as they are now to seriously look at improving the lethality and survivability of the platform in addition to replacing obsolete items.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

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

Post by shark bait »

In other words there is no money so the MOD is playing its favourite card.

Beginning to look like Warrior, soon there will be no point in an upgrade.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply