FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Isn’t it in a competitive prototype phase?

Indeed, and we have passed the midpoint of two years (for that... one would think that there will be trials towards the end).

[Frenchie]

Any sane operator will shoot and scoot with any artillery piece unless the enemy has no counter battery capability. The Brandt is bigger and heavier than an 81mm and its ammunition, and the army uses the 81mm mounted. If 120mm is what you want, then a mounted version would seem preferable?

The ability to quickly leave the firing position makes the 120 mm RTF1 mortar a system not vulnerable to counter-battery shots; only-propelled guns and multiple rocket launchers can ensure the same speed of response, but it's more expensive.
The 120 mm RTF1 mortar can be towed by any vehicle equipped with a towing hook.

[mr.fred]

How easy is it to reverse with a trailer while driving a tracked vehicle or an 8 wheeler? My experience with such is ordinary cars, vans and tractors. One takeaway was that long trailers and short vehicles were easier than long vehicles with short trailers.

Any dismounted artillery system is vulnerable to counter battery fire as the crew is, by definition, dismounted and hence exposed. You can reduce the exposure by rapid relocation but you can't eliminate it.

I can see the utility for towed 120mm mortars for light forces or mounted 120mm mortars for armoured forces but not towed 120mm mortars for armoured forces. Turreted 120mm mortars also make sense for "medium" forces, due to their lack of integral armoured support. Which then takes me back to armoured formations (and hopefully, back on topic); Armoured battlegroups have access to 120mm direct fire and ought to have proper (SP 155 and MLRS) in support, so where does 120mm mortar fit better than 81mm? The latter, with greater ammunition depth, has better speculative fire ability, screening ability and can fire closer to friendly forces.

I'm failing to bring this back on topic so far, so how about: what is the concept of operations for using a larger mortar and how does that impact what the MBTs get up to?

[bobp]

How easy is it to reverse with a trailer while driving a tracked vehicle or an 8 wheeler? My experience with such is ordinary cars, vans and tractors.

Hmm would that be a twin axle trailer or single axle. Bad enough reversing a caravan on a carpark with a car. Doing that with a tank or 8 wheeler in the middle of a battlefield would be nigh on impossible.
Reversing a Landrover with a trailer is hard too.

[RetroSicotte]

Getting a bit far from just the Challenger, folks. Lets steer it back a bit.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'd be interested in any views on the Reserves, how they play on the number of Ch2's to be upgraded?

Yeomanry will provide complete units (tanks +crews; not just replacement crews) going forward. No one has said (or perhaps I have just not seen?) that they would come as formed units, though.
- however, Gaby informed us of AI bns, paired from the reserves
- considering that the Warrior (turreted such) numbers are practically melting away, that would mean a significant uplift to the required number of units (40-50%?)... assuming that they are not supposed to hop on the back of Buldogs when called up?

And further assuming no change in tactics (which plays to the ration of MBTs vs. IFVs). And that's within AI bdes ( I hesitate to call them heavy) while, clearly, SEG is working on coming up with completely different ways of doing things - with the kit being different, too.

[DaveyB]

I have seen a lot of comments about replacing the Chally2 with the Leopard. However, after seeing how thin the armour was on the Dutch Leopards in Afghan and also seeing how many Turkey have now lost in Syria. I don't think that would be a very wise decision.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but has anyone seriously considered a UK version of the Merkava 4, especially equiped with the battle proven APS (Trophy), but with the addition of a water boiler? Seriously though! The ready use one piece ammo is stored in the rear of the turret bustle, with blow out roof safety panels. There is space at the rear of the hull for addtional ammo with a rear access door. It does not have an autoloader but uses a crew of four, so no maintenance issues and an extra bod for replen. If the rear space is not being used for extra ammo it can be used to carry a few troops. The gun is a development of the German smoothbore but only in 44 calibres. It was developed to have the same size breech dimensions as the L7 105mm, so for a 120mm gun is quite small and compact. It can also fire the LAHAT ATGM through the gun, which has a range up to 8km but can also be used against helicopters. For urban fighting it has a 50 cal attached externally to the main gun and a 60mm internal mortar that fires through a trap door in the turret roof. It has a 7.62 co-axial MG but also a commander's pintle 7.62 MG, I believe they are starting to replace the commander's MG with a RWS.

So there it is a UK version of the Merkava 4, with modular dorchester 2 armour, 120mm L55 smooth bore main gun, Trophy or Iron Fist APS, a UK sensor and C2 fit + a water boiler - should be quite a beast!

[Ron5]

Unfortunately it would also be very, very expensive. Far cheaper to buy US Abrams or German Leopards. Even cheaper is to upgrade Challengers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So there it is a UK version of the Merkava 4

That would be such an irony playing out, as the UK and Israel ran a 20-yr secret project that started with designing a Centurion replacement.
- as nothing ever came of it, the Israelis went their own way, with Merkava 1,2,3,4 (and the Namers, to add on the deal)

Don't know if Merkavanet still exists; it had a the history of that project explained.

[mr.fred]

So there it is a UK version of the Merkava 4

That would be such an irony playing out, as the UK and Israel ran a 20-yr secret project that started with designing a Centurion replacement.
- as nothing ever came of it, the Israelis went their own way, with Merkava 1,2,3,4 (and the Namers, to add on the deal)

Don't know if Merkavanet still exists; it had a the history of that project explained.

Didn’t it end in Chieftain that we then refused to sell to the Israelis?

[ArmChairCivvy]

It is possible that the true story went as per above, and the story teller just omitted that part: to blow up the importance of the independent effort and the speed at which it, once started, proceeded (as I think the blogger actually worked in the tank factory, or its design "wing").
- ever since we have been buying their "stuff" when it used to be the other way round

[Lord Jim]

Yep, the Israelis wanted the Chieftain, with a few mods, and it went so far as to have at least two in Israel undergoing trials. Then it all went south with the majority of European countries refusing to sell armaments to Israel and the rest is history.

Regarding the Leopard 2s performance in Turkish service, we have to remember they are basically using some of the oldest standard versions and least protected. They at up against not just IEDs but quiet a selection of anti-tank weapons at least a generation newer than these tanks, and which were designed to defeat. The Leopard 2 A5 through A7 have greatly improved protection all round and the versions Singapore and Poland have introduced are of a similar level of protection. Is it up to the same standards as the latest M1, probably not, and the latter would probably be cheaper to purchase thought the running costs could be more given the superb support provided by the manufacturer for the former and that its support base is in Europe, whilst we would have to set up support facilities in the UK for the latter.

Given the small number of actual tanks needed to equip the two remaining Armoured Regiments (around 120), we could replace the Challenger 2 sooner rather than later. A part of this process, I would disband BATUS. If we choose the M1 I would suggest the UK join the US Army's training facility, where as if we choose the Leopard, setting up a joint NATO facility in Europe should be looked into, possibly in Poland. An alternative would be to turn BATUS into a NATO facility, paid for by NATO. This however would raise the issue of what equipment was permanently stationed there. If the objective is to learn tactics, then a generic set would do. This could be helped by setting up a digital sim net at the same location, both to ease the training on the resident kit and expand the scope of the course. In fact why NATO has not followed the US example and already established a Sim Net has always made me wonder.

[ArmChairCivvy]

[Singapore and] Poland have introduced are of a similar level of protection

Poland got the old German A4s and it [will] cost them $2m apiece for the upgrade.
- NL A6s went for that same $2m, no mechanical or weapons/ protection upgrades needed

setting up a joint NATO facility in Europe should be looked into, possibly in Poland

- a jolly good idea ; a bde on exercises, always relieved by the next one (incl. the Brit bde that isn't in Germany already, in its turn)
- would double the size of the VH readiness force, with a marginal cost (assuming that they exercise elsewhere now... a strong assumption?)

[Lord Jim]

From what I have seen, the upgrade on the Polish and Singapore Leopards is different from the A5/A6 upgrade and uses more modular armour. It is similar to the upgraded export Leopard that has been displayed, offering better all round protection.

[DaveyB]

My Father was in the Household Cavalry and was also a gunnery instructor on Chieftains. He was part of the team that took two Chieftain for trials in Israel. They found that the tank suffered really bad track wear and that the engines would often overheat. However, he said the Israelis really loved the tank and thought it was much better than the M48/60. However, they did say they wanted to replace the engine. Whilst he was there, they had that little border dispute with Syria. He said the Centurions did really, really well, but smirked when he said it. He would never expand on that statement though!

Its a shame that political pressure put a hold on the trial/purchase, as the Israelis would have dramatically improved the tank through its constant border disputes.

[mr.fred]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British ... t_Suffield

Assuming wiki is correct, BATUS was set up as there was nowhere suitable in Europe. Granted East Germany and Poland might change that, but it’s still a pretty big thing.

And 40 MBTs, 60 IFVs and a number of support vehicles.

[R686]

Just a curious question in regards to the Hippo BARV, why did you choose the Leopard 1A5 as the donor chassis and why not Challenger II especially when you have a bridge layer and combat engineer vehicle variants?

[RetroSicotte]

Just a curious question in regards to the Hippo BARV, why did you choose the Leopard 1A5 as the donor chassis and why not Challenger II especially when you have a bridge layer and combat engineer vehicle variants?

While I do not know the exact documentated reasons, I can imagine it comes from the following:
1. The Leopard version already existed, cheaper to acquire.

2. A Challenger 2 based version would be enormously heavy, and very unlikely to traverse the same sort of conditions.

3. If a Leopard becomes stuck, you can usually free it with other vehicles a bit smaller. If a Challenger BARV became stuck, then nothing the RMC would have around could possibly recover it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

1. The Leopard version already existed, cheaper to acquire.

All three valid reasons. The mystery is how did the Dutch company that had already built this one
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/nl_barv_leopard_1-a.htm
not win, but Hagglunds instead? Especially as in looks the end result is pretty identical.

[lordroel]

I have seen a lot of comments about replacing the Chally2 with the Leopard. However, after seeing how thin the armour was on the Dutch Leopards in Afghan and also seeing how many Turkey have now lost in Syria. I don't think that would be a very wise decision.

The Netherlands never had Leopards in Afghan, i think you are confusing the Netherlands with Denmark who did had Leopards in Afghan.

[ArmChairCivvy]

confusing the Netherlands with Denmark who did had Leopards in Afghan.

Does the confusion derive from Canada, who never took the old Leopards back (??), but rather got some from the Netherlands, for refurbing to a higher standard in the meanwhile.
- when there were still plenty left even after that, Finland bought abt a hundred for e2 mln each, and the one company's worth (18?) that were left for training the AI bdes are now going to be forced into service with the Germans (the Dutch formations being part of the 1st Panzer anyway; and the Germans taking time with the refurbing of their own - which had already been disposed for sale to abroad, like the previous batch, which is now under the works for Poland for $5 mln each).

Hope memory serves - a convoluted enough story for one country's Leopards!
- should we get some? Err, from 2030 onwards there will be lots available, when its replacement model will start to be rolled out

[R686]

Just a curious question in regards to the Hippo BARV, why did you choose the Leopard 1A5 as the donor chassis and why not Challenger II especially when you have a bridge layer and combat engineer vehicle variants?

While I do not know the exact documentated reasons, I can imagine it comes from the following:
1. The Leopard version already existed, cheaper to acquire.

2. A Challenger 2 based version would be enormously heavy, and very unlikely to traverse the same sort of conditions.

3. If a Leopard becomes stuck, you can usually free it with other vehicles a bit smaller. If a Challenger BARV became stuck, then nothing the RMC would have around could possibly recover it.

To be sure all valid reasons but all past recovery units were built on existing equipment readily at hand, weight would be a factor but from what I have read it comes down to tractive power are the main issues.But logistically it must be the biggest pain in the arse as you now have to keep additional spare holding for a fleet of four vehicles.

[Lord Jim]

Having a fleet of only four vehicles meant support costs were not really an issue, with contractor support including a warranty and the spares are actually far cheaper than those for a CA2 because of the huge user base of the leopard 1 compared to the CA2. So we chose the most readily available option. Support costs are not solely linked to the size on ones own fleet but to how large the global fleet is. This is one of the reasons the Leopard 2 has one so many completions for new MBTs. Well that and the fact not everyone wanted the M1's gas turbine or the RO rifled 120mm.

[SKB]

[Gabriele]

Judging from a facebook post, the Queen's Royal Hussars will bring the Challenger 2 to the Strong Europe Tank Challenge this year. That will be a first.

Hopefully it will not be a humiliating disaster like CAT 1987 for the Chally 1, but there can be little doubt about the Challenger 2 being the underdog there...