FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

There is no way we can match/overmatch the Russian or Chinese orbat. They have brigade sized artillery units supporting the old Soviet style 2 Mech Brgd divisions with an independent tank regiment of 2 battalions and a cavalry screen. That is the entire British armoured force there. The Russians have 4 such units in their A group formations, Lord alone knows how many the Chinese have.

We need to form hard hitting mobile integrated armoured (2) brigades and medium formations (2) with credible support elements. There is no way we can stop the iron fist at contact so we need to get better at trading space for time and attrite the lead echelons. Ironically this is something ATGM infantry are very good at if mobile and if they are not fixed, neutralised, or dispersed by artillery/fast air. Therefore I personally think it is essential we focus on giving the BA a significant overwatch capability based on the Brimstone 2 in land launch form, ideally based on a palletised MAN truck like the CAMM. Cheap and devastating. If you degrade the artillery, mobile medium SAM screen, C4I elements and forward echelon logistic support then the tanks are relatively easily negated.

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 »

jimthelad wrote: If you degrade the artillery,
as we have (but this has been recognised)
and
jimthelad wrote: mobile medium SAM screen
which is not so much in the open (though in the Big 6 for the US Army 'rectification' list)

I agree with the above post, and of course we are talking in the context of a meaningful contribution to NATO
- let's see if the Little Englanders want to withdraw behind the moat and pull the draw bridge :)
- was talking with some Services folks yesterday, and they have taken Boris' Churchillian aspirations at face value (though the man was air-minded and a navy person; commanding an army rgmnt was about doing penance... luckily the rgmnt didn't have horses, for a 'charge'). So where will the coming review leave the army?
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 »

Well the RAF and RN have their major programmes pretty much locked in and under contract, so priority does need to go with the Army for the foreseeable future if it is to be able to contest a peer conflict. If not it will be relegated to fight "Bush" wars and even ten will probably struggle. All the funding put into equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be totally discounted as it is irrelevant. The money spent on UORs filled gaps in capability that should either have already been filled or could not have been foreseen.

Defence is not a vote winner so why can't the funding be increased without a media song and dance. That way you avoid the complaints from those who think money should go on the NHS and nothing else as the increase would probably only appear in the specialist media and even after publication the mainstream may give it a paragraph or two buried in the middle of their publication. The money is there is needed, as the saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way".

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

ACC i was referring to the opposition with regard to degradation of fire support using OTH ATGM. The only advantage of facing up to heavy units with a strong WarPac based doctrine is that they rely very heavily on artillery and not CAS. Disrupt the close support elements and you can induce a wobble and force the armoured units themselves to shake out early. This means that you can then exploit weakness in their direct CCI and leadership. Infantry cannot do this if they are fixed or forced to disperse by massed artillery. If is was CoGS I would be prioritising indirect missile fires.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote:Well the RAF and RN have their major programmes pretty much locked in and under contract, so priority does need to go with the Army for the foreseeable future if it is to be able to contest a peer conflict. If not it will be relegated to fight "Bush" wars and even ten will probably struggle. All the funding put into equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be totally discounted as it is irrelevant. The money spent on UORs filled gaps in capability that should either have already been filled or could not have been foreseen.

Defence is not a vote winner so why can't the funding be increased without a media song and dance. That way you avoid the complaints from those who think money should go on the NHS and nothing else as the increase would probably only appear in the specialist media and even after publication the mainstream may give it a paragraph or two buried in the middle of their publication. The money is there is needed, as the saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way".
There are only actually 3 type 26s under contract, and, what 23 F35s? Tempest is just research out to 2025 then the real spending starts. Big spend (and risk) on Successor is also ramping up. Don’t know how you can say RN and RAF are sorted so army is priority.
What peer land conflict are we going to do in the next decade? Invasion of Iran is impossible, Estonia is a trip wire let’s be honest. The Polish have 600 MBTs. The reality is army are going to come third. ‘‘Twas ever thus - blame geography.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

SD67 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Well the RAF and RN have their major programmes pretty much locked in and under contract, so priority does need to go with the Army for the foreseeable future if it is to be able to contest a peer conflict. If not it will be relegated to fight "Bush" wars and even ten will probably struggle. All the funding put into equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be totally discounted as it is irrelevant. The money spent on UORs filled gaps in capability that should either have already been filled or could not have been foreseen.

Defence is not a vote winner so why can't the funding be increased without a media song and dance. That way you avoid the complaints from those who think money should go on the NHS and nothing else as the increase would probably only appear in the specialist media and even after publication the mainstream may give it a paragraph or two buried in the middle of their publication. The money is there is needed, as the saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way".
. The reality is army are going to come third. ‘‘Twas ever thus - blame geography.
Third yes, but not tenth.
OTOH, with current defence spending all three services are "coming third". And that's the main issue.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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 »

SD67 wrote:There are only actually 3 type 26s under contract, and, what 23 F35s? Tempest is just research out to 2025 then the real spending starts. Big spend (and risk) on Successor is also ramping up. Don’t know how you can say RN and RAF are sorted so army is priority. What peer land conflict are we going to do in the next decade? Invasion of Iran is impossible, Estonia is a trip wire let’s be honest. The Polish have 600 MBTs. The reality is army are going to come third. ‘‘Twas ever thus - blame geography.
And that has been the problem for at least the past two decades. As a result the Army is where it is now with nearly every armoured platform it has in service in need of a major upgrade or replacement. Every time the same arguments have been used, and the decision has been made that we are not going to be involved in a major land conflict for at least a decade unless by choice and that no Government is going to commit to a large scale deployment of ground troops again now we have finally disengaged from combat mission Iraq and Afghanistan except for SF and related units.

With that mentality the MoD needs to have the balls to accept that we do not need heavy AFVs as we are simply never going to use them. They should disband all three Armoured Infantry Brigades, cancelling the Warrior CIP and the Challenger CEP and also either make major reductions in the Ajax programme or even cancel that programme as well. The only programmes that would remain relevant would be the Boxer and the MRV(P).

Ajax is a platform designed for a different Army from what we have now. I was design to operate with the Army's traditional heavy units based in Germany, carrying out the same role the CVT(T) did in the Recce Regiments providing close recce for the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units. It is totally inappropriate to try to force it to fit into the formation like the planned medium "Strike" Brigades. All it does it bring insufficient firepower whilst also bringing a much larger logistics train and putting a ball and chain around the Boxer, limiting the formations deplorability and flexibility. It has only really kept progressing as no senior Officer, Civil Servant and Minister wanted their career tarnished by admitting the above and cancelling a programme which already had such an embarrassing and long winded history.

The next SDSR is going to have to make such hard choices if significant additional funds are not going to be allocated to the Army to clear its equipment backlog. It cannot even just try to maintain the status quo as for the Ajax and Boxer units to be operationally viable significant additional funding will be ned to increase the capabilities of both these family of vehicles. Retaining only four Armoured Infantry Battalions means their Brigades have insufficient Infantry to be able to carry out their role effectively, a lesson the MoD should have learnt from both Iraq and Afghanistan. AS for the Challenger 2, it should have received continuous upgrade throughout its career or at the very least a major one around 2010, but it didn't and we are where we are now.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Part 2 of the Tank Museum’s piece.

A bit light, in my opinion.

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 »

SD67 wrote:There are only actually 3 type 26s under contract, and, what 23 F35s? Tempest is just research out to 2025 then the real spending starts. Big spend (and risk) on Successor is also ramping up
Spend on the 'bleeding edge' and the best you can expect is 1 in 2 projects pulling through
... though the F-35 might be an exception as the 'partner' has been reaching into his/ her pockets... and they seem to be deep :) indeed

Well, as for this thread: none of what's being planned is bleeding edge... so just get on with it?
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 »

Video of the "Streetfighter 2" Challenger 2, an evolution of the original "Streetfighter" developed with input for the troops themselves.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

According to RBSL it's tank tuesday ...

Image

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 »

Now close your eyes and say Challenger 3 three times an it will appear, say it four times and you get two Regiments worth. :D

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 »

How do we get a Yeomanry rgmnt's worth, on top?
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 »

That might involve an act that is not appropriate for this forum.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

I think one of the big questions for the next SDSR (aka Integrated Defence, Security and Foreign Policy) review will be the role of the army, the extent to which it needs to radically transform now (as opposed to merely reequip with new/ modernised kit), how it needs to be poised (e.g. based upthreat) and the extent to which heavy forces still make sense.

Personally I expect we will retain heavy forces, but wouldn't be surprised if we reduced to one Armoured Infantry brigade's worth of Challenger and Warrior with more emphasis placed on medium forces, unmanned enablers, mobility and protection for light forces, information manoeuvre, artillery, forward presence and new organisational structures.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Personally I expect we will retain heavy forces, but wouldn't be surprised if we reduced to one Armoured Infantry brigade's worth of Challenger and Warrior with more emphasis placed on medium forces, unmanned enablers, mobility and protection for light forces, information manoeuvre, artillery, forward presence and new organisational structures.
As long as people is aware that this is NOT the cheap option, but the very expensive and entirely untried option.

Going medium, and perhaps wheeled, means the Army has to purchase a tremendous lot of stuff anew, considering that what it has is all thought for the heavy, tracked formations. I'm thinking TITAN, TROJAN, TERRIER, the SHORAD air defence, the artillery...

I have no clue how some people say that going medium saves money. It does exactly the opposite.

Unless, of course, going medium ends up only meaning cutting what's there and putting nothing new in service but talking about it with fancy buzzwords.

Meanwhile, over 50% of the Army's infantry sits in a fake Division with ZERO combat support and combat service support units. Maybe, just maybe, savings should come out of 1st Division before anyone messes with the already small heavy component. That loose bag of infantry battalions piled up at random in make-believe brigades is way too expensive for what it can do.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

J. Tattersall wrote:how it needs to be poised (e.g. based upthreat) and the extent to which heavy forces still make sense.
That's a nice pair as we have multiple threats but one where there is a practical possibility to be overwhelmed (if things move too quickly). We have the NATO tripwire; we have the national v-hi readiness units. These two are of different character.
- then we have the middle layer: the future medium force which has utility in practically all scenarios
- and finally the heavy force, which has limited utility in most scenarios; but in some we can't manage without

So we are down to the force mix, an age old question. And as Gaby points out, going whole hog means throwing away v expensive stuff with useful life of 1-2 decades
- if one counts the start of the transformation (doing, rather than talking) to be 2016, then we will have barely managed two (still not wholly complete) brigades with the financial constraints that will not ease by the time the first decade is up.
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 »

Gabriele wrote:Going medium, and perhaps wheeled, means the Army has to purchase a tremendous lot of stuff anew, considering that what it has is all thought for the heavy, tracked formations. I'm thinking TITAN, TROJAN, TERRIER, the SHORAD air defence, the artillery...
I agree the Army will have to purchase additional new kit, but it is already buying half the Boxers it would need to create three all wheeled Mechanised Brigades and also a lot of Ajax and Warriors we do not need. Again additional resources would be needed to procure the right mix of Boxer variants to make these formations effective, but for these the starting point would be the cancellation of the Ajax and Warrior production contracts that between them have £4.3Bn tied up and even after compensation payment would leave a substantial stack of cast left to reinvest.

As for the heavy engineering equipment, we only have limited numbers of these, and whilst we retain the Challenger 2(3) retaining these is not an issue, plus they are very useful in other missions besides full on warfighting. As for SHORAD, well that is one of the areas where I see the Starstreak launchers being transferred to Boxer Mission Modules and the Stormers being scrapped.

Taking the above savings and adding those that could be realised by reorganised by transforming/culling 1st (UK) Division and the Army should have a reasonable pool of resources to cover a fair portion of what is needed but yes additional resources will still be needed, but if we follow the existing path we will be spending £Bns and still end up with four ineffective combat Brigades lacking many key capabilities and incapable of fighting a war against a peer opponent even with the support of allies, in fact they would be a liability to them

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

Personally speaking I expect that 1(UK) Division will become more important rather than less, as will 6(UK) Division, with possible rebalancing of resources towards these.

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 »

Agree with the 'feeling' of the above as the army is 'fully modular' and the fact that 3 Div. has been preconfigured to a high degree has much to do with speeding up any deployment.
- let's see where the strike bdes, once we have the two of them, will slot in
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 »

Not so sure about this. I can see 1st (UK) Division being the support force for 3rd Division, considering it already contains most of the Medical services and the engineering and logistical units that would support a persistent deployment, but it is the stated aspiration for the Army to maintain a "Fighting" Division and splitting the units currently assigned to 3rd Division with 1st Division complicates matters. Yes we need 1st (UK) Division headquarters to be fully manned and to be reconfigured in the same manner as our other two Divisional Headquarters intend to be.

At present the Infantry Brigades currently assigned to 1st (UK) Division are of little practical use, and unless even more resources are made available beyond those required to bring 3rd Division up to scratch, they will remain so. Trying to do anything with 1st (UK) Division with the existing inadequate resources is only going to spread these thinner and make the bad situation that already exists worse.

As for 6th Division, here we may see additional resources aimed at improving both its ability to conduct and counter "Hybrid" warfare as well as provide support to 3rd Division. I also see this as becoming the home of the UK's Special Forces, both regular and Reserve as well as their support assets and also 16 Air Assault and possibly the new 1st Air combat Brigade, whatever that turns out to be.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

Just think one needs to be a bit careful on this point. Yes 1 Div's infantry brigades cannot carry out manoeuvre warfare to the same tempo and threat level as either a current Armoured Infantry brigade or a future Strike brigade. However in my view they're far from impracticable. They're light infantry and can be used in roles ranging from fighting Division/ ARRC rear area security through to a standalone light brigade (one might postulate here African or NATO periphery security missions). Remember that although not organic to 1 Div the army has 2 regiments of light guns within 1 Arty bde (administratively currently under 3 Div) that can be 'attributed' to an infantry brigade in a light brigade role, and similarly although not part of these infantry brigades it has the other combat support, combat service support and light cavalry elements to allow a light brigade to be formed (from an infantry brigade) for a specific purpose.

To me the interesting thing will be army organising post the next SDSR. Does it go with current plans, does it split heavy, medium and light resources between 1 and 3 Divs, or does it rebalance resources in favour of 1 Div to effectively make it the centre of gravity for light forces within the army?

I'll stop here since I'm way off topic as regards Challenger 2 MBT.

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 »

J. Tattersall wrote: elements to allow a light brigade to be formed (from an infantry brigade) for a specific purpose.
Not off the topic as the utility of properly heavy (enough of MBTs in them to make the formation fit for purpose, wile understanding what that purpose usefully could be) bdes - looks like I am assuming at least two as otherwise the readiness cycle drops to rgmnt/ bn level, which is not even small change in int'l conflicts - is in having also other (effective) formations as an available alternative for other purposes.
- a long sentence to say that 'enough' is c. 150, which makes for 2+1 rgmnts (Batus vehicles being drawn from the Yeomanry establishment strength
- the refurb better work well as the above allows for the 48 strength, and none :) at the maintenance depot (at the time of mobilisation)
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)

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

I just wouldn't be surprised if one ended up with only one brigades worth of Challenger 2 (or 3?) and Warriors, with more emphasis (& resources) going to medium weight formations. The question then would be how are they best organised? As a specialised singleton heavy brigade or combined with the strike brigades to form 2 or 3 combined heavy/ medium brigades? Perhaps even as combined arms battalion sized units?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 'enough' is c. 150, which makes for 2+1 rgmnts
ArmChairCivvy wrote:allows for the 48 strength,
It did occur to me that 3 Type 44 C3 (i.e. 14-vehicle Sabre Squadrons) Regiments, each with an additional 12 Ajax (organised as a recce troop within each squadron to bring them up to 18 vehicles ) might be a reasonable outcome. It would leave around 18 C3 for training, maintenance etc. (maybe with a number of C2 also retained for some training tasks).

I think something similar is already happening within the current "Type 56" regiments, with some C2 being replaced with CVR(T) at squadron level
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply