FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Caribbean wrote: be used as Opfor in training exercises as well.
I like that - would be a moral boost as 'our' forces would always win :) . A bit like in the 'first round' in Kuwait when the MBTs could see further ahead than the CRVTs that were supposed to recce for them
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)

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 »

Why not have 3 smaller regiments of 38 tanks?
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…

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote:I believe there's a tad more to training to operate a tank than firing the gun and learning a new interface. Operating as a unit would be pretty high on the list. Tactics would be in there. Navigation, command skills, standard process and procedures as well. All stuff that could be done in an unmodified vehicle (much of which would need to be innate skills, so you can still function when the pretty, pretty hi-tech gear goes phut at a critical point). Then move on to the simulators (good, but not quite the same as being there) and finally to the "real thing" for advanced training.
Presumably they could also be used as Opfor in training exercises as well.
For better or for worse, most of this is done as a progression from classroom theory, to desktop trainers, to platform simulators and then simulated laser battle.

In between, you have weapons drill trainers for doing Hangfire drills and stoppages. Probably including manual firing too.

There's really no point training on old hardware if the drills and skills are completely different. Even manual firing will be different you're swapping the sights, ammunition and gun system in the upgrade.

Keep the legacy platforms for reservists by all means, but don't think for a moment they can just jump into a upgraded vehicle without significant re training.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:Keep the legacy platforms for reservists by all means, but don't think for a moment they can just jump into a upgraded vehicle without significant re training.
...... and yet the rumoured plan appears to be to do precisely that with the reserves. Retain some of the old C2s (with some comms and maybe sight upgrades, rather than wholesale turret replacement), but use the reserves to provide replacement crews (not vehicles) for the regulars, presumably using a combination of the old versions, simulators and a small number of the new version for type-specific training.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

abc123 wrote:Why not have 3 smaller regiments of 38 tanks?

First, 3 smaller Regiments are less efficient, in terms of manpower and equipment than 2 Regiments. Its just not as simple as dividing every thing by 3 rather than 2. You would need for instance another RHG, as their is very little scope for reducing their size (they will still need to be able to command a BG), additional manpower and equipment will be needed. Note by going to 38 tanks you have increased the overall numbers required by 2. The same would be true in many other areas. Their would be savings, just no where near enough to provide for an additional Regiment.

Second, effectiveness. Sabre troops operate best with 4 MBTs, Sabre Squadrons with 4 Sabre Troops, hence the total of 18 MBTs per Sqn. As for Armoured Regiments 4 Sabre Sqns is optimum. (I would say the same basic structure is true of Infantry Battalions). This makes for very large units not in itself a bad thing, but they have to fit in at higher levels as well. As the same is true of the higher levels, with 4 Manoeuvre Units per Brigade and 4 Brigades per Division being optimum, but you would end up with an enormous and unwieldy Division. In Cold War days that would have meant most of BAOR would have been contained in 1 Division! To get around this compromises need to be made. That usually means going from a 4(square) structure to a 3(triangular) structure, at certain levels. Note the British Army not infrequently swapping between a triangular and square structure at various levels. This works well enough, but a linear structure(based on 2) lacks flexibility and mass. This means taking a Sqn from each Regt and creating a new Regt would not be a sound idea, instead you would have to create 3 Sqns from 2. The best compromise would be to go back to 14 MBTs per Sqn, that however would require another 20 over and above the total for 2 current Regts. Changing the structure at one level effects other levels making it all very complicated.
Finally why would 3 Armoured Regiments be better than 2?

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 »

Caribbean wrote:Retain some of the old C2s (with some comms and maybe sight upgrades, rather than wholesale turret replacement), but use the reserves to provide replacement crews (not vehicles) for the regulars
- they should read these pages,as
whitelancer wrote:a linear structure(based on 2) lacks flexibility and mass
and in 'modern' military thinking I guess the Soviet end-of-WW2 Breakthrough Armies may have had that concept: one exhausted, through it away, and send the second one in
... they only had so many, and as the test run on the Karelian Isthmus didn't go too well, they had to pack up, for those same ones being there in time for "the end of season party" in Berlin
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)

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 »

whitelancer wrote:
abc123 wrote:Why not have 3 smaller regiments of 38 tanks?

First, 3 smaller Regiments are less efficient, in terms of manpower and equipment than 2 Regiments. Its just not as simple as dividing every thing by 3 rather than 2. You would need for instance another RHG, as their is very little scope for reducing their size (they will still need to be able to command a BG), additional manpower and equipment will be needed. Note by going to 38 tanks you have increased the overall numbers required by 2. The same would be true in many other areas. Their would be savings, just no where near enough to provide for an additional Regiment.

Second, effectiveness. Sabre troops operate best with 4 MBTs, Sabre Squadrons with 4 Sabre Troops, hence the total of 18 MBTs per Sqn. As for Armoured Regiments 4 Sabre Sqns is optimum. (I would say the same basic structure is true of Infantry Battalions). This makes for very large units not in itself a bad thing, but they have to fit in at higher levels as well. As the same is true of the higher levels, with 4 Manoeuvre Units per Brigade and 4 Brigades per Division being optimum, but you would end up with an enormous and unwieldy Division. In Cold War days that would have meant most of BAOR would have been contained in 1 Division! To get around this compromises need to be made. That usually means going from a 4(square) structure to a 3(triangular) structure, at certain levels. Note the British Army not infrequently swapping between a triangular and square structure at various levels. This works well enough, but a linear structure(based on 2) lacks flexibility and mass. This means taking a Sqn from each Regt and creating a new Regt would not be a sound idea, instead you would have to create 3 Sqns from 2. The best compromise would be to go back to 14 MBTs per Sqn, that however would require another 20 over and above the total for 2 current Regts. Changing the structure at one level effects other levels making it all very complicated.
Finally why would 3 Armoured Regiments be better than 2?

I think that British Army and it's tank force is in such state that any talk about this or that being the most effective is a moot point. This is fight for survival. When you are drowning, you don't care whether this or that life-jacket is more effective...

And if 3 armoured regiments aren't better than 2, than 2 are not better than 1 or 0.
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…

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Keep the legacy platforms for reservists by all means, but don't think for a moment they can just jump into a upgraded vehicle without significant re training.
...... and yet the rumoured plan appears to be to do precisely that with the reserves. Retain some of the old C2s (with some comms and maybe sight upgrades, rather than wholesale turret replacement), but use the reserves to provide replacement crews (not vehicles) for the regulars, presumably using a combination of the old versions, simulators and a small number of the new version for type-specific training.
Then that sounds parallel to the Royal Artillery use of Light gun reservists to support the AS90 regular army. The basic principals will be known, but it's a completely different training path.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:that sounds parallel to the Royal Artillery use of Light gun reservists to support the AS90 regular army.
While I appreciate the logic, I would think that the probability of use also directs what kit is with reserves, e.g.
101st Regiment Royal Artillery has GMLRS (and another rgmnt close support air defence).
- not forgetting that the RHA with light guns would in many situations be the 'first 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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:and in 'modern' military thinking I guess the Soviet end-of-WW2 Breakthrough Armies may have had that concept:
Interestingly the Cold War era Soviet Army used a square structure at Regimental and Division level. All be it 3+1 or 1+3 rather than the 2+2 structure employed by British Army square Brigades. They achieved this by keeping their Battalions comparatively small, (3x3x3 for 31 tanks per Tank Battalion and similar in the Motor Rifle Battalions), and concentrating CS and CSS at Regimental and Divisional level. Overall I think this was a very effective structure in many ways better than the traditional triangular (2+1 or 1+2) found in many NATO armies.

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 »

I agree that it alleviates the difficulty of getting the right mix moved to the right point at the right time
... depending on whether the planning for the nature of follow-on operations got it anywhere near 'right' as to 1+3s, or 3+1s

And these break-through, or 'shock', armies I was referring to got transformed into normal armoured formations (the latter were meant to be the means to exploit the concentration created by the former).

In modern terms I guess an MBT is an MBT ,and whether they are covered/protected by heavy IFVs (Puma or T-15, derived from the T-14 Armata chassis... both v expensive) or by infantry in greater numbers but riding in cheaper cabs; we will get to see (as well as how the use of MBTs relates to the concept of Strike)
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 »

abc123 wrote:I think that British Army and it's tank force is in such state that any talk about this or that being the most effective is a moot point. This is fight for survival. When you are drowning, you don't care whether this or that life-jacket is more effective...
I would suggest its not moot at all. The smaller the force you have the more effective and efficient it needs to be otherwise you risk losing the capability altogether. If the number of Challengers to be updated drops much below the rumoured number of 148 its debatable whether it will be worth having them at all.
abc123 wrote:And if 3 armoured regiments aren't better than 2, than 2 are not better than 1 or 0.
The question was asked, if 3 Regts of 38 Challengers would be better than the soon to be 2 Regmts, that is what I attempted to answer. If you didn't like my answer or think the question was irrelevant that's fine, but justify your position, don't just come out with some meaningless twaddle.

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:justify your position, don't just come out with some meaningless twaddle
Should be added to the Forum rules ;)
- not aimed at @123... just a general comment
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)

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 »

whitelancer wrote:If the number of Challengers to be updated drops much below the rumoured number of 148 its debatable whether it will be worth having them at all.

If you didn't like my answer or think the question was irrelevant that's fine, but justify your position, don't just come out with some meaningless twaddle.
Well you see, you answered it yourself. I mean, it's all a question what do you want. How many armoured brigades and armoured regiments do you want. If anything else, having 3 of them allows rotation of one somewhere. Better than two.
Of course that in normal circumstances regiment of 56 is better than of 38.
But, would we discuss that if the circumstances are normal? Simply, two regiments makes it easier to turn into one regiment and after that to zero regiments. So, better to keep three of them, even with lesser number of tanks. Less can sometimes be more, but not in this case.
And no, I don't consider British Army as normal army without tanks. What's next? Without guns? Rifles?
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 »

At present retaining even two Armoured Infantry Brigades that are actually combat effective is still an aspiration not a certainty. AS for unit rotation, well we won't be deploying a whole Regiment anywhere unless we are involved it a Peer conflict and then it won't be a case of rotation but more of replacing if the first becomes combat ineffective. The only rotations we are likely to see are at Troop or Squadron level like we see in the Baltics.

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:AS for unit rotation, well we won't be deploying a whole Regiment anywhere unless we are involved it a Peer conflict
Does this mean that our tanks are locked up, until further notice?
"Germany extends COVID-19 lockdown in Gütersloh"
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)

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Andy-M »

New video out today.


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Andy-M wrote:New video out today.
Nice now can we have 200 minimum please.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

The Challenger 2 LEP was mentioned a few times at the Defence Committee a few days ago (full transcript available here: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/652/pdf/).

Among the more interesting parts:
General Sir Nick Carter: I think the requirement is now pretty clear, and that is one of the reasons why Challenger 2 is taking a long time. It is because there was this realisation that the programme was not ambitious enough. It needed a smoothbore gun. It needed the ability to put a missile down that barrel to overmatch Armata, as you rightly describe. It needed its protection levels to be significantly enhanced. So the requirement has evolved.
Is this confirmation the LEP will include anti-tank missiles?

Online
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 »

What the heck is he talking about?

PS Thanks Andy, nice video, gets the blood stirred

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 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Is this confirmation the LEP will include anti-tank missiles?
Interesting wording, isn't it? It could just mean improved 120mm ammunition (likely), or even a gun-launched missile like Falarick (less likely). I think "put a missile down that barrel" rules out ATGMs, though
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

It definitely appears that the Army is now looking at a comprehensive upgrade to the Challenger 2 rather than simply replacing obsolete components, and has drawn up a list of requirements that would make it basically a new Tank able to compete on a future battlefield against a peer opponent.

Now that is good news, but I worry as the same idea of upgrading an existing platform to make it more capable as a cheaper alternative to buying new was the sane as used for the Warrior CSP, and look how that has progressed, overbudget, reduced numbers and late to put it mildly.

As for an ATGW, well the US Army amongst others are developing gun launched ATGMs and Israel has them already in service, and all of which use the Rheinmetall 120mm or a similar gun, so adopting such a munition would not be a huge step if the CR2 upgrade delivers what the Army hopes for, and the same goes for the advanced penetrators in use around the world for the same gun.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:Is this confirmation the LEP will include anti-tank missiles?
Interesting wording, isn't it? It could just mean improved 120mm ammunition (likely), or even a gun-launched missile like Falarick (less likely). I think "put a missile down that barrel" rules out ATGMs, though
RLS and Israel have tested the LAHAT. We have a history of Spike missiles. LAHAT seems like a decent option.

CMOR
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by CMOR »

Jealous girlfriend meme, with distracted boyfriend looking at sexy Challenger 2 (now with added missile!), and jealous girlfriend being "deployability".

Until the Army comes up with the coherent plan to be able to move its assets from A to B in an operationally relevant timeframe, those assets are always going to be very vulnerable in defence reviews. People outside the MOD can figure this stuff out.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

CMOR wrote:Jealous girlfriend meme, with distracted boyfriend looking at sexy Challenger 2 (now with added missile!), and jealous girlfriend being "deployability".

Until the Army comes up with the coherent plan to be able to move its assets from A to B in an operationally relevant timeframe, those assets are always going to be very vulnerable in defence reviews. People outside the MOD can figure this stuff out.
The Australians have moved Abrams on C17, obviously with a degree of teardown, and I doubt it was anything but a prestine runway to land on.

But, given the right efforts, what would prevent Chally 2 being C17 transported? Probably won't roll-off and straight into the fight, but it could be in theatre within 24hrs of first shot?

Post Reply