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 »

That's looking like a lean, mean, fighting machine :)
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

It might look better complete with other things on top than the defence secretary , unless lol

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

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

Post by Qwerty »

seaspear wrote:It might look better complete with other things on top than the defence secretary , unless lol
Working at height and in a depot/yard - No protective head gear and no high visibility clothing.

Online
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 »

Qwerty wrote:
Working at height and in a depot/yard - No protective head gear and no high visibility clothing.
Not needed if you are controlling the risk another way.
Probably not needed anyway.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

reflective vests , safety boots are at the bottom of the hierarchy of control when it comes to mitigating risk of a fall hazard, the vehicle could have been parked next to safety railing to prevent a fall hazard .
Probably meets definition of unsafe work practice ,could come down to any investigating inspector from the local government department .
I've had to call them in on occasion lol

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

Image

First image I've ever seen of the L28A1 APFSDS round. No idea on its size to the L27.

That said I am going to the Tank Museum in the summer, I'll see if I can measure it, since we know L27s dimensions.

Just need to identify what its actual history is. I'd ask a museum person, but they'll all be busy with Tankfest prep. Lot of talk of it being an L27 replacement (which we've never seen for sure as being in service), or being made for Oman (no confirmation) or just an unused prototype round.

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 definitely looks a bit bigger than those I have seen.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Iv been thinking recently after the C2 upgrade project is well under way we’ll need to start the process of designing the next gen MBT, could this be our chance to develop the next big change in MBT design. I say this as recently Iv come across concept designs of quad track excavator and thinking if and how this could be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Jake1992 wrote: be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.

Can't help but think of the Scorpion tank from the Halo series, which I've always wondered about the real-world viability of....

Image

The part of that video which really got me, was when it used the tracks like legs to raise itself up for greater height. That must be rather useful for shooting from bending cover.

Problem (aside from £s) is, what level of design expertise is even left in the UK for AFVs?

Jensy

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Jensy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.

Can't help but think of the Scorpion tank from the Halo series, which I've always wondered about the real-world viability of....

Image

The part of that video which really got me, was when it used the tracks like legs to raise itself up for greater height. That must be rather useful for shooting from bending cover.

Problem (aside from £s) is, what level of design expertise is even left in the UK for AFVs?

Jensy
Oh I agree it could give plenty added benefits but will need a lot of work to get there.

This is were the Ajax and C2 upgrade programs should be used to build skills in all areas to allow for the follow on of future MBT design

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 »

Number of tanks in the British Army goes down by 1/3- from 227 to 148

https://defence-blog.com/army/british-a ... third.html

Disgrace. :thumbdown:

And all of that in time of such big evil Russian-Threat-from-the-East ( TM ). :o

Oh, here's a better title from The Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/[b]b ... y-cambodia[/b]-after-tank-cuts-qczvrqz0n
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…

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 »

Disgrace indeed, not surprised there is no dosh to pay for upgrades.

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 least we are keeping some, and if these reduction lead to the remainder being properly modernised to keep them effective into the 2030s I will be happy, but that does entail a new gun. It doesn't matter how good your situational awareness and targeting capabilities are if you cannot take out the target!

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 »

There has been talk that the 3rd tank rgmnt would come from Yeomanry (unlike today, providing crews). If there's any truth in that, BATUS will reveive a squadron's worth.
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 »

As 56 are required by each Regiment for a total of 112 that would leave just 36 for training and sustainment. So no 3rd Regiment, at best the Yeomanry will provide a limited battle causality replacement capability.

It is hardly a surprise though given the announcement some time ago that the number of Armoured Regiments would be reduced to 2. Of course it does mean that updating challenger, if it actually happens, will cost more per Tank. Are we at point when the cost of maintaining such a reduced heavy armour capability is no longer worth it?

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:At least we are keeping some, and if these reduction lead to the remainder being properly modernised to keep them effective into the 2030s I will be happy, but that does entail a new gun. It doesn't matter how good your situational awareness and targeting capabilities are if you cannot take out the target!
It's 2019, not 2002. I really don't understand your comment. It's five years after Ukraine/Crimea/Donbass, evol bad Russia preying on Baltics, Poland, Romania, Venus, Mars ( not that I believe in these nonsences, but HMG shoud put their money where their mouths are ), and you CUT number of tanks? Just 8 ( if even that ) Type 26 frigates? Etc.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
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 »

My comment was meant somewhat sarcastically as I wouldn't put it past our Government to follow Belgium amongst others and decide that we no longer need Heavy formations and the future is that of Medium ones based around the Boxer and Ajax, the result all the Challengers are retired. So retaining two Regiments worth is a positive in my book.

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 »

I wouldn't count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments just makes it easier to bin them completely. You only have to look at what happened to the Harrier to see the way this is going.

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

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

Post by S M H »

whitelancer wrote:I wouldn't count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments just makes it easier to bin them completely. You only have to look at what happened to the Harrier to see the way this is going.
Managed treasury decline at its finest.

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: count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments
... gives further savings with the number of Warriors required for 4 AI bns (I wonder if there are any paired units in the Reserves... a handful for BATUS anyway, too).
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 »

Lord Jim wrote:My comment was meant somewhat sarcastically as I wouldn't put it past our Government to follow Belgium amongst others and decide that we no longer need Heavy formations and the future is that of Medium ones based around the Boxer and Ajax, the result all the Challengers are retired. So retaining two Regiments worth is a positive in my book.
The only problem with that logic is that the UK isn't Belgium.

On the other hand, considering that both countries are in permanent danger of breaking-up, maybe they do have some similarities...
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 »

TD has done some very good essays on where the Army should concentrate its resources on moving forward. He points out, as have some on here that the UK cannot afford to do both heavy and medium formations and have then both be combat effective. His suggestion is to move down the Medium route whilst retain a number of Armoured Regiments to support these medium formations as and when required.

As plans stand we are going to end up with two weak Armoured Infantry Brigades with only two Infantry Battalions and no integral recce, and two "Strike" Brigades that lack the fire power to effectively conduct high intensity warfare and by having both tracked and wheeled platforms negate many of the advantages of the latter.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: no integral recce,
Why do you say that? There are sufficient Ajax on order to cover all the current CVR(T) roles, including both the three Armoured Cavalry regiments and the integral recce sections in all the Armoured and Armoured infantry battalions.
Since we are dropping to two Armoured Brigades (hardly a surprise, it's been known that this is coming since the Strike Brigades were announced), there will be a surplus, which is being re-allocated (for good or for bad) to the Strike Brigades. Between them, the two armoured brigades will need around 128 turreted Ajax to provide 2 x Armoured Cavalry regiments and 6 x 8 recce sections.
There are sufficient turreted Ajax planned (245) to form two additional Armoured Cavalry regiments (2 x 40 turreted Ajax) and provide integral recce sections for each of the four mechanised infantry (Strike) battalions (4 x 8 turreted Ajax). Total 112 turreted Ajax.
That's a total of 240 turreted Ajax (and I'm assuming that all the CVR(T) in the recce sections and in the armoured cavalry regimental HQ are Scimitar, which is not actually the case)
The only really new part of the latest announcement is that the C2 upgrade is going ahead and that the reserve Armoured regiment will be cut, rather than expanded, as was announced only a few months ago.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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:Between them, the two armoured brigades will need around 128 turreted Ajax to provide 2 x Armoured Cavalry regiments and 6 x 8 recce sections.
There are sufficient turreted Ajax planned (245) to form two additional Armoured Cavalry regiments (2 x 40 turreted Ajax) and provide integral recce sections for each of the four mechanised infantry (Strike) battalions (4 x 8 turreted Ajax). Total 112 turreted Ajax.
That's a total of 240 turreted Ajax
From somewhere, in that calculation, the AJaxes for 'fire support' in Strike Bdes will be pulled.
- I've lost track long ago (are there still such things as 'formation strengths'?)
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 »

From what I can find, there are no plans to include a Recce Regiment in the Armoured Infantry Brigades. On order are 198 Recce Ajax out of a total of 245 turreted version the remainder being Joint Fires and Ground Surveillance, not quite sure what the last is though. To equip the four Regiments that will be part of the two "Strike" Brigades with take a minimum of 166 of the Recce versions alone, with each regiments having three squadrons of 13. That leave less than 30 for training (BATUS) and fleet sustainment. So as you can see unless additional Ajax are orders the AI Brigades will have no Recce Regiment nor will the Armoured, Armoured Infantry or Mechanised Infantry have integral Recce.

Post Reply