FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

SW1 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 16:22
inch wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 15:53 Do we all agree whatever side of the argument about Germanys reasons good or ill,that German equipment ,tanks etc might be in for a tough time after what's go on ,agree or not ?
I’m gonna say not, mainly because I don’t actually think the users of leopards or any of the other big tank users outside Germany are that willing to send them even Poland.
You really need to catchup on the news - they all have been vocal that they need export license clearance from Germany - and that is not coming from Germany. That is the issue - once people have clearance - reaching the 300 mark with Leopards 2 will not be a problem.

Most of Europe will be looking at the antics of the German goverment and will be looking to dump their Leopard 2's faster than a hooker in a red light district. The future of tanks in Europe will not be germany going forward - I am fairly certain of that.

Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

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

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 17:12
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 16:31
SW1 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 13:19
dmereifield wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 13:08 The other Leo users are trying to send them, but Germany is blocking....pretty clear cut. More to do with German arms industry losing out when those nations need backfill their tank donations, they won't be buying German given Germany's actions this last 11 months....a morally repulsive position that Sholz/Germany is taking
Didn’t see the same vitriol of don’t buy American when they put a stop to the Ukraine request for fighter a/c last year
There is a difference.

Last year USA did nt want to send US aircraft from US directly to Ukraine, at the risk of inflaming and escalating the war, especially if flown direct into a warzone.

This year it is Germany stoping countries such as Poland from sending their german built Leopards, much of which are stored in warehouses, to Ukraine, especially when it would be easy to send them by train over the border.
Sure about that? I thought Poland wanted to send migs and the US went no!
I think the international diplomatic situation has moved on since the US embargoed the transfer of Mig29's last year.

There were big question marks regarding Russian willingness to use WMD's to achieve their war aims and some channels of direct communication were still open between the White House and the Kremlin.

We now know ( or at least hope) Putin won't go nuclear, his use some other appalling chemical or biological weapon is still open to debate however.

Hopefully the Germans can be sufficiently pressured to release Leopards and Uncle Sam will start supplying surplus F16's.

The progressive role out of F35A is seeing a steady shift of F16C's to the ANG and their older model machines to Davis Monthan. So there's an increasingly large pool of machines that could be refurbished for Ukraine....

Certainly 300 Leopard 2's and 100 F16's along with sufficient guided deep fire artillery and the Ukrainians could steamroll the Russians right over their boarder.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Tempest414 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 17:17 so remind me what is the big problem of sending M1A1 Abrams to Ukraine if it the engine could they not fit a MTU diesel yes this would be a big task but this thing is not going to over anytime soon and even if it ends before they get there they will still need new tanks plus other smaller counties may want them as well
I can't see it happening, but i remember years ago they did a test with a normal V12 engine.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

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

Post by mrclark303 »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:57
SW1 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 17:12
wargame_insomniac wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 16:31
SW1 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 13:19
dmereifield wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 13:08 The other Leo users are trying to send them, but Germany is blocking....pretty clear cut. More to do with German arms industry losing out when those nations need backfill their tank donations, they won't be buying German given Germany's actions this last 11 months....a morally repulsive position that Sholz/Germany is taking
Didn’t see the same vitriol of don’t buy American when they put a stop to the Ukraine request for fighter a/c last year
There is a difference.

Last year USA did nt want to send US aircraft from US directly to Ukraine, at the risk of inflaming and escalating the war, especially if flown direct into a warzone.

This year it is Germany stoping countries such as Poland from sending their german built Leopards, much of which are stored in warehouses, to Ukraine, especially when it would be easy to send them by train over the border.
Sure about that? I thought Poland wanted to send migs and the US went no!
I think the international diplomatic situation has moved on since the US embargoed the transfer of Mig29's last year.

There were big question marks regarding Russian willingness to use WMD's to achieve their war aims and some channels of direct communication were still open between the White House and the Kremlin.

We now know ( or at least hope) Putin won't go nuclear, his use some other appalling chemical or biological weapon is still open to debate however.

Hopefully the Germans can be sufficiently pressured to release Leopards and Uncle Sam will start supplying surplus F16's.

The progressive role out of F35A is seeing a steady shift of F16C's to the ANG and their older model machines to Davis Monthan. So there's an increasingly large pool of machines that could be refurbished for Ukraine....

Certainly 300 Leopard 2's and 100 F16's along with sufficient guided deep fire artillery and the Ukrainians could steamroll the Russians right over their boarder.

Just too add, I think it's China who have applied restraint to Putin re WMD. They know such use would quite feasibly Ignite a war with the West that would probably drag China into the fight too as it turned into WW3.

The Chinese have no intention of sparking that off!

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
These users liked the author sol for the post (total 5):
mrclark303zanahoriawargame_insomniacRon5serge750

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

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

Post by mrclark303 »

sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.

You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?

Maybe trying to do everything with a shrinking Army is just not a good idea?

Food for thought chaps....
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post (total 2):
zanahoriaJensy

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by wargame_insomniac »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12
sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.
And the same thought has obviously occured to MOD. See the rcent news articles from last week that Ben Wallace is at least thinking about upping this number.

Note - that is NOT currently a firm commitment to do so and it is NOT yet even firm additional funding available. But IMO it is at least a hopeful sign that if the MOD can squeeze some more money out of somewhere, that a larger quantity of Challengers can be upgraded. Which IMO is the only option that British Army can realistically afford in the short term. At least it will allow us to use 120mm smmothbore standard NATO ammo.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... ank-fleet/
These users liked the author wargame_insomniac for the post:
mrclark303

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12
sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.

You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?

Maybe trying to do everything with a shrinking Army is just not a good idea?

Food for thought chaps....
A Norwegian army of 8k has tanks, a Danish army of 9k have tanks an Australian army of 30k have tanks.

The argument for or against having tanks cannot be be based on how many people there is in the army. Based on our population size our army is well sized.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12
sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.

You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?

Maybe trying to do everything with a shrinking Army is just not a good idea?

Food for thought chaps....
We need to think in terms of NATO as said before if the UK 3 Division was to take the lead of the Baltic battle group with say the 3 Baltic states and Denmark even with just 148 tanks and 3 regiments we will call it 3 Baltic corps could field

1 x Deep strike Brigade
4 x armoured Brigades
4 x Mechanised Brigades
3 x Logistics Brigades
2 x Engineer brigades

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12 148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.
Well ... I would tend to agree. It would be great if number of CR3 is increase so that at least all three current armoured regiments are kept. I personally would prefer, 4 (Type 44 or Type 46) armoured regiments and 4 armoured infantry battalions for two square ABCT. It would require some 200 tanks, but it would provide credible force.
mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12 You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?
Even if just 148 they are worth bothering. Boxer 105mm is MGS it is not a tank, it could never replace or provide equal support as tank. It would totally removing punching capabilities of the Army. Once you lose that capability it is hard and expansive to get it back. UK needs tanks, no matter how small amount, for it. Look at Netherlands, they sold all their tanks, realise mistake they made and now are leasing 18 tanks just to keep capability, while wanting to participate in MGCS to get new one. Belgium, another country that got rid of tanks also want to join MCGS. It is easy for USMC to abolish their tank formation, when there is US Army with 11 ABCT (planned to be raised to 12) plus NG with additional 5 ABCT. UK can not afford to lose tanks, they should keep capability, even if that for now just mean 2 regiments, and possibly increase it later when next generation of tanks become available.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
Ron5

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

If you’re using tanks to retake ground and the UKs focus is europe with the stated aim they will defend every inch of NATO territory rather than lose and retake ground. Then the experience of Ukraine would suggest we need fewer tanks not more unless we’re planning a drive to Moscow.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

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

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 08:18
mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12
sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.

You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?

Maybe trying to do everything with a shrinking Army is just not a good idea?

Food for thought chaps....
A Norwegian army of 8k has tanks, a Danish army of 9k have tanks an Australian army of 30k have tanks.

The argument for or against having tanks cannot be be based on how many people there is in the army. Based on our population size our army is well sized.
A very good point, my point really being, three Regiments of armour and you have some capacity to punch, drop to two and your on the sidelines cheering on!

Two regiments will probably mean we only commit one, with the other in reserve ( unless it's general war of course). So a theoretical Anglo American invasion of France (or similar foreign minded folk) we would probably contribute one Regiment of 56 tanks and a reserve pool.

Very much on the sidelines and attached to a US formation, instead of forming an independent British Battle Group.

Perhaps that's fine these days....

I just can't make my mind up when it comes to MBT's in small numbers and really struggle to see the point when we drop to just two Armoured regiments.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 11:00
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 08:18
mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 23:12
sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
I would have to agree, CH3 keeps us in the game, but with only148 conversions, we are barely in the game!

148 represents a force so far below critical mass it's almost ineffectual and religates us to the sidelines of any potential NATO armoured response.

You 'might' conclude that a total force of just 148 is simply not worth bothering with and we should just abandon heavy Armour, perhaps replacing it with a deployable light capability like the 105mm turreted Boxer variant for example.

Perhaps we are better off, as the Army continues to shrink into the 70,000's, to concentrate on deployable formations, with increased air mobility and firepower?

Maybe trying to do everything with a shrinking Army is just not a good idea?

Food for thought chaps....
A Norwegian army of 8k has tanks, a Danish army of 9k have tanks an Australian army of 30k have tanks.

The argument for or against having tanks cannot be be based on how many people there is in the army. Based on our population size our army is well sized.
A very good point, my point really being, three Regiments of armour and you have some capacity to punch, drop to two and your on the sidelines cheering on!

Two regiments will probably mean we only commit one, with the other in reserve ( unless it's general war of course). So a theoretical Anglo American invasion of France (or similar foreign minded folk) we would probably contribute one Regiment of 56 tanks and a reserve pool.

Very much on the sidelines and attached to a US formation, instead of forming an independent British Battle Group.

Perhaps that's fine these days....

I just can't make my mind up when it comes to MBT's in small numbers and really struggle to see the point when we drop to just two Armoured regiments.
How many did we send to telic? It doesn’t need to be an enduring capability it’s a one off for invasion

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 11:22 How many did we send to telic? It doesn’t need to be an enduring capability it’s a one off for invasion
Some 120 from three different regiments, 2nd RTR, RSDG and QRL. But that wasn't whole UK tank force at that moment, wasn't it? And opposition was far less formidable than Russia would be and barely a shadow of itself after 1991, with CR2 mostly meeting old tanks like T-55s.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:01
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 11:22 How many did we send to telic? It doesn’t need to be an enduring capability it’s a one off for invasion
Some 120 from three different regiments, 2nd RTR, RSDG and QRL. But that wasn't whole UK tank force at that moment, wasn't it? And opposition was far less formidable than Russia would be and barely a shadow of itself after 1991, with CR2 mostly meeting old tanks like T-55s.
So you are planning on driving to Moscow!

It was one armoured brigade was t it and a div hq. We aren’t doing it all ourselves.


sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 So you are planning on driving to Moscow!
Wow, I guess in your mind is either defend every inch and not letting enemy taking ground, or streight to Moscow. How simpleminded. Why would NATO go for Moscow? But if you are expecting there won't be need for counter attacks to regain territory or stop advance than think again, just like if you think that attrition, particularly in initial stages, would not be great.
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 It was one armoured brigade was t it and a div hq. We aren’t doing it all ourselves.
Citing HQs are always precise indication, isn't it? While at the same time failing to recognise than 7th Armoured Brigade in 2003 was almost equal if not stronger in firepower more than both current ABCT are on paper. And if there were need for them, other units could be brought to either replace or reinforce, which current Army can not afford.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

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

Post by BB85 »

All of this messing about is bound to put Eastern block European countries off purchasing armour from Germany again. I can't see Poland being keen to join the Franco German future tank replacement. They will either go it alone with support from South Korea or would it be worth the UK, Sweden and Poland doing a joint program?
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
TheLoneRangerwargame_insomniac

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

BB85 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:40 All of this messing about is bound to put Eastern block European countries off purchasing armour from Germany again. I can't see Poland being keen to join the Franco German future tank replacement. They will either go it alone with support from South Korea or would it be worth the UK, Sweden and Poland doing a joint program?
Poland will not join MGCS project, they are going with Abrams and locally produced K2 tanks. It would also work on K3 for which I am not sure is it just designation for Polish version of K2 that would be produced locally or development of K2 replacement. So there is very little chance that Poland would join any future development on some European tank.

But there is still number of countries which are looking into potential next generation tank, like Italy, Spain, Dutch or even Belgium. Dutch and Belgium joined or will join in some capacity to MGCS, Spain is also interested for it. But if MGCS fail to deliver, as there is very little progress and so much delays and open questions, UK potentially could find partners across Europe for some their own project if it comes with concrete proposition and plan. Or in that case it could join either French or German or even US project for the next generation tank.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:34
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 So you are planning on driving to Moscow!
Wow, I guess in your mind is either defend every inch and not letting enemy taking ground, or streight to Moscow. How simpleminded. Why would NATO go for Moscow? But if you are expecting there there won't be need for counter attacks to regain territory or stop advance than think again, just like if you think that attrition, particularly in initial stages, would not be great.
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 It was one armoured brigade was t it and a div hq. We aren’t doing it all ourselves.
Citing HQs are always precise indication, isn't it? While at the same time failing to recognise than 7th Armoured Brigade in 2003 was almost equal if not if not stronger in firepower more than both current ABCT are on paper. And if there were need for them, other units could be brought to either replace or reinforce, which current Army can not afford.
See there’s what I forget humour doesn’t exist on military discussion!
Configure your Defense so that the oppositions calculus is such that their loses would be too large to attack in the first place

On the second point ones a warfighting brigade, the other ones a peacetime establishment. I would suggest configure the peacetime one like it would be in wartime and just have the 1 brigade for the rare occasion we ever have to attack.

Defence and enduring commitments can be met using a suitably equipped bulk of the army.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

well if the UK could get say Finland , Sweden , and Japan and one other on board we could be looking at a production run of say 1500 vehicles something like

UK = 250 MBT + 50 other
Finland = 240 + 40 other
Japan = 400 + 100 other
Sweden = 140 + 30 other

clearly most countries would want to build there own tanks but with the design and development split across 4 or five countries it could be a winner
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
TheLoneRanger

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 »

mrclark303 wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 19:03 The progressive role out of F35A is seeing a steady shift of F16C's to the ANG and their older model machines to Davis Monthan.
The various ANG's are quantifiably as well equipped as the USAF with F-22 & F-35. Don't fall into the usual Brit trap of thinking they are some sort of reserve. They are not.

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 »

sol wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 20:00
TheLoneRanger wrote: 22 Jan 2023, 18:45 Challenger 3 is a vanity project for the UK MOD that will not bring in the capability levels we need - we should look to work with the Americans and build a solution that scale into units of hundreds with the associated economies of scale and long term support.
But thing is you still need CR3 to bridge the gap. US planned to make decision in 2023 if and how to replace Abrams. But this study started in 2020 and could be delayed as new knowledge could be gained from the the War in Ukraine. So far it is unknown in which direction US tank force will go. Abrams X is not a proposal for new tank but technical demonstrator made by GD to show what could be done. If US Army decide to go with new tank or drastic upgrade similar to one presented by Abrams X, it will still took years to finalise requirements, build prototype and proper testing. And in every part of that project are possible delays due various reasons, like government changes or whatever outcome of the war might be.

UK can not just wait for US, or anyone else for that matter, to decide, and going with any temporary solution would be just wasting the money. Nothing currently available on market is significantly better than CR3, nothing is ahead of curve, or mature enough to be considered worth wasting money. With CR3, UK will have a decent if not a good enough tank to bridge the gap while still putting UK in good position to later decide what will come after it. It will have less impediments to join either some US, or European or any other project of future tank as it would not have legacy fleet that could push it toward less optimal solution. Or, considering current state of MGCS, it could decide to actually build its own tank in cooperation with countries like France, Italy, Sweden or someone else.
Excellent comment.

Fix the CR3 power train and Cr3 will be better than most, if not all.

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 »

SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 09:56 If you’re using tanks to retake ground and the UKs focus is europe with the stated aim they will defend every inch of NATO territory rather than lose and retake ground. Then the experience of Ukraine would suggest we need fewer tanks not more unless we’re planning a drive to Moscow.
Utter rubbish.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Mr Carrot

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 »

sol wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:34
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 So you are planning on driving to Moscow!
Wow, I guess in your mind is either defend every inch and not letting enemy taking ground, or streight to Moscow. How simpleminded. Why would NATO go for Moscow? But if you are expecting there won't be need for counter attacks to regain territory or stop advance than think again, just like if you think that attrition, particularly in initial stages, would not be great.
SW1 wrote: 23 Jan 2023, 12:05 It was one armoured brigade was t it and a div hq. We aren’t doing it all ourselves.
Citing HQs are always precise indication, isn't it? While at the same time failing to recognise than 7th Armoured Brigade in 2003 was almost equal if not stronger in firepower more than both current ABCT are on paper. And if there were need for them, other units could be brought to either replace or reinforce, which current Army can not afford.
You're arguing with a profound RAF man. They're MO is to snipe at spending on both the "other" services. Enough spending on their toys and every military problem is solved.

Post Reply