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 »

Well, I meant "domestic" which is what covers the rest of the list
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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

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

Post by BlueD954 »



Debate on twitter. You have to be a RUSI member to read the full article.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

New paint scheme on test. Looks like a right arse to apply. I know which colour scheme I won’t be choosing if I want to make a scale model.

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 »

A tank has a disadvantage compared to a human, with its many clear-cut contours: https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/u ... attern.jpg

What happened to the BAE idea, with a video camera on one side and the picture being repeated on the opposite side of the tank?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A tank has a disadvantage compared to a human, with its many clear-cut contours: https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/u ... attern.jpg
While tanks do have hard edges, straight lines and perfect circles, none of which occur in nature, humans have a number of features that a human observer is hard-coded to look for.

The following is something I feel is often glossed over by the proponents of infantry over armour. Apologies if this is not a fair response to your post, but I think it bears repeating every so often.
A tank is immune to most fire, vastly quicker than a human and capable of carrying vastly more firepower.

In terms of visual camouflage these factors means that a tank is less likely to move when static since it does not put itself at as much risk in order to observe, nor will it flinch in the face of recon by fire. Few area effect weapons will hurt it either so the attacker has got to get further into the survivability onion to actually hurt tanks compared to infantry.
Since armour is quicker, it can be much further from the last place it was spotted, can afford to spend longer periods static for a given rate of advance.
The greater firepower means that the enemy cannot afford to get so close as they can to infantry.
On top of this the greater carrying capacity allows the use of more and better surveillance and counter surveillance equipment.
What happened to the BAE idea, with a video camera on one side and the picture being repeated on the opposite side of the tank?
Probably fell foul of the twin perils of cost (likely to be substantial) and mud (which is the default colour of most military kit after any extended period of operations)

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 »

Not at all, a perfect 'answer'.

We need both, and the infantry, when not taking advantage of lying in wait (hard to observe, except from air with thermal devices) must be able to travel 'under armour' - to negate many of those points listed 'against' 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 »

At least they have made an effort. We have been historically lazy when it comes to vehicular camouflage, not even adopting the standard NATO scheme in the 80s and 90s. We seem to rely on addon cover which is not a bad thing, and I do wonder how long and how much it would cost to apply a complicated scheme to our military vehicle fleet. Time, effort and money that could be used elsewhere. AS a result I am happy to leave our vehicles mono tone and issue to odd can of paint in theatre. :D

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 »

As far as I am aware, the bae invisibility cloak remains available to anyone who would like to lay down their hard earned. Not been canceled or ditched, just waiting for a sponsor.

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:We seem to rely on addon cover which is not a bad thing
The Ozzies like their infrared band Barracuda even for tanks, because they also have a cooling effect.
In Europe, except perhaps on N. German plains (where you are visible anyway) that sort of thing would get ripped soonish by vegetation
- good for other types of vehicles, though, which do not power their way through anything short of trees of more than 10 cm in diameter
- especially now, when observation by drones, day and night with their thermal cameras, is a growing threat
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)

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:We seem to rely on addon cover which is not a bad thing
The Ozzies like their infrared band Barracuda even for tanks, because they also have a cooling effect.
In Europe, except perhaps on N. German plains (where you are visible anyway) that sort of thing would get ripped soonish by vegetation
- good for other types of vehicles, though, which do not power their way through anything short of trees of more than 10 cm in diameter
- especially now, when observation by drones, day and night with their thermal cameras, is a growing threat
Barracuda has been contracted for AJAX.

https://www.army-technology.com/uncateg ... b-4675001/


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 »

That paint scheme will look even better after the upgrade :thumbup:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

Parliamentary written answers 20th Nov. Upgrades.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -16/115512

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 »

jonas wrote:Parliamentary written answers 20th Nov. Upgrades.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -16/115512
Better get a move on if they want the CH2 LEP decided by year end.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

After watching the Defence Select Committee with Ben Wallace it doesn't look good for Challenger or Warrior.

After being asked for an update on armoured vehicles by Chairman Tobias Elwood following from today's Boxer RBSL announcement he was effusive about Boxer and Ajax - Boxer brought forward, maintain/create jobs in Telford and Stockport. - Ajax slight pause to sort turret not material delay.

Warrior and Challenger - no comment, wait for Integrated Review, the need to sunset capabilities.
He did however enigmatically talk of a length of night before sunrise. - Warrior and Challanger binned, capability gapped until a new UK/German/French tank/heavy armour platform?

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 »

tomuk wrote:capability gapped until
... until Putin retires??
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
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 »

A snippet from the 3 Nov evidence to Defence Committee (this would fit equally well on the IR thread):
"contract includes cancellation penalties. The evidence was also pretty clear that firm decisions to proceed with the Challenger 2 upgrade and the Warrior modernisation have not yet been made. If there is not a proper stable financial settlement for defence of the sort that both the Defence Secretary and CDS have argued for in front of your Committee,it is difficult to see how the MoD could commit to the Warrior and Challenger upgrade programmes in the way the Army would like. Q160Chair:If there is a delay, if we do a single-year spending round then wehave to wait another year for a multiyear spending round, when decisions could be made, we are then left with the status quo. Looking at the current situation, the operational capability of Warrior and Challenger, would we struggle to mobilise a division without the necessary upgrades taking place?Ben Barry:I think so. If you ask the Army that, it would say it wouldmove the difficulty yet another year to the right. There would be even more delay in fielding the planned division. Q161Stuart Anderson:Hello, Brigadier. It is quite interesting to hear that the brigades have not been in BATUS or Poland. That was our staple diet many years ago. I spent my 21st birthday on that prairie. I remember it fondly. If we expand on this, I would be keen to know what the implications of the Army’s inability to field a war-fighting division, including two armoured infantry brigades, would be by 2025. How is that going to impact us? Ben Barry: I call it the SDSR 2015 division, the division with twoarmoured infantry brigades and a new strike brigade. I am calling the division the Army suggested could be fielded in 2025 the reduceddivision. That reduced division would, broadly speaking, have only half the combat power. It would not be capable of the same missions as a full division, or, if it was assigned them, it would take much longer, or the chances of success would reduce. Also, British casualties would increase. I benchmarked an engagement between a Russian tank division and 3 Division. 3 Division, as envisaged by the SDSR, two armoured infantry and a strike brigade, could probably stop a Russian tank division in its tracks. It has smaller numbers of almost everything. It only has twothirds of the number of tanks. It has a slight superiority in armoured infantry fighting vehicles. It has 40% fewer anti-tank guided weapons, one third less artillery and one third fewer multi-barrel rocket launchers, but it could stop a Russian tank division. The reduced UK division basically has half the anti-armour capability, only 30% of the tanks of a Russian tank division, two-thirds of the armoured infantry fighting vehicles, 20% of the anti-tank guided weapons and 15% of the self-propelled artillery. It would be very difficult for that reduced division to stop a Russian tank division. A Russian tank division would seriously overmatch the reduced Third Division. “Overmatched” is a very polite, clinical way of saying “could be defeated”.["]
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)

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 »

Almost like the thing everyone with a brain has been saying for years that this ridiculous idea of fighting tank divisions with nothing more than Boxers armed with 50 cals is a bad idea...

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Almost like the thing everyone with a brain has been saying for years that this ridiculous idea of fighting tank divisions with nothing more than Boxers armed with 50 cals is a bad idea...
Boxers armed with Amazon drones is the latest.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

RetroSicotte wrote:Almost like the thing everyone with a brain has been saying for years that this ridiculous idea of fighting tank divisions with nothing more than Boxers armed with 50 cals is a bad idea...
Amen to that.

The amount of masturbation thats going on over Boxer at the moment is unreal.
Very well armoured box with 50 cal machine gun on the roof.
What's it going to do once it arrives in theatre?

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 »

Yes many of us like the Boxer but we don't like the idea of it just being armed with a .50 Cal.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:Yes many of us like the Boxer but we don't like the idea of it just being armed with a .50 Cal.
Surely that all depends on who the capability its designed too fight.

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 »

,,, and with what overall combo (combined arms).

Boxer delivers infantry to where it is needed (far and) fast, and under armour while it is on its way.
- it is only when a combined arms effect needs to be delivered with a unit that in the main is kitted with Boxers, that is when we will need to start to put turrets (and all other kinds of things) onto that flexible platform
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
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 »

https://rbsl.com/capabilities/tracked-v ... hallenger2

RBSL website states the LEP Challengers will be known as Challenger 3. Not seen any British Army or government sources to suggest that’s what it’s name will be in service but it seems to be what RBSL is going with.

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 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote: it seems to be what RBSL is going with
Has a good connotation: the step up will be as big as it was from Ch(1) to Ch2
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)

Post Reply