Soldato
Its the wagons that were in deep storage in Canada - also it does look like they`ll be more than the 148 C3`s as well
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Its the wagons that were in deep storage in Canada - also it does look like they`ll be more than the 148 C3`s as well
Soldato
Soldato
Nah they right tbh. We have as the west not been doing enough and slow to react in times just as the tanks situation has been.Nice bit of gas-lighting from Ukraine because apparently we aren't helping them enough.
Ukraine war: Zelensky adviser says West’s 'indecision' is killing Ukrainians
Zelensky adviser tells West to "think faster" as pressure grows on countries to send tanks to Ukraine.www.bbc.co.uk
Yet if we help them too much, Putin will see it as escalation.
Catch-22 situation.
Soldato
Soldato
Where to even start with this...
Firstly thats not how we fight. In an all out warfighting situation, 3Div would deploy to cover a set area within a larger NATO plan with multiple nations. we are responsible for providing the fighting force within that area or operations and our doctrine and capabilities still require and utilise tanks within it. Tanks are very much still required we cant just rely on other nations to to do that for us. MBT's are very valuable platforms, they dont just provide a big gun.
Also you would be very very wrong to think our role isnt to delay until NATO forces can reinforce. May not be the Fulda Gap anymore, its just moved further east, but that very much is still the goal if that scenario were to play out. Why do you think NATO have invested so much in Poland/Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia? There is a permanent NATO presence there for a reason.
No Challengers were sent to Afghanistan. we had Warrior IFV and Scimiter. Neither were remotely immune to IED's. Also both have very different roles to that of an MBT and cannot be interchanged with that role. Challengers wernt sent because they wouldnt have much use in an insurgency where the enemy do not have armour of their own.
Historically we made our own tanks as its not wise to rely on other nations to provide our equipment, we didnt have to share our technology and capabilities and we keep jobs and industry within our own borders. Sadly with the end of the Cold war, increased globalisation and loss of our own manufacturing capability to foreign shores we have to look further afield for CR3.
Soldato
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 41
You are stating what... theoretically... our position IS. I am stating my opinion on what it should be. As you say, we could not engage in any serious armoured warfare any more except as tiny part of a much larger force with which we are incompatible with regards supply, recovery etc. Numbers have gone down vastly since BAOR or even gulf war one. We cant even equip one full armoured division any more - the ones we can theoretically field wouldn't even class as much more than a mechanized brigade in a US army formation. I'm saying rather than try to play a more suitable role within NATO which is navy, air and nuclear. Germany can do the tanks. There are virtually no roles in which we would act alone, with more than a token force of MBTs which is basically what we will have with only 140-odd challenger 3s. However, 140-odd challenger 2 could make a big difference in Ukraine, now, and should send them.
I read other fora not just this, such as 'UK defence journal'. I'm sure I read that a few Challengers were sent to Afghanistan, but I stand to be corrected, if wrong. Certainly not many were sent to Bosnia. None to the Falklands (not that we could do that any more - are we still relying on the USA to fly F35s from one of our carriers if we want to use both at the same time?).
As you say, our own capacity to build tanks is GONE. So what are we going to do when the Challenger 3s are out-of-date, maybe in only 15 years or so? Spend billions designing developing a tank and developing a manufacturing infrastructure to build a hundred or so tanks that nobody else will want to buy anyway? Might as well use what we've got to undermine the new Nazis, while we still can without all out war.
Last edited:
I kind of see Scholz like I do Corbyn, well meaning ideology but it falls flat on its face when it meets the real world for real but they can't admit that.
Soldato
No I'm stating what our ACTUAL position is. That is how we train, that is how we deploy, that is how were are currently deployed.
That is not what I said at all. We are more than capable of currently engaging in serious armoured warfare in a significant role as part of a larger plan, what I am saying is that we wouldnt deploy in a unilateral scenario, therefore the numbers of equipment we do have suits the numbers of units we require to deploy, if that increases like Ben Wallace has suggested may happen, we cannot afford to give away too many tanks as any increase will be within the original number of Challenger 2's.
If Ukraine end up receiving Leopard 2's it would be a hinderance more than anything to be getting more Chally's as they will require different ammunition and seperate logistics/maintenance burdon.
I can assure you CR2 was not used in HERRICK. Iraq? yes! but not Afghanistan, similar time period, different conflicts entirely.
As for what we do when CR3 requires replacing? We are more than capable of spinning up a manufacturing line to produce new armour, AJAX for example (Not a good example mind...). However, thats not the issue. The design will be tendered out to the defence industry, we dont design our own tanks anymore. I'll put money on General Dynamics winning any such contract and making a huge farce of it all when that time comes.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 41
I think we are simply arguing over what can defined as 'serious contribution in armoured warfare', and 'significant'. I dispute we could any more. As you say we could only do so as a small, and getting smaller, part of a MUCH larger NATO force. Better to have a force suitable to rapidly reinforce the vulnerable flanks, and maintain the air and sea bridge from the USA to Europe using sea and air power, rather than try to bus a token force all the way to Poland before it's all over. Training for all very well, - Paras still train for massed parachute drops, despite the fact that they went out after Suez. The household cavalry still train with horses. MBTs arn't obsolete, but we should leave the massed formations to countries that still choose to maintain a sizable land army.
We wont 'put a bid out to tender' for a unique tank designed to British army specifications. We will ask for trivial modifications to the two or three mass produced MBTs, and maybe order a hundred or so of which ever design is closest to meeting that... within buget. Although, using the same as the Germans, French or Americans would make more sense than trying to maintain a hundred or so of a completely unique design.
The Factory in Leeds that built challengers closed down years ago and is a housing estate.
OK, no Challengers in Afghanistan, but I'm sure MBTs were used there, for patrols immune to IEDs
Leopard 1 and maybe 2 were used in Afghanistan.
Wasn't he part of some anti NATO group in his younger days?
Wasn't he part of some anti NATO group in his younger days?
Soldato
Lets agree to disagree on our "contribution".
We are a LONG way off replacing CR3, we've yet to even get them and still a good few years off. We will likely test all the main offering from the Defence industry at the time but like I said we dont design tanks anymore, hanvt for a LONG time. Even the CR2 wasnt designed by uk military, it was adapted from a design aimed for export to Iran, well the CR1 was, the CR2 is just a major evolution of CR1 effectively.
The Leo 2 was definitely used in Afghanistan, Danes use them, I seen them out there. and i'm sure the Canadians used them in some capacity? Although again they were not used for some magical "immunity" to IED's. No vehicle was, despite how heavily armoured it was. V-shaped hull vehicles (Wheeled type) were adpoted to mitigate the risk of IED explosions. However, even these wernt immune, they still ended up being scrap majority of the time they were hit, the Vshaped hull just increased the survivability for the crew/passengers.
Last edited:
Getting rid of significant tank forces is short sighted IMO - granted chances are we'll never really use them other than maybe a small number in limited engagements but there is no substitute for them if/when you do need them, even for an island nation like our own. And with the way things are going we'd be far far better off having and not needing than needing and not having.
Not sure on the reality of it but personally I think we should be building an entirely new replacement rather than going with the C3 upgrades and putting C2s into as cost effective as possible maintenance mode, even if that comes at a slight reduction in their performance/capabilities and/or designing the new tanks with kit which can be retrofitted into C2s to keep them running in the medium future i.e. if the main gun or engine, etc. needs replacing.
Not sure on the reality of it but personally I think we should be building an entirely new replacement rather than going with the C3 upgrades and putting C2s into as cost effective as possible maintenance mode, even if that comes at a slight reduction in their performance/capabilities and/or designing the new tanks with kit which can be retrofitted into C2s to keep them running in the medium future i.e. if the main gun or engine, etc. needs replacing.
Soldato
Germany has only 40 Tanks more than Britain does (260 vs 220), so I'm not sure why is it that you believe that "their" tanks are enough to do the job but that "our" tanks aren't? Poland, with 850+ tanks for example, is a much better bet to take on the hard work of brunting any Russian attack rather than leaving it to Germany.
That has never been the plan although we did "borrow" one USMC Sqn to test for CSG21 as our aircraft were still being delivered at the time.
The Carrier concept however is to have just one carrier operational at sea with F-35 at a time with the other carrier in Maintenance and we can fill a single carrier, alone, with no issues. However our current "paid for" F-35 force of 48 aircraft (30+ delivered) can, in an emergency, fill both carriers on their own but we'd have to use the F-35's from 207 Squadron, which is where pilots learn to fly the F-35, to do so right now until the next batch of UK F-35's arrive in 2025.
At the start of the Carrier/F-35 inception it was announced as a desire for 138 F-35's in total (11 Squadrons of 12 each + a few for test/dev) however only 48 have been paid for so far. The next batch we are required to pay for may be just 26 aircarft rather than another 48 but it's not been formally announced yet. However, even with just another 26 this would give us two full carriers (4 Squadrons in total) with two "spare" Sqns, one being the aforementioned "training" squadron and another operating off land for spares to jump onto the carrier if req'd.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 41
YES! Which is why I say, in the circumstances we find ourselves right now, unforseen a year ago, where a democratic country we are supporting faces being overrun unless it gets a supply of modern MBTs that potential major suppliers of Abrams 2s and Leopard 2s are appatently too **** scared to supply, we CANCEL saving them for upgrade (saving us tens of millions to spend on other kit) and send them, as they are now, to Ukraine as they are apparently enough to tip the balance.
The lack of any Challengers in Afghanistan supports my view that are not needed for the UK army to operate in most operations - none in the last 20 years anyway. But even if we HAD sent a few... the few dozen C2s we retain would be enough for that role.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2020
- Posts
- 41
OK.. substitute Poland for Germany in my post. Sorry. But Germany too will presumably be moving their number of MBTs UPWARDS with their increased defence spending, with which they have been relying on others to make up for not spending the full 2% of GDP. We will be moving our numbers DOWN. Even if we upgraded all our C2s (not happening), we cant make any new ones any more.
- Status