Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pawnless Endgame said:
Nice bit of gas-lighting from Ukraine because apparently we aren't helping them enough.

www.bbc.co.uk

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I suspect they don't want to give away all their latest tank tech. Especially the electronic systems.

I think the idea that tanks are no longer needed is bit short sighted.
 
Tony habergham said:
To be honest, MY ideal solution would be to simply gift a brigades-worth, 150 or so, challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine. We dont need them as we have such low numbers planned for challenger 3 that in any real full-scale war they would simply cause integration and supply issues when mixed in with all the hundreds and thousands of Leopards and Abrahams. In any all-out war, our role is no longer to hold the fulda gap against the warsaw pact forces (many of whom are now in NATO now anyway) until the American cavalry can arrive but to support Norway and The Baltics with lighter forces. Germany should be able to defend itself. Aborting the upgrade to C3 would save... a few hundred millions at least which could be used to beef up other aspects of our defence portfolio, such as submarine and anti-submarine warfare, our air forces, and nuclear deterrant.

A few dozen tanks were all that were sent to Afghanistan I believe - not in an armoured warfare role but simply to patrol while being almost immune to IEDs. We could still do that with our remnant few dozen which could also be a cadre for any future expansion. It would lead us unable to join in any land expeditionary force, like gulf wars I and II, but at least in the latter case I see that as a plus. The only thing I forsee in the medium term is a defence of Taiwan, and we dont want to be going anywhere near there with land forces (or the white elephant carriers which wont last more than a week).

Historically, the only reason for us making our own tanks was for expertise and sales purposes, but since we have closed and sold off our capability for that, and BAE is basically a US company now (bigger US ownership than British anyway) why bother? The only other nation we have a land border with is Ireland... and they dont have any tanks either.

Just my two penn'orth.

PS. Slightly off-topic... but the most un-PC real unit badge ever?: Air force medic patch
Click to expand...
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.
 
steve45 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Tony habergham said:
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 BOAR 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
steve45 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wasn't he part of some anti NATO group in his younger days?
 
Tony habergham said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tony habergham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Tony habergham said:
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?).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom