UK Defence Forum

Zeno wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 19:59 Is it possible to replace the Challenger ones gun turret with a 150mm artillery system to the Russians ,it would not be then involved in tank on tank battles ?

MBTs generally don’t make very good platforms for SP guns. They’re not designed to take the recoil in the directions artillery applies it* and the engine arrangement makes re-stocking it more difficult**

*The original prototypes for the polish Krab were based on T72 chassis and it broke them
** A French SP gun (AU-F1?) was based on the AMX-30 chassis.

My query came from views of the 2S19-Msta-S a self-propelled howitzer artillery built on a t-72? chassis ,even if not up to the standard for the U.K may be something another country would purchase

Zeno wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 03:22 My query came from views of the 2S19-Msta-S a self-propelled howitzer artillery built on a t-72? chassis ,even if not up to the standard for the U.K may be something another country would purchase

There was a CR1 with 155mm gun, Challenger GBT



Generally it would be a bad idea and nobody would buy it.

Seems like QRH is actively working with RBSL on development

sol wrote: ↑01 Feb 2023, 14:36 Seems like QRH is actively working with RBSL on development

I wonder if they did this with Ajax.

sol wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 08:48

Zeno wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 03:22 My query came from views of the 2S19-Msta-S a self-propelled howitzer artillery built on a t-72? chassis ,even if not up to the standard for the U.K may be something another country would purchase

There was a CR1 with 155mm gun, Challenger GBT



Generally it would be a bad idea and nobody would buy it.

Guess what the GBT became....AS-90...then Krab.

From the article in experss

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the Daily Express that talks were under way to provide more than 148 Challenger 3 tanks.

Mr Wallace said: “We’ve gifted 14, I will replace those. I’ll also increase the number of Challenger 3s, subject to negotiations with contractors.

“I’ll see to increase the number of Challenger 3 upgrades as well.”

I hope something will result from all this talk, at least increase of tank numbers. It is also nice that additional upgrades might be considered. But any additional upgrade to those already contracted might result in delays in delivery.

sol wrote: ↑02 Feb 2023, 20:29 From the article in experss

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told the Daily Express that talks were under way to provide more than 148 Challenger 3 tanks.

Mr Wallace said: “We’ve gifted 14, I will replace those. I’ll also increase the number of Challenger 3s, subject to negotiations with contractors.

“I’ll see to increase the number of Challenger 3 upgrades as well.”

I hope something will result from all this talk, at least increase of tank numbers. It is also nice that additional upgrades might be considered. But any additional upgrade to those already contracted might result in delays in delivery.

Probably a token increase of 10 or so just so they can say they are increasing the numbers....

An increase of 13 would allow three regular Type 46 regiments, plus a two-squadron reserve (maybe bulked out with two squadrons of Ajax recce for a hybrid reserve armour/ recce regiment?). Another 23 would be sufficient for a full Type 46 reserve regiment

If there is one change that I would like to see come out of this, it's a change to the Treasury accounting rules that charge the Armed Forces for holding war stocks of older but serviceable equipment and decent quantities of ammunition/ spares

Caribbean wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 10:51 An increase of 13 would allow three regular Type 46 regiments, plus a two-squadron reserve (maybe bulked out with two squadrons of Ajax recce for a hybrid reserve armour/ recce regiment?). Another 23 would be sufficient for a full Type 46 reserve regiment

If there is one change that I would like to see come out of this, it's a change to the Treasury accounting rules that charge the Armed Forces for holding war stocks of older but serviceable equipment and decent quantities of ammunition/ spares

As I have said before I would like to see 2 reserve armoured battalion battle groups with

1 x Armoured cavalry company
1 x armoured Sqn
1 x Mechanised infantry Battalion
1 x Artillery Battery
1 x Logistics , Engineer ,Medical support group

I really do think the structures and mindset of the army top rank and MOD are inherently incapable of bringing the necessary change needed ,think the army top brass are still full of who ray Henry's who haven't got a clue tbh ,the institutions are totally outdated and broken,and that's not just me saying that , every committee meeting ,MPs all colours have said so ,I truly think the MOD they are in a crisis and they don't have the people in place to pull them out of the situation ,the MOD civil service are too long in the tooth and not talented enough for the job ,hence critical shortages and perpetual delivery delays on equipment and organisation , nobody involved to say no this is how we go about it to get mass and timely equipment ,and I do agree they need investment but they get massive budgets already and can't even organise correctly what they do get ,a total farse ,gawd help us tbh ,cos them running the show surly won't .as for tanks yes we should just convert the whole 305 or whatever we have or get rid to Ukraine and join Poland on the K2 end of

inch wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 13:06 ...we should just convert the whole 305 or whatever we have ...

There are 302, but when those intended for Ukraine are excluded, there is 288 tanks available.

inch wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 13:06 ... get rid to Ukraine and join Poland on the K2 end of

There is no money for it and there is also no K2 that Poland will produce. K2PL is still existing only on paper, and it is expected to enter production around 2025-2026. If there is no delays.

UK should just increase number of CR3, keep current three armoured regiments and maybe even increase on four. For anything more that that, the Army would first need to increase number of personnel which would be challenging considering that it is struggling to keep current numbers.

yes if we could get to the 190 the army requested we could keep the 3 regiments plus have 2 Reserve Sqn's plus a few over this is the best we can hope for and staff

People keep referring to type 46 Armoured Regiments. I am not sure where this comes from.

As I understand it each Armoured Regiment is made up as follows:

RHQ 2 x CR2

3 x Sabre Squadron's
each with:

SHQ 2x CR2
4 x Troops each with 4 x CR2

This gives us 18 x CR2 per Sqn, and a total of 56 x CR2 per Regt.

whitelancer wrote: ↑03 Feb 2023, 23:35 People keep referring to type 46 Armoured Regiments. I am not sure where this comes from.

As I understand it each Armoured Regiment is made up as follows:

RHQ 2 x CR2

3 x Sabre Squadron's
each with:

SHQ 2x CR2
4 x Troops each with 4 x CR2

This gives us 18 x CR2 per Sqn, and a total of 56 x CR2 per Regt.

That was old organisation, since then, armoured regiments moved from 3x18 squadrons to 4x14 squadrons, for total of 58 tanks in regiment. But seems like, sometime during September last year or around that time, this was changed to 4x11 tanks per squadron, or 46 per regiment. Basically every troop lost a tank, going from 4 to just 3 tanks. Apparently this was done due lack of tanks.

Critical Design Review for CR3 has been approved. Next thing is building of the prototype.

First first turret structure is completed and delivered

Yeah but does it fit?

Ron5 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 13:38 Yeah but does it fit?

On Challenger no but it looks about ok for Boxer

Looking at BBC article today saying Ben Wallace would be minded to let Ukraine have more challenger 2 tanks if do well in Ukraine and the need arises ,I agree ,get on with it already , shame we didn't have a tank building capacity anymore and possibly sold them challenger 3 tanks in future, caveating they would want ch3 over leopard A7 , which I'm not so sure but I'm sure the ch2 will do a great job over in Ukraine and they will like them apart from I'm not so sure how the ch2 ammo issues will go for them , would have been easier if it had been ch3 already we'd have sent them on the ammunition side

Personally I am a skeptical about possibility for the British Army to "significantly" increase tank numbers, if at all. Keeping three tank regiments would probably mean (re)rising a new unit, for example re-establish 2nd RTR, or otherwise there will be one less Ajax regiment. Somehow I don't see rising a new unit as possible option. So either would the Army new pet, DRS, lost one Ajax regiment or one of two ABCT would lost its recce regiment. And there would left lot of unused Ajax which would end in the KRH otherwise.

UK needs to revision their armoured force fast and decide should it just continue with FS without changes or take new threats into account and increase it. If there is no will, or money, to increase number of tanks that will be upgraded to CR3 standard, than I don't see a reason why more CR2 could be provided to Ukraine from those that would be withdrawn from service.

But if it does want to increase number of tanks, than, it should decide how many more would be upgraded, could that be done on those 75 stored in storage, and than decide how many additional tanks could be sent to Ukraine.

But it should first do revision and do it fast before they send more tanks to Ukraine or otherwise, that could impact any plans about possibility to increase tank force.

I'm not in anyway an expert, but if we upgrade an extra 50 tanks even if there was no further changes in units or unit sizes, would it not still be worth having them in reserve or rotation for when tanks are under heavy maintenance. If we do go to war ourselves we can't guarantee we won't lose a few. They could also be deployed to Canada for training to save us shipping them back and forth unless they really are needed in Europe. The fleet is stretched so thin I'm sure the army won't be putting them to good use if they are ordered.

BB85 wrote: ↑24 Feb 2023, 13:20 I'm not in anyway an expert, but if we upgrade an extra 50 tanks even if there was no further changes in units or unit sizes, would it not still be worth having them in reserve or rotation for when tanks are under heavy maintenance. If we do go to war ourselves we can't guarantee we won't lose a few. They could also be deployed to Canada for training to save us shipping them back and forth unless they really are needed in Europe. The fleet is stretched so thin I'm sure the army won't be putting them to good use if they are ordered.

Considering that 116 tanks at max would be required to compliment two armoured regiment, there will be 32 tanks left for other purposes. Adding another 50 just to increase this reserve does not sound as the most effective or economic thing to do. But if, for example, TA could be organised in the way that it could provide fifth fully formed squadron to each regiment or additional troop to each active squadron to increase number of tanks to 18 it might work. Or recreate 2nd RTR as assistance battalion without tanks but with experienced crews which could train crews from other nations but which could also be equipped with tanks if needed. But if the Army increase number of tanks, the best way, IMO, would be to keep current three armoured regiments.

According to the VCDS in his recent appearance at the defence select committee the NATO ask from the uk is for 2 armoured battlegroups and that is what is funded.

There is no official confirmation from MoD except statement from Ukrainian Ambassador in the UK



Only info I could find that could suggest that UK will send 28 CR2 is that members from two Ukrainian airborne brigades, 25th and 80th are currently training on CR2. Ukrainian airmobile brigade usually has tank company with 14 tanks.