Wouldnt it make sense for nato that the Brits provide all of there challenger 2 stock and then buy or be given abrams or leopards for themselves as...

Wouldn’t it make sense for nato that the Brits provide all of there challenger 2 stock and then buy or be given abrams or leopards for themselves as USA and Germany doesn’t/can’t send tanks to Ukraine ?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No
    But it's not like Russia can invade over the sea anyway

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Germany blocking other EU/NATO members wanting to give their Leopards to Ukraine shows you exactly why Britain shouldn't get foreign tanks if they can build their own

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt the German industry will fare well in the future for these reasons. The British are much more likely to get Abrams or Korean kit, as Germany trying to cock block them for spares for British kit would lead to a severe incident.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it would take some time to train up British crews and support staff

        [...]
        the production line doesn't exist

        [...]
        Germany is happily killing its defence industry. There was a good chance of a Eurotank before all this, but that's gone now. Sorry Kf51 "Panther".

        the ban on export is fairly common and it's just something country learn to deal with.
        Leopards are still the most attractive tank for most country as Abrams is too supply heavy and the challenger got tained by the briti's autism toward rifled gun.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Begone, Rheinmetall shill

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Leopard comes packaged with German retardation and that makes it a trash unusable tank. Nobody's going to buy German or Russian garbage after Ukraine, sorry.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And which retardation would that be?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They could but even if they sent every hull they had and we assume they are all operational, it wouldn’t be enough.

      Source on that?

      No, anon.
      Why do you think Biden is withholding F-35s and ATACMs?
      Because Ukies can't use them?
      No.
      Because he's still scared of "escalation"

      Even it might not fit your edgy kid perception of the world, no sane person would discount that and risk something that includes limited or full on nuclear exchange. Given the obvious paranoia and general retardation of the russian leadership, it’s a real possibility.
      They already threw 100-200k people into the blender, I wouldn’t question their determination.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Germany blocking other EU/NATO members
      That hasn't happened. Even poland said it would only send tanks as part of a broad coalition,which is exactly what Germany said.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >send tanks as part of a broad coalition,which is exactly what Germany said
        You can't have a broad coalition to send tanks, when you 'refuse' to vary the end user certificate for others. Stop justifying the undefendable

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          germany standing firm against the waste of money that is ukraine
          fucign based

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain has basically sent picrel. An entire Armored squadron with extra AS90 and swapped out the Warriors for bulldogs.
    I imagine they will gauge how successful or not they are at using it and go from there.
    UK could no doubt dump its entire stock in Ukraine and just buy Abrams from the US stock and upgrade them on favourable terms. Despite the memes the US and UK military have a solid relationship.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are bulldogs in that image - they're used for HQ and transporting support personnel (Light Aid Detachment)
      Some of the Bradleys the US are supplying, or the Swedish Strf 9040s will likely form the armoured infantry component of the squadron in lieu of Warrior

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it would take some time to train up British crews and support staff

      BAE might as well restart the production line and make some jobs if that's the way UA's getting tanks

      the production line doesn't exist

      I doubt the German industry will fare well in the future for these reasons. The British are much more likely to get Abrams or Korean kit, as Germany trying to cock block them for spares for British kit would lead to a severe incident.

      Germany is happily killing its defence industry. There was a good chance of a Eurotank before all this, but that's gone now. Sorry Kf51 "Panther".

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Train them up to use Abrams? Sure it would, but it's not like the Brits are at risk from anyone during the time they could be tankless.
        It's only the US and UK in the west to use Tanks in there intended roles since the ww2 in any decent number.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          few armies ever go all-in like that; a capability gap of even a couple of years is a big deal because you never know when a snap deployment is required
          don't forget that Feb 22 took most of Europe by utter surprise. not the bongs of course, but it illustrates my point

          UK has already made moves to upgrade 150 Challenger 2s, so it's probably too late for them to roll that back and switch to US or German tanks.

          Challenger 3 was simply eking out the last bits of use from the things
          after the farce of German arms support in this war, German tanks are almost certainly off the table

          funnily enough, rheinmetall has had discussions in regards to refurbing chally 1's

          Rheinmetall has for some reason Challenger 1s lying around. They said they’re able to refurbish them but need money. So maybe the UK government could contact them?

          >Rheinmetall has for some reason Challenger 1s lying around
          probably because they were subcontracted to dispose of the Chally 1s

          Jordan has all of them.

          [...]
          150 have funding for, but there are still another 250 with no funding for upgrade in storage, maybe military spending improves and more are upgraded in future, i think tank performance in ukraine will inform a lot of this decision.

          >there are still another 250
          as of 2016 the MOD stated that there are only 227 Challenger 2s. The rest have been disposed - probably stripped for parts and then smelted.

          The 148 Challenger 3s were going to be deployed in two regiments of 56 tanks each. Hence a maximum effort expected to see the fleet put out 112 Ch3s, or 75% of the total fleet. Obviously the remaining 25% was going to be the maintenance pool reserve. Theoretically, therefore, the British Army can afford to give Ukraine the remaining Challenger 2s - 79 in all.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >as of 2016 the MoD stated there are only 227 left
            Everything you said Is wrong.
            >1. 386 Challenger 2 tanks and 22 Driver Training tanks based on the Challenger 2
            chassis were originally ordered and received by the British Army.
            >2. 227 Challenger 2 tanks and the 22 Driver Training Tanks remain in service with the British Army. All of the Challenger 2 Tanks would be available for operational use if required. However it may help if I explain that the Army manages its vehicle fleets under the current fleet management model. The Army uses a four element approach; the first element of this model provides a limited number of permanently issued equipment for low-level training and
            competency, the second provides a training fleet to enable units to train together, (this includes permanently issued equipment to training areas such as the British Army Training Unit Suffield, in Canada), the third element provides equipment for deployment and
            contingent operations, and the fourth acts as a buffer, which enables the Army to sustain the first three elements as equipment enters deep maintenance, or is damaged beyond repair.
            That's from 2016, nothing has changed.

            There are a total of 386 Challengers 2 in inventory in various states of readiness all able to be made combat ready. Meaning they aren't scraped or beyond repair.

            OH NO A TANK FELL IN A DITCH
            THIS HAS LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED TO ANYONE ELSE

            Don't worry about it, happens to us all kek

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Everything you said Is wrong
              >227 Challenger 2 tanks
              Clearly, I was correct
              No, I wasn't going to count the Driver Training Tanks

              >There are a total of 386 Challengers 2 in inventory in various states of readiness all able to be made combat ready
              Wrong
              227 refers to the "inventory in various states of readiness all able to be made combat ready"

              386 was a very long ago figure. As of 2012, the number was actually 300, with further disposal was under way, in line with SDSR 2008.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hey fren, I'm not trying to be condescending but you are completely wrong. Even your dates are wrong.
                >227 in service
                >22 driver training
                btw driver training CR2s are the ones at BATUS, you knew that too yeh? The ones in picrel that are just Challenger 2s except 2 that are missing the turret.

                >386 was a very long ago figure. As of 2012
                Thank you for your email of 29 August 2016 in which you requested the following information:
                1) How many of each variant of tank based on the Challenger 2 chassis were originally
                ordered and received by the British Army.
                2) How many of each variant are:
                a. Still possessed by the British Army, including those that are not deployable;
                b. Available for deployment – total number of tanks either in active service or
                held in a state of extended readiness;
                c. Used solely for training

                The document I quoted from is from 2016, proving you factually wrong about there being 300 in 2012.

                You will also see all CR3 in the middle camo.

                That is all.

                t.knower

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >btw driver training CR2s are the ones at BATUS, you knew that too yeh? The ones in picrel that are just Challenger 2s except 2 that are missing the turret.
                I got carried away and posted the new camo instead of the 20 batus 'trainers'

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Challenger seethe 2 not in service are in a warehouse somewhere.
                The 386 number is like the total built for the BA.
                There are also around 400 Challenger 1 being stored somewhere.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >German tanks are almost certainly off the table
            Good. It would be disgraceful if the UK used tanks of foreign and especially German origin. The tank has to be British.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The tank has to be British.
              I can absolutely get on side with you there mate, but you know that at the moment, with the wankers we've got in Westminster, it would end up as a vaguely modernised Warrior, with a 70mm gun replacing the autocannon, and all the press briefed to talk exclusively about how cost effective, and mobile it is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >most of Europe
            Do you mean France and Cuckmany? Because the rest don't actually matter or did know and were hopping up and down screaming about it like the Poles.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The poles look so out of place with that tank. Cant wait till their new shit comes in

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Leclerc and challengers when? Honestly, it would suck to see the challengers go but I bet we would immediately give you guys whatever abrams you wanted or just pay you for the challengers. (Also I hate that you have a poo as PM)

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    BAE might as well restart the production line and make some jobs if that's the way UA's getting tanks

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hey, I'lll let you in on a little secret. Tje major stakeholder in BAE are the Germans. You're welcome 🙂

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        German money, British sheds.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buy the fucking Challenger 1s back and send them! Pleeeeaseee

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rheinmetall has for some reason Challenger 1s lying around. They said they’re able to refurbish them but need money. So maybe the UK government could contact them?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jordan has all of them.

      https://i.imgur.com/i1PLM9p.jpg

      I think they are doing more than 150 now

      150 have funding for, but there are still another 250 with no funding for upgrade in storage, maybe military spending improves and more are upgraded in future, i think tank performance in ukraine will inform a lot of this decision.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why doesn't the USA just send tanks already, we have more than the rest of NATO combined.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >inb4 midwits insisting you literally cannot send Abrams to Eastern europe

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think they're holding back tanks but sending everything else to make Germany look bad

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, anon.
          Why do you think Biden is withholding F-35s and ATACMs?
          Because Ukies can't use them?
          No.
          Because he's still scared of "escalation"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        .. a few moments later

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          OH NO A TANK FELL IN A DITCH
          THIS HAS LITERALLY NEVER HAPPENED TO ANYONE ELSE

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          skill issue

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats a very good question and i really dont know the answer, other than maybe some vague threat from Russia about sending heavy hardware. But frankly UK has done it now, and US is already sending IFVs and providing constant ELINT with EW planes circling off the polish border.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    UK has already made moves to upgrade 150 Challenger 2s, so it's probably too late for them to roll that back and switch to US or German tanks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think they are doing more than 150 now

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not been put forward to do more than 150-ish yet but a lot of people see us giving Ukraine some CR2s as a way to ensure more are upgraded
        If they do poorly, the Army can argue that the upgrade is necessary for more tanks because it would be irresponsible to leave them at the current spec
        If they do well the Army can argue how critical tanks are and why we should have more, better tanks
        And regardless of how they do, al reduction in the number of CR2s available means there are potentially too few of them to be effective as a reserve and more costly to maintain that reserve, so it can be argued that it becomes more cost effective to have all tanks at the same CR3 standard instead of maintaining two disparate fleets

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jordan has all of them.

          [...]
          150 have funding for, but there are still another 250 with no funding for upgrade in storage, maybe military spending improves and more are upgraded in future, i think tank performance in ukraine will inform a lot of this decision.

          I guess you boys didn't read old Ben's speech?
          >Even as we gift Challenger 2 tanks, I shall at the same time be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions, to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.
          It goes abit further than that also...
          >Specifically on artillery, I am accelerating the mobile fires programme so that, instead of delivering in the 2030s, it will do so during the current decade. I have also directed that, subject to commercial negotiation, an interim artillery capability is to be delivered.

          I know this isn't "we will expand" but everything Ben has touched on like this has happened, he's doing a fantastic job and he's managed to secure more funding for next year above inflation not just to match it. UK has the 3rd largest Defence budget in the world right now I think.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            With the 12 tanks now confirmed for donation,

            https://i.imgur.com/QOGSCYb.jpg

            Hey fren, I'm not trying to be condescending but you are completely wrong. Even your dates are wrong.
            >227 in service
            >22 driver training
            btw driver training CR2s are the ones at BATUS, you knew that too yeh? The ones in picrel that are just Challenger 2s except 2 that are missing the turret.

            >386 was a very long ago figure. As of 2012
            Thank you for your email of 29 August 2016 in which you requested the following information:
            1) How many of each variant of tank based on the Challenger 2 chassis were originally
            ordered and received by the British Army.
            2) How many of each variant are:
            a. Still possessed by the British Army, including those that are not deployable;
            b. Available for deployment – total number of tanks either in active service or
            held in a state of extended readiness;
            c. Used solely for training

            The document I quoted from is from 2016, proving you factually wrong about there being 300 in 2012.

            You will also see all CR3 in the middle camo.

            That is all.

            t.knower

            >proving you factually wrong
            386 were ordered and received
            in 2008, the decision was made to shrink the fleet to 227
            in 2012, the disposal process was ongoing and at that point there were ~300 chasses
            by 2016, MOD reported 227 in service, also in 2017, 2018, and 2019

            your mistake is that you equated "ordered and received" with "available for deployment", whereas that letter states clearly: 227 tanks available. 227 refers to the Whole Fleet, in various states of repair and readiness, otherwise from year to year there would be varying numbers reported as tanks cycle in and out of maintenance.

            >t.knower
            not as much as you think

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I thought it was 10?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah he's wrong on everything it's 14.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I swear it was 10 only a few days ago, why 14 now?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Size of NATO tank company is 14.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                since when are Ukies organized like this?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >13
                I was close

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                still, how are you going to integrate one company with completely different equipment into your brigade?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It could be an independent company.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                a company can't be independent.
                the smallest independent formation in the US Army is a BCT, which has 8 armor companies.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a company can't be independent
                Of course it can. Ukraine isn't bound by US doctrine and things can get interesting during wartime. See WW2 German Kampfgruppen, which were sometimes company size or smaller.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Schwere Panzer-Abteilung, a German Kampfgruppe, was battalion size.
                So three companies, not one.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Read moron, read

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nope, you made extraordinary claims and need to prove how one company alone would work.

                an armor company with no supporting rifle company sounds asinine and goes against any NATO doctrine.
                I don't care what desperate formations Germany tried near the end of WW2 where they lost every battle.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kingforce at El Alamein was 8 tanks.

                As he said, things can get interesting during wartime.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and yet not even Germans were desperate enough to introduce their new tanks in such small quantities.
                Germans waited till their elite tank *divisions* had all new tanks before engaging. So Communists first got to see Panzer V when there were 200 of them attacking them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How many armour companies does a Stryker BCT have? or an Infantry BCT?

                Even just 14 Challys can provide the tank support for a Ukrainian mechanised infantry battalion

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >How many armour companies does a Stryker BCT have?
                none
                >or an Infantry BCT?
                none
                >Even just 14 Challys can provide the tank support for a Ukrainian mechanised infantry battalion
                Ukrainian mechanized battalions are part of a mechanized brigade which have a full tank battalion.

                it still sounds wasteful to use your best tanks in your mechanized battalions but UK should at least provide that many.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes, that is not an uncommon structure; usually the mechanised brigade can be task organised and allocated one company of tanks to form a combined-arms battlegroup of one tank company and one infantry battalion. alternatively two tank companies can be assigned, or even the whole tank battalion attached to one infantry battalion (common for offensive operations).

                so the UAF most likely would opt to attach the Challys to an independent mechanised infantry battalion to form one such battlegroup.

                >it still sounds wasteful to use your best tanks in your mechanized battalions
                not at all; combined arms is the name of the game, and anyway the Challengers perform exceptionally well in defence

                >but UK should at least provide that many
                The UK's initiative means that there are 14 NATO tanks on the way where there were previously 0; and opened the door for more

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >anyway the Challengers perform exceptionally well in defence
                how so?
                it's an MBT, not artillery.
                artillery is a lot more useful for making sure your front lines are stable.
                you would need a lot more MBTs to pierce a static front line.

                >and opened the door for more
                questionable. NATO doesn't look amused by that UK unilateralist action.
                Ramstein communiques don't even mention Challengers despite all the talk about Leos.

              • 2 weeks ago
                /btg/ bros?

                >how so?
                Designed for Fulda Gap operations to hold off the Soviet tank horde
                >artillery is a lot more useful for making sure your front lines are stable
                All arms are needed
                A small number of heavily armoured vehicles with direct fire guns that can reliably kill anything on the battlefield is very useful situationally

                >questionable. NATO doesn't look amused
                Germany isn't NATO

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Designed for Fulda Gap operations to hold off the Soviet tank horde
                that's an obsolete role in the age of ATGMs

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It can be if you say it will be, especially as Ukraine isnt operating by US doctrine and most mechanised fighting is very piecemeal. Nominally attach it to a Ukranian tank regiment (if any still exist) and have it operate as an independent company to go wherever Russian armour is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General said this a few hours ago
                >Additionally, this week in Germany, we began battalion and brigade collective training that I had an opportunity to visit at the Combined Arms Maneuver Training Center here in Grafenwoehr, in support of the Ukrainian Army.
                So would expect enough modern MBTs for at least a battalion. And that battalion should be within a brigade.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Alright fair, but UK has only announced 14. So is this a composite battalion of NATO tanks, and they expect to receive m1a2 or leo2s (or even leclercs)? Or is the UK (unlikely and unannounced) going to donate its entire reserve fleet of Challenger 2s? Or is the rest of the battalion just going to be the modernised polish T-72s?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Wait and see

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Size of British tank company is 14
                FTFY

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >227 in service
              >20 Batus trainers (no different from CR2 standard except has gen 2 thermal)
              >72 deep storage
              >2 driver trainers
              >2 Destroyed (FF + Castlemartin fire)
              Total
              >320 Tanks in inventory as of 2016
              This is irrefutable.

              Your also wrong on something widely available.
              >12 tanks for donation
              It's 14...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Iirc a challenger 2 (no.382) was donated to the NAM in 2017

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >72 deep storage
                >This is irrefutable
                post source

                >It's 14...
                I haven't been following the latest news.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >2 driver trainers

                https://i.imgur.com/YJKXD5u.jpg

                >as of 2016 the MoD stated there are only 227 left
                Everything you said Is wrong.
                >1. 386 Challenger 2 tanks and 22 Driver Training tanks based on the Challenger 2
                chassis were originally ordered and received by the British Army.
                >2. 227 Challenger 2 tanks and the 22 Driver Training Tanks remain in service with the British Army. All of the Challenger 2 Tanks would be available for operational use if required. However it may help if I explain that the Army manages its vehicle fleets under the current fleet management model. The Army uses a four element approach; the first element of this model provides a limited number of permanently issued equipment for low-level training and
                competency, the second provides a training fleet to enable units to train together, (this includes permanently issued equipment to training areas such as the British Army Training Unit Suffield, in Canada), the third element provides equipment for deployment and
                contingent operations, and the fourth acts as a buffer, which enables the Army to sustain the first three elements as equipment enters deep maintenance, or is damaged beyond repair.
                That's from 2016, nothing has changed.

                There are a total of 386 Challengers 2 in inventory in various states of readiness all able to be made combat ready. Meaning they aren't scraped or beyond repair.
                [...]
                Don't worry about it, happens to us all kek

                >22 Driver Training tanks
                *refutes in your path*

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                2 of the ones in your picture the other 20 are normal Challengers based at BATUS Cananda seen in the picture I posted

                https://i.imgur.com/dhrUguD.jpg

                >btw driver training CR2s are the ones at BATUS, you knew that too yeh? The ones in picrel that are just Challenger 2s except 2 that are missing the turret.
                I got carried away and posted the new camo instead of the 20 batus 'trainers'

                here, count them.

                > the first element of this
                model provides a limited number of permanently issued equipment for low-level training and
                competency, the second provides a training fleet to enable units to train together, (this
                includes permanently issued equipment to training areas such as the British Army Training
                Unit Suffield, in Canada)

                The one in you picture is 1 of 2 first element low level training vehicles.
                My picture shows a few of the 20 second element based at Batus.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Ministry of Defence states it bought 22 Driver Training Tanks
                >insists there are only 2
                Delusional

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Doesn't know of the original 386 18 of the retired hulls were made into DTTs
                >Specifically Ignores the quote from the MoD
                >> the first element of this
                model provides a limited number of permanently issued equipment for low level training and competency, the second provides a training fleet to enable units to train together, (this includes permanently issued equipment to training areas such as the British Army Training Unit Suffield, in Canada)
                >Didn't know 14 were going to Ukraine not 12 despite it being on every military site on the intnernet the BBC and every British paper.
                wewlad

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >227 Challenger 2 tanks and the 22 Driver Training Tanks remain in service with the British Army
                Endex.
                Everything else you said is flat wrong.

                >Didn't know 14 were going to Ukraine not 12
                Big whoop
                But go on, make a big deal out of it; that's the only "win" you're getting from this embarrassing stream of delusional sperging you've posted

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >320 hulls in inventory today
                Thanks for playing, you lose
                >Big whoop
                Thanks for playing, you lose again
                Become informed before posting in future.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >[citation needed]
                Literally have a nice day.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >20 Batus trainers (no different from CR2 standard except has gen 2 thermal)
                No challenger has Gen 2 thermals.
                They're either Gen 1 (TOGS 2, 1*N horizontal scanning array) from the original vehicle or Gen 3 (Catherine MP, 1280*1024 staring array) after the 2019 TISP.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's Gen 2. I can post the brochure if you like?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What brochure? TOGS-2? Sure

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No i didnt tbqh, good to know its in consideration. Honestly i didnt even know about the mobile fires programme too. Im not sure that the UK does have the 3rd largest defence budget, or if we do then i dont think we really have all that much to show for it. Smaller army than during the napoleonic war, only enough tanks for 2-3 regiments, total number of RN ships in service is about 1/5 the size of just the home fleet in the past, number of fighter/interceptor planes is barely 200 for both the raf and naval aviation and theyre not even fully domestic designs. Canadian and Australian militaries are in similarly dire straits so not like the rest of the commonwealth is picking up the pieces.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you vs the guy she tells you not to worry about

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I was interrupted
            With the 12 tanks now confirmed for donation, the number of Ch2 tanks is now 215. I'm not sure the Army can afford to "review" and enlarge the Ch3 fleet very significantly, unless they stop any further donations and resize the tank regiment orbat

            227 Ch2s equaled 3 regiments + spares
            148 Ch3s equaled 2 regiments + spares

            if say the Army reverts to the 50-tank regiment of yore, then it would have to draw the line at 200 Ch3s.

            No i didnt tbqh, good to know its in consideration. Honestly i didnt even know about the mobile fires programme too. Im not sure that the UK does have the 3rd largest defence budget, or if we do then i dont think we really have all that much to show for it. Smaller army than during the napoleonic war, only enough tanks for 2-3 regiments, total number of RN ships in service is about 1/5 the size of just the home fleet in the past, number of fighter/interceptor planes is barely 200 for both the raf and naval aviation and theyre not even fully domestic designs. Canadian and Australian militaries are in similarly dire straits so not like the rest of the commonwealth is picking up the pieces.

            >i didnt even know about the mobile fires programme
            basically every single major combat vehicle the British Army operates needs replacement, other than Ajax, and really the PMV fleet could use some type consolidation.

            >3rd largest
            The UK has the third largest official defence budget but this includes pensions and defence infrastructure which in other budgets (China) may be reported separately.

            >Smaller army than during the napoleonic war, only enough tanks for 2-3 regiments, total number of RN ships in service is about 1/5 the size of just the home fleet in the past, number of fighter/interceptor planes is barely 200 for both the raf and naval aviation
            Smaller budget as well, my dear. For the amount spent, the British Armed Forces does maintain a reasonably sized force in good training and, importantly, relatively deep ammo reserves.

            >Canadian
            one of the worst jobs programmes I've ever seen

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's 14 tanks...
              There are 320 hulls in inventory minus the ones to be donated would make 306 available for upgrade.

              >72 deep storage
              >This is irrefutable
              post source

              >It's 14...
              I haven't been following the latest news.

              >I haven't been following the news
              >Admits to being clueless about a subject he's been arguing about for the past 15minutes
              Opinion disregarded, good day.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >has no source for retarded take
                I accept your surrender.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >t.Hasn't got a fucking clue what's going on in the world in 2023 nevermind the inventory of tanks in 2016 also didn't know there are two types of tanks listed under driver trainers
                Imbecile

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh cool I've sat in the turret of that particular tank. Nice pic.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    entirely unrelated
    but i think the chally 1 is one of the sexiest tanks in existence but the chally 2 is one of the ugliest
    am i fucked in the head or does anyone else think this

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, the TIS barbette on Challenger 2 is pretty ugly
      Challenger 2E proved as much

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      funnily enough, rheinmetall has had discussions in regards to refurbing chally 1's

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Definitely solid a case for CR1 being better looking, that sleek slightly pointed turret and mantletless design made it look pretty mean.
      Challenger 2 is still good looking in my opinion but a little too boxy compared to challenger 1

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that's a good angle look for it
        the chally 2 just looks really chunky in comparison (especially from the side) and that the sighting block above the turret just ruins the turret for me aesthetically

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Challenger 2's side armour is a modular addition. If you dont add side armour, and remove the skirts, its side profile is extremely similar to the Challenger 1.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i'm probably autistic but that turret shape just doesn't do anything for compared to the svelte lines on the chally 1

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              doesn't do anything for me*
              i mean just look at these lines

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/Fq5XY0W.jpg

                i'm probably autistic but that turret shape just doesn't do anything for compared to the svelte lines on the chally 1

                the external storage makes a difference to the look, CR2 has a very bare looking turret

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Challenger 1 is much nicer looking than Challenger 2. Challenger 2 is still pretty good looking, its just the large mantlet ruins the sleek look that the CH1 has. But i think it still looks better than the leo2 a5,6 or 7, or the M1A1 or M1A2. Lerclerc outright looks like a failed 70s prototype. Ariete is pretty nice looking though.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ariete is pretty nice looking though
        that's cause it looks like a challenger 1

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Lerclerc outright looks like a failed 70s prototype.
        Take that back, it's very sexy.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sorry 🙁

          unironically think the leclerc looks pretty good
          ariete is pretty nice, but is like the chally 1's slightly less good looking little sister
          abrams, chally 2, and late model leo 2s are on the bottom of the stack in terms of aesthetics

          I personally think that it looks a bit of a mess, like a squashed and squared leo1 with some cameras added as well as a random assortment of things to the turret. Im not sure what you see in it. I can understand the appeal of a leopard 2a6, or a Challenger, or Ariete. Maybe if squinting and drunk an M1A2. Something with sleek lines and sharp angles. But i just, personally, dont get that from the Leclerc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i guess it's just a different kind of aesthetic
            sleek curvy tank vs angular blocky tank
            i like the blocky look of the chally 1, and the other blocky tanks don't look in comparison to it
            but the leclerc isn't trying to look blocky so i doesn't look bad in comparison because it's a different syle
            looks good in profile and in the rear too

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        unironically think the leclerc looks pretty good
        ariete is pretty nice, but is like the chally 1's slightly less good looking little sister
        abrams, chally 2, and late model leo 2s are on the bottom of the stack in terms of aesthetics

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love the CR1 look its a beast. I love the cannon its massive. I might spam a few images of it ITT if that's OK.

      Challenger 1 is much nicer looking than Challenger 2. Challenger 2 is still pretty good looking, its just the large mantlet ruins the sleek look that the CH1 has. But i think it still looks better than the leo2 a5,6 or 7, or the M1A1 or M1A2. Lerclerc outright looks like a failed 70s prototype. Ariete is pretty nice looking though.

      I agree with everything but the Leclerc I think Frenchies have made a nice effort whilst looking different to the rest, didn't expect anything else really.

      https://i.imgur.com/EnyODjA.jpg

      i guess it's just a different kind of aesthetic
      sleek curvy tank vs angular blocky tank
      i like the blocky look of the chally 1, and the other blocky tanks don't look in comparison to it
      but the leclerc isn't trying to look blocky so i doesn't look bad in comparison because it's a different syle
      looks good in profile and in the rear too

      That's a nice looking one.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldnt it make more sense for Britain to receive Abrams, and then just happen to donate the Abrams to Ukraine? That way its Britain doing it.
    Britain wont use a non-British tank ever, doesnt work with the BAE contracts and from a security POV they'd have to be capable of domestic manufacture. Abrams is an ancient design nearing the end of its lifespan, Challenger 2 is one of the most modern MBTs and the upgrade programme is already going. Would be insanity to replace it now. Originally Leopard 2 was going to be bought, but the government refused to go for anything other than a domestic design.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Abrams isn’t getting sent for military rather than political reasons. If the US thought it would be useful to send them they’d do it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well i was just responding to the premise of OP's question. If the US wanted to donate them to another nation without doing so directly, thats how they'd do it, the UK wouldnt need or want to completely replace its own tanks.
        Also what do you mean? Surely its entirely political reasons, military reasons dont come into it, politics is why US is sponsoring Ukraine, and militarily Ukraine doesnt have many tanks and would like more.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >trading in challenger for abrams
    that's basically theft

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Naaaah if the Challenger could speak it would consider it an honor to have every one made go into battle with whom it was made to destroy.
      Abe just comes along to fill the gap.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    contributing

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger 2 was selected for political reasons, not for performance. At this point with the US starting design on new MBTs it would make more sense to try and create that a joint venture which would probably end up being successful unlike every time someone tried to make a tank with the Germans.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It was the US which ruined the MBT-70 programme by trying to force the exclusive use of missiles instead of a conventional gun, in which the Germans were obviously proved right.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're wrong as there were two version of the MBT-70 that were to be made.

        Nice job ignoring the development of the Eurotank fiasco that resulted in the AMX-30 and Leopard, to say nothing of the MBT-80 program with the UK and Germany.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Wouldn’t it make sense for nato that the Brits provide all of there challenger 2 stock and then buy or be given abrams
    Yes. Won't happen though, sadly.
    >or leopards
    Fuck that. Apparently Germany throws a hissy fit if anyone tries to use their weapons for their intended purpose.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Every western country is obligated to send all of their equipment to Ukraine!!
    Is PrepHole really this fucking retarded now?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is PrepHole really this fucking retarded now?
      Welcome to the discord chud NAFO shill campaign. They are all worked up at the prospect of more MICbux being funneled into Ukraine. I expect no less than three seething replies
      >Vatnik!
      >YyyyYou're obsessed with trannies
      >NnnnnNO, you're the leftypol chud!

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like theres a vatmoron in our midst.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I just want to see this stuff used against its intended opponents before it all gets scrapped as obsolete. This is the closest thing to a CWGH scenario we will ever see, so while all these tanks still exist, i want to see them used against a real military instead of bullying dust heathens.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Uh oh

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cope

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kinda.
    the chally is better than the abramns.
    so it would be a big downgrade for them.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >anon doesn't understand how politics work

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why not just give us literally all your shit for free
    Don't take this piss. We're not made of money.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what are we going to do with all these tanks? shoot some durkas in iraq? not like anyone can actually threaten the brits because of the RAF, RN, and the US. anyone who wants to invade them has to go around a continent that is full of their allies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well defend Britain for a start.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Take a look at your prime minister, you already failed.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you're looking for favours this is not how you get them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          again, from what? if the enemy has landed on british soil the war is already lost.

          there is no concievable enemy that can land on the UK right now. if you're exposed for a few years due to lack of tanks - so what? no one can exploit that gap.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look m8, you are not just entitled to all of our stuff. We have sent a lot. A hell of a lot. Be thankful.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not ukranian. I just think that all the west can do more. Putting Russia in the dirt eliminates a geopolitical rival for decades at least - it's worth all the gear we send them.

              the fact that the bongs have sent any tanks at all is nice, though, given no other western country has sent anything other then T-series.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We are doing what we can but *literally everything* is just not feasible.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You don't understand thermal imager generations. The video output resolution isn't inherently the same as the detector resolution and resolution is not the defining characteristic of thermal imager generation. If TOGS/TICM II had a 720x576 detector with digital format output it would by definition be Gen 3, not Gen 2.

    Gen 1 and 2 use horizontally scanning detectors and produce analogue images. The brochures you linked to say ### line output - this is the analogue video signal. 720x576 is just the resolution used for converting 625 line analogue video to a digital standard format.

    TOGS and TOGS-2 are Gen 1 because they used a SPRITE detector.
    SPRITE had better horizontal resolution than other Gen 1 detectors because it used a set of long elements to produce the analogue signal but it's still classed as Gen 1 because it only had a single line of elements in the scanning array (e.g. 1*576).
    The difference with Gen 2 detectors is that they use a matrix of small elements in the scanning array (e.g 4*480 like the IBAS on Bradley) to achieve improved analogue resolution.

    Gen 3 are Staring Array/Focal Plane Array detectors. FPAs are like a CCD in a digital camera - a matrix of thousands of elements producing full digital video output with each element corresponding to a pixel of resolution.
    Catherine MP used for the TISP is a Staring Array/FPA i.e Gen 3.

    Barr & Stroud/GEC/Pilkington Optronics/Thales UK never produced a Gen 2 imager. They went from producing SPRITEs to producing Staring Arrays
    You can read about SPRITE detectors and the emerging development of low resolution Staring Array detectors in the mid 1990s (when Challenger 2 came in to service) here:
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82645761.pdf

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Challenger 2s will be the point of the thrust. All the work of the absent Leopards & Abrams will be on the Challys shoulders.

    No Challenger will break down and only one will be destroyed, due to an unlucky immobilisation. The Challengers will drive through to the Sea of Azov, countless Russian tanks destroyed in their wake. Crimea will be isolated and become Ukrainian once again all thanks to the Challenger-led blitzkrieg.

    After Ukraine's victory in the war, a massive Challenger 2 statue will be erected in the middle of Kyiv. Tourists will take photos in front of the statue, the Challenger statue will be on Kyiv's Wikipedia page. Ukrainian newborn males will have 'Challenger' (or Boris) as a second name.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah
    By the time they have completed the Chally 3 upgrades, it will be obsolete once again.
    Brits should dump them now and work on something entirely new.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An anon in a recent thread proposed Canada do exactly this, give all it's Leopard 2s (iirc 80 or 90 something) to Ukraine in one go. Canada doesn't need or even want them. They're not so new as to be really missed. Replace with a mix of (a smaller number) or Abrams and the coming US light tank. Makes sense to me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't make sense to send Canada's Leopard 2A6Ms and replace them later with a functionally equivalent tank. But that's only 20, the rest of the 2A4s could be sent and Canada could purchase more 2A6Ms since the cost of upgrading 2A4s isn't cheap anyway.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't make sense to me.
      Canada will have no tanks for a decade then.
      Canada will forget all its armor knowledge when it has no armor for a decade.
      Will have to completely build up its armor capacity from scratch.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Canadians
      >being useful

      >Designed for Fulda Gap operations to hold off the Soviet tank horde
      that's an obsolete role in the age of ATGMs

      The 80s was peak ATGM anon

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The 80s was peak ATGM anon
        not for the British Army.
        AirLand Battle is US Army.

        nor was the Challenger designed in the 80s. it's a better Chieftain for Iran.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thats the Challenger 1 (and the chieftain was designed for holding the fulda gap). The Challenger 2 was designed to be the 'perfect' defensive tank on the basis that BAE could implement everything they'd learned from the Chieftain, Challenger 1, MBT-80 programme, and the Vickers Valiant programme, and that at the time of order it was intended for the BAOR, with challenger 1's and chieftains not neccessarily intended to be disposed of (sadly they were due to the end of the cold war).

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >downgrade from a modern tank platform to an upgraded cold war tank
      Why, exactly, would they do this?
      Again, why doesnt America just send m1a2 to ukraine? They have lots in storage, 14 challenger 2s or 90 leopard 2s wont make a big difference, but the US could send 1,000 m1a2s which would.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The UK places heavy emphasis on developing native technology as an arms and aerospace manufacturer, so the focus is always on developing an in-house solution where possible. It's good for native R&D, reduces brain drain, keeps innovation and tech moving along, supports industry, etc. It's a good idea for a nation not to solely rely on buying-in a solution.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And that's why MBT-80 was cancelled and the British Army is stuck with the Iranian Challenger?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's why the B-52 is getting British engines.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          those aren't British.
          Rolls-Royce North America is an American company.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Its a subsidiary of Rolls Royce PLC. They are a UK design from the 90's.
            You also rely on us for in-air refuelling systems, license microprocessor architecture from us, yadda yadda. This is PrepHole, people know this. BAE Systems is literally europe's largest arms manufacturer, it's not a flex. In fact the Bradley (which is obviously a US vehicle) is actually manufactured by a subsidiary of BAE. I'm just answering the question posed by the post.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also the challenger 1 isn't the challenger 2, and we licensed the armour used in the challenger 1 to the USA who used in in the Abrams. The UK actually accounts for 22% of US arms imports.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The UK actually accounts for 22% of US arms imports.
          That's deceiving. US hardly imports anything.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            whoopie do.
            The UK STILL places an emphasis on domestic designs due to being an arms and aerospace manufacturer, which is both a fact and the correct answer to the OP despite your zero-value zero-knowledge gay replies

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              but apparently UK only has 14 Challengers to spare.
              what a mighty arms industry.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it was just 50 bradleys until the next 59 came, why assume this is the only batch of challenger?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                We're a tiny island with a tiny army. We could probably send 50 at absolute most.

                Why shit on the UK as an arms manufacturer when you literally buy all your howtizers from us, it's a self own that only gets worse the longer you continue it.

                The question was why doesn't the UK just buy the Abrams?
                > Because the UK places an emphasis on domestic designs due to being an arms and aerospace manufacturer

                I can't see how you spraying your fecal outpourings is contributing anything here.

                There are MUCH bigger arms exporters, but in terms of manufacturing, the UKs biggest manufacturing sectors (and a major R&D and intellectual property areas) are defence and aerospace.

                I don't get what you're struggling with

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i question that policy.
                if you are only self-sustainable in peace time and can't recover 50 losses, what's the point?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What "policy" you stupid fucking moron. What "point"?
                We're an island. What defensive use are tanks in the ocean? Picrel is of more use.

                We expect people here to have some knowledge of military things, own firearms, or at least shoot, have some interest in military history, arms development, warfare, etc.

                The UK has a significant logistics arm (though it could definitely do with being bigger) for a nation of it's size which is where self-sustainability comes from. This is how it just about scraped together a taskforce to retake the Falklands (though it's weaker now)

                The challenger class of tanks have ~250 kills against slavshit for 1-2 partial losses. They're among the weaker tanks in NATO today but are adequate for taking part in coalition operations with partner nations and popping the turrets off slavshit.

                They will need to be replaced, and it would obviously be a better idea to develop homegrown industry and build a new design than just buy in someone else's equally old design.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We're an island. What defensive use are tanks in the ocean?
                >They will need to be replaced
                that's a contradiction.
                do you need tanks or not?

                in both cases, not needed or be replaced, you could do what OP suggested.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                false equivalence, moron

                The Challenger seethe 2 not in service are in a warehouse somewhere.
                The 386 number is like the total built for the BA.
                There are also around 400 Challenger 1 being stored somewhere.

                >not in service are in a warehouse somewhere
                disposed of
                if they were still awaiting disposal MOD would have said
                >400 Challenger 1
                used by the Jordanians, and partway to being disposed of, though given projected rates of work most should still be around

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Wouldn’t it make sense for nato that the Brits provide all of there challenger 2 stock and then buy or be given abrams or leopards for themselves as USA and Germany doesn’t/can’t send tanks to Ukraine ?
    Britain prefers having mediocre or garbage gear they made over superior gear others have made unless there's no other choice.
    See their standard infantry rifle, Ajax, every single tank used in WWII, etc.
    The arms industry is still a major industry there and being shit doesn't mean it doesn't get you jobs and money. It's not like most countries could do better solving the worst of the best is good enough.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >garbage gear they made over superior gear others have made
      You know all the Ajax vehicles made to date were built in Spain and have German-built turrets and French-built guns, right?
      Brits don't take over manufacturing of Ajax until it goes in to full-rate production

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. It would. But militarily and economically. This is not happening because of kinder garten tier international politics.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *