A guest post from Jed
I want to make this another short article that asks some questions in order to peruse the conversations started in the comment threads of various other posts; hence the contentious title to grab your attention!
Let me be clear, I am not singing the “MBT is dead” refrain, far from it in fact, I think the heavy weight behemoth is still a necessary part of a nations armoury. However, I would like to examine our ‘need’ for the Challenger II as our MBT platform in the context of operational requirements, reform or regoranisation of the army towards a a Future Force 2020 and of course, in the context of budget.
The Main Battle Tank
The title gives it away eh ? The MBT is an evolution of a vehicle which started of as very much an “infantry support” vehicle. I am not going to do a history of the tank section – you can all go hit Wikipedia, or watch episodes of Greatest Tank Battles on YouTube, with the glorious interwebs we have no excuse for coming to the debate from a position of ignorance any more !
However let us just very brief revise the iron triangle – mobility, protection and fire power.
1. Mobility – well with modern engines, running gear and drive train’s the 60 tonne plus behemoth can have considerable tactical mobility, and also don’t forget the ability to “wade through fire” is in fact a tight linkage between mobility and protection.
2. Protection – largely what drives up the weight to where we are now, and where we might be in the near future
3. Firepower – also drives up the weight to some extent, you need a reasonably beefy vehicle to take the stress of firing a modern high pressure / high velocity 120mm tank gun.
As I said I would like to build on the conversations we have had recently on various threads, so time for a few links:
TD’s marvellous series on mobility: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/vehicle-mobility-considerations/
TD’s recent piece on protection: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/vehicle-protection/
TD on multi-role brigades: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/01/multi-role-brigades/
Jed on MRB’s and wheels: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/02/a-balanced-force-with-a-balanced-budget/
Jed on “Medium Armour” : http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/06/medium-armour-%E2%80%93-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-post-2020-force-structure/
What is it for ?
Remember I am a champion in many respects of the MBT, so please try to see through my bias when I play devils advocate ! A quick visit to the Challenger 2 page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2#Operational_usage) will show us ample evidence of the utility of a big, heavy, well protected armoured vehicle to soak up fire directed at it by infantry type forces – the Chally hit by a Milan and 14 RPG’s that only lost it’s optics (well “only” is relative here, but we can come back to that), another one which was apparently hit by as many as 70 RPG’s ! Of course we have the driver who lost his toes to a more modern RPG29 and the other one who lost his leg to a big IED – but as we all know, no weapon system is completely invulnerable to all others.
Then of course we have the only Chally completed destroyed in action – hit by another Chally in a “blue on blue” fratricide. The U.S. M1A1 had a pretty good record in the urban scenarios encountered after the invasion of Iraq, and we could talk all day about the to-and-fro of advantage between well armed Hizbollah irregulars and the IDF’s Merkeva.
BUT , let’s get to the crux of the matter – what do we want our MBT to do ? What is it for ? What can it do for us ?
1. Manoeuvre warfare – the armoured queen of the manoeuvre battlefield, able to destroy enemy MBT and lessor vehicles, to take on sangars and strongpoints, wade through fire and cope with varying terrain and obstacles – nothing controversial here, except perhaps the evolution of the MBT as the main weapon system to combating the enemies MBT.
2. Urban warfare – the U.S. experience in Iraq showed that the Russian experience in Chechnya was as much to do with doctrine, tactics, training and procedures as it was to do with the concept of a heavy MBT being squeezed into city streets.
3. COIN – just because we have not deployed, the Canadian, Danish, German and now USMC use of Leopard II and M1 as “120mm snipers” has shown that even in some counter insurgency scenarios the MBT is worth it’s weight in – well, worth it’s weight in something (depleted Uranium ?)
That said, let us now put this in the context of the British Army. We have run down tank numbers, with the majority in storage (?). We made the mistake of binning 120mm rifled ammo production, and have run into form and fit issues with upgrading to the NATO standard smoothbore weapon (even if we could afford it). So the same questions in our specific context:
1. What do we want the MBT to do for us ? Is it a niche we can deploy to provide heavy back up in urban combat scenarios
2. What CAN it do for us ? Well it is a very versatile platform, but penny packets of anything have to have their utility / validity questioned
3. What is if for really ? Killing other MBT’s, infantry support, shock and awe assault weapon ? Where does it sit in our future doctrine ?
In the recent MRB discussion threads, many have picked up on the lack of strategic mobility and the need to deploy heavy armour by sea, rail, low mobility low loader etc as an issue for an army that according to SDSR political requirements is to be structured and postured for expeditionary warfare, of either a short duration or a of a more enduring nature. Many have also suggested that I was off my rocker by suggesting a reserve function could manage heavy armour.
Suggestions from others have ranged from 8 x 8 wheeled AIFV’s with big guns, to “medium” tanks built on FRES etc. So while we acknowledge that a FRES SV based ‘medium tank’ is no match for a Chally 2 / Leopard II / M1A1 – the question remains, what would we want to use it for, and would it be GOOD ENOUGH ?
Tank Destroyer versus Infantry Support Tank
Much of the discussion in the comment threads has been on how we could use a less well armoured, but more mobile (well strategically mobile at least) medium tracked or 8 x 8 wheeled AFV with a 120mm smoothbore as a ‘tank destroyer’. I get the concept just fine, 120mm smooth bore APFSDS being cheaper than ATGM for “plinking” the bad guys armour. Add this to allied air superiority, Tornado or Typhoon delivered Brimstone, Apache delivered Hellfire etc plus infantry or MICV / AIFV delivered ATGM and the actual “anti-tank” role of the MBT is one that can probably be most easily done by other platforms.
With modern active protection systems does the medium weight platform stand up to the multiple RPG battering that close support of friendly infantry against enemy infantry might entail ? Again, maybe not as well as a 60 tonne plus behemoth, but maybe just good enough ?
My main issue with dropping down into the medium weight category is actually also the main issue with a heavy MBT when used in an infantry support role – the main armament is not a good choice for this role. The blast wave and over pressure produced by firing a modern high pressure / high velocity 120mm tank gun can actually be fatal to friendly infantry who are in the wrong place at the wrong time !
I will take this further by saying those who suggest a FRES SV medium tank using the Belgian 105mm gun with it’s Falarick ATGM are progressing the same approach, a high velocity gun, with a long barrel which can present it’s own issues in urban environments, in other words a weapon which is first and foremost designed for taking out enemy armour – not strong points, sangars, houses and factories etc.
So do we go back in time and split the MBT into tank destroyers and infantry support tanks ? Do we need a modern Sherman, with a smaller number of Sherman FireFly equivalents ? You know where I am going to go ref main armament of an infantry support tank – yes the 120mm smooth bore breach loading mortar – for I am nothing if not predictable…….
So I would suggest that all commentators open their response by answering these questions (if we had the money):
1. If keeping MBT capability and given the well advertised problem with “re-gunning” the Chally 2 would you retire it and buy surplus Leopard II – yes/no
2. If no to #1 above, would you consider fitting the Jordanian designed Falcon turret to the Chally 2 in order to get a smoothbore gun capable of handling NATO standard Ammo ? – yes / no
3. Would you like to see gun armed medium weight tank destroyers as part of the MRB ? (e.g. 105mm armed FRES SV or wheeled vehicle like Centauro) – yes / no
4. If we had above tank destroyers, or all 40mm CTA armed FRES carrying a pair of Javelin on the side of the turret (e.g. ample anti-tank provisions) would you consider turning the Challenger II into a specialist heavy infantry support tank with either a 40mm CTA or 120mm smooth bore mortar ? (could we even fit both ?) – yes / no
5. Do you think we should conceptually move back to less of multi-purpose heavyweight MBT to more specialist variants ? – Yes / no
There you go, 5 questions to frame your thoughts; as we say in the fencing salon, lets have at it ………
Simple answer is YES. For the following reasons:
Whilst our potential enemies retain the MBT so should we!
Active systems will probably never substitute the passive armour if an MBT
The psychological impact of the MBT cannot be overstated… A 60-70 tonne tank thundering down a street is one hell if a deterrent!
@PD I am no expert on ground warfare but unless we are cleverer than the rest of the world(and I see little evidence to support this) then giving up a weapon system everyone else is keeping seems strange.
was there not the US helo in 2003 Iraq that was hit and kept flying to land behind a Ch2, when asked why the pilot said, “there was no way I was landing anywhere else other than behind that thing” I paraphrase.
Africa looks like ideal tank country. That’s where the next big land bun fight will be.
1. No, same sh*t different wrapper.
2. Possibly
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
I’ve mentioned it on previous threads but I’d like to see something like a modernised Bulldog variant of the 105mm Abbot SPG as a fire support vehicle. But with autostab turret and additional GPMG’s for self-defence.
As for needing Sherman Firefly’s, I thought the M60 was a natural development of the Sherman through M47 and M48. We could consider the Israeli varient like the Magach.
Going point-by-point on the posited questions:
1) No. Buying hundreds of new tanks really shouldn’t be the cheap option compared to changing the turret.
2) No. Unless we are happy to go for an assault gun rather than an MBT. By putting the turret crew in the hull you lose a great deal of space in the turret, you go from a 4-man to a 3-man crew and you lose half of the commander’s situational awareness.
3) Qualified Yes. If we are deploying MRBs on their own, then it would make sense to have some kind of tank on them. The CT-CV would seem to offer the potential for a cheaper solution. The Falarick ATGW would offer stand-off engagements of point targets.
4) No. Waste of time and effort, especially for the autocannon.
5) No. You cannot guarantee that your specialist vehicle will be in the right place at the right time when in close contact with the enemy. (also my major gripe about 120mm mortar/demo guns.) Gun Tank, IFV and support vehicles ought to cover it.
no to all your questions.
the British Army can retain its tanks AND be expeditionary. all it will take is a bit of effort between them, the Royal Marines and Royal Navy. they’ve already demonstrated that they can land those beast from amphibious shipping so the only real issue is how do you organize them. as currently designed, the Challenger is a multi-mission vehicle…all you need to do is stock the appropriate ammunition. perhaps design some type of urban warfare kit and get it to ships. start deploying them in platoon strength…you were talking about the Falklands…what would a company of Challengers mean for the defense of that island?
the British Army must not lose it tanks….it must use them in new ways and deploy them likewise.
Phill Darley and APATS
Just like battleships in the 30′s everyone had them and everyone kept building them because everyone else did.
Jeds questions
1) No.
IF we are building 44 ton Fres then then the difference in protection between that and Leopard 2 should not be that much and the old chassis commonality comes down in favour of Fres.
Yes if it’s the only option for Nato 120mm smooth bore.
2)Yes
3)Both yes and no.
Yes if it was a ‘this is what your getting’ scenario,
No, not if trying to run 2 vehicles side by side,in the same army as the lighter will slowly kill of the heavy anyway (as I have said before)
4)OK as stop gap,
5)Don’t actually understand that question.
Just to make clear my objection to Chally 2 is not an ideological one.
It’s like my Nellie and dumbo objections. However effective; penny packets are not worth keeping for all the logistical burden they impose, unless they truly bring, real world, serious heavyweight battle changing capabilities, when deployed in penny packets..
Not ‘willie waiving rights’ in the
‘we’ere a proper army because we’ve got MBT’s’
Competition.
@ Solomon,
Challenger 2 would not get to many places in the Falklands – ground pressure. That’s no criticism of the beast, just simple physics for anything above about 15 tonnes with conventionally-wide tracks.
My own criticism of Challenger 2 (and it’s predecessor, and Chieftain) is around the fire control system. Perfect if everything is working right, but over-complex, too many reversionary modes, long training, and the software is buggy. We had to have a board of inquiry after an incident at Lulworth where the gun fired with the loader’s safety shield still forward. We couldn’t work it out so asked for DERA (as was) and MoD to do in depth analysis – answer eventually came back that there was a chance under certain conditions that this could occur due to poor programming.
I’m disappointed TD didn’t note the combination of mobility and protection that allows you to drive through a house in an urban environment, which tends to generate a bit of a shock reaction in the Iraqi insurgent happily firing off RPGs on the roof. You can’t do that in any of your pansy 8x8s. SCOTS DG managed to round off a few otherwise square 4-way junctions in Basra, which also helps traffic flow once the brickwork is cleared up.
1)
Surplus Leo2? From where? Germany gave about 75% of its Leo2s away already. There may be a total of 200 Leo2 world-wide that could be spared by its users.
Newly-built Leo2s are possible, of course.
2)
Not worth it. The Chally2 is right now good enough for all but a great war, and in a great war you need great quantity (a production vehicle), not a small collection of upgraded vehicles. The only real L30 shortcoming is AT growth potential under the given circumstances afaik.
3)
I’m thinking of something completely different than that. 105 mm is not a TD destroyer calibre nowadays.
4)
Neither tactically much difference nor worth the budgetary pain.
5)
* rapid fire medium calibre (76mm high elevation) tank with CKEM, coax and SPAAG capability
* classic MBT (120mm L/55, coax)
* HAPC (no bigger gun than 12.7mm!)
* R&R (no bigger gun than 12.7mm!)
* bridgelayer
on a 40-50 t chassis
———————-
Way to go:
German MoD and Krauss-Maffei/Rheinmetall develop a 40-50 t tank family concept to demonstrator stage, invite other nations to look at it.
Then -if there are enough orders (comparable to how Airbus works)- the development begins with Germany financing development of the base vehicle and owning the copyright (= export sales = license income for German taxpayer).
German army also finances the development of some specialised versions with a downpayment for a fixed cost order and other countries can get their specialised (adapted) versions the same way.
Multilateral development doesn’t work well enough, and Krauss-Maffei has still the best reputation for tank development (earned during the 70′s, though).
BAe is corrupted by working for U.S. DoD and not to be trusted with a single Euro/GBP of taxpayer money anymore. The French weren’t able to score a single respectable export contract with the newest MBT around (the UAE order involved heavy bribing, political backing, dumping and a disappointed customer!).
The Poles, Italians, Romanians, British, Swedes have no complete capacity for the unilateral development of a completely new tank.
I think that only question 1 is important and the answer is an emphatic YES – at the moment.
The only competitors in the anti armour stakes are the high velocity APFSDS round and the HEAT tipped ATGW. Of the two, the ATGW warhead is the easiest to defeat. The penetration of a HEAT jet is inversely proportional to the square root of the density of the target* – in other words, low density armour is more effective than, for example, armour grade steel. You can protect a vehicle against RPGs and ATGWs with fairly light weight, although still bulky, armour. If Electric armour ever becomes practical (although Mr. Ortmann has told me it never will be. . .) then the weight needed to protect against HEAT warheads will reduce again. EFP’s are, possibly, a problem but they appear (to the layman at least) such inefficient penetrators that a a relatively modest increase in the top armour of future AFVs might be all that is required.
So, to summarise, until armour technology makes some serious strides forwards the only vehicle able to carry enough armour to protect against top attack ATGWs and direct fire APFSDS rounds is a 60 ton MBT and while the threat exists, then a 60 ton MBT is a necessity.
*paraphrased from Richard Ogorkiewicz in “Cold War: Hot Science” – which is well worth a read, by the way . . .
TD – as ever thanks for publishing my drivel
Everyone else – while I personally agree in general, being as stated, a proponent of the MBT, I am nonplussed by the conservatism being displayed!
Lets have some out of the box thinking ………
As for the “we can’t get rid of them while others have them” – well we have barely any ground based air defence yet potential threat nations have air forces! We run down the RN and talk of Euro-navy allied task forces, etc etc
As for Africa being good tank terrain and the potential future battle ground, what is South Africa’s biggest, heaviest tank? What is the heaviest tank China could supply??
Agree with Sol that the only real problem is how to organise them
There was some vague mention on this blog that the rifled ammo problem has been solved – I’ll believe it when there is a source quoted. Until then, the returreting will get a yes from me
- not only ammo, but also software problems (highlighted by James) gone!
- I don’t buy into the situational awareness comments fully (then again, the warning is in my pseudonym; can’t know for sure)
The other comment, driving through a house, from James again, I do buy into
- as the numbers in the fleet do allow it, I am much for the infantry support conversion… that sort of driving habits become more feasible, too, when it is not the barrel that meets the obstacle first
As for the substitutes, active protection systems work against RPGs and ATGWs, but I remain skeptical as regards high-velocity guns
- so a v good reason to keep some,for now at least
Hi Jed,
RE “what is South Africa’s biggest, heaviest tank? What is the heaviest tank China could supply??”
- Oliphants are quite heavy
One of the best tanks is Chinese-Pakistani 46t ” Al Khalid began in 1988, and in January 1990 an agreement was reached with China to jointly design, develop and manufacture system. The design is an upgrade from the original T902M and work had been going on at China’s NORINCO for some years. Initial prototypes were produced in China and fielded for trials in August 1991″ that can autotrack and fire at several targets on the move
-but you are right, in a way, the weight trend for China’s newest, ZTZ-96, is down (unlike in the West)
Specifications
Physical
Weight 41.5 tons
@ ACC, re driving through houses and barrels leading.
There is a “lock” mode, but I wimped out the only time I ever did it and put the barrel 2/3 rearwards on the open flank. Just didn’t seem right to stuff the barrel full of loose brick and mortar and then expect a decent clear shot when next required.
My old man managed to take out a Cypriot house in 1958 while driving through a dust cloud in hot pursuit of an EOKA sniper. He didn’t even know the house was there, but his Dingo (predecessor to my favourite wagon the Ferret) took the hit, shook itself and carried on. Either Cypriot houses in 1958 were poorly built or Dingoes had some rare qualities.
Yes, we still need to be able to call on the heavy weights to back up the lighter forces, even if future force planning doesn’t require armoured brigades.
A medium weight gun system. The plan to swap out a 155 battery in each of the MRBs for the light gun would imo be better with a RA operated 105mm armed vehicle – primarily for indirect fire support, but capable of the direct fire role, and definately not for replacing the MBT. Keeping the light gun for its mobility in the two specialist brigades only.
Follow German’s example: sell some, keep some, upgrade some, all depending on your nation’s projected security need. As you mentioned, recent wars confirm that MBT is a game-changer even in low-intensity asymmetrical conflict. 70 RPG, wow, i am impressed!
The suitability was questioned of using a long, high-pressure gun for urban warfare. Typically, past Engineers vehicles would mount a short-barreled, large-bore ‘demolition gun’ or mortar; though Trojan went against the trend – perhaps for weight issues? Maybe using a demolition gun on another specialist Challenger variant could help fill that niche urban role. In particular, I was thinking of whether an EOD variant might be worth consideration given our recent history. The army picked up 14 EOD Buffalos on UOR – would a Challenger variant with similar articulated digging arm be worthwhile, perhaps with a ‘dozer blade and demolition gun too for dealing with a range of battlefield obstacles and sticky points?
“(although Mr. Ortmann has told me it never will be. . .)”
Sure?
It’s quite impractical, problematic and likely easy to defeat, but I doubt I promised it will NEVER be practical.
“So, to summarise, until armour technology makes some serious strides forwards the only vehicle able to carry enough armour to protect against top attack ATGWs and direct fire APFSDS rounds is a 60 ton MBT and while the threat exists, then a 60 ton MBT is a necessity.”
Active protection systems and a somewhat more complicated consideration of what kind of protection are necessary allow me to disagree with both statements.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/85w2p8z
(“This high practical mobility in face of many threats can be exploited by large unit and formation tactics to great effect.” – key here is ‘many’ – that’s somewhat malleable)
On APS:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6m5r4ao
Not sure why there seems to be so many bad comments against Challenger 2. I doubt even the Germans of the USA could claim to have better armour protection on Leopard or Abram’s. Yes the 120mm rifled gun is a little out of date however to my knowledge this weapon still holds the world record range for a tank kill.
I know it would be nice to have use of NATO standard ammo. However is this really necessary given the army’s likely future focus? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
I like Jed’s suggestion of converting some across to 120mm mortar but only if this could be done cheaply.
I still do not understand the problem people have with transferring at least part of the heavy armoured force to the TA. Other countries do this. Do they have some magic ability we don’t or do we consider all our allies to have a c**p armoured force?
Any situation where we are likely to need a large armoured force of 250+ tanks will take 3- 6 months to deploy i.e give time for reservist to be worked up. They also likely to be facing a similar force of reservists and conscripts.
If it happens It’s likely to be a 1991 style armoured charge against some form of peer or near peer opponent. This has to be much easier for a reservist soldier than trying to do COIN operations in the mountains of Afghanistan or fighting in urban areas. Not to mention the vast array of aircraft systems we have that would likely clear the way for the armour far more effectively than in 1991. It really seems like the best role to concentrate our reservist forces on.
We have to focus on being the hard David of NATO rather than the shaky goliath. Armoured forces may be one of the things we have to consider dropping. However if we can simply keep what we have in reserve relatively cheaply surely this makes sense.
Maybe we can have the best or semi-best of both worlds instead of a infantry support/tank destroyer split.
Change the pintle mount with a 40mm GMG and you’d have some decent capacity to clear houses by simply lobbing grenades through the windows. Changing the gun to a GL might even help with the 7.62′s main purpose, infantry supression. Blast effects from grenades would help in this regard and you would no longer need pinpoint accuracy with bullets, just blast the area.
@martin
Just a nit on David.
He actually used Goliath’s own sword to finish him off.
Does that mean we should steal our enemy’s MBTs?
to all:
might i remind everyone here that the Urban modifications that have been done to the Leopard 2 and the Abrams essentially make them infantry support tanks.
to Sven:
BAE is not corrupted by involvement with the US DoD. they established a separate enterprise in much the same way that General Dynamics did with its European division. both have been successful and both are doing a bristling business. KMW is a fabulous company but by my estimation they have not been as innovative as BAE or General Dynamics and BAE has outpaced GD by a large margin.
your call for a European solution to this is laughable. not because of a lack of expertise but because of a savage and massive decline in defense budgets. the only major armor projects occurring today are the GCV for the US Army, the ACV for the US Marines and the JLTV for all services. besides those programs you’re seeing mostly home grown defense projects. the idea that the EU would fund a 50 to 60 ton tank in this environment is hard to imagine. to be quite honest the issue really should be this. will the British Army be allowed to keep their tanks or will they follow some northern European countries and get rid of them all together.
AM I the only one who see’s no need for a new tank here. Tnak technoligy has barley moved since the 1970′s and it look set to stay at it’s current level for quite some time. Why waste any money on something we don’t needd when we have lots of things we do need to spend money on.
@martin,
I for one, never said anything about a “new” tank and neither have a lot of others. At worst, all we implied was to keep the Challenger.
@solomon
You misunderstand the defination of “infantry support tank” and “tank destroyer”. It’s not the armour levels, it’s the gun and usage doctrine for the platform. Even if the Leo2 got tricked up with Evo2 armour, it is still at heart a tank destroyer because of its sabot firing, tank killing main gun. Infantry support tanks tend to have fortification killing guns like the 120mm motar suggested above. Lots of blast, maybe not so much penetration.
Can’t see the west on a great tank charge in Africa. Because good tank country means gd plane country also and they win ever time. This has pushed mbts to urban environments. Do we need to remain some for that possibly. But driving them thru houses all I can say that’s likely to make you popular with the natives!!! Especially if you get the wrong one. Medium armour if we head there needs to be quicker to deploy or you may as well just go heavy not sure where that trade off point is. The us seem to be about to remove a number of there heavy forces and have some harsh words for the Bradley as is too heavy to manoeuvre. Not sure what the answer is I guess It’s what we want to do.
@Jed – I like you think that the majority of armoured formations should be manned by reserves. A small number of MBTs are needed to support expeditionary ops but we are not going to take part in mass invasions anytime soon…
In fact, with this in mind if we moved all our challengers into reserve and had a common MBT with our expeditionary buddies (French and Scandinavia) then we could share the development, support and logistical costs.
@ Repulse
In fact, with this in mind if we moved all our challengers into reserve and had a common MBT with our expeditionary buddies (French and Scandinavia) then we could share the development, support and logistical costs.
We would still need to buy a new tank then. Whats wrong with the ones we have? I would love to reap some sharing of support costs but surely these would pail in comparison with developing a joint tank or even jsut buying one of theres cause there is no way they would buy ours.
RE “reap some sharing of support costs”
- we have 3 models in service in the same family
- add the Buffalo equivalent and the infantry support version, and we’ll have five
… weren’t the engines already swapped to what FRES will have?
Jed,
As usual, an excellent guest article. Thank you for taking the time to write it. You’ve summed up the key issues well.
The contradiction I find hard to reconcile is that while armoured vehicles, unlike aircraft, are essential to hold ground, they are no longer invulnerable. Sure, it’s hard for insurgents equipped with light RPG7s to defeat Challenger 2, but if the advanced air power of a Russian or Chinese equipped army were to be unleashed upon us, we might discover that our tanks could be as easily toasted as the Iraqi T62s during Gulf War 1.
Since many of our potential our enemies still have sizeable tank formations we probably need to retain fairly substantial tank inventories so that we have a corresponding ability to engage them and take and hold ground. If we got involved in a serious shooting war, we might need larger numbers than we have. It is unlikely that we would reopen Challenger 2 production lines, so purchasing units from the USA or Germany seems likely.
As things stand, it seems probable that Challenger 2 fleet will soldier-on until the chassis components are worn out. I don’t see it being upgraded unless an urgent operational need dictates it. In the meantime, as you have already pointed out, to maintain a combat edge, we will need to develop new rifled 120 mm ammunition types or to move to a 120 mm smooth bore weapon. Since the latter option is likely to be less expensive and achieve commonality with our US, German and other allies, buying a German 120 mm seems to be the most likely future solution. Similarly, retrofitting a 120 mm smoothbore turret onto a Challenger 2 may also be more expensive than acquiring new Leopard 2A7s or M1A2s.
I don’t see any decision being made before 2020 or even later, when the USA and Germany develop replacements for the Leopard 2 and Abrams M1. I am sure we will want to piggy-back on their efforts.
The long-term question is whether new weapons technology favours an alternative vehicle type? New graphene-based carbon armour may invalidate existing tank gun types. Since graphene weighs one sixth the weight of steel but is 100 times stronger, we are likely to develop very light, very well-protected vehicles. It all hinges on the ability to fabricate graphene and other carbon-nanotube based materials in large quantities.
While we wait for the future to arrive, attack helicopters have proved to be highly effective tools. I wonder if assets like the Apache are the tank of tomorrow? Attack helicopters would be complemented by high mobility wheeled vehicles (with strategic mobility and superb cross-country performance) with the 8×8 infantry vehicle becoming the APC of tomorrow. You would attack with missile equipped helicopters and hold ground with dug-in infantry and ATGW missiles such as Javelin.
One particular aspect of future war scenarios is the speed with which assets can be deployed by helicopter and road. For all the benefits tanks provide, they are useless if they take too long to get stuck in.
So, my take is that we still need tanks but we need to complement their abilities with 8x8s. As I’ve said before, while we certainly need an 8×8 infantry vehicle, we also need an 8×8 gun platform which both the USA and Italy have developed for their medium armoured brigades.
1: No. The Challenger 2 is far superior, it would be a loss.
2: No. We should return to rifled cannons and try to make them NATO standard.
3: Yes. This big gun bug would be easily deployable to Afghanistan and would expand our heavy support capabilities.
4: I would consider having the Challenger platform able to take both it’s current tank gun OR the mortar & 40mm CTA, with only a day required to modify the tank for these armaments (I would like to see a tank gun/40mm capability).
5: I think having specialist variants as well as a multipurpose variant would be just grand.
IMHO: Reserve forces could very well handle the bulk of the MBT forces, we should work on a policy of continuous procurement to massively up our heavy/medium armour numbers, most of these would be stripped out and put in storage- ready for if we ever need take Beijing or Tehran.
Something else to think about, an Apache helicopter costs £35 million and a Challenger 2 around £4 million. So a regiment of tanks for the price of one attack helicopter. Good value for money?
The old saying that the only thing that beats a tank is another tank is no longer true. We all witnessed brimstone in action over Libya and ATGM are in use with most armies around the world. The next armour development must be something to divert/distract incoming missile. Paint that deflects lazers so they can not target them?
@Solomon:
“the only major armor projects occurring today are the GCV for the US Army, the ACV for the US Marines and the JLTV for all services.”
Those are not real projects, but boondoggles. The U.S. has attempted to replace Abrams and Bradley for two decades and fails routinely. GCV is just the latest iteration of that failure.
ACV: Three decades instead of two!
JLTV: About to be cancelled just like predecessors (remember the USMC RST Shadow thing?) simply because too many MRAPs are in service and JLTV has long since become a gold-plated MRAP.
The DoD pretends to have AFV development programs; in reality, they don’t. It’s just a taxpayer money sink, not actual creation of in-service fighting vehicles (MRAPs being transports).
Separate divisions in a multinational corporations mean little. Management personnel gets shifted around, and that’s the part that’s infected with failure.
Hi Jim,
China is busily upgrading their newest tanks (one and a half thousand of them) like this:
“Unveiled in 2006, the Type 96G featured a revised turret armor suite, visually similar to that of the Type 98/99 tanks, and a passive countermeasures system, which appeared similar to the Russian Shtora-1, used for jamming SACLOS anti-tank missiles, laser rangefinders and target designators”
Russia has their newest only in low hundreds – and funnily enough, is stationing them all in the Far East (wonder why?)
Forgot to go back and copy/paste the source, too:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/type-96.htm
Once again a fine article, Jed.
Before answering Question 2 (“Would you consider fitting the Jordanian designed Falcon turret to the Chally 2?”), I would need to know a lot more about the Falcon. Does anyone know about how effective it has proven to be? Its strengths and weaknesses? Is it in any way based upon the present Challenger turret, for example, or was it developed entirely independently? etc etc.
@Monty
“to maintain a combat edge, we will need to develop new rifled 120 mm ammunition types or to move to a 120 mm smooth bore weapon. Since the latter option is likely to be less expensive …”
Is there any evidence for that? I’m not challenging your assertion, Monty, merely asking whether anybody has done a comparative study of the likely costs.
@Phil Darley
“The psychological impact of the MBT cannot be overstated… A 60-70 tonne tank thundering down a street is one hell if a deterrent!”
Would certainly agree with that, Phil. Read somewhere that they were effective and imposed order in a recent conflict by merely standing at road junctions!
@jim
I seem to remember reading somewhere that an attack helicopter will destroy 16 times its value before getting shot down.
I’m sure it was something worked out in a simulation rather than examining records but I don’t find it too hard to believe, they’re fantastic pieces of kit.
Hi, SO.
The Humvee Recapitalization program has been cancelled in favour of funding the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, so unlikely to be cancelled also.
“1. If keeping MBT capability and given the well advertised problem with “re-gunning” the Chally 2 would you retire it and buy surplus Leopard II – yes/no”
Gut instinct is No.
I’d need to see a solid breakdown of the costs of rifle rounds, regunning the tank to 125 rifled (to allow for a 5mm sabbot to be fitted to 120mm smoothbore) and regunning to 120mm smoothbore.
But my gut screams the Chally2′s unique strength is its massive over armouring. Combined with its relative rarity, means that few weapons are capable of killing the thing. Lets face it, Anti Tank weapons are built to knock out T72′s, Leapards, Abrams, no ones going to design a weapon “just” to beat a Chally, because anyone who does is facing a significant weight and cost penelty for the far more likely fight.
Seems a shame to lose that advantage.
“2. If no to #1 above, would you consider fitting the Jordanian designed Falcon turret to the Chally 2 in order to get a smoothbore gun capable of handling NATO standard Ammo ? – yes / no”
Yes, but dont much about the turret, so maybe no
“3. Would you like to see gun armed medium weight tank destroyers as part of the MRB ? (e.g. 105mm armed FRES SV or wheeled vehicle like Centauro) – yes / no”
No.
To me, “medium” is a force made up of heavy and light, rather than a force made of 40t vehicles.
Is 105 even a reliable tank killer?
One shot one kill at 2km?
Or one shot one mission kill providing you hit the side armour at 250m?
“4. If we had above tank destroyers, or all 40mm CTA armed FRES carrying a pair of Javelin on the side of the turret (e.g. ample anti-tank provisions) would you consider turning the Challenger II into a specialist heavy infantry support tank with either a 40mm CTA or 120mm smooth bore mortar ? (could we even fit both ?) – yes / no”
Absolutly
120mm mortar, 40mm CTA and 120mm rifled.
“5. Do you think we should conceptually move back to less of multi-purpose heavyweight MBT to more specialist variants ? – Yes / no”
Yes.
Common chassis, with a variety of turrets
Commentry
I think the tank itself is in no danger, but the “armoured fist” concept is.
The “57″ Tank Regiment just seems bizare, more so given the time it was implemented.
Large scale tank on tank battles just seem impossible. When was the last one? 1971 India and Pakistan? 1974 Yom Kippur?
“Major” Tank Battles in the Gulf Wars were generaly small, squadron level engagements, and for all intents and purposes, Iraq could have swapped out its Tanks for Howizters.
Repeated today, a Tiffie pair, one with Brimstone, the other with ALARM could destroy an Iraqi tank squadron with little risk. The only defence the tanks could offer is dispersal and concealment, so realisticaly, will be looking at Tank Troops the next time?
RE “The DoD pretends to have AFV development programs; in reality, they don’t.”
- the fact is that the stuff they have now is quite good, and can still be improved (Abrams is going to go to 2040).
BB is probably right about Humvee/JLTV as the tail end of the Humvee production got cut off (it is not just about number of bdes being cut, but why have some brand new ones kicking about when the replacement is arriving soon)
Obsever:
i know very well what makes an infantry support tank and a tank destroyer and the gun is not even in the equation. the usage is a part of it but more important than both those is the doctrine of the user. who cares about an leopard 2 with evo armor? thats not an urban survivability kit. the leopard 2a7plus is. the Abrams Tusk kit is. and in that form they operate to support the infantry. the idea of tank destroyers was a misnomer from the very beginning. the idea that it takes a tank to destroy a tank makes tanks tank destroyers! to be quite honest a humvee loaded with tow missiles is a tank destroyer in the purist terms so your definitions need to be upgraded.
Sven:
you’e so far out in left field that to respond to you is simply a waste but i will anyway because it causes me joy to annoy you. the US programs dwarf anything germany will be doing in the next 3 decades. you live in a pacifist country that is no longer relevant on the world stage. my only worry is that your type thinking will infect those that still have the fire in the belly to charge out and protect those like you that refuse to do what is necessary to protect yourself.
quite honestly, a nation and a person that believes only in a miniscule military that is only capable of nation wide law enforcement duties (at best) IS HARDLY one to comment on something as far ranging as the US military’s programs. i would prefer that you sat in a corner quietly and observed how real nations (those outside of germany) do real work. homework assignment for you sven. read man in the arena.
Hi Mike W,
RE “would need to know a lot more about the Falcon”
- the Jordanians did a v good job (with Raytheon) putting the German (Swiss) 120mm smoothbore into their M60s
- the Falcon (for their Chally1s) is more controversial as the crew are all dropped down to hull level; technically I’m sure it will be competently handled, but how well will the concept work?
- equally keen as you to hear of any sources
@ACC
Well, thanks for that information, ACC.
“The Falcon … is more controversial as the crew are all dropped down to hull level”
Not sure I like the sound of that. The question is, as you say,”How well will the concept work?”
Anyone else know anything/
@ArmChairCivvy: the US did a “driver/commander/gunner in line in the hull” in the 90′s. I cannot find a specific link, but my information is that it didn’t work too well.
On the other hand, we’ve had nearly a decade of RWS like CROWS. I reckon remote turrets are becoming practical, even for MBT’s.
@solomon
I call bullshit on your assertation that just simply uparmouring a tank turns it into an infantry support tank, truth is you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about do you? Evo2 and TUSK are both simply programs to uparmour tanks for greater survivability despite not being MARKETED as urban survival kits and you do notice that when most of us are talking about infantry support, we ARE talking about changing the smoothbore to a motar? Most of us here understand that to change roles, you need a different gun for the role change. And it really is pretty stupid for you to be trying to argue for a redefinition of a near universally iintrnationally understood term to “solomon standard”. What next? You want to redefine S.I units? Change the value of the kg? Shorten the kilometer?
And I’m with S.O. There is absolutely no chance of any new project in the US currently getting approval to commence, much less be brought to term, in this current day of mass cost cuts. Makes you wonder why they chose to unveil it now when they almost have to know that it’s a forlorn hope. My guess is that they are desperate for funding and are throwing everything out in the hopes of a nibble of investment. Doubt anything will come out of the US in a decade or so save for projects in progress like the long suffering F-35 program. And about time too for that one.
Nationalism is all well and good, but blind nationalism is idiotic, it allows you to be easily fooled and makes you blind to weaknesses that could have been corrected.
@wf
Think you mean the MBT-70? The operators complain of nausea and that one was driver->turret.
@ACC
Commander in hull is fairly common now, that’s what the CROWs and RWSs are all about. Unmaned turrets, though it seems that application wise, only smaller calibres are being used. So I’d say it has a fair shot at being a sucess. Hull’s going to be a bit cramped though.
Ref: ACC; ” the US did a “driver/commander/gunner in line in the hull” in the 90′s. I cannot find a specific link, but my information is that it didn’t work too well.”
Wasn’t this due to disorientation due to trying to navigate and operate using only camera feeds? I seem to remember something about this from a doc of that era.
@Observer: no, this very much postdates MBT-70.
@Alan: I daresay you are right. Camera feeds in those days would have really crap fields of view. A niggling memory was that the commander found it disorienting to be looking in one direction while facing another. Why they didn’t just give him a rotating chair I don’t know
I did some digging and found this, I think it’s from future weapons.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?136454-will-this-replace-the-abrams
I think this is the thingy we’ve been going on about.
@wf
I just had the image of the TC playing on an office swivel chair.