The challenger 2 in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by cowen1966, Aug 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

?

Should the army deploy the challenger 2?

  1. Yes

    82.7%
  2. No

    17.3%
  1. cowen1966
    Offline

    cowen1966

    Many officers who were out on operations in Iraq commented on the fact that whilst it was amazing to see an apache above you, they almost always would rather see the chally 2. I realize that both the canadians and the Dutch have their leopard tanks there already, however they don't have the same ability to take the hammering that the chally does. There was a report from Iraq that 1 challenger 2 took 11 IED hits in 5 km. My question is should we deploy them?
  2. NVG_Goatman
    Offline

    NVG_Goatman Old-Salt

    My only question would be with regards to the main armament. For the purposes of spanking compounds, wouldn't an AFV with a smaller, faster firing weapon be more suited?

    Warrior seems to be doing alright doesnt it?
  3. tropper66
    Offline

    tropper66

    As I posted a few days ago , Why are they training battle groups at BATUS with Afghan civilians, for it would seem deployment in Afghanistan
  4. The only reason we haven't is lack of money, logistical support in theatre and strategic lift. In other words, underfunding. Nothing, but nothing beats having a mobile fortress stuffed full of good optics and a big gun following you.

    Also bear in mind that the Canadians reversed their decision to abandon the MBT as a result of ops in AFG. They made a rush buy of Leo 2 for immediate use and are moving ahead with a more measured procurement for the medium to long term. No doubt someone from the Labour Party or a senior officer covering their backs will be along to explain how this cannot possibly be relevant to UK Ops.

    I know the Germans haven't taken any but I'd lay money the Heer asked to; we'll see about the US, they have an awful lot of Abrams awaiting depot work following Iraq.
  5. tropper66
    Offline

    tropper66

    I say again,
  6. Mr_C_Hinecap
    Offline

    Mr_C_Hinecap LE

    Medicine Man exercises are needed to maintain tank capabilities. Assed to those exercises have been specialist training based around a future deployment to Afghanistan. You can train for both you know tropper.
  7. tangosix
    Offline

    tangosix LE

    Hello NVG_Goatman,

    this may answer your question regarding armament:

    The quote is taken from this document which is well worth reading:

    http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf

    There is more about Canadian tanks in Afghanistan here:

    http://www.cdfai.org/bergenarticles/Canadian tank squadrons success in Afghanistan goes untold.pdf


    tangosix


    Edited to add the logistical burden of a tank squadron compares well with that of even a single fast jet used for close air support.
  8. tropper66
    Offline

    tropper66

    "An armoured battle group training that focuses for preperation for operations in Afghanistan "MOD words not mine
  9. SkiCarver
    Offline

    SkiCarver LE

    is there also an argument that terry will waste explosives against the challenger 2 which then cannot be used against softer targets? Perhaps unsettleing for the chally crews, but a valuble service for the team?
  10. brownhat
    Offline

    brownhat LE

    If it was a viable strategy ,surely US would have some Abrams out there by now?
  11. tropper66
    Offline

    tropper66

    Maybe the powers that be are going to post the whole Army to Afghanistan, close Batus and use Helmand instead, hundreds of Challys swaning around blasting the place to shite, massive new camp at Bastion with MQs Swiming pools cinemas. New International Airport ect
    Well if we are going to be there for the next forty years
    • Like Like x 2
  12. NVG_Goatman
    Offline

    NVG_Goatman Old-Salt

    I suppose there's always "shock and awe".

    I know a chap who's recollection of Afghanistan people was that they were very centred upon the size of the weapon carried. A patrol with WMK+HMGs would be regarded completely differently to one with Snatch+Rifles, as though a 5.56mm hole in a person would be less troublesome than a 12.7mm hole.

    As well as T6's breaching point and Ski's 'Taking one for the team', I guess the Chally would also be a great big visible, "Look what we've got. Bet you wish you had one of these, eh?"

    Terry might think twice about hand-delivering a kilo of cemtex if he knows that all it's going to acheive is a muffled thump a slightly discerned crew.
  13. duffdike
    Offline

    duffdike

    Half the problem is all the governments involved are now choking on their own propoganda. Once we commit tanks people will inevitably ask who the enemy is and why we are there. Any notion of nation building or the other cliches of the day will be exposed for what they are - blatant lies.
  14. Dollsteeth
    Offline

    Dollsteeth LE

    Possibly as a large proportion of British forces contact areas would not be viable for Chal2 ?

    There are obvious exceptions but I think that perhaps to justify such a large vehicle, the logistics required to move it long distances (the risk within that move) the logistics required to maintain the vehicle and a theatre where in several places CAS and Arti support is quite freely available there has to be more significant gains then the fact that it has a large gun and is quite imposing (apologies to all tankies out there I know it is more then that but you get what I mean)
  15. Yeoman_dai
    Offline

    Yeoman_dai LE

    tropper I think you've rather missed the point, and have become rather flippant. The point is that large scale tank manouvres need practise over and over - they run the afghan training alongside this. It doesn't mean (unfortunatly IMHO) that CH2 is going to Herrick.

    Also, nobody is suggesting driving around afghan blowing everything up? At the end of the day, MBT's have been found useful on ops in that very country, so someone suggested that they would be useful? Why would you disagree, you can't even play the 'its in the past it'll never happen again' card because clearly other nations are finding them perfect for certain jobs - notwithstanding the many other roles that have been suggested here.



    IMO I'd agree with one of the strange - its cost and the difficulty of transfer that is keeping them here - plus, in a more cynical mood, that the govt doesn't want MBT's out there, because then the public would be even more against the conflict due to the 'holy sh!t they've had to send tanks' effect - an effect that warrior and CVRT doesn't have.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Current Affairs, News and Analysis MoD kept failure of Challenger quiet May 13, 2007
Current Affairs, News and Analysis Why so long to acknowledge Challenger casualty? Apr 23, 2007
Current Affairs, News and Analysis Challenger 2 damaged in Iraq Apr 23, 2007
Current Affairs, News and Analysis Brown will face PM challengers May 13, 2006
Current Affairs, News and Analysis Afghanistan: Britain got almost everything wrong and should admit its failure Apr 7, 2014

Share This Page