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:

  1. 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. 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. 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. I say again,
  6. 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. Hello NVG_Goatman,

    this may answer your question regarding armament:

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

    There is more about Canadian tanks in Afghanistan here:


    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. "An armoured battle group training that focuses for preperation for operations in Afghanistan "MOD words not mine
  9. 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. If it was a viable strategy ,surely US would have some Abrams out there by now?
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.