The challenger 2 in Afghanistan

Should the army deploy the challenger 2?


  • Total voters
    23
#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.
 
#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 Leopard C2 tank allows us to reach out and touch the enemy with precision
direct fires to ranges of 4000 meters, nearly twice the effective range of the M242 25 mm
chain gun mounted on our LAV fleet. The Taliban choose not to fight us in the open
desert for obvious reasons. Rather, our enemy finds sanctuary in grape-drying huts and compounds with concrete-like walls measuring over a meter in thickness. Prior to the
deployment of the Leopard tank, massive volumes of 25 mm fire from the LAVs achieved
limited results against these structures, often requiring the BG to resort to the use of
aerial bombardment or risk the deployment of dismounted soldiers forward to affect a
breach with anti-tank weapons or demolitions. One 105 mm HESH round from the
Leopard C2 can punch a hole in excess of five by five meters through a grape-drying hut
or compound wall, penetrating structures with reduced collateral damage to surrounding
infrastructure and less risk to our dismounted soldiers. While the importance of infantry
in the fight-through and deliberate clearance of objective areas is irrefutable, it makes
little sense to send dismounted soldiers onto an enemy objective without first eliminating
known resistance from a distance with 105 mm HESH. The tank squadrons attached to
the TF 3-06 and TF 1-07 BGs have been able to kill numerous insurgents at ranges of
150-3800 meters while mitigating the exposure of our dismounted infantry soldiers to
enemy direct fire.
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
Mr_C_Hinecap said:
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.
"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?
 
#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
 
#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.
 
#16
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.
 
#17
tropper66 said:
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
We have only used Batus since 1970, before that we used the Western Desert in Libya, so why not, in forty years if we stay that long, we could build a railway from the sea, and all sorts of inferstructure
 
#18
Hello brownhat,

I don't know the reason for the Americans not sending Abrams to Afghanistan but a flat bottom,torsion bar suspension and gas turbine engine are not qualities I would want to see on a tank in the Afghan theatre.
Or anywhere else for that matter.


tangosix.
 
#19
NVG_Goatman said:
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.
I recall reading the same thing said of the sierra leone west side 'boys'. It's a cultural thing, that when authority coimes from the barrel of a gun, rather than the ballot box, it's the guy with the biggest gun who gets the respect.

It's up to the military to deal with military matters and the job of the politicians to deal with the political issues. Currently we seem to be restricting the options of the mil commanders for the sake of the political fortunes of the labour party.
 
#20
This could be one hot debate, for a start mines, is there a system in place on Ch2 for defeating mines exploding on the underbelly of the tank?

Apologies for what may seem a silly question but I have no knowledge of tanks, just that they're bigggg and scaryyyy and when you see one runnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!