Tweet
The Curator of the Bovington Tank Museum mentioned in one of his recent videos https://youtu.be/8vDdOgG5CTct=285 the Brits are going ahead with a Challenger 2 major upgrade on the turret. The idea of getting rid of tanks is just a brain fart by those who would rather spend the money on arts and social programs.
-
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudorem -
One thing I know; I am getting VERY resentful of NATO partners not spending even 2% on their military and depending on the US to save them in the next war.
The thing that really worries me is that I know I am not alone. Sooner or later, if these trends continue of our foreign partners just letting their militaries degrade to ineffectiveness, then the US is just going to say your on your own. NATO will exclusively become European. It is also going to lead to nuclear proliferation. I mean really, what do you think Poland or the Baltic States are going to do. Wait for Russia to reassert its traditional territory borders All you need to do is look at how Russia is nibbling away at Ukraine to see the long term goals and trends.Last edited by mpipes; 09-08-2020, 07:21 PM.Comment
-
I feel too that the focus on Europe has made some of those countries shortsighted. While they may think Russia is not a "current" threat, China is a cause for concern.
While those countries might never directly get into a conventional war with China, they might need to go to the aid of an ally in the region. So having a military with good abilities for conventional war is a useful deterrent - you want to negotiate from strength, not from "We can get tank production online 10 months after the war starts".Comment
-
If they think they can just get rid of tanks one year and then have a tank force the next year, they will end up with a rude awakening. A viable tank force takes years to build up. If they get rid of tanks now, it will most assuredly leave the UK as a third tier land army for years. They may never recover. They have already slashed the fighter force to absurdly low levels. So 25 years from now, what do they do if Argentina annexes the Falklands Or if Spain finally seizes Gibraltar Lodge a strong diplomatic protest or just wave bye byeComment
-
It was an idea put out by the mandarins in the British MOD to save money due to the economic impact of the virus.
The MOD has been taken for a ride a few times by the spivs working for British defence contractors such as with Nimrod and the Airbus tanker aircraft leasing deal. The accountants in the MOD are also notoriously tight about spending money. Just ask the Royal Navy who had to make due with warships that were far to small for their purpose for years because the MOD believed that extra steel meant extra money.
Upgrading the Challenger 2 is not really that expensive in the scheme of current British defence programmes. In the worst case scenario some tanks might be transferred to the Territorials and kept in readiness until they are needed. The Challenger 2 is sort of a deterrent in its own right to the likes of Russia. Its the most powerful tank ever built although other countries would dispute that fact. In reality it could take on five or more Russian and Chinese tanks and win.Comment
-
Devil's Advocate:
The idea has merit.
People have noted for a long time that tanks are becoming too specialised and are heading full speed for The Battleship Paradox (this is where an asset is worth too much to risk).
What is it that a tank is supposed to do
Well, it's there to rapidly move and supply the heavy hitting power. However as the Nazis discovered in The Second World War tank-heavy formations have little use, they had to increase their infantry component and decrease the tank component . The big problem is that APCs/IFVs don't have the protection ability of an MBT and can't survive in their environment. The very reason the tank is there, to take ground so the infantry can hold it, doesn't work if the enemy can slaughter your battlefield taxis with over-the-horizon munitions.
So the problem isn't that tanks are vulnerable, that pendulum is always swinging, but that they can't fulfill the role of getting the infantry there any more.Comment
-
Days of Future Past
Devil's Advocate to Devil's Advocate
So if APCs and IFVs are obsolescent, thereby rendering MBTs anachronistic, are we headed back to the days of relatively static trench warfare How is infantry supposed to move around the modern battlefield Despite advances in personal body armor, infantry on foot are still extremely fragile. In a peer adversary conflict, helicopters are way more vulnerable than APCs and IFVs.
-Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-moduleComment
-
Lets see....APCs and IFVs are now obsolete. Tanks are too specialized. So all wars now are to be fought by drones, aircraft, and infantry
My my..... Patton and Guderian are weeping and rolling in their graves.Comment
-
There will ALWAYS be a need for a "battlefield bully". It my not have tracks or a 120mm gun, but it will still be mobile, protected and carry a shitload of firepower.
AKA, a tank in one form or another.If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudoremComment
-
Hungary for Armor
Are reports of the death of the IFV premature Hungary recently placed an order for Lynx IFVs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(...ghting_vehicle)
According to Wikipedia, Australia, the Czech Republic, and the US are looking at it too.
-Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-moduleComment
-
And regardless of whether Australia decides to buy the Lynx, there are two points to consider: -Originally posted by Raellus View Post
1. Australia wants to replace aging APCs with newer vehicles and those vehicles could be APCs or IFVs
2. Lynx was not the only vehicle for consideration, another IFV was shortlisted as well, the Korean K21
All of which means that some countries still see a need for IFVs in the military.
If you have IFVs, then you will probably want a vehicle to support them when their own armament isn't enough firepower to get the job done. Something with better armament and better protection, something which regardless of wheels or tracks, is pretty much a tank.Comment
-
The only time NATO's article 5 was invoked was when America asked for help in Afghanistan and NATO lived up to it's commitments. Let's cut the hyperbole about America saving Europe thankyou very much.Originally posted by mpipes View Post
Secondly the Crimean conflict arose from the EU's interference in Ukraine and the possible risk to the continued use of Crimean black sea ports so the Russians moved into secure those ports and destabilise a potential threat.
Now I'm not saying the Russians are the good guys or not a credible threat but they have been a credible threat since the great game of the mid 19th century. However Russia isn't bloody stupid, they got away with Ukraine due to very specific circumstances. They will continue to do what they do best and fight proxy wars, looking when and where to stir things up to their best advantage such as we saw in Syria.
As for Britain phasing out tanks, I think it's a matter of cost. Britain post-covid is basicly broke right now, we can't afford to upgrade the Challies. I wouldn't be surprised if we sell one of the QE class carriers over the next few years to be honest.
I can't say I agree with the decision but I do understand it. Classic government blindness, we have thought counter insurgency for the last 2 decades so we will always fight counter insurgency. This thinking was an indirect cause for the Falklands war back in 1982.
The lessons of Syria have been conveniantly ignored. We relied on politics and air power while Russia put boots on the ground and front line equipment in Assad's hands. Russia won.
The west will regret the trend to favour aviation and counter-insurgency warfare but it won't be in the Baltics we get our arse handed to us.Comment
-
FWIW the British Government is now denying it plans to scrap all of its tanks
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United KingdomComment
-
Of course, PR nightmare.Originally posted by Rainbow Six View PostFWIW the British Government is now denying it plans to scrap all of its tanks
https://news.sky.com/story/defence-s...tanks-12069861
They will continue to phase out Challies in favour of "light cavalry". My prediction will be a token force in the form of one armoured brigade built around the RTR with the rest of the British army either infantry or the new fangled "light cavalry".Comment
-
The whole idea of scrapping the tanks did NOT come from official sources. Was NEVER official policy, or even being seriously considered.If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudoremComment
Comment