End of the tank in the British Army?

[flamingpig0]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/debate-is-it-time-to-scrap-britain-s-tanks-or-are-armed-forces-being-eviscerated/ar-BB18mc71?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

Seems odd considering we invented the things.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Yet again the death of the tank is announced.

[Raider4]

Aye. But we only have 3 regiments of the things (according to Wikipedia) and I expect they're getting expensive to keep going.

I expect the story's really a bit of sabre-rattling by those anxious to keep their budget for next year.

Warrior's for the chop as well apparently, which does surprise me more. Boots on the ground are always needed, and a safe way of transporting these would seem to be no-brainer.

Mind you, when you've got boots on the ground, I expect an enormous, armoured mobile gun would be a very useful thing to have around to support them . . .

[toxicpixie]

Every time the doctrinal & technological death of the tank is announced, it somehow turns out that a massive incredibly hard to kill gun on a go anywhere platform is actually very handy, as is getting infantry around in a similar (ish) vehicle.

Of course this time it's being killed for ideological reasons - I'm sure we can outsource the Army better than it can be run in public hands, eh?

[John Cook]

The demise of the tanks has been predicted a few times over the years. 

The thing is you need to have sufficient numbers, and they to be survivable on the modern battlefield, which is increasingly difficult, and reliable.  Challenger was never really the latter. 

I can remember the argument in the late 1980s for adopting the M1 Abrahms, which was won but discounted on political grounds.  The need to maintain a defence industry to provide employment was more important that providing the army with the kit it needed.  Same story with the L85/SA80.

Our potential enemies have tanks still, and every serious war we have taken part in in my life time, except the Falklands which was atypical, has needed tanks.

[toxicpixie]

I can remember the argument in the late 1980s for adopting the M1 Abrahms, which was won but discounted on political grounds.  The need to maintain a defence industry to provide employment was more important that providing the army with the kit it needed.  Same story with the L85/SA80.

No bugger ever believes me when I say the Army wanted the Abrams!

If Chally 2 doesn't get it's LEP program and is ditched... I wonder if we'll end up begging the Yanks for leftover M1's or the Germans for spare Leo 2's in a couple of years time...

Mind you, I suppose if we have no Challengers we'll have as many as the Russians have working Armata

[Orcs]

Our potential enemies have tanks still, and every serious war we have taken part in in my life time, except the Falklands which was atypical, has needed tanks.

Even the Falklands had teh Scimitar and Scorpian light AFVS. Not quite tanks I suppose

[toxicpixie]

Even the Falklands had teh Scimitar and Scorpian light AFVS. Not quite tanks I suppose

Intended to deal with the Panhard armoured cars the Argentinians deployed but kept in Stanley.

Were mostly used as cargo transport IIRC but did provide some direct fire support and were a "fleet in being" as it were.

If you look at it purely on a monetary basis then the MBT fleet is a white elephant, they've only seen "proper" action twice for brief periods since the end of WW2.

That of course completely ignores that any likely military opposition has MBTs - even if they're at least a generation behind even current Chally let alone post refurb or a new tank (Or are vapourware). We don't need 'em, bin 'em reminds me of the '20s, and given other unpleasant parallels to the next decade atm I suspect we'll be in Chamberlains shoes in five years trying to undo the damage whilst saying "good dog" as we search for a big stick...

[paulr]

...If Chally 2 doesn't get it's LEP program and is ditched... I wonder if we'll end up begging the Yanks for leftover M1's or the Germans for spare Leo 2's in a couple of years time...

Not sure where you'll find experienced crew to man them after even a couple years

How many times have we heard accounts of 'peace keeping' situations being defused by the arrival of a tank, let alone the limitations imposed on the other side by there possible appearance

[flamingpig0]

Yet again the death of the tank is announced.

I must say I did think about Task Force Smith

[toxicpixie]

Not sure where you'll find experienced crew to man them after even a couple years

How many times have we heard accounts of 'peace keeping' situations being defused by the arrival of a tank, let alone the limitations imposed on the other side by there possible appearance

Yes, The arrival of 60t of lethal, incredibly hard to kill metal is a great way to make people pause and reconsider their life choices

Experienced troops. Pish, that's a money pit. Just jam 'em in and the Blitz Spirit will sort 'em out.

I'm sure we can borrow some experience from G4S or what ever Blackwater is called that week.

[hammurabi70]

Yes, The arrival of 60t of lethal, incredibly hard to kill metal is a great way to make people pause and reconsider their life choices

Especially if young mothers carrying babies.

I should have thought that the development of RPV technology is putting a lot of such kit under pressure as they significantly change the shape of the modern battlefield.  The difficulty is to justify a multi-million pound expenditure when an inexpensive weapon can disable the kit.  Given the price tag, if the Army do keep any perhaps they can get a cheap deal for a few hundred of the American 10,000 tank fleet, or if they have to buy European some inexpensive Leopards. The main worry seems to be that attacks in the future will be indirect rather than a straight frontal assault.  Mind you, my bank account may be at risk to a cyber-hack but I still have a lock on my stout front door.  But then I think the latest A/Cs are suspect; why not get a few cheap container ships and convert them to launch RPV aircraft and rescue helicopters?

[John Cook]

Even the Falklands had teh Scimitar and Scorpian light AFVS. Not quite tanks I suppose

You are absolutely right but these are not MBT, they are reconnaissance vehicles (CVRT).   

[John Cook]

No bugger ever believes me when I say the Army wanted the Abrams!

If Chally 2 doesn't get it's LEP program and is ditched... I wonder if we'll end up begging the Yanks for leftover M1's or the Germans for spare Leo 2's in a couple of years time...

Mind you, I suppose if we have no Challengers we'll have as many as the Russians have working Armata

It was certainly the tank of choice to replace Challenger 1.  I remember attending a briefing about the army's future MBT at Bulford in about 1987, or thereabouts, and it was really a choice between the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 with the M1 the preferred option.  I don't think Challenger 2 even existed as a concept then.  I've no idea what the army's view is now, on a Challenger 2 replacement. 

The thing about MBTs is what kind of warfighting do you expect the army to do in the future. 

[Orcs]

Did we not get Challenger 1 on the basis that due to the Shah of Iran being deposed we had an export order sitting spare?

[toxicpixie]

Yes we did, they paid the money and we kept the tanks (although that's also tied with Chieftain?) - we agreed we owe them the cash in court, and then went "nyaaaaah you're not getting it!". It's allegedly now tied up with Nazanin Ratcliffe, who the Iranians have indicated they'd be happy to release if only we paid what we owe...

Hammurabi - yes, the whole drone/"any pleb can kill a tank" argument is why it looks a very cheap option to ditch them. However, they're still astonishingly useful, when well crewed and employed they're actually very difficult to kill without a similar generation MBT to do it (those Leo2's the Turks keep losing are due to terrible usage - plonking a tank company unsupported in the middle of nowhere and then nodding off for a few hours is a Bad Tactical Decision). Drones and RPV's don't yet have the capacity to be as useful or as protected on the ground...

Air wise it's a bit different - I see an AI pilot has just racked up a five-nil kill ratio against a USAF Fighter Combat School instructor (albeit under rather strict operating parameters), but much of that capacity is going into augmenting the *pilots* and taking the cognitive load of flying the plane and juggling threats and systems off them so they fight their aircraft and retain situational awareness etc without wondering if they left the gas on, as it were

John, I think Vickers as was had been privately doing some work on what would become Challenger 2 a year or two before that - how much was "we'd like to sell someone a shiny new money pit" and how much was "here's a solid design and a schedule for a prototype" I have no idea As to what kind of warfighting we expect? About the only thing we can say is that however we prepare to fight the last, or indeed current, war, the next one won't be the same.

Judging by the Army's official statements & off the record mumblings they want a/ a new, current plus generation MBT, but b/ will settle for a fifteen year extension on Challenger 2's capability life as long as they get the new tank when it runs out...

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Pretty much yes..

[Big Insect]

Maybe it is time for a major rethink ... blue-sky ... out of the box.

Driver-less armoured vehicles are already with us - the Israelis are using them to patrol their borders
Of course they are not fully autonomous as they have a 'crew' back at base - same as a Cruise missile has an operator - but with the current driver-less tech advancing rapidly it is all heading towards a 'drone-tank' that only needs to defend/protect itself not its crew.

It might lead to a concept of a 'throw-away' MBT - cheaper to produce, fast, lower weight and armour - really just a fast moving semi-autonomous weapons platform.

Are we 'wedded' to the concept of a tracked or wheeled heavily armoured 'tank' when the reality of the modern and near-future battlefield has made it obsolete?
Grav is not quite with us yet - but there is always that old fashioned (1960s) hover approach 

I am aware that these are all options being researched and considered - but whether by the MoD I cannot confirm.
It could carry its own aeriel-drone defence capabilities and will have an incredibly low profile (for am MBT) ... but is it a 'Tank'?

Mark

Of course we will need an APC/AFV replacement though to put those much needed boots on the ground as well.

[Ithoriel]

Fleets of expensive, heavily armoured IFVs protected by swarms of cheap AI weapons platforms and covered by their own (mini?) UAVs?

IFVs carrying mini drones in the same way battleships carried seaplanes?

Armoured, networked infantry with HUD helmets and smart weapons?

And if they ever clash in a major war, the one following fought with clubs and rocks?

I hope to not live in "interesting times" nor to come to the attention of important people

[toxicpixie]

Guardium? Yes, that's a very interesting bit of kit and may well be the future... BUT there's the usual problems - deployed against a vastly inferior enemy in a secure battlespace remote operation is great, as is when you have a great response speed and local knowledge. What's likely to be less great is when you're against an at tier adversary who has already shown their ability to own your electronic battlespace. You may find the enemy owns your combat forces... or even in the first situation, you may find your drones wander off and commit a few atrocities off their own bat, accidentally, and broadcast the lot to everyone listening...

For response in combat and interarms cooperation nothing actually beats the tank commander sticking his head out and talking to the troops on foot, and nothing much beats an MBT for sheer ground combat potential.

Hover motive systems aren't in the running, wheeled are good in many ways but for serious heavy metal tracks still edge it (maintenance not withstanding...). "Grav Drive" is even less likely than room temperature fusion power

I suspect an integrated combat team with (semi) autonomous weapons platforms (or "MBT" drone with one heavily protected crewmember could be made pretty small in comparison to a full four crew, big protected turret vehicle) alongside with infantry with more drones and smaller support platforms, in a similar "minimal operator" AFV/drone vehicle with yet more integrated drone control/recharge/launching capacity would give the best of both worlds. But we're not there yet...

Whatever the MoD may want is pretty irrelevant compared to what an ideologically driven government is doing to their budgets. If the contractors convince their tame MPs to bump them the funds they'll get whatever looks profitable, if they don't they'll get squeezed into whatever crumbs are decided can be spared. And the wheels of military procurement drive slowly at the best of times; it won't be until it was needed in anger six months ago that anything starts to be done.

We're a long way from OGRE/BOLO or even Hammers Slammers, I think. OFC it might be tanks and combat infantry et al are the battleship of 1940, and are about to be relegated to expensive luxuries with minimal combat applications, but I doubt it.