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 (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.
Yet again the death of the tank is announced.
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 . . .
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?
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.
QuoteI 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 :D
Quote from: John Cook on 26 August 2020, 01:47:52 PM
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
Quote from: Orcs on 26 August 2020, 05:10:05 PM
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...
Quote from: toxicpixie on 26 August 2020, 02:09:36 PM
...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
Quote from: ianrs54 on 26 August 2020, 08:54:42 AM
Yet again the death of the tank is announced.
I must say I did think about Task Force Smith
Quote from: paulr on 26 August 2020, 07:25:51 PM
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.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 26 August 2020, 08:54:56 PM
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?
Quote from: Orcs on 26 August 2020, 05:10:05 PM
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).
Quote from: toxicpixie on 26 August 2020, 02:09:36 PM
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 :D
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.
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?
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 :D 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...
Pretty much yes..
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 :o
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.
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 :)
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 :D
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.
Quote from: toxicpixie on 27 August 2020, 10:21:02 AM
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.
Maybe we should be replacing them with Mobile Drone Platforms supported by lighter armoured vehicles (a la aircraft carrier fleets). Then they can launch a swarm of drones at short notice to respond to the tactical situation on the ground (recon, attack, defense...).
Of course, drones are still pretty big....so that's likely a while off.
We just need to get on with inventing those massive airships of anime/comic fame.
Another article
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/challenger-2-the-wrong-tank-for-the-british-army/
Quote from: mmcv on 27 August 2020, 10:48:40 AM
Maybe we should be replacing them with Mobile Drone Platforms supported by lighter armoured vehicles (a la aircraft carrier fleets). Then they can launch a swarm of drones at short notice to respond to the tactical situation on the ground (recon, attack, defense...).
Of course, drones are still pretty big....so that's likely a while off.
We just need to get on with inventing those massive airships of anime/comic fame.
That's a possibility that's been mentioned. Blimps are making a serious comeback for a wide variety of uses and some are already doing that (for "security" and surveillance); it's probably great in COIN ops and low key warfare but in contested airspace I suspect even with all the stealth in the world they'd get nobbled. Maybe not, if you put a lot of effort into the air supremacy arena (more drones to protect the drones!), but...
You can get drones and RPVs in lots of sizes - from Predators down to "toy" ones that have seen extensive combat use; I suspect they'll be brilliant force multipliers and a superb addition to the military tool kit but again just like the attack helicopter made the tank redundant, and the ATGW did, and tanks made infantry obsolete, and artillery and the machine gun and the smart missile means no need for combat infantry, and... they won't remove the need for a heavy armoured, heavy gunned platform with an experienced crew/commander up on the front lines.
Flamingpig0 - interesting that an article from 2018 rehashes the same argument we had thirty years earlier and comes to the same conclusion :D Midn you it's written by one the people responsible for that conclusion, so I guess it's much the same!
I suppose the key point is what role does the UK see itself playing post Brexit, and will tanks be needed in that role? If so where will the money come from, as many people say that the economy has been wrecked by the decision to leave the EU?
Cheers
Ian
I'm worried that Nobby hasn't posted in this thread.
Do you think he's in shock ?
Cheers - Phil
No - as far he is concerend the last British tank retired in the early 80's
Somebody want to link me to all the great Viet Nam war tank battles? Which tanks do Isis use? Remind me of the success of tanks in Ulster?
There were several tank actions in the final year of the Veinam war, North using T55 and its clones, South a mix of M48 and M41.
Isis have used a variety of ex-Soviet Tanks as well as a number of M1's captured from the Iraqi's.
I don't think western troops have faced them on the ground but heavy armour has proved consistently useful in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nothing multiplies a force like a 60t MBT.
There were a few Centurions used in Operation Motorman to clear no-go areas in Belfast and Derry. But thankfully tanks weren't used too much.
I like the 'old' Chally 2. I understand it has the reputation for being the most heavily armoured western tank. It certainly did well for young Guy along the road when his tank drove into Basra, got hit by RPGs, 'rocked' and moved on. A BAE(?)/ Rheinmetall partnership is currently bidding for the Chally life extension programme contract, recently releasing a very tasting looking video of a Chally 2 with a new turret mounting a new 130 mm smoothbore gun - a gun that may start to replace the ubiquitous 120mm gun in time. But in my heart I know it is not going to happen due to fiscal constraints.
And that is the main driver for doing away with tanks, not their tactical usefulness. If going into a fight in Europe (and better to fight there than in our own streets and fields), we would rather have a tank in support than not at all. With their joint future tank programme, Germany and France appear to see a need for tanks. Also interesting why the Dutch sold all their tanks but now have a squadron in a German tank battalion. Perhaps it's because you don't need a ship to travel from Moscow to Berlin.
There is no doubt that armoured warfare tactics and the nature of 'tanks' themselves must evolve to meet the challenges of the ever more complicated modern battlefield. Whilst waiting for the Germans, French & Yanks to figure out the shape of future armoured warfare, if we do away with ours, I think we should retain the RTR (even if only in squadron strength), with a few Challies in the meantime as an armoured warfare training and study unit. After all, even if you don't have them, you may still have to fight agin 'em. But what do I know? I'm just a Horse & Musket man.
Eminently sensible - I can keeping a "training cadre" at maybe battalion strength as part of the Royal Armoured Corps - probably integrated in the US Army, given current issues? Unless Johnson elevates any more Russian mafiosa into the Lords in which case we could integrate with them instead :D
Maybe test drive Armata assuming it's not still vapourware ;)
Quote from: Sandinista on 29 August 2020, 01:01:02 AM
I suppose the key point is what role does the UK see itself playing post Brexit, and will tanks be needed in that role?
Cheers
Ian
The special relationship of being 5th wheel to the USA whichever faction wins out in November.
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 29 August 2020, 05:30:34 PM
The special relationship of being 5th wheel to the USA whichever faction wins out in November.
I think that relationship is more special to the UK than it is to the USA, especially as they have lost their ease of access to the EU - both politically and economically.
Cheers
Ian
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/key-armenia-tank-losses-sensors-not-shooters
The end is nigh?
I seem to remember that the Russian doctrine uring the coldwar, was to put old tanks (T34's) into storage rather than dispose of them. Because in an all out war with NATO they expected to loose most if not all of their Frontline armour in removing the Nato tanks. However after they had done this they expected NATO to be very very short on Armoured Vehicles and A/T weapons.
When that happened the average squaddie had nothing to effectively stop any tank and they would roll up the unsupported infantry with T34's
We did the same with the Cents when Cheiftains came in, and kept upgrading them too
Israel rolled out its old Sherman's in '73 which had been upgraded. Used behind cents m48s and m60s.
Quote from: Orcs on 08 October 2020, 08:58:00 AM
I seem to remember that the Russian doctrine uring the coldwar, was to put old tanks (T34's) into storage rather than dispose of them. Because in an all out war with NATO they expected to loose most if not all of their Frontline armour in removing the Nato tanks. However after they had done this they expected NATO to be very very short on Armoured Vehicles and A/T weapons.
When that happened the average squaddie had nothing to effectively stop any tank and they would roll up the unsupported infantry with T34's
Apparently during the Ogaden war in the eighties the Ethiopian had an allied T34 contingent from South Yemen - list writers note!
Quote from: Matt J on 08 October 2020, 09:25:02 AM
Israel rolled out its old Sherman's in '73 which had been upgraded. Used behind cents m48s and m60s.
Not quite Matt, the Jordanians had Cents and M48's - so to avoid blue on blue kills the Isralies used their M51's.
As others say, everyone quietly mothballed their kit in readiness.
OFC all those Soviet follow on troops might have a little difficulty in reaching Western Europe as most of NATO's warplans essentially involved glassing them and the transport links on the outbreak of war, and any that did manage to roll in would likely be facing reserve AMX-75's, Centurion/Comet, M48/46 etc from NATO's equally as large if more quietly not mentioned reserves. Assuming they were also weren't glowing gently/had more bacteria and chemicals than a late night donner kebab ;)
That's an interesting read - poor practise doesn't help (see Turkish Leo2 losses as well as the Armenians), but it looks like "off the shelf" tech has caught up to where NATO thought it was over the Warpac in the 80's - we know what you're doing and where, we can listen to you and redirect you, you can't hide and you can't run, and 'cos you're a generation behind you can't respond...
Interesting conclusion on the future of the tank - no one at all can hide, infantry, light AFV's, helicopters or drones, so maybe stealth as well as you can and load up on the armour and defensive systems and hope enough of you are well enough dispersed and then fast enough to concentrate to take/hold the ground... which sounds like heavy mech forces in the sort of "heavy IFV" based on tank chassis and heavier tanks prioritising active & passive defences with attached and integral EWO and AAA out the wazoo...
I'm off to dust off my Space Marines and Land Raiders, got to talk to a man from the MOD ;)
Ian
Sherman's called up by Isreal because of high attrition of cents and m60s in the Sinai.
Jordan involvement barely token in '73 and there was an agreement for Jordanian Isreali forces to avoid each other.