Boats, planes and Trains (and Tanks) CR2
Discussion
With the recent rumours of the Challenger 2 and Warrior fleets being put into mothballs in their entirety, what are people’s views on this?
On one hand I can appreciate the need to bolster our cyber/space defences, particularly in light of threats from the Russians and Chinese - state backed or otherwise. However, on the other hand if it came to good old fashioned fisty-cuffs we would be leaving our troops horribly exposed without any heavy armour support and relying solely on CAS or our international partners to provide this shortfall. Furthermore, Ajax APCs have no offensive weaponry.
Personally, the geek in me would love to see a 130mm Rheinmetall turreted CR2 outfitted with a new powerpack and Black Knight sensor suite, however given the constraints in military spending I can’t see any part of that happening.
Do you think scrapping our heavy armour is a good idea, or shortsighted?
On one hand I can appreciate the need to bolster our cyber/space defences, particularly in light of threats from the Russians and Chinese - state backed or otherwise. However, on the other hand if it came to good old fashioned fisty-cuffs we would be leaving our troops horribly exposed without any heavy armour support and relying solely on CAS or our international partners to provide this shortfall. Furthermore, Ajax APCs have no offensive weaponry.
Personally, the geek in me would love to see a 130mm Rheinmetall turreted CR2 outfitted with a new powerpack and Black Knight sensor suite, however given the constraints in military spending I can’t see any part of that happening.
Do you think scrapping our heavy armour is a good idea, or shortsighted?
I think that we find ourselves in a similar argument with the "introduction" of cyber as a domain of warfare as we did when the air domain tipped up. People were hot to postulate that you could win a war with your enemy from miles away without ever having to actually set foot on his territory - now, we know that it doesn't work that way, the strategic air war of World War 2, the bombing of North Vietnam etc. all demonstrate this.
Eventually, you're going to need to have people on the ground, providing an existential threat to your enemy - cyber provides even less of this threat than air does, however, tanks provide it in bucketloads.
It's also probably quite important for us to have some armour, especially when the major opposition in the region has a f**k ton in its western military district alone. The total number of tanks in NATO's European forces now are fewer than they were in the West German Army alone during the Cold War, however Russia has increased its numbers.
It's shortsighted, and doesn't seem to have been dreamt up by anyone who actually understands what they're talking about..
Eventually, you're going to need to have people on the ground, providing an existential threat to your enemy - cyber provides even less of this threat than air does, however, tanks provide it in bucketloads.
It's also probably quite important for us to have some armour, especially when the major opposition in the region has a f**k ton in its western military district alone. The total number of tanks in NATO's European forces now are fewer than they were in the West German Army alone during the Cold War, however Russia has increased its numbers.
It's shortsighted, and doesn't seem to have been dreamt up by anyone who actually understands what they're talking about..
I have to agree that it does seem rather shortsighted. We seem to be moving towards a more defensive doctrine, which is fine until we suddenly need some sort of offensive capability and all we can do is throw our hands up in the air and go cap in hand to our NATO partners.
It seems to me, and this will be highly controversial, that a much derided ‘EU Army’ or even a post-Brexit ‘NATO Army’ would free up resources in economies of scale and duplication of work. When the British, Americans, French, Italians and Germans all have their own military hardware (among other nations), it seems mad not to pool resources into a single homogenised MBT, IFV, air superiority fighter, destroyer, submarine etc. etc. Commonised ammunition, increased interoperability and of course reduced development costs.
Obviously this won’t happen, not with individual national interests at stake (see F-22 Raptor) and project overruns caused by failures to agree. But every country is seeing a tightening of belts that will effectively leave western nations’ ability to defend their borders eroded. Power projection will drop off a cliff and suddenly countries with inferior kit will pose a threat just due to sheer numbers (or lack thereof in our case).
Back on point, it would be a great shame to lose Challenger and Warrior, but neither have seen any sort of major upgrade in decades and without shelling out serious money I can’t see how they will now ever be competitive.
It seems to me, and this will be highly controversial, that a much derided ‘EU Army’ or even a post-Brexit ‘NATO Army’ would free up resources in economies of scale and duplication of work. When the British, Americans, French, Italians and Germans all have their own military hardware (among other nations), it seems mad not to pool resources into a single homogenised MBT, IFV, air superiority fighter, destroyer, submarine etc. etc. Commonised ammunition, increased interoperability and of course reduced development costs.
Obviously this won’t happen, not with individual national interests at stake (see F-22 Raptor) and project overruns caused by failures to agree. But every country is seeing a tightening of belts that will effectively leave western nations’ ability to defend their borders eroded. Power projection will drop off a cliff and suddenly countries with inferior kit will pose a threat just due to sheer numbers (or lack thereof in our case).
Back on point, it would be a great shame to lose Challenger and Warrior, but neither have seen any sort of major upgrade in decades and without shelling out serious money I can’t see how they will now ever be competitive.
Rogue86 said:
I dont think any gap in capability can generally be regarded as a good thing, but then when was the last time our tank force was engaged in combat? It's difficult to justify an ever decreasing defence budget on something so specific.
Against other tanks? That'll be in southern Iraq in 2003. Back then CR2 was a world class piece of kit. Unfortunately over the course of the following years up until around 2014ish, huge amounts of money were spent on much needed urgent operational requirement platforms for the task at hand in both Iraq and Afghanistan. During this period pretty much no development took place on the tank and other nations overtook our capabilities by a significant margin. Another factor often not considered is crew competence. As tank crews trained for Afghan in jackals, mastiff and as dismounted infantry, they lost a huge part of their core mounted skillset. Only now are we getting back to the pre afghan levels of knowledge on tanks in conventional warfare.
I would love to see CR2 with 130mm smoothbore, a new pack, ADS, new sights etc but if I'm being brutally honest I think we should join with the French and Germans in the development of Leopard 3 or buy M1A3 Abrams off the yanks.
I posted a thread on here a couple of years ago about how much money had been spent in recent years on new kit for the Navy (T45 Destroyers, 2 new huge carriers with F35, Astute & Dreadnought submarines, T26 frigates) and the RAF (A400M, F35, P8, Voyager, C17, Hawk T2, E7 Wedgetail).
As a layman, I look at the Army and see pretty much the same hardware as the 1990s. I am sure there have been additions and upgrades, but surely there can’t have been anything like as much investment as with the other two Services? Am I correct? If so how did they allow this to happen?
As a layman, I look at the Army and see pretty much the same hardware as the 1990s. I am sure there have been additions and upgrades, but surely there can’t have been anything like as much investment as with the other two Services? Am I correct? If so how did they allow this to happen?
MikeGTi said:
People were hot to postulate that you could win a war with your enemy from miles away without ever having to actually set foot on his territory - now, we know that it doesn't work that way, the strategic air war of World War 2, the bombing of North Vietnam etc. all demonstrate this.
Er, Japan, 1945.CanAm said:
MikeGTi said:
People were hot to postulate that you could win a war with your enemy from miles away without ever having to actually set foot on his territory - now, we know that it doesn't work that way, the strategic air war of World War 2, the bombing of North Vietnam etc. all demonstrate this.
Er, Japan, 1945.Our tank forces were designed to stop, sorry, I mean delay, a Soviet onslaught over the North German Plain.
That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
Ayahuasca said:
Our tank forces were designed to stop, sorry, I mean delay, a Soviet onslaught over the North German Plain.
That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
And then what? That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
You can't hold ground without dismounted troops.
You're not going to put those dismounts on the ground without armour to back them up.
Air power is fantastic and as a ground callsign it is much appreciated when an Apache gives you that protection from above but they can't stay on station for extended periods like a main battle tank can.
Look at the issues the Soviets had in Afghan when the mujahadin got their hands on manpads too, air assets can be vulnerable too.
In my opinion, so long as tanks are still being employed on the battlefield, we need to have them too
LotusOmega375D said:
I posted a thread on here a couple of years ago about how much money had been spent in recent years on new kit for the Navy (T45 Destroyers, 2 new huge carriers with F35, Astute & Dreadnought submarines, T26 frigates) and the RAF (A400M, F35, P8, Voyager, C17, Hawk T2, E7 Wedgetail).
As a layman, I look at the Army and see pretty much the same hardware as the 1990s. I am sure there have been additions and upgrades, but surely there can’t have been anything like as much investment as with the other two Services? Am I correct? If so how did they allow this to happen?
I'm not sure that's true. I have no experience with the fishheads, so I won't comment on that. The RAF however have extended the life of the Tonka force several times. The Hercs had been in service since around the 60's and were well overdue a replacement, likewise with the VC10 and the Tristar fleets. Worth mentioning that we lost the Harrier, Nimrod MR2 and R1 fleets, and the Tornado F3's. We have had some investment in new gear, as you correctly point out and they're certainly 'big ticket' items, I agree. As a layman, I look at the Army and see pretty much the same hardware as the 1990s. I am sure there have been additions and upgrades, but surely there can’t have been anything like as much investment as with the other two Services? Am I correct? If so how did they allow this to happen?
The Army have had upgrades in body armour, weapons systems, as well as a drastic re-evaluation of the vehicle fleet, with the removal of all flat bottomed soft skinned vehicles, (Landies, Pinz) and the installation of V-hulled vehicles.
DuncsGTi said:
Ayahuasca said:
Our tank forces were designed to stop, sorry, I mean delay, a Soviet onslaught over the North German Plain.
That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
And then what? That threat has gone away, and there are no similar potential enemies that need to us have a large number of tanks.
Iran, Iraq, etc? Just take out their tanks with our air power.
China? Unless they load up their tanks onto ships and send them here, they are not a tank threat. And if they do, we can sink their ships before they get here.
Russia? Again, take out their tanks with our air power.
You can't hold ground without dismounted troops.
You're not going to put those dismounts on the ground without armour to back them up.
Air power is fantastic and as a ground callsign it is much appreciated when an Apache gives you that protection from above but they can't stay on station for extended periods like a main battle tank can.
Look at the issues the Soviets had in Afghan when the mujahadin got their hands on manpads too, air assets can be vulnerable too.
In my opinion, so long as tanks are still being employed on the battlefield, we need to have them too
DuncsGTi said:
Ayahuasca said:
You hold ground with infantry, not with tanks.
Absolutely What provides the infantry with their intimate support on the ground?
Ayahuasca said:
You only need tanks to fight other tanks, and only then when you don’t have air supremacy. Not many scenarios where that is realistic enough to warrant the investment imho.
If only that was true. Whilst destruction of enemy armour is their primary function, they are much more versatile than that narrow role.They supply a fast moving, heavily armed and armoured thrust to assault any perceived weakness in enemy lines. They can destroy bunkers, built up positions, buildings. They can deliver precise firepower with minimal risk of collateral damage.
I am by no means an expert however I can personally attest to the psychological boost that a main battle tank provides to friendly forces by arriving on scene to help when you are pinned down by enemy fire.
That psychological effect works both ways. Again I can attest to enemy combatants downing their weapons and bugging out when the panzers appear.
Now I know the military must adapt to the developing global situation but scrapping the tank fleet and not replacing it would be a hugely short sighted mistake. (All in my honest opinion)
Cocknose said:
I'm not sure that's true. I have no experience with the fishheads, so I won't comment on that. The RAF however have extended the life of the Tonka force several times. The Hercs had been in service since around the 60's and were well overdue a replacement, likewise with the VC10 and the Tristar fleets. Worth mentioning that we lost the Harrier, Nimrod MR2 and R1 fleets, and the Tornado F3's. We have had some investment in new gear, as you correctly point out and they're certainly 'big ticket' items, I agree.
The Army have had upgrades in body armour, weapons systems, as well as a drastic re-evaluation of the vehicle fleet, with the removal of all flat bottomed soft skinned vehicles, (Landies, Pinz) and the installation of V-hulled vehicles.
The RAF hardware you list has pretty much long since been replaced or is at least in the process of being replaced, but when I look at the British Army nowadays, I see pretty much the same basic offensive hardware they had in the 1990s and few if any imminent plans to replace it. It just seems to an outsider that the Army has been treated as the poor relation of the three services for the past generation.The Army have had upgrades in body armour, weapons systems, as well as a drastic re-evaluation of the vehicle fleet, with the removal of all flat bottomed soft skinned vehicles, (Landies, Pinz) and the installation of V-hulled vehicles.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff