Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?
Discussion
borcy said:
TriumphStag3.0V8 said:
Zirconia said:
No need for aircraft carriers when any kid with a drone can sink em. Probably the same for tanks, not sinking them that is but if you can take out a massive carrier then tanks must be easy peasy to knock out. Simples.
I must have missed the news article about a kid with a drone taking out a carrier. Can you provide a link please?About half way down.
When talking about future weapons I think of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5FqYiZb_5s
Image something like that which can fly itself with a gun on it, I think there is a danger of traditional weapons and tactics becoming completely obsolete very quickly and any nation that just sticks with what they know they will eventually be in trouble.
Image something like that which can fly itself with a gun on it, I think there is a danger of traditional weapons and tactics becoming completely obsolete very quickly and any nation that just sticks with what they know they will eventually be in trouble.
I think you've got to have a widely varied fighting contingency. Remote, guided warfare relies on systems of communication that can be a potential weakness and could be taken out of action, rendering the system ineffective. There will always be a place for a blunt instrument that largely acts independently.
I'm no expert, but have a bit of experience as I did 6 years in the army crewing Challenger 2 as a Trooper (Private).
Towards the end of my time, and although we still trained and did exercises on tanks, it was made clear to us that the future focus would be on what they were calling 'medium armour', ie APC type vehicles, that were armed with lighter weaponry, were faster and more maneuverable, but still well protected. A full Main battle tank has limited uses in the kind of operations that most western countries have been conducting recently.
In Afghanistan, we used BVS10 Vikings which is pretty much a milk float with a personnel trailer, and a machine gun on top. They were poorly armoured, but the agility and speed of them meant we could go over pretty much anything and steer clear of the IED laden main roads. They were also quick to out flank and combat insurgent forces, something a Challenger would struggle with. We lost several and a few guys to IED blasts, but even Challengers could be susceptible to a good enough bomb, as my regiment found out in Iraq. The best vehicles for IED defence we had were Mastiffs, a large, wheeled, truck like vehicles.
As for firepower, sure, a few 120mm high explosive round from a Challenger into a Taliban compound will sort them out, but it's similar to hunting rats with a rocket launcher, and if they are in amongst a village of local civilians, the collateral damage you could cause would be massive. We found the most useful weapon for us, operating as armoured support to the infantry was 7.62mm GPMG or 50 Cal machine gun. We had various other things such as grenade machine gun and law 80, although these were of limited use, as unlike Vietnam, we needed to positively identify a target before blowing everything up.
The Danish had Leopard 2 MBT in Afghan, they mostly provided overwatch on the hillside on approach to the main camp they occupied, in that role they were supposedly rather good, as they have a huge killing range, but for the most part they just sat there, and I'd imagine it cost a fortune to ship them out.
If they do bin off Challenger 2, they'll be stored in various bases in the UK. I went to one once to pick one up, they had massive amounts of armoured fighting vehicles there, all immaculately stored ready for whatever, pretty sure there was even some Chieftain tanks there.
Towards the end of my time, and although we still trained and did exercises on tanks, it was made clear to us that the future focus would be on what they were calling 'medium armour', ie APC type vehicles, that were armed with lighter weaponry, were faster and more maneuverable, but still well protected. A full Main battle tank has limited uses in the kind of operations that most western countries have been conducting recently.
In Afghanistan, we used BVS10 Vikings which is pretty much a milk float with a personnel trailer, and a machine gun on top. They were poorly armoured, but the agility and speed of them meant we could go over pretty much anything and steer clear of the IED laden main roads. They were also quick to out flank and combat insurgent forces, something a Challenger would struggle with. We lost several and a few guys to IED blasts, but even Challengers could be susceptible to a good enough bomb, as my regiment found out in Iraq. The best vehicles for IED defence we had were Mastiffs, a large, wheeled, truck like vehicles.
As for firepower, sure, a few 120mm high explosive round from a Challenger into a Taliban compound will sort them out, but it's similar to hunting rats with a rocket launcher, and if they are in amongst a village of local civilians, the collateral damage you could cause would be massive. We found the most useful weapon for us, operating as armoured support to the infantry was 7.62mm GPMG or 50 Cal machine gun. We had various other things such as grenade machine gun and law 80, although these were of limited use, as unlike Vietnam, we needed to positively identify a target before blowing everything up.
The Danish had Leopard 2 MBT in Afghan, they mostly provided overwatch on the hillside on approach to the main camp they occupied, in that role they were supposedly rather good, as they have a huge killing range, but for the most part they just sat there, and I'd imagine it cost a fortune to ship them out.
If they do bin off Challenger 2, they'll be stored in various bases in the UK. I went to one once to pick one up, they had massive amounts of armoured fighting vehicles there, all immaculately stored ready for whatever, pretty sure there was even some Chieftain tanks there.
There is an old saying about military planning to fight the last war rather than future conflicts.
MBTs might not have had much utility in Afghanistan but it would be a huge mistake to plan the future Army based entirely on experience from that conflict. Unfortunately there is always a danger that politicians can get sucked in to this way of thinking.
MBTs might not have had much utility in Afghanistan but it would be a huge mistake to plan the future Army based entirely on experience from that conflict. Unfortunately there is always a danger that politicians can get sucked in to this way of thinking.
Must be a hard decision to work out what future conflicts will look like.
Much as they are legends, they were right to withdraw the Lightnjngs back in 87. Same with the Vulcans. Not needed anymore, dsspite the sepctacle at airshow time. The right decision, with hindsight
Were they right with the Buccanerrs, Canberras, Nimrods, Jaguars and Harriers? Have we needed them since but not had them??
I would be interested in the answer
Much as they are legends, they were right to withdraw the Lightnjngs back in 87. Same with the Vulcans. Not needed anymore, dsspite the sepctacle at airshow time. The right decision, with hindsight
Were they right with the Buccanerrs, Canberras, Nimrods, Jaguars and Harriers? Have we needed them since but not had them??
I would be interested in the answer
GOATever said:
Mastodon2 said:
Well that is patently false, but don't let the facts get in way of a pithy statement.
Read it again:
Mastodon2 said:
GOATever said:
They are as pointless as big multi gunned warships.
Well that is patently false, but don't let the facts get in way of a pithy statement.
williamp said:
Were they right with the Buccanerrs, Canberras, Nimrods, Jaguars and Harriers? Have we needed them since but not had them??
Buccaneers were old 60s tech by the time they were removed from use - once the Tornados could self-designate then they lost their main utility. Low-level strike was always very risky and Gulf War 1 showed this quite clearly. Similar arguments could be made for the Jaguar.Canberras were used up until quite recently (2009) for photo-reconnaissance - since replaced by other types.
Nimrod was VERY old by the time they tried to turn it into Mark 4 - however it would have plugged the gap until Poseidon MPAs were available.
I'd say Harrier is probably the most keenly missed - certainly everyone I knew who had anything to do with them rated them highly. There were totally unproved and unreliable rumours about it coming down to either the Tornado force or Joint Harrier Force to get the chop in 2010 - the decision was made by higher ups who were ex-Tonka pilots.....
That last bit should be taken with lots of salt.
LandRoverManiac said:
williamp said:
Were they right with the Buccanerrs, Canberras, Nimrods, Jaguars and Harriers? Have we needed them since but not had them??
Buccaneers were old 60s tech by the time they were removed from use - once the Tornados could self-designate then they lost their main utility. Low-level strike was always very risky and Gulf War 1 showed this quite clearly. Similar arguments could be made for the Jaguar.Canberras were used up until quite recently (2009) for photo-reconnaissance - since replaced by other types.
Nimrod was VERY old by the time they tried to turn it into Mark 4 - however it would have plugged the gap until Poseidon MPAs were available.
I'd say Harrier is probably the most keenly missed - certainly everyone I knew who had anything to do with them rated them highly. There were totally unproved and unreliable rumours about it coming down to either the Tornado force or Joint Harrier Force to get the chop in 2010 - the decision was made by higher ups who were ex-Tonka pilots.....
That last bit should be taken with lots of salt.
We need Ginetta back for this kind of stuff.
GOATever said:
Really? How the hell are dinosaurs like tanks of much use in modern warfare then?
Depends what you term as being modern?Was Iraq 2003 modern in your opinion? As a warrior dismount on the ground, pinned down by a combination of small arms and RPG fire, there is no better sound than 62 tons of V12 goodness rolling up next to you and letting rip with 120mm of gentle persuasion.
IMHO, so long as states we may end up in conflict with have MBT, we need them too.
CR2 is in dire need of upgrading with better optics, power pack, electronics suite etc. The focus for many years now has been on platforms in use in Afghanistan (and quite rightly so) meaning that development of the tank stalled.
LandRoverManiac said:
Ayahuasca said:
Wasn’t there a particular and very useful bomb that Tornado could carry but Harrier couldn’t?
We need Ginetta back for this kind of stuff.
Come to think of it - I did read about something like that. Possibly Stormshadow? We need Ginetta back for this kind of stuff.
If it were a selfish UK-only decision, I would have gone down the defensive route and kept Harrier instead, but NATO has to maintain an retaliatory capability.
We don't need tanks to protect UK, but NATO needs tanks to make Mr Putin think twice.
LandRoverManiac said:
Ayahuasca said:
Wasn’t there a particular and very useful bomb that Tornado could carry but Harrier couldn’t?
We need Ginetta back for this kind of stuff.
Come to think of it - I did read about something like that. Possibly Stormshadow? We need Ginetta back for this kind of stuff.
Ayahuasca said:
No point just ‘storing’ a tank - you can’t just store trained tank crew to man them if they were ever needed.
No, but you can have a greatly reduced active fleet with only a small fleet used for training, and supplement with simulator based training to fill the gaps.If they're able to use a similarly equipped vehicle, like Warrior CSP or AJAX, then they should be able to take a running jump back into MBT.
A Main Battle Tank (MBT) equipped with modern armour protection and Active Protection System (APS) is a tough nut to crack.
It's easy to think that aircraft make the MBT redundant, but that's based on having aerial superiority over the battlefield. Even then, a modern MBT in a hide is a good challenge for any thermal imaging system.
It's also easy to watch too many Syria/Ukraine videos with anti tank guided missiles (ATGM) blatting tanks left and right. But the positions that some of them MBT find themselves in (out in the open, no infantry support) is down to their own poor training. Some of those ATGM being provided are modern western systems that are designed to overcome the older gen tanks you see in those videos.
CR2 is desperately in need of it's upgrade. But I don't think we'll see it getting half of what it needs.
It's easy to think that aircraft make the MBT redundant, but that's based on having aerial superiority over the battlefield. Even then, a modern MBT in a hide is a good challenge for any thermal imaging system.
It's also easy to watch too many Syria/Ukraine videos with anti tank guided missiles (ATGM) blatting tanks left and right. But the positions that some of them MBT find themselves in (out in the open, no infantry support) is down to their own poor training. Some of those ATGM being provided are modern western systems that are designed to overcome the older gen tanks you see in those videos.
CR2 is desperately in need of it's upgrade. But I don't think we'll see it getting half of what it needs.
LandRoverManiac said:
I'd say Harrier is probably the most keenly missed - certainly everyone I knew who had anything to do with them rated them highly. There were totally unproved and unreliable rumours about it coming down to either the Tornado force or Joint Harrier Force to get the chop in 2010 - the decision was made by higher ups who were ex-Tonka pilots.....
The Harrier was an iconic British aircraft, but the Tonka was far away the better bomb truck. Somewhat fortunately for the UK, Cyprus has been a perfectly located "aircraft carrier" for the Tonka for the last 10 years.dai1983 said:
Unpopular opinion I have is putting most of the Royal Marines trades into the army or RN. If you need mechanics, clerks, stores etc you just commando train volunteers from other parts of forces like the Paras. Or they can continue to ping Marines to do those roles who can’t be arsed and end up doing a s
t job or leaving.
Would put signallers and especially drivers (aimers really) into the same category but those branches are being closed and everyone is expected to be driver and sigs trained
Or merge the whole military into one unit with air sea and land elements like the USMC. t job or leaving.Would put signallers and especially drivers (aimers really) into the same category but those branches are being closed and everyone is expected to be driver and sigs trained
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff