Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?

Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?

Author
Discussion

nikaiyo2

4,743 posts

195 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
LandRoverManiac said:
Without meaning to wade in for someone else and respond for them! There are scores of cases where hardware wasn't ordered or developed 'because that isn't way things are going'.

Guns on aircraft - 'Noooo, why have guns? Missiles are capable enough!' Vietnam taught otherwise.
I think the big lesson from that is if you build a weapon system to operate in an environment allow it to operate in that environment. Don’t force it to fight outside it’s comfort zone really really don’t then force it to fight exactly in the enemy’s comfort zone.

glazbagun

14,280 posts

197 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
Are the Russians and Ukrainians using them in Eastern Ukraine?

pingu393

7,813 posts

205 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
nikaiyo2 said:
LandRoverManiac said:
Without meaning to wade in for someone else and respond for them! There are scores of cases where hardware wasn't ordered or developed 'because that isn't way things are going'.

Guns on aircraft - 'Noooo, why have guns? Missiles are capable enough!' Vietnam taught otherwise.
I think the big lesson from that is if you build a weapon system to operate in an environment allow it to operate in that environment. Don’t force it to fight outside it’s comfort zone really really don’t then force it to fight exactly in the enemy’s comfort zone.
Despite having Rapier and ship-borne anti-aircraft missiles, we still used GPMGs bolted to the handrails of ships to bring down Argie aircraft.

Evanivitch

20,094 posts

122 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
Warrior CSP has a stabilised turret supposedly as accurate on the move as stationary, so presumably more accurate and with better targeting system than the old Rarden. Manufacturer's claims do tend focus on the best possible rather than most likely though...
That's true, but until you can account for every meter down the range for wind speed (perhaps one day, but not today) the vehicle alone can't be perfect.

yellowjack

17,078 posts

166 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
Earthdweller said:
eccles said:
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

I was responding to someone who said in conventional warfare you need tanks, I countered when was the last time we were engaged in conventional warfare.

As an aside, yes weapons change over time.
Big tank battle in Iraq iirc
The 'Battle of Wadi Al-Batin' - a battle honour emblazoned on the colours of a number of army regiments...
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written...

matthias73

2,883 posts

150 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2020
quotequote all
Iraq was absolutely a conventional war.

Big armies using combined arms warfare to seize land and defeat the opposition. The fact we had a technical advantage and better training doesn't change that.

Drone swarms are incredibly effective at finding enemy and reporting positions to artillery. Signal detection can also do this to a high degree of accuracy. Combine that with an artillery focused enemy such as Russia, and you can see entire grid squares disappear within minutes, usually along with a few hundred blokes, as the Ukrainians discovered.

Again, they are only effective when combined with something else.

A main battle tank can wax 4-6 armoured targets 4k away whilst roaming around at a reasonable speed. Nothing else has that manouvrability, firepower and survivability. They aren't however, invincible. That doesn't mean they aren't worth having.