Jump to content

British Army could be getting rid of it's tanks


jenko

Recommended Posts

You fight the next war with the kit you have in inventory last month. Deciding that a MBT is a weapon of history is a big call to make without it being tested in a combat scenario. Main weapon systems come and go. The Dreadnought was radical in its day in the early 20th century but obsolete and accepted as such by the end of WW2 apart from limited use in shore bombardment by the USN. The battleship was no longer Queen of the seas. But that was accepted as the verdict of experience and not just a theory. 
 

Has the tank had its day?  Well that’s just a theory. It might be right but until tested in the heat of conflict it’s just that, a theory. The BBC report indicates that the learned general makes some fair points as regards asymmetric warfare etc but I thought there was too much management speak in there. 
 

I take it no one has asked the poor squaddie how he fancies chancing his arm against any opposition equipped with even a late 20th century design tank as many third world countries have armed with his personal weapon and other light arms. I recall my old man speaking about training to use sticky bombs to disable a tank. You just saunter up to it, stick it on the side and nonchalantly walk away hoping the crew and support infantry are on their tea break. 
 

Before jumping there are 2 pertinent observations

 

1. As far as I know the view one can dispense with tanks and APC such as Warrior is not shared by any other NATO or other main military who appear to be modernising far less getting rid. So we are either well ahead of the game or very much mistaken

 

2. When are missiles replacing manned aircraft again?  1959 was sixty years ago now. Still waiting

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is being driven by cost not the perceived needs to defend the UK. Removing the ability to conduct high intensity warfare will definitely put us out of the top tier.

 

The Country (5th-7th largest by GDP) has only 3 regular armoured regiments and one reserve (and I understand that is more combat replacement rather than a deployable unit). This is probably below a level that is sustainable already and the major equipment is little updated from when I left over 20 years ago. This goes for Warrior, AS90 as well.

 

Bottom line is that we have basically given up already and it may be safer if we accept that rather than allow politicians to pretend that they are investing in defence while stripping the cupboard bare.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is perhaps worthy of note that the Army's new "Strike" Brigade concept - in which over £600m is proposed to be invested in upgraded barrack facilities for the units' co-location at Catterick - is already planned to be built around the Ajax and MIV families.  Without vehicle-mounted ATGW or SHORAD (potentially both as dismounts), a mounted gun larger than 40mm or mortar larger than 81mm.  MIV is not slated to mount anything more lethal than HMG or GMG.  This seems to be little more than mechanised Light Infantry.

 

That £600M+ is supposed to be generated by selling off more vaulable real estate elsewhere under the Defence Estate Optimisation Programme, whch will see 90-odd sites closed and sold and occupants relocated before 2035. But it requires up-front investment totalling several billions to facilitate the relocations prior to closures, and the overall value for money outcome won't be known for another 15 years.  A lot of infrastructure money has already been poured into Tidwoth/Bulford as the home hub of CR and WR units.  Potentially wasted if heavy armour is cut, unless Strike goes there instead of spending another £600M+ at Catterick.  Despite their large size, neither the Catterick or Otterburn training areas are suitable for AFV manoeuvre exercises at any scale so it is likely that Strike exercises would see extensive movements to Salisbury Plain anyway - and of course to BATUS as now.

 

And we've been wasting £8M+ a year for years on a PFI tank transporter fleet for 3 RLC squadrons when we have only had 1 for some years (which still depends on reservists for full manning) and can't get out of the deal early or reduce it without buying out the remaining or reduced value. Two thirds of the fleet is parked up and we're still paying for it.  Yes, RLC only has the means to move 37 (IIRC) heavy armoured vehicles at a time: not even a single armoured regiment.  IIRC there is the capability to move about twice that number of lighter (sub-40t) AFV.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not much if the tank as a weapon is dead. I don't think anyone can state such a thing. The problem is more to understand what use the tank can have within the British defence system and the commitments of the Country and if the investment in a strong armoured force is justified or not.

Afterall nobody can deny the usefulness of the aircraft carrier and yet many countries have decided that they can live without them. Britain on the contrary have them and also have one of the strongest navies in the world, although suse smaller than in the past. Makes perfect sense for a country surrounded by the sea that believe it's important to be able to project force. Britain also have a nuclear deterrent, something that only a few countries have. It's a strategic choice that adds an important capability but of course money spent on this deterrent can not be spent on other things.

Now would a strong armoured force be as important as the previous items ? Ideally everyone would like to have armed forces that are strong in every aspect but with money being what it is every country have to make a choice. Some prefer more balanced forces, some invest more in some areas depending on their view of the relative usefulness of the various branches.

I'm not saying here that Britain should or should not get rid of the tanks, I'm just posing a problem in a sense: considering all parts of the defence system (nuclear deterrent, carriers, surface vessels, RAF, special forces etc..) and the commitments that the armed forces are expected to fulfil, where do the armoured forces fit in terms of priority ?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2020 at 11:13 PM, Jasper dog said:

Very true, alas accountants run the world,  then disappear before the reality bites!

It's a difficult balancing act because tier 1 military status is pricy and particularly at present the country's purse doesn't stretch very far...

2 Carriers, F 35s, A400s, Poseidon to name a few big ticket items....

But what's the alternative?

Ah youd better add a brace of frigates to that one ...the youngest type 23 is pushing 25.years old....no frigates no navy simple .Clearly I empathize with the Army😐

Edited by junglierating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2020 at 8:27 AM, Jasper dog said:

Fingers crossed you're right, however I also remember the suggestion of retiring the SHAR

Problem with the Shar was that its physical size limited the more modern Peagasus engines couldnt fit different dimension donkeys in the airframe....think Shars ended with 106* whereas Gr7 and 9 had 107s and other variants.There were also a load of other limiting factors that basically restricted its future use past 2006.

Edited by junglierating
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1938 the UK had the world's fourth-highest GDP, though it was only about a third of the USA's. By the end of 1940, after about 8 months of high intensity warfare, it was bankrupt and dependent on American charity to stay in the war. When the Japanese attacked Burma and Malay a year later, it was quickly demonstrated that Britain was in no position to keep the commitments it had made to Australia, New Zealand and the SE Asia colonies for their defence. It was finally obvious then that at some point after 1918 we'd ceased to be a top tier military power. The UK's contribution to the Allied victory reflects that. At El Alamein the 8th Army, heavily reliant on US-supplied tanks, faced 116,000 German or Italian troops while the Soviet Union was fighting 3.2 million. In 1945, the British Pacific Fleet was only able to participate in the final campaign against Japan so long as the US Navy was prepared to provide the essential support. None of this is to denigrate the contribution of British servicemen and women: it took as much courage to be an infantryman at El Alamein as it did at Stalingrad.

 

Today, our GDP is less than one-seventh of the USA's and less than a fifth of China's. We ceased to be a first rank power over 75 years ago, we're never going to be able to afford the full spectrum of top-end military capabilities and it's a better investment to possess a smaller number of genuine ones (whichever may be decided to be the highest priority for the UK) than to cling on for reasons of sentiment or prestige to a portfolio of nominal capabilities which in reality are so paper thin as to be almost ineffectual.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I believe there are only about 130 Challengers in service anyway. The rest are in storage many missing useful parts like engines and guns because they are slowly being stripped to keep in service tanks running. Are spare guns, engines and ammo even being made any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO and purely as an outsider having never served I do believe that our time as a 'power' passed long ago.

 

We have consistently invested in the wrong directions and have an unbalanced armed forces because of it.

 

The mission should be clear:

 

Navy - Defence of home waters and dependencies.  It's impossible to mount another Falklands so each overseas territory should be garrisoned and have an on station frigate.  It was the draw down of assets that opened the door to Galtieri.

Navy - Continued deployment of Nuclear Deterrent.  Hunter killer submarines to protect the above and enforce our home waters security.

 

Marines - Garrison of dependencies and amphibious ops. 

 

Army - UK home defence.

 

RAF - Anti Submarine and UK Air defence.  Air mobility to garrisons abroad.

 

The entire concept of expeditionary forces and deployments overseas is not possible unilaterally.  It should be dropped from our doctrine & policy.

 

The above is pretty much where we are going, apart from the Carriers and the F35's. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2020 at 9:45 PM, jenko said:

Saw this on the BBC.............. interesting.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53909087

 

Dick

Typical BBC fake news, turn a little issue into a crisis with epic proportions, and bash the govt while they are at it!

 

They go on about Challenger II not being upgraded since 1998, claiming everyone else has re equipped with more modern hardware, so Joe Public has the immediate reaction of 'oh my, how terrible' (muted for forum use),

Thing is, Challenger 2 doesn't need updating, it's brilliant as it is! It performs it's task well even now, how many have been lost in combat compared to other MBT's? British tank philosophy stands up well in theatre (literally!) 

 

'Do not' trust the BBC, with their editorial misleading style with use of. . .  'maybe' 'allegedly' 'could' and the perennial favourite 'evidence suggests. . ' means nothing!!

 

I remember hearing President Trump declaring BBC being 'fake news' and thinking 'how dare you!'. . but it's true, the old values of the beeb of honesty and decency are long gone in a morass of forced politically correctness and biased equal opportunities

 

EDIT, if wikipedia is to be believed, Challenger 2 has had many updates since 1998, some still ongoing! 

 

again, don't listen to the BBC! 

Edited by Kes
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best way to kill a tank is with a tank. Will be a bit upset and annoyed if we have spent all this time, effort and money trying to get Ajax up and running to do the the ISTAR piece if we have no steel fist behind it. 😐 wouldn’t surprise me if they end up cutting another Armoured Regiment. When you look at how the RAF and Navy go about things why is it they can get new airframes and ships in service before the Army can get a new AFV into service? It’s way over my head but I think lessons need to be learned on how the Army, mod and DE&S go through these procurement processes. It doesn’t look to good when your wanting more money and upgrades for your tank fleet. Government might just chin you off as it’s always delayed and over budget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

These type discussions always confuse me.  I seem to recall hearing suggestions that heavy tanks were on the way out as far ago as the 1990s, or perhaps even mid 1980s.  But they still seem to be in use to this day, and have been called to combat several times.  

 

As such, I'm left wondering if whoever is trying to deduce what the battlefield of tomorrow will look like has given enough thought to whether all of our potential adversaries, both conventional armies as well as non-conventional forces, see things the same way or if they may have other thoughts.

 

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/08/2020 at 22:34, Jasper dog said:

Whilst yes, the current vogue would appear to be cyber war and that's where the fixation lies it's the war/conflict that comes out of the blue, blindsides you, that gets you...

A good example of this is covid 29; January 1st looking forward to the new year ; now look at us.😦

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2020 at 14:02, Kes said:

Typical BBC fake news

Don't shoot the piano player. And please don't bring your politics into this as it's a fascinating thread full of good knowledge and insight. Don't want to see it stopped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/09/2020 at 21:19, alloydog said:

Defence cuts.  The most cost effecive way would be to scrap the standing army and let the landed gentry raise their own private regiments, which can then be hired by H.M. Goverment as and when needed. ;)

I’ve got a small paddock and old stable. Does that count and can I form an armoured unit with a second hand surplus to requirement Challenger?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting thread everyone.

 

I agree with several posters. We need to concentrate our defence spending on defending our islands. Power projection is just bullying when diplomacy fails. I don't want to see our young men and women put in harms way to some end that is basically monetary in origin. We are not a global police force. So if we are to retreat behind our sea walls we need an effective Navy and Air Force with the Army very much in a defensive role. I disagree that the best way to stop a tank is with another tank, it is more cost effective to use a MANPAT or better still sink the thing before it gets on the beach. So do we "need" a new MBT?

 

We are an island nation and once we accept we are not a "power" we can get on with trying to make the world a better place by methods more humanitarian than dropping bombs on foreigners from 20k feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2020 at 9:19 PM, alloydog said:

Defence cuts.  The most cost effecive way would be to scrap the standing army and let the landed gentry raise their own private regiments, which can then be hired by H.M. Goverment as and when needed. ;)

Here you go!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atholl_Highlanders

 

Trevor

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2020 at 04:18, Rangerboy83 said:

Navy go about things why is it they can get new airframes and ships in service before the Army can

Are you having a laugh ....Cinderella service RN.....forget those floating car parks .....and im an ex wafu.

Take a look at the age of the fleet  trust me it aint roses ....we are all being shafted together except the crabs they think strategically 10 years ahead not two minutes

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...