http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... to-50.html




That will make the Bovington Tank Museum 8 times larger than our army's tank force!

It looks like the next time the Americans come knocking it won't be a case of lack of will, just lack of troops and lack of equipment.

Or UKGov has finally come to it's senses and is going to stop wasting billions on kit we don't need and at the same time have a great excuse to opt out the next time the US tries to drag us into a war in some godforsaken dustbowl.

Jon

Most combat situations Her majs armed forces are going to be required to fight in, the MBT is an outdated concept. Gone are the days of two large armies fighting. Its all peacekeeping and counter insurgency work. Both of which make the MBT obselete. Especially if someterrorist/freedom fighter/militia can use a 50k missile to destroy or a couple of £100 improvised bomb.

The only purpose a tank serves is to fight other countries' tanks. A couple of dozen UAVs could take out the entire tank fleets of countries like Iraq in less time, for less money and at no risk. We may as well sell our spare tanks to China if they want them.

Well that's not strictly true. There are plenty of tasks where infantry combined with armoured vehicle(s) is the best option. However tanks are the sledgehammer of armoured vehicles - most of the things a tank can do for you, a standard AFV can do as well. There are also jobs where the extra armour on a tank is useful - they are after all the only things around that in theory can take an RPG or LAW hit and keep going. They're an expensive option in pretty much all cases though.


We need some tanks but we don't need many of them. A couple of battalions tops, which runs out to between 50 and 60 vehicles. The idea we need 500 is ludicrous. There's nobody we'd think of fielding 500 tanks against who doesn't utterly outgun us anyway. Countries either have a few, some or LOTS and the only time we would have 500 tanks in the field we'd be fighting someone with LOTS. And LOTS makes 500 look puny anyway.


They've got plenty of their own, although I'd imagine they'd happily buy a few to steal the tech on them. We'd be much more likely to sell them to someone with no clue but lots of money like Saudi.

Jon

Or Argentina?

They've tried in the past to win wars entirely from the air, but you still need to safely get ground troops in to occupy any territory. Planes can't take out gorilla troops easily at all.

I can't imagine gorilla troops are too clever.

It's those guerilla groups you've got to watch.

Again "bloody predictive text".

the wars that we are fighting and in the future may have to fight have changed

its no longer a stand up slugging match

new tactics will require a new type of armed forces
i believe that they will be fully mobile light armoured brigades able to engage from land, sea and air ...

Yes but tanks do add a serious amount of firepower locally. If you mix them in with armoured troop carriers for infantry mobility they will occasionally need armour support and tanks are still best for that. Also some of our potential threats will still need to be dealt with by tanks.

Tanks are next to useless in urban environments (even the Isreali Merkava with its excessive armour), which is probably where all the hotspots our army is likely to be in. Or in environments whereby troops are shipped in by helicopter. Also making the tank next to useless.
Cost benefit analysis just shows how outdated the MBT is.

Yes urban battles are difficult for tanks but that still leaves country sides open for them. MBT will still be needed against other tank armies. Iraq was a good demonstration. Helicopter gunships may be able to do much of the anti tank work but bad weather can ground them and you still need something to counter opposing tank forces. Then allow for repairs maintenance training and fifty tanks will probably mean we only have ten active at any one time. No safety margin there.

What, we need to buy five times as many tanks as we'll actually ever use at one time? I'm sure that's the kind of sums BAE are pushing. If we're at war, we won't be doing any training. If we're at war, we'll be doing maintenance in the field. I say we have a given fighting force then we have at most a 50% reserve in warehousing or whatever. Anything that can kill 50 tanks in a time short enough to be problematic can probably kill 100 in pretty much the same time anyway.
If we lose 50 tanks in short order then we probably need to seriously re-evaluate the strategy we're following, not throw another lump of hardware into the mincer.

Jon