Jump to content
Panzer_Leader

So sad to see British Army reduced to two armoured regiments

Recommended Posts

The poor decision-making abilities of the MoD are well known but this just makes me sad, particularly in light of the renewed heavy-armoured threat to Central and Western Europe: http://www.janes.com/article/66333/british-army-to-form-first-strike-brigade-cut-mbt-numbers?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_Jane's 360 21.12.16_KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Edited by Panzer_Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no big deal in my opinion. Tanks can always be produced relatively quick.

 

What the Britain needs are more submarines and ships.

 

Tomorrow's war is likely to require sizeable fleet.

 

Russia IS NOT as much as a threat to European peace than it is portrayed to be in the media, in my opinion. It is in for a long decline. It has no way to match NATO. What is concerning is the combined forces of China and Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, tanks can not be produced quickly, nor can tank crew be trained qickly.

 

If you don't produce/maintain tanks...you lose the knowhow and facilities to build them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...plus, maintenance. 95% of all tank related activities are maintenance. Tanks are always broken. I'm not sure if I ever spent a day in a perfectly working tank; combat-serviceable, sure, but in perfect condition?

If I didn't know about a defect it was probably just waiting to be discovered, but already there.

 

And that already was, in the early 1990s, with a peace-time optimized army structure that had a first class, staggered maintenance organization where even a regular field battalion tried to keep 95% of its fleet battle ready at any time.

 

 

Add to that the tendency of armies to come up with a unique set of demands for their vehicles which usually leads to unique designs rather than buying off the shelf. If you don't keep buying tanks the industrial base to develop and manufacture them withers, and you don't grow it back quickly, either. A capable industry that can produce first rate tanks takes decades to build. And you need first rate tanks: Second rate is first to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, []_--__[]KITT said:

What the Britain needs are more submarines and ships.

 

Tomorrow's war is likely to require sizeable fleet.

 

I think this is also a contentious point, surface vessels are very vulnerable, and would probably be destroyed quickly in a conventional war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a Ajax take on a T-14/90 or even the T-72B3

Yes its dismounts will probably carry advanced ATGM's but how long does it take to deploy a missile team compared to the engagement time of the T-14

With its equally advanced sighting systems/fire control

 

 

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panzer_Leader said:

The poor decision-making abilities of the MoD are well known but this just makes me sad, particularly in light of the renewed heavy-armoured threat to Central and Western Europe: http://www.janes.com/article/66333/british-army-to-form-first-strike-brigade-cut-mbt-numbers?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_Jane's 360 21.12.16_KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

 

I did not know that there was a renewed heavy-armored threat to Central and Western Europe. What kind of threat is being talked about here? Either way, it is sad that the British are letting their armored formations shrink to insignificance. I hope the French will keep a viable number of their Leclercs running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Panzer_Leader said:

The poor decision-making abilities of the MoD are well known but this just makes me sad, particularly in light of the renewed heavy-armoured threat to Central and Western Europe: 

 

Nope its the fault of penny pinching governments.

(Well that's who I'm blaming anyway.)

 

I find this and other recent events 

The lack of a Harpoon replacement and buying that sodding F-35 B model as critical misadventures by the government.

One of their duties is to protect their citizens.

 

I don't feel protected.

 

3 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

 

The Reign of the Leclercs draws near!

 

You may be right.

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lavictoireestlavie said:

 

I did not know that there was a renewed heavy-armored threat to Central and Western Europe. What kind of threat is being talked about here? Either way, it is sad that the British are letting their armored formations shrink to insignificance. I hope the French will keep a viable number of their Leclercs running.

 

This heavy-armoured threat: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf. I was trying to avoid making my post political in any way. The threat to Central Europe is more abstract but still potential, to Western Europe, more to its armed forces who may become engaged in the defence of any eastern NATO states.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

 

Nope its the fault of penny pinching governments.

(Well that's who I'm blaming anyway.)

 

I find this and other recent events 

The lack of a Harpoon replacement and buying that sodding F-35 B model as critical misadventures by the government.

One of their duties is to protect their citizens.

 

I don't feel protected.

 

It only gets worse I'm afraid, the same experimental strike brigades will lack organic artillery: http://www.janes.com/article/66432/uk-strike-brigades-to-have-no-artillery

 

I really don't understand how, at a time of implied increased heavy-armoured threat (the U.S. is increasing pre-positioned armoured sets in Europe), the UK decides to go the other way and reduce its already low levels of heavy armour.  The cynic in me says it's a way of economising on the planned Challenger 2 upgrade (less tanks means less expense to upgrade them).

 

Also, creating "strike brigades" without organic artillery flies in the face of every military lesson I understand has been learned in recent times, i.e. you go to war with the force you have, not the one you want.  Well, this force will have no organic artillery and will be forced to rely on non-organic enablers. Hopefully they're there when needed...

 

Sorry to be so down on the British Army, but it's one I deeply respect and have affinity for, and the force structure decisions made by the government / MoD affecting it and the RN and RAF (no MPA for a maritime nation?) make no logical sense to me based on the state of the world today and the types of threats they're realistically likely to be asked to counter when needed.  Hell, maybe I'm the dumb one...   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Panzer_Leader said:

I really don't understand how,  ... the UK decides to go the other way

 

To be honest, I have given up any attempt to understand what the British are doing. There are times when you develop the illusion that there is some method to the madness but as soon as you think you have understood a pattern, they do something else entirely (no offense to you Britons; enough of you seem to agree that you don't understand what's going on either, or offer the non-explanation that "it's traditional").

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that there are few votes to be had in defence and recent manifestos have hardly mentioned the subject (other than some parties telling us what else they would get rid of if elected). I simply don't understand the crazy force structure decisions, the reasons behind getting rid of capabilities (which is often done with no apparent debate or announcement - Shielder mine system and COBRA radar  for example) or some of our equipment purchases. I also don't get how we can expect the defence of the Baltic states to be confined to that immediate region. If it did kick off and there was no gentlemens' agreement in place, then we have essentially no capability to defend the UK from attack. A few Russian cruise missiles could shut down our power grid, transportation system, air traffic control etc. and hit structures critical to our economy like the London Stock Exchange, Bank of England etc. Just knowing their subs had put to sea would cut us off from key resources carried by civilian companies as merchant ships would head for the nearest port and stay there. To be honest, just the power grid strikes would be enough. No one in their right mind here would willingly suffer the massive dislocation that would cause for countries few could point to on the map. The last time we went to war to come to the aid of an Eastern European country, we ended up on the same side as one of its invaders and it remained occupied for over 50 years.

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bond_Villian said:

 

I think this is also a contentious point, surface vessels are very vulnerable, and would probably be destroyed quickly in a conventional war.

 

 

But ships and submarines take much longer to replace than tanks. Some of the bigger ships and nuclear submarines can even be considered as strategic assets.

 

Tanks are probably way even more vulnerable. The proliferation of anti-tank weapons these days.....Even militants such as Hezbollah are equipped with first-rate anti-tank weapons.

 

Only active anti-tank systems have a chance now to really protect a tank. These aren't widely deployed in Europe or at all....

 

The UK isn't concerned with defending its homeland while the defense of the European continent can be done these days with less tanks. Tanks are primarily a ground assault platform. In the event of Russian invasion of Europe, defense can be done via less tanks, more anti-tank missiles, gunships, and air superiority. You don't need tank to destroy another tank these days. Plus, to fight enemy infantry lower caliber AFV may be much more effective than a tank would be (20 mm works wonder against infantry than slow loading 120 mm tank gun or small caliber machine guns)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I think the Politicians are warring on the economic front.

 

Wait for Russia to spend itself into oblivion by purchasing mass quantities of new military hardware. (again)

While sitting on frozen Russian illegally/poorly placed assets. 

 

I believe if Russia wants to trade with Europe they have to do it on European terms due to the stronger market "here"

 

But how that affects the UK defence planning with Brexit in the works (Which Mrs May seems to be making up as she goes) I'm not sure.

 

Mrs May is either extremely sidious and playing it like the conspiracy theory Jarr Jarr Binks (appears witless and knows precisely what he's doing and is using the witlessness as a cover).

Or she's the actual Jarr Jarr Binks. (Just plain witless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

But how that affects the UK defence planning with Brexit in the works (Which Mrs May seems to be making up as she goes) I'm not sure.

 

Well to be fair Brexit wasn't her plan.

 

The guys who lobbied so hard for it (Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, ...), jumped ship as soon as it was passed. She was left to pick up the pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well to be fair Brexit wasn't her plan.

 

The guys who lobbied so hard for it (Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Nigel Farage, ...), jumped ship as soon as it was passed. She was left to pick up the pieces.

 

Well she was the only sensible choice.

Boris Johnson as PM? 

Hahahahahaha!

 

Don't get me started on brexit.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could well be right hedge

But the fact there spending so much on the updated/new nuclear deterant.

Does nor help either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreement with the points about priritising ships.  I could forgive this, if the money was used to better fund the Marines & Para's and not be wasted.  Plus when would you expect the aicrat carrier of europe, to care about tanks?

 

 

(please ecuse spelling, not on my good Laptop, its kind of blunt ebause of that as well)

Edited by Rataca100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...