ThinkDefence has an interesting series of articles taking a look at the British Tank Force. Where it is currently and short/long term plans for it. This is of interest to the Marine Corps because our tank force closely mirrors the Brits in terms of size and use. Click here to go to the latest article.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
ThinkDefence takes a look at the British Tank Force.
ThinkDefence has an interesting series of articles taking a look at the British Tank Force. Where it is currently and short/long term plans for it. This is of interest to the Marine Corps because our tank force closely mirrors the Brits in terms of size and use. Click here to go to the latest article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Thanks for the link Sol
ReplyDeleteThe UK will have 227 Challenger 2's in service, is that more or less (I suspect much less) than the USMC
i think its about the same. 4 tank battalions and i'm guessing about 40 or 50 tanks per so its in the ball park give or take. i'll check to make sure. i wanted to ask on your site but since you're here and go ahead.
ReplyDeletewhy no Challengers in Afghanistan?
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI've been asking that question for years. The original reason given was that tanks couldn't operate well there. So either thats wrong/a lie or a very poor indication of Challenger mobility versus the Danish Leopards operating there. I'd assume the former is right to be honest.
I think the answer is a little more complex than that and includes arguments about (in no particular order)
ReplyDeleteThe cost
Their mobility and usefulness in the British area of operations which is not so much the open desert areas but close in Green Zone I guess
The impact on local infrastructure (bridges etc)
The impact on local farmers fields given we are supposed to be beyond major full on fighting
Its too late now the end is nigh
It sends the wrong political message as it would be seen as an escalation
and finally, did I mention
The Cost
The Cost
and
The Cost
Dad sailed back home from Germany after the war the ship he was on was loaded with Sherman tanks, as the ship sailed a crane picked up the Shermans and dropped them into the sea. Obsolete before the end of the war and surveyed and jettisoned sans weapons.
ReplyDeleteA large heavy Tank is a big hassle to get into a battle arena and it is just as big a hassle to extract.
Afghanistan is land locked, armor must go overland or via rail to a port for shipping to carry.
Easy to sabotage the route out and destroy or steal top of the line Armored vehicles.
Scuttlebutt is......all equipment not evac'ed and extracted is to be blown in place.
The UK version of the Future Combat System. Have the last 10 years not taught us all a big lesson - BIG HEAVY ARMOR WINS. Until we galactic force fields or some new armor is invented that's as strong as the current stuff, but has 1/3 the weight, the tank will and should remain thick and heavy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I entirely agree that heavy armor, as part of the combined arms team, can still be critical in modern warfare I disagree that it's ever going to get lighter. One flaw in FCS was the notion that advanced armor would allow similar levels of protection to today at lower weight while ignoring what happens when others use that armor at today's MBT weight. The result would have been AFV's FCS would have had a lot of trouble with while the other guy would have penetrated FCS. Think M4 Sherman vs Panther all over again.
ReplyDeleteOther systems will be fielded with various levels of utility but they can never substitute for a MBT. Only an MBT brings together direct firepower, high levels of protection, and very high mobility that together creates a shock effect. Lighter armored vehicles with large direct fire guns can look like and move as well as tanks but lacking the protection of MBT's they must be more carefully utilized and lose the shock effect against an enemy with decent AT systems.
Another factor that keeps getting missed is the infantry carrier keeps getting better protected and heavier. Especially in western nations the political imperative to limit casualties is going to put a premium on protection and hence the weight of vehicles and units will continue to trend upward. Indeed Israel's new armored infantry carrier is essentially a tank chassis with MBT levels of protection and weighs 60 tons. Germany's new IFV, the Puma, carries 6 dismounts at 47 tons. At 28 tons today's Bradley is likely to be replaced with a GCV carrying 9 dismounts at roughly twice the weight.
FWIW,
ReplyDeleteHere’s a recent CBO report on the US Ground Combat Vehicle.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43699-GroundCombatVehicles.pdf
The GCV could be as large as an M1, and potentially heavier.
The study is an interesting read, IMHO and has a chart that breaks down the cost of a few modern US armored vehicles by component (pg 41).
It also has an interesting section on active protection systems.