That's not even half of it. Our Abrams tank plants are still making tanks because they produce jobs. Not too many foreign countries want to the buy the Abrams. The Army knows it has more than enough tanks to satisfy it's requirements for the mission and requested that they be allowed to take a break from buying tanks, but congress shut them down.
We have a large yard somewhere out in the Sierra Nevada desert that houses a collection of over 2,000 Abrams tanks with zero miles on them (a number well over 2x the combined numbers of active tanks in the British Army and the USMC). The yard's tank collection keeps getting bigger as production goes on...
You need to go do your home work again. We have not bought an new Abrams since Bush Sr was in Office. They are all rebuilds of the chassis ordered during the Reagan and Bush Sr years.
Where do we have 2000 new tanks stored with no miles on them? I know of the yard near Reno Nevada with the last of the M1's and M1A1's that have not been upgraded. The tanks are "in reserve storage". The US Air Force had hundreds of F-16's in reserve storage, we call it the "Boneyard".
The Army has been trying to purchase new power plants since the late 1990's: LV100-5 While the tanks have been upgrade New Smooth Bore on the M1's, new electronics, suspensions etc. The power plants have never been replaced only rebuilt. And we are way past the point of diminishing returns.
For one, its chassis is far, far more reliable (engine and tracks) than the Abrams. Its Perkins diesel is also far more reliable and rugged than the gas turbine (and gives the chally a little more operating distance with 100 fewer gallons of fuel than the abrams).
The most important distinction are their main guns.
The L30A1 with barrel rifling offers many advantages over the smoothbore Rheinmetall-licensed NATO 120s, such as the ability to fire HESH and HE ammunition, which is absolutely critical for battlefields, as tanks are more likely to be used against infantry and other vehicles than other tanks. Very recently, 120 HESH and HE has been developed for smoothbore 120s, and the US military refuses to field it ("not invented here, so fuck off" sort of deal, not to mention the US military's homoerotic fascination with tank on tank kursk-type battle scenarios with tanks)
The CHARM 3 is also just as effective as the "silver bullet" for current and future adversaries the west may face.
As far as optics go, the Chally has a panoramic commanders sight. The Abams has no such thing. At worse, perhaps the two offer similar capabilities fire control wise.
personally, in my opinion, the edge goes to the Chally. The leopard 2, though, beats both.
what a load of Eurocentric bullshit! no offense but what the hell are you talking about! homoerotic fascination with tank on tank combat? seriously? really? the Abrams doesn't have a panoramic commanders sight? seriously?
dude.
get real. as far as utility for combat and combat supporting the infantry have you seen the latest Tusk 2 upgrades? the "Chally" is so far behind that it can't even be ranked in the top five of tanks anymore.
i love opinion but i hate spin. the way you labeled your arguments points more to America bashing than any real defense of the upgrade path of the Challenger.
as things stand the Brits are playing catch up with all the major powers when it comes to tank tech and they're starting to fall behind the middle players too. even the French have a more robust upgrade coming to their LeClerc tanks than the Brits are planning!
I said in my opinion. Im not necessarily saying you're wrong. Im not too in love with Britain, the land of warm beer and cold women ;)
Yeah, I cannot see the Chally as *worse* than the M1 when it comes to fire control and visibility. Of course, the SEP supposedly is a leap from previous increments.
Moreover, the M1's TUSK is not bad in my opinion. The remote turret for the 50, thermal imaging sight, loaders gun shield, reactive armor (holy fuck, finally), and infantry phone are all welcome additions, although that still doesn't solve the underlying issue that infantry cannot take cover behind the abrams due to the heat produced by its turbine, it still doesn't have a bottom evacuation hatch, and no adequate anti-personnel and anti-obstacle rounds fielded (BUT they are available from Belgium and Germany, such as HE and HESH).
So no america bashing here. I want gear that works when the shit hits the fan, and for the cost of each abrams, Im underwhelmed with the family honestly. Highlighting its faults can only be necessary to improve it substantially (im curious what the A3 will offer). The reality that I live in is that the Abrams has had excellent publicity, but its fans have done a stupendous job of sweeping its many flaws under the rug to where criticism (which leads to improvements, so, ipso facto, combat effectivness increases) has been silenced. This is a military wide cancer.
With that being said, the Challenger is a exquisitely designed tank, despite the idiocy of the British government and their neglect of tanks over the past decades. They will probably fall more behind since Britain is teetering on the brink of a third world economy in the next half decade. The experiences of the Chally 2 in Iraq spoke for themselves.
i consider that a direct challenge! consider it taken up. i will do a non-biased evaluation of the Abrams vs. Challenger vs. Leo vs. Leclerc and see where the chips fall.
being a Marine Corps centric blog it will be with a view of the best infantry support tank. it will also take into account logistics, strategic and tactical mobility, cube space aboard ship etc....
The armour on the FV4034 Challenger 2, is very modern, remember the in service date is only 1998, 16 years for a tank isn't old by any stretch of the imagination.
plus, that document you had about the future british army, shows a heft upgrade program going foward.
doesnt the m1a2, have a previous generation armour similar to the challenger, anyways??
80....eighty RPG's?........how is that even possible?.....did no one come to its aid or bugger down the RPG wallahs with supporting fire in all that time it took them to fire 80 of them? I have heard of stories of tanks getting hit and surviving 6-7 hits from assorted launchers but 80?
they had Leopard I tanks, the C2 in Canuck derivation, that they were going to retire and replace with the same system as the Stryker MGS on the Piranha III platform. Once they got to Afghanistan and realized their earlier Piranha version were crappy in off road (and even on poor roads) they quickly cancelled their Stryker MGS plans and went to the Dutch to borrow some Leopard 2 tanks while they upgraded and deployed C2 and M113s.
They were supposed to acquire another IFV that would accompany the Leopard 2's, but they just cancelled that program last year...stupid move on their part.
I still think NATO nations are decimating their militaries so they can hide behind the excuse of not having robust enough forces to deploy.
Fighting a counter-terrorist/insirgency war a thousand miles away from home territory and then tax-payers realizing that their nation/nations actually dont have a hostile neighbour does wonders to a Professional Armored Corps. What happens to those units, the units that get disbanded? If you are a long standing commomwealth unit with centuries of experience, you will know exactly how gilded your Officers and JCO's mess is with trophys and Guidon's, Medals and Honors. How do you even go up to that units CO and tell him his unit is disbanded. Probabaly the CO himself is a second/third generation chap. And what becomes of that Unit Mess that has been the Lone Constant for a century or two, holding on to all that is valuable.
Oh please, do not link to that idiot. His numbers in every comparison are off, etc. He's basically just running a pure smear campaign again the US army and their equipment. US vehicle = take min numbers. Not US vehicle = take best numbers.
I dont think a final agreement has been signed for the Merkavas yet. Could be close to a deal though. I wonder how the columbians intend to pay for them ?
I think all of those NATO nations who are disposing of their heavy armor should re-think it. They should offer to base them in nations like Estonia, Poland, and Romania. The hosts could pay to maintain them and keep them ready in case the owner of the tanks deploys to that country or is withdrawn. A small number of tanks could be set aside to be used by the host nation and used to train their crew and technicians.
For example, the Challenger 2's being withdrawn from British service could be stored in the Baltic states and kept in high state of readiness by the host nations. Meanwhile, a smaller number of those tanks could by the host countries for training. British units could rotate in and out similar to the way they train at BATUS in Alberta Canada.
The Brits get to keep the tanks, preposition them and have the host nation maintain them while the host nation gets access to modern MBTs for training
haha, the Russians would make it point to deliberatly Invade the Baltics if modern western equipment were to be stored there. But i think the US army is already trying a project to pre-position war equipment stocks in Mainland Europe- like the Bradleys and Abrams and then have the units rotate but keep equipment the same. I havnt heard much about the programs success or how they have actually implemented it. It will seem sad to have a unit with no permanent equipment which they cant call their own.
European nations, like the United States and Canada, are all committing suicide by trending more in favor of wheeled vehicles. It is a cancer that has spread throughout the west like leukemia, and the asiatic states are not buying into any of it.
There is a value to tracks and armor. The "light and fast" routine only works with rapid reaction/airborne forces and the bulk of military ground forces cannot adhere to this, while maintaining solid defense capabilities. The urban battlefields where wheels are advantageous were also tactical anomalies, not future battlefield trends like the "4th gen warfare" adherents believe.
Many eastern european and scandinavian states are investing in Leopards and other armor though. Finland and the other Scandinavian states aren't fucking around and are buying Leos. Poland is investing in armor domestically.
Funny. Those states facing direct threats from Russia and China continue to see the value in tracks. Those with the luxury of many states to buffer them from their adversaries are in a luxurious position to ponder the abstract nonsense of wheeled units.
Well many of those new wheeled vehicles are far from light, take for instance the german boxer, the finnish amv, they are heavier and better protected than the IFVs they replaced. And they are often better armed!
Jacobite, you are absolutely correct. I shouldn't be pessimistic. The Patria is a awesome vehicle and I hope that the Marine Corps starts fielding the Havoc ASAP. The Boxer and Pirhana V will also gain in popularity too.
Other countries too have adopted new tracked vehicles, such as the Puma, CV90 and the ASCOD (variants too). The ASCOD is one newcomer that I haven't heard about until recently. It looks like a variant may be adopted by the brits to replace the Warrior (Scout SV).
That's not even half of it. Our Abrams tank plants are still making tanks because they produce jobs. Not too many foreign countries want to the buy the Abrams. The Army knows it has more than enough tanks to satisfy it's requirements for the mission and requested that they be allowed to take a break from buying tanks, but congress shut them down.
ReplyDeleteWe have a large yard somewhere out in the Sierra Nevada desert that houses a collection of over 2,000 Abrams tanks with zero miles on them (a number well over 2x the combined numbers of active tanks in the British Army and the USMC). The yard's tank collection keeps getting bigger as production goes on...
You need to go do your home work again. We have not bought an new Abrams since Bush Sr was in Office. They are all rebuilds of the chassis ordered during the Reagan and Bush Sr years.
DeleteWhere do we have 2000 new tanks stored with no miles on them? I know of the yard near Reno Nevada with the last of the M1's and M1A1's that have not been upgraded. The tanks are "in reserve storage". The US Air Force had hundreds of F-16's in reserve storage, we call it the "Boneyard".
The Army has been trying to purchase new power plants since the late 1990's: LV100-5
While the tanks have been upgrade New Smooth Bore on the M1's, new electronics, suspensions etc. The power plants have never been replaced only rebuilt. And we are way past the point of diminishing returns.
You're right. They're refurbished tanks, not brand new ones. I'll remember that.
Deletei'd say a FV4034 Challenger 2, is more than, a match for the m1a2 abrams, in long range engagements.
ReplyDeletebut your right we dont have many active, anymore. alarming!!!
early models were. but you Brits haven't kept up with your modernization programs for your armor where the US Army has.
Deleteour optics are better, our FLIR is better and so is our fire control.
the challenger would get smoked before he knew the abrams was even their thanks to those depleted uranium rounds.
meant thermal imaging not FLIR>
DeleteThe Chally is overall superior in my opinion.
DeleteFor one, its chassis is far, far more reliable (engine and tracks) than the Abrams. Its Perkins diesel is also far more reliable and rugged than the gas turbine (and gives the chally a little more operating distance with 100 fewer gallons of fuel than the abrams).
The most important distinction are their main guns.
The L30A1 with barrel rifling offers many advantages over the smoothbore Rheinmetall-licensed NATO 120s, such as the ability to fire HESH and HE ammunition, which is absolutely critical for battlefields, as tanks are more likely to be used against infantry and other vehicles than other tanks. Very recently, 120 HESH and HE has been developed for smoothbore 120s, and the US military refuses to field it ("not invented here, so fuck off" sort of deal, not to mention the US military's homoerotic fascination with tank on tank kursk-type battle scenarios with tanks)
The CHARM 3 is also just as effective as the "silver bullet" for current and future adversaries the west may face.
As far as optics go, the Chally has a panoramic commanders sight. The Abams has no such thing. At worse, perhaps the two offer similar capabilities fire control wise.
personally, in my opinion, the edge goes to the Chally. The leopard 2, though, beats both.
what a load of Eurocentric bullshit! no offense but what the hell are you talking about! homoerotic fascination with tank on tank combat? seriously? really? the Abrams doesn't have a panoramic commanders sight? seriously?
Deletedude.
get real. as far as utility for combat and combat supporting the infantry have you seen the latest Tusk 2 upgrades? the "Chally" is so far behind that it can't even be ranked in the top five of tanks anymore.
i love opinion but i hate spin. the way you labeled your arguments points more to America bashing than any real defense of the upgrade path of the Challenger.
as things stand the Brits are playing catch up with all the major powers when it comes to tank tech and they're starting to fall behind the middle players too. even the French have a more robust upgrade coming to their LeClerc tanks than the Brits are planning!
I said in my opinion. Im not necessarily saying you're wrong. Im not too in love with Britain, the land of warm beer and cold women ;)
DeleteYeah, I cannot see the Chally as *worse* than the M1 when it comes to fire control and visibility. Of course, the SEP supposedly is a leap from previous increments.
Moreover, the M1's TUSK is not bad in my opinion. The remote turret for the 50, thermal imaging sight, loaders gun shield, reactive armor (holy fuck, finally), and infantry phone are all welcome additions, although that still doesn't solve the underlying issue that infantry cannot take cover behind the abrams due to the heat produced by its turbine, it still doesn't have a bottom evacuation hatch, and no adequate anti-personnel and anti-obstacle rounds fielded (BUT they are available from Belgium and Germany, such as HE and HESH).
So no america bashing here. I want gear that works when the shit hits the fan, and for the cost of each abrams, Im underwhelmed with the family honestly. Highlighting its faults can only be necessary to improve it substantially (im curious what the A3 will offer). The reality that I live in is that the Abrams has had excellent publicity, but its fans have done a stupendous job of sweeping its many flaws under the rug to where criticism (which leads to improvements, so, ipso facto, combat effectivness increases) has been silenced. This is a military wide cancer.
With that being said, the Challenger is a exquisitely designed tank, despite the idiocy of the British government and their neglect of tanks over the past decades. They will probably fall more behind since Britain is teetering on the brink of a third world economy in the next half decade. The experiences of the Chally 2 in Iraq spoke for themselves.
I don't know much about the Leclerc ill admit.
i consider that a direct challenge! consider it taken up. i will do a non-biased evaluation of the Abrams vs. Challenger vs. Leo vs. Leclerc and see where the chips fall.
Deletebeing a Marine Corps centric blog it will be with a view of the best infantry support tank. it will also take into account logistics, strategic and tactical mobility, cube space aboard ship etc....
give me a day to get it up.
Excellent! Ill be looking foward to this comparison.
DeleteDont you dare forget the Merkava though... ;)
The armour on the FV4034 Challenger 2, is very modern, remember the in service date is only 1998, 16 years for a tank isn't old by any stretch of the imagination.
ReplyDeleteplus, that document you had about the future british army, shows a heft upgrade program going foward.
doesnt the m1a2, have a previous generation armour similar to the challenger, anyways??
just found this out, the only challenger 2 destroyed in action was by another challenger 2.
ReplyDeletein another incident, a challenger 2, was hit by over 80 rpgs & survived.
80....eighty RPG's?........how is that even possible?.....did no one come to its aid or bugger down the RPG wallahs with supporting fire in all that time it took them to fire 80 of them? I have heard of stories of tanks getting hit and surviving 6-7 hits from assorted launchers but 80?
Delete
DeleteMay be 8 RPGs + 1 Milan? 80 hits on a single tank seems a bit... Just a tank, not a titan =)
I've heard that the Canadian Army has more generals than tanks....
ReplyDeleteI/ve heard that before Afghanistan, the Canadian Army had no tanks.
Deletethey had Leopard I tanks, the C2 in Canuck derivation, that they were going to retire and replace with the same system as the Stryker MGS on the Piranha III platform. Once they got to Afghanistan and realized their earlier Piranha version were crappy in off road (and even on poor roads) they quickly cancelled their Stryker MGS plans and went to the Dutch to borrow some Leopard 2 tanks while they upgraded and deployed C2 and M113s.
DeleteThey were supposed to acquire another IFV that would accompany the Leopard 2's, but they just cancelled that program last year...stupid move on their part.
I still think NATO nations are decimating their militaries so they can hide behind the excuse of not having robust enough forces to deploy.
Fighting a counter-terrorist/insirgency war a thousand miles away from home territory and then tax-payers realizing that their nation/nations actually dont have a hostile neighbour does wonders to a Professional Armored Corps.
DeleteWhat happens to those units, the units that get disbanded?
If you are a long standing commomwealth unit with centuries of experience, you will know exactly how gilded your Officers and JCO's mess is with trophys and Guidon's, Medals and Honors. How do you even go up to that units CO and tell him his unit is disbanded. Probabaly the CO himself is a second/third generation chap. And what becomes of that Unit Mess that has been the Lone Constant for a century or two, holding on to all that is valuable.
Soo... Any guesses on how far that ricochet on the last pic went?
ReplyDeleteNow compare the logistics tail, failure rates, maintenance activity and hazards between the two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLYjvK7fGX4
ReplyDeleteOh please, do not link to that idiot. His numbers in every comparison are off, etc. He's basically just running a pure smear campaign again the US army and their equipment. US vehicle = take min numbers. Not US vehicle = take best numbers.
DeleteNothing he says is in any way reliable.
So you deny the insane logistics model of the M-1? Do you have any counter figures to this? (Youtube Search)
DeleteThe REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 1: Overview
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 1/4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 2/4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 3/4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 4/4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 1 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 2 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 3 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 4 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 5 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 6 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 4: Protection (Part 1 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 4: Protection (Part 2 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 4: Protection (Part 3 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 4: Protection (Part 4 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 4: Protection (Part 5 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 5: Surprise (Part 1 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 5: Surprise (Part 2 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 5: Surprise (Part 3 of 5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 5: Surprise (Part 4/5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 5: Surprise (Part 5/5)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 6: Infantry Support... or not? (Part 1/3)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 6: Infantry Support... or not? (Part 2/3)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 6: Infantry Support... or not? (Part 3/3)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 1/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 2/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 3/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 4/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 5/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 6/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 7/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 8/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 7: Logistics (Part 9/9)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 8: Vaporware (Part 1 of 4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 8: Vaporware (Part 2 of 4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 8: Vaporware (Part 3 of 4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 8: Vaporware (Part 4 of 4)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 1 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 2 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 3 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 4 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 5 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 9: Crew Hazards (Part 6 of 6)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 1 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 2 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 3 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 4 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 5 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 6 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 7 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 8 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 9 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams!, Chapter 10: Fun M1 Facts (Part 10 of 10)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 11: Combat Record (Part 1 of 2)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 11: Combat Record (Part 2 of 2)
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 12: The Raw Numbers, Part 1 of 3
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 12: The Raw Numbers, Part 2 of 3
The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 12: The Raw Numbers, Part 3 of 3
So the little photographer is suddenly an armoured vehicle expert…the jokes continue!
DeleteIt seems Colombia is the country that bought 40 Merkavas. That's a good choise.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/OtMgnRMIspQ
I dont think a final agreement has been signed for the Merkavas yet. Could be close to a deal though. I wonder how the columbians intend to pay for them ?
DeleteI think all of those NATO nations who are disposing of their heavy armor should re-think it. They should offer to base them in nations like Estonia, Poland, and Romania. The hosts could pay to maintain them and keep them ready in case the owner of the tanks deploys to that country or is withdrawn. A small number of tanks could be set aside to be used by the host nation and used to train their crew and technicians.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Challenger 2's being withdrawn from British service could be stored in the Baltic states and kept in high state of readiness by the host nations. Meanwhile, a smaller number of those tanks could by the host countries for training. British units could rotate in and out similar to the way they train at BATUS in Alberta Canada.
The Brits get to keep the tanks, preposition them and have the host nation maintain them while the host nation gets access to modern MBTs for training
haha, the Russians would make it point to deliberatly Invade the Baltics if modern western equipment were to be stored there.
DeleteBut i think the US army is already trying a project to pre-position war equipment stocks in Mainland Europe- like the Bradleys and Abrams and then have the units rotate but keep equipment the same. I havnt heard much about the programs success or how they have actually implemented it. It will seem sad to have a unit with no permanent equipment which they cant call their own.
European nations, like the United States and Canada, are all committing suicide by trending more in favor of wheeled vehicles. It is a cancer that has spread throughout the west like leukemia, and the asiatic states are not buying into any of it.
DeleteThere is a value to tracks and armor. The "light and fast" routine only works with rapid reaction/airborne forces and the bulk of military ground forces cannot adhere to this, while maintaining solid defense capabilities. The urban battlefields where wheels are advantageous were also tactical anomalies, not future battlefield trends like the "4th gen warfare" adherents believe.
Many eastern european and scandinavian states are investing in Leopards and other armor though. Finland and the other Scandinavian states aren't fucking around and are buying Leos. Poland is investing in armor domestically.
Funny. Those states facing direct threats from Russia and China continue to see the value in tracks. Those with the luxury of many states to buffer them from their adversaries are in a luxurious position to ponder the abstract nonsense of wheeled units.
Well many of those new wheeled vehicles are far from light, take for instance the german boxer, the finnish amv, they are heavier and better protected than the IFVs they replaced. And they are often better armed!
DeleteJacobite, you are absolutely correct. I shouldn't be pessimistic. The Patria is a awesome vehicle and I hope that the Marine Corps starts fielding the Havoc ASAP. The Boxer and Pirhana V will also gain in popularity too.
DeleteOther countries too have adopted new tracked vehicles, such as the Puma, CV90 and the ASCOD (variants too). The ASCOD is one newcomer that I haven't heard about until recently. It looks like a variant may be adopted by the brits to replace the Warrior (Scout SV).
Disturbing fact: the USMC has more men than the whole British army
ReplyDeleteIf you want a really disturbing fact: the British Army now has more horses than tanks.
ReplyDelete