Those are Leo 2A4 from 11.Armored Cav. The turret is rather the same size, the only notable difference is lack of slope in front in Leos 2A4, it's look small but that's only an optic illusion on photo.
Jesus Christ, one dickhead posts a link to a 2011 article making a prediction that never came to fruition (50 tanks my arse) and another thinks we only used a "regiment" to invade Iraq. If you must google shit, google the right shit you lazy bastards.
i don't know. i didn't find it out of line...just passionate about his country's defense capabilities. i get fired up when certain posters talk about the decline of the US so i get it. what i don't get though are the persistent reports about cutbacks. where there's smoke there's fire. are we looking at cutbacks in the future...just waiting on the appropriate time to announce them?
considering that the number of tanks deployed to Poland is about 20 my statement of it being about half is correct, as to the off the cuff remark about the invasion of Iraq i admit i was wrong i rounded down from two and a bit to one. An egregious mistake on my part, but the point about how the units were brought up to full complement stands, no British Armoured Regiment has its full allotment of tanks during peace time.
UK defence is a long way from where I would like it to be and a very, very long way from the Cold War army of which I was a part (although in many ways better). I just tire of people taking journalistic garbage and posting it as fact.
Post SDSR the army is to have three armoured regiments (tank equipped) each with three sabre squadrons, that alone is 162 tanks. Given that that is from a holding of 227 it is not unreasonable to regard them as deployable.
Now, here's the problem at the moment; the army is still moving back to a manoeuvre posture following operation Useless Dirt 2, so it is not vehicle numbers that are the issue but trained crews. Exercises like the above are part of the transition back to the tank.
No expert on UK tanks, I just goggled it, I found these 2 articles, looks like around 150 to 167 will be "active" with another 50 in storage so you get 227 total. These 2 articles are from 2014. Just my 2 cents....
Actually, think it is more. 227 is the number that can be thrown into "casual" fights, add in the spares tanks and training tanks, you get 340+/-, so it isn't really that bad.
The problem, like Crichton mentioned, are crews. The UK has more tanks in storage than they have active crew.
Not to mention that they still have heaps of Warriors and CVR(T)s which are technically their main striking arm, usual ratio is 1:2-3 (1 MBT unit:2-3 IFVs), so you are talking about 600-800 tanks.
Most people go ga-ga about MBTs, but more often than not, the lower weight classes are much more common and do most of the work.
200 MBTs and 600 lighter tanks isn't a small force.
227 MBTs is roughly the same number as Germany and France will have in service, so for an island nation it's adequate. Also for a major operation like Telic (Iraq invasion) the British Army deployed around 120 MBTs, so I doubt they would need to deploy more than that in the future.
The British Army is planning to by 2020 to have 3 mechanized brigades each with 1 armored regiment(Challenger 2), 1 armored cavalry regiment(CVR(T)), 3 armored infantry battalions(Warriors) and 1 Heavy protection mobility infantry battalion(Mastiffs). One brigade will have 54 Challenger 2s, 48CVR(T)s, 126Warriors, and 42 Mastiffs. In total their armored forces will have around 162 Main Battle Tanks, 144 Light Tanks, 378Infantry Fighting Vehicles and 126 Heavy MRAPs. Also there is the Royal Essex Yeomanry adding 4 squadrons to give armoured resilience to the active armored regiments. If someone could explain to me what the hell that means that would be great
What percentage of 50 or so tanks left in the British Army is that?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8250548/Armys-400-tanks-may-be-cut-to-50.html
About half i would imagine.
ReplyDeleteThe British army only managed to deploy a full regiment for the invasion of Iraq by stripping vehicles from undeployed units.
First tank looks like a Leo.
ReplyDeleteJust goes to show how huge the turret is compared to a Chally
Those are Leo 2A4 from 11.Armored Cav. The turret is rather the same size, the only notable difference is lack of slope in front in Leos 2A4, it's look small but that's only an optic illusion on photo.
DeleteJesus Christ, one dickhead posts a link to a 2011 article making a prediction that never came to fruition (50 tanks my arse) and another thinks we only used a "regiment" to invade Iraq. If you must google shit, google the right shit you lazy bastards.
ReplyDeletehow many tanks do you have in service that are deployable?
DeleteSol, my crystal ball says 227 out of a total of 345 from the UK's recent proposed SLEP. The rest are spares tanks and training tanks.
DeleteWhile crichton may come off as a bit rude, he's right in essence, the previous posters are using wrong numbers.
i don't know. i didn't find it out of line...just passionate about his country's defense capabilities. i get fired up when certain posters talk about the decline of the US so i get it. what i don't get though are the persistent reports about cutbacks. where there's smoke there's fire. are we looking at cutbacks in the future...just waiting on the appropriate time to announce them?
Deleteconsidering that the number of tanks deployed to Poland is about 20 my statement of it being about half is correct, as to the off the cuff remark about the invasion of Iraq i admit i was wrong i rounded down from two and a bit to one.
DeleteAn egregious mistake on my part, but the point about how the units were brought up to full complement stands, no British Armoured Regiment has its full allotment of tanks during peace time.
20 is half of 227?
DeleteI know they lowered the standard of the GCE, but this is pretty bad. :)
UK defence is a long way from where I would like it to be and a very, very long way from the Cold War army of which I was a part (although in many ways better). I just tire of people taking journalistic garbage and posting it as fact.
ReplyDeletePost SDSR the army is to have three armoured regiments (tank equipped) each with three sabre squadrons, that alone is 162 tanks. Given that that is from a holding of 227 it is not unreasonable to regard them as deployable.
Now, here's the problem at the moment; the army is still moving back to a manoeuvre posture following operation Useless Dirt 2, so it is not vehicle numbers that are the issue but trained crews. Exercises like the above are part of the transition back to the tank.
No expert on UK tanks, I just goggled it, I found these 2 articles, looks like around 150 to 167 will be "active" with another 50 in storage so you get 227 total. These 2 articles are from 2014. Just my 2 cents....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-has-just-227-tanks-left-after-spending-cuts-1442463
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-army-reduced-to-one-single-tank-regiment-9644238.html
I will accept 227 as the number.
DeleteStill 227 is just terrible, the UK is no longer able to wage ground war overseas with a tank force like that.
Actually, think it is more. 227 is the number that can be thrown into "casual" fights, add in the spares tanks and training tanks, you get 340+/-, so it isn't really that bad.
DeleteThe problem, like Crichton mentioned, are crews. The UK has more tanks in storage than they have active crew.
Not to mention that they still have heaps of Warriors and CVR(T)s which are technically their main striking arm, usual ratio is 1:2-3 (1 MBT unit:2-3 IFVs), so you are talking about 600-800 tanks.
Most people go ga-ga about MBTs, but more often than not, the lower weight classes are much more common and do most of the work.
200 MBTs and 600 lighter tanks isn't a small force.
@ SlowMan
Delete227 MBTs is roughly the same number as Germany and France will have in service, so for an island nation it's adequate. Also for a major operation like Telic (Iraq invasion) the British Army deployed around 120 MBTs, so I doubt they would need to deploy more than that in the future.
The "227" figure comes from the number of Challenger 2 that the MOD expects to put through the Challenger Life Extension Program (modernisation).
ReplyDeleteYup, this number excludes training tanks, you don't upgrade something you expect ham handed recruits to bang up, and spare parts tanks.
DeleteThe British Army is planning to by 2020 to have 3 mechanized brigades each with 1 armored regiment(Challenger 2), 1 armored cavalry regiment(CVR(T)), 3 armored infantry battalions(Warriors) and 1 Heavy protection mobility infantry battalion(Mastiffs). One brigade will have 54 Challenger 2s, 48CVR(T)s, 126Warriors, and 42 Mastiffs. In total their armored forces will have around 162 Main Battle Tanks, 144 Light Tanks, 378Infantry Fighting Vehicles and 126 Heavy MRAPs. Also there is the Royal Essex Yeomanry adding 4 squadrons to give armoured resilience to the active armored regiments. If someone could explain to me what the hell that means that would be great
ReplyDeleteMore men to feed into the meatgrinder in case of trouble. basically, the Yeomanry is going to act as a reserves pool.
DeleteThanks for that Owl.
Delete