ARmy Rumour SErvice

I thought that we had decided that the best method of destroying enemy armour was Brimstone missiles? It seems to me that we have invested a lot of money in developing anti-armour weapons rather than investing in armour itself.

Originally Posted by History_Man

I thought that we had decided that the best method of destroying enemy armour was Brimstone missiles? It seems to me that we have invested a lot of money in developing anti-armour weapons rather than investing in armour itself.

The Libyan adventure proved that it is quite easy to destroy armour from the air, if the enemy is kind enough to deploy his forces overtly in open terrain (which a dictator, busy in a civil war is obliged to do).

However, considering the complete air superiority enjoyed by Uncle Sam in 1991 and 2003, is it not strange that they still had to persist in the decidedly mundane job of engaging in direct-fire battles with enemy armour? Obviously the Iraqis hadn't read the memo about armour being obsolete...and just as well the Yanks packed a whole big frickin' suitcase full of it...

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

The Libyan adventure proved that it is quite easy to destroy armour from the air, if the enemy is kind enough to deploy his forces overtly in open terrain (which a dictator, busy in a civil war is obliged to do).

Unfortunately, I think that this is the lesson most likely to be extracted from Op ELLAMY re. attacking armour. I don't disagree with your substantive point - the only contact I've ever had with armour is the FV436 - but I think that the die is cast: we will use stand-off guided weapons to destroy armour, not armour itself.

Saudi want 800 Leo 2's at about 20 million each. If we were on the ball that could have been our order.

Originally Posted by BONNACON

Saudi want 800 Leo 2's at about 20 million each. If we were on the ball that could have been our order.

Difficult to be on the ball when you are playing a different game.

We do not export tanks (or much of anything else the British Army has used in the last 30 years), the Russians, the US and the Germans do. Soon, perhaps we will add China and S Korea to that, but whatever we made was expensive, new looking but filled with obsolete crap.

There was another industry in UK that did something similar.....any guesses

Originally Posted by History_Man

Unfortunately, I think that this is the lesson most likely to be extracted from Op ELLAMY re. attacking armour. I don't disagree with your substantive point - the only contact I've ever had with armour is the FV436 - but I think that the die is cast: we will use stand-off guided weapons to destroy armour, not armour itself.

Rolling 70 tons of steel down someones main drag is still one of the most effective ways of impressing on people the games up.

And 120mm rounds are relatively cheap and you can carry a lot of them, and don't forget, the new sexiness is going to tube launched guided weapons in infantry support and AT flavours...just as long as you adopted a smooth bore cannon for your tank.

Originally Posted by sunnoficarus

Rolling 70 tons of steel down someones main drag is still one of the most effective ways of impressing on people the games up.

An expensive capability to maintain to perform intimidation; the fact that we have not deployed CR2 on HERRICK (for whatever reason) has, I am sure, counted against it as a platform in the SDSR and subsequent PR12.

Originally Posted by History_Man

An expensive capability to maintain to perform intimidation; the fact that we have not deployed CR2 on HERRICK (for whatever reason) has, I am sure, counted against it as a platform in the SDSR and subsequent PR12.

However, the latest indications on A2020 (re Nick Carter's RUSI address) hint that the orginal Herrick-focussed 'light infantry' only Army has been binned, armour/armoured infantry will be key to our future reaction forces, and vital in addressing 'hybrid' enemies.