ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Bladesman

Cheers llech, I did see that, but when were they last used in anger and what current or future scenario do you envisage where they would be an advantage?

They were used on Telic 4 in 2004. I don't think that was the last time they were used in Iraq but it's the last time I'm certain they were used.

And they did have one get fucked by an anti tank mine put on an angle
Not saying cvrt haven't but I remember being told when it happened when I was in Basra hotel

Originally Posted by cernunnos

Well not if you continue to talk a load of fucking bollocks!

Armoured warfare is about survivability, CVR(T) (and please note the T is not and never will be for tank) have very very limited protection, I should know, I've scraped people out of one after a mine strike.

T stands for TRACKED

Originally Posted by Bladesman

Cheers llech, I did see that, but when were they last used in anger and what current or future scenario do you envisage where they would be an advantage?
My limited knowledge of aroured combat prompts the question.

It's hard to believe that we'd have got into Basra as cheaply as we did without C2. Curiously, in my view, the MBT has a future as an urban weapon (if properly protected by supporting infantry), particularly if the other side lacks the means to attack it effectively. If you think of it as a mobile fire support provider and command centre capable of shock action and obstacle demolition, and with unparalleled protection and loiter ability, then you begin to understand what it brings to the table. We won't have so many of them but they remain extremely useful. In terms of future development, the main technical challenge must be to achieve the same effects, with particular regard to protection, with less weight.

Originally Posted by Bladesman

Cheers llech, I did see that, but when were they last used in anger

Used by the Isralies quite often. I would like the perspective of the grunt on the ground as to whether he would rather be out and about with a few bullet magnets around or rather wait for an air responce when it warmed up around them.

As nobody know where the next threat is about to appear although the tank terrain of a certain country looks more than favourite followed once again by the asperations of our old enemy across the channel , our leaders, like I have said before may end up with a big chunk taken out of their arrse.

I think the only answer to this is "don't know", however let's not get rid of what we have just in case...

My main worry with the way in which MOD manages equipment is the unseemly haste we get rid of kit. Take the Harriers for instance. Scrapped or sold the instance a decision was made! Surely from a defence point of view it would have been more sensible to mothball the fleet and it's support kit?

Same with heavy armour and artillery. Just put the CH2 and AS90 fleets into deep pres. The ammo will keep for twenty years, so what's the problem?

My theory is that the MOD and senior staff are so wedded to "buying new stuff" that any excuse for not doing so has to be removed. "Burn every Bridge" seems to be the management strategy. I suggest it is this pig headed, short term policy that has go us into so much financial trouble recently..

Hanging on to kit because "it may come in handy" is a well proven military logistic principle, followed by the US and Russia. It has worked for us too.. the Pig and the 432/Bulldog are cases in point..

Why then are our ranges scattered with Chieftain, CR1 and SP gun hulks?

Always easier to upgun or re engine an old chassis than start from scratch..

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

It's hard to believe that we'd have got into Basra as cheaply as we did without C2. Curiously, in my view, the MBT has a future as an urban weapon (if properly protected by supporting infantry), particularly if the other side lacks the means to attack it effectively. If you think of it as a mobile fire support provider and command centre capable of shock action and obstacle demolition, and with unparalleled protection and loiter ability, then you begin to understand what it brings to the table. We won't have so many of them but they remain extremely useful. In terms of future development, the main technical challenge must be to achieve the same effects, with particular regard to protection, with less weight.

"if properly protected by supporting infantry"

It was my understanding that they the tank was originally designed to support and protect the infantry?

At that time the coalition forces would not have had the luxury of sufficient attack helicopters so MBT turned out to be a bonus. I am told that the sight of MBT crossing the start line was quite something.

Originally Posted by HE117

I think the only answer to this is "don't know", however let's not get rid of what we have just in case...

My main worry with the way in which MOD manages equipment is the unseemly haste we get rid of kit. Take the Harriers for instance. Scrapped or sold the instance a decision was made! Surely from a defence point of view it would have been more sensible to mothball the fleet and it's support kit?

Same with heavy armour and artillery. Just put the CH2 and AS90 fleets into deep pres. The ammo will keep for twenty years, so what's the problem?

My theory is that the MOD and senior staff are so wedded to "buying new stuff" that any excuse for not doing so has to be removed. "Burn every Bridge" seems to be the management strategy. I suggest it is this pig headed, short term policy that has go us into so much financial trouble recently..

Hanging on to kit because "it may come in handy" is a well proven military logistic principle, followed by the US and Russia. It has worked for us too.. the Pig and the 432/Bulldog are cases in point..

Why then are our ranges scattered with Chieftain, CR1 and SP gun hulks?

Always easier to upgun or re engine an old chassis than start from scratch..

Some excellent points and difficult to argue except that drivers and gunners don't do so well in pres for 20 years. ;)