ARmy Rumour SErvice

**elovabloke** · 30-01-2012, 14:10

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Because the more tanks we have, irrespective of whether they are in storage or not, the more personnel are required. More soldiers cost more money.

Nail Head - all about money and it's time for everyone to accept it and the politico's to admit it, end of head at the table in the UN perhaps the worry.

**TangoFowerAlpha** · 30-01-2012, 14:13

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

Even the shitiest tin-pot banana republic seems to have a fleet of cast-off T-55, which whilst not exactly cutting edge, still trump the option of 'nothing' every time.

I'm not sure I follow that argument. Gaddafi's MBT capability was taken out quite comprehensively without an opposing MBT in sight. I believe we should maintain the option but the threat from T55s isn't the reason.

**Flash MacTavish** · 30-01-2012, 14:14

Originally Posted by Bladesman

A genuine question. Does current doctrine support the use of heavy armour and what, if anything does the future hold?

The Canadian Army was getting out of the heavy armour club in the early part of the last decade, events in Kandahar Province made them rethink that idea. Result, we now have some preowned Leopard 2s on strength.

**bokkatankie** · 30-01-2012, 14:15

Originally Posted by elovabloke

Nail Head - all about money and it's time for everyone to accept it and the politico's to admit it, end of head at the table in the UN perhaps the worry.

Except throwing capabilities, be it parachuting or heavy armour or the Harrier force, out with the bath water is not money wise or sensible. It is about time the politicos (and perhaps more importantly those who advise them) at least tried to understand that.

**elovabloke** · 30-01-2012, 14:18

Originally Posted by TangoFowerAlpha

Gaddafi's MBT capability was taken out quite comprehensively without an opposing MBT in sight.

Life was a little one sided as he neither had the air capability to stop the attacks on the MBTs. If it's going to be the super powers v's the minows then the requirement is indeed very nearly dead.

**bokkatankie** · 30-01-2012, 14:21

Originally Posted by elovabloke

Life was a little one sided as he neither had the air capability to stop the attacks on the MBTs. If it's going to be the super powers v's the minows then the requirement is indeed very nearly dead.

And yet many of the MBT (and other armoured platforms) survived and caused major problems for the rebel forces, you cannot have it both ways, airpower on its own is not the answer either.

If the future is, as you say, fighting minnows we do not need 75% of the stuff we have now.

**TangoFowerAlpha** · 30-01-2012, 14:30

Originally Posted by elovabloke

Life was a little one sided as he neither had the air capability to stop the attacks on the MBTs. If it's going to be the super powers v's the minows then the requirement is indeed very nearly dead.

The point I was trying to make was not that we needed CR2 to defeat T55 rather think what the effect of a Regt's worth of CR2 would be on the rest of a minnow's capability without the need for the infantry to get their hands dirty.

**Gassing_Badgers** · 30-01-2012, 14:54

Originally Posted by TangoFowerAlpha

I'm not sure I follow that argument. Gaddafi's MBT capability was taken out quite comprehensively without an opposing MBT in sight. I believe we should maintain the option but the threat from T55s isn't the reason.

Only because our plan involved swatting him from a safe distance, and his plan necessitated deploying his forces to deal with the rebels.

I would contend that if we had deployed a major ground element to deal with Gadaffi, then we would have been very reluctant to have done so without our own MBT in support. If we are willing to accept that we are unlikely to deploy our forces ever again in any kind of expeditionary operation, then yes - we can probably do without. If not, then a comprensive land element is required - which includes MBT.

**midnight** · 30-01-2012, 14:54

Found this when googling the scrapping of Chally 2 http:// The Online Encyclopaedia of Tanks & Military Vehicles

**midnight** · 30-01-2012, 15:13

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

That's something I don't understand - why scrap them? I know we're not planning on using them right now but why not just put them under a dustsheet in one of those big sheds in Tewkesbury and leave them there in case they're needed?

At some point we might come up against someone who hasn't planned their forces around 'agile and streamlined' (otherwise known as cheap) and a number of big pieces of Dorchester with big guns fitted might come in handy again.

I don´t understand it either as they could always put them in pres,in Hohne we were working on Mk 3 Chieftains but had 4 or 5 Mk 5´s parked up in pressurised `Suits´ with an electrical unit that controlled the inside temperature etc, a sort of Heavy Duty condom that could be removed at short notice,you just had to put in the batteries and off you went.They worked well and when the Regt sent them back before retraining for CVR(T) they all started with no problems and were put on transporters.
The cost must have been the square root of fcuk all compared to scrapping them at great expense?
I sometimes wonder who makes such decisions and how much they get paid to cripple our forces.