AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
From Defence News on my Google news feed. This is the US Medium Tank program, look what GDLS are trying to flog to the US!View attachment 609682View attachment 609683

Aaaaaahhh! It's the M8!

We should buy that. That thing's Un-*******-killable!

(I once suggested to a games company I was working with a Halloween event. Zombiefied M8's attacking the player, as that thing just won't ******* die. No matter how many times you nail a stake through its heart.)
 
Aaaaaahhh! It's the M8!

We should buy that. That thing's Un-*******-killable!

(I once suggested to a games company I was working with a Halloween event. Zombiefied M8's attacking the player, as that thing just won't ******* die. No matter how many times you nail a stake through its heart.)
You err…. Don’t like it much then Listy ? :oops:
 
You err…. Don’t like it much then Listy ? :oops:
No I was more commenting on the fact that it keeps coming back. Keep in mind it was first proposed in the late 1980's. Look around your office, anyone younger than 30 is younger than the bloody M8. Then every time someone in the US says 'how about some thing vaguely resembling a light tank?'

Here's FREDY! (albeit with a slight change to the 'name' part of the tank. It's always hte M8, but is it Bullford, MGS or whatever.

It's never actually made it into service, or even near service. It's actually getting to the point where one questions if its not a figment of someone's imagination/some kind of warped joke that has taken on its own life know. I can see it, in the year 22,500, The Intergalactic Empire wonders about providing the colonial space marines with some kind of mobile light tank, and Weyland Corp suggests the 'M8 Trump' tank.

I actually want it to win, just to see the look of horror on BAE's faces when they realise that they actually have to deliver it this time.
 

LD17

MIA
No I was more commenting on the fact that it keeps coming back. Keep in mind it was first proposed in the late 1980's. Look around your office, anyone younger than 30 is younger than the bloody M8. Then every time someone in the US says 'how about some thing vaguely resembling a light tank?'

Here's FREDY! (albeit with a slight change to the 'name' part of the tank. It's always hte M8, but is it Bullford, MGS or whatever.

It's never actually made it into service, or even near service. It's actually getting to the point where one questions if its not a figment of someone's imagination/some kind of warped joke that has taken on its own life know. I can see it, in the year 22,500, The Intergalactic Empire wonders about providing the colonial space marines with some kind of mobile light tank, and Weyland Corp suggests the 'M8 Trump' tank.

I actually want it to win, just to see the look of horror on BAE's faces when they realise that they actually have to deliver it this time.
Listy, looks like they actually wrote a Field Manual for it.....

 
No I was more commenting on the fact that it keeps coming back. Keep in mind it was first proposed in the late 1980's. Look around your office, anyone younger than 30 is younger than the bloody M8. Then every time someone in the US says 'how about some thing vaguely resembling a light tank?'

Here's FREDY! (albeit with a slight change to the 'name' part of the tank. It's always hte M8, but is it Bullford, MGS or whatever.

It's never actually made it into service, or even near service. It's actually getting to the point where one questions if its not a figment of someone's imagination/some kind of warped joke that has taken on its own life know. I can see it, in the year 22,500, The Intergalactic Empire wonders about providing the colonial space marines with some kind of mobile light tank, and Weyland Corp suggests the 'M8 Trump' tank.

I actually want it to win, just to see the look of horror on BAE's faces when they realise that they actually have to deliver it this time.
I remember reading books way before I joined the army with an M8 in them. I grew up and completed 22 years ( and some) and it's still being touted. The phrase "if you want a new idea, read on old book" springs to mind
 

riksavage

War Hero
Why would you even think that money reserved for AJAX (Army) would be better spent on even more vessles for the Royal Navy?

I can just see theNavy in your new ships now, exercising on Salisbury Plain with the rest of the deployable Bde!
My point being value for money to achieve the maximum amount of strategic effect. We’ve spent an eye watering amount on AJAX and achieved absolutely bugger all. Soldiers are still riding around in antiques led by officers with zero plans other than flipping through colour charts for new beret and stable belt colours. We could have spent the same amount wasted to date on AJAX on additional Astute Class submarines that can span the globe, and in time of conflict keep enemy politicians awake at night. SSNs also require a huge amount of effort and treasure to kill and are better suited to the policy of pivot east. Instead, we have an army, which near peer enemies know will last five minutes on a modern battlefield if forced to fight without the Yanks.

I look at what Turkey and Poland are achieving in land force modernisation (money spent and platforms introduced) and I’m starting to question if some key decision makers in the army/MOD are actually working for the Russians or Chinese? Do we have a new ‘Cambridge Five’ to worry about? It can’t just be down to gross incompetence, can it?

The British Army IMHO is proactively incapacitating itself through an organised programme of obsolescence.
 
Last edited:
After AJAX, shall we talk about LandCIS/MORPHEUS or whatever it’s called…?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
My point being value for money to archive the maximum amount of strategic effect. We’ve spent an eye watering amount on AJAX and achieved absolutely bugger all. Soldiers are still riding around in antiques led by officers with zero plans other than flipping through colour charts for new beret and stable belt colours. We could have spent the same amount wasted to date on AJAX on additional Astute Class submarines that can span the globe, and in time of conflict keep enemy politicians awake at night. SSNs also require a huge amount of effort and treasure to kill and are better suited to the policy of pivot east. Instead, we have an army, which near peer enemies know will last five minutes on a modern battlefield if forced to fight without the Yanks.

I look at what Turkey and Poland are achieving in land force modernisation (money spent and platforms introduced) and I’m starting to question if some key decision makers in the army/MOD are actually working for the Russians or Chinese? Do we have a new ‘Cambridge Five’ to worry about? It can’t just be down to gross incompetence, can it?

The British Army IMHO is proactively incapacitating itself through an organised programme of obsolescence.
Yebbut Rangers.
 
I remember reading books way before I joined the army with an M8 in them. I grew up and completed 22 years ( and some) and it's still being touted. The phrase "if you want a new idea, read on old book" springs to mind

A friend sent me this on the subject, and it was dated 1998, so my initial suggestion of dates may have been wrong:
2021-10-14.png
 
My point being value for money to archive the maximum amount of strategic effect. We’ve spent an eye watering amount on AJAX and achieved absolutely bugger all. Soldiers are still riding around in antiques led by officers with zero plans other than flipping through colour charts for new beret and stable belt colours. We could have spent the same amount wasted to date on AJAX on additional Astute Class submarines that can span the globe, and in time of conflict keep enemy politicians awake at night. SSNs also require a huge amount of effort and treasure to kill and are better suited to the policy of pivot east. Instead, we have an army, which near peer enemies know will last five minutes on a modern battlefield if forced to fight without the Yanks.

I look at what Turkey and Poland are achieving in land force modernisation (money spent and platforms introduced) and I’m starting to question if some key decision makers in the army/MOD are actually working for the Russians or Chinese? Do we have a new ‘Cambridge Five’ to worry about? It can’t just be down to gross incompetence, can it?

The British Army IMHO is proactively incapacitating itself through an organised programme of obsolescence.
I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to draw a historical comparison to where we might be. It isn't an exact fit, but you could argue that we are where the Netherlands or Belgium were in 1940. A small Armed Forces with, in some areas, modern equipment and decent capability. But lacking the numbers of the most modern equipment/platforms required to seriously oppose a peer opponent of the sort we are most likely to face. And the gaps in capability are bad enough to present serious issues if the UK is fighting without support (or isolated from support). And numbers will count in a serious conflict. The UK seems to be relying on luck to prevent a peer vs peer war, and similarly on luck to avoid opponents exploiting our weaknesses. Where capability/tech gaps are present, the solution is in some cases a long distance away from being delivered.
In the case of the Netherlands and Belgium, the lack of effectiveness of their military was demonstrated in May 1940, at which point it couldn't be remedied as they were defeated before they could change anything.
 
Last edited:

riksavage

War Hero
I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to draw a historical comparison to where we might be. It isn't an exact fit, but you could argue that we are where the Netherlands or Belgium were in 1940. A small Armed Forces with, in some areas, modern equipment and decent capability. But lacking the numbers of the most modern equipment/platforms required to seriously oppose a peer opponent of the sort we are most likely to face. And the gaps in capability are bad enough to present serious issues if the UK is fighting without support (or isolated from support). And numbers will count in a serious conflict. The UK seems to be relying on luck to prevent a peer vs peer war, and similarly on luck to avoid opponents exploiting our weaknesses. Where capability/tech gaps are present, the solution is in some cases a long distance away from being delivered.
In the case of the Netherlands and Belgium, the lack of effectiveness of their military was demonstrated in May 1940, at which point it couldn't be remedied as they were defeated before they could change anything.
Agreed, the British Army's obsession with cap badges and lack of coherent or consistent thinking is one huge self inflicted wound. I just don't get it! Maybe we need to suffer a humiliating defeat, clean out the stable and start again? The British Army today is a Greek Phalanx about to run slap bang into a Roman Legion.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to draw a historical comparison to where we might be. It isn't an exact fit, but you could argue that we are where the Netherlands or Belgium were in 1940. A small Armed Forces with, in some areas, modern equipment and decent capability. But lacking the numbers of the most modern equipment/platforms required to seriously oppose a peer opponent of the sort we are most likely to face. And the gaps in capability are bad enough to present serious issues if the UK is fighting without support (or isolated from support). And numbers will count in a serious conflict. The UK seems to be relying on luck to prevent a peer vs peer war, and similarly on luck to avoid opponents exploiting our weaknesses. Where capability/tech gaps are present, the solution is in some cases a long distance away from being delivered.
In the case of the Netherlands and Belgium, the lack of effectiveness of their military was demonstrated in May 1940, at which point it couldn't be remedied as they were defeated before they could change anything.
The tech gaps are not a long way from being delivered. There are plenty of fully developed options out there that could be bought off-the-shelf right now.

Capability, in terms of skill fade and the fervent ignoring of the 'dinosaurs' of heavy warfare, is another matter.
 
I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to draw a historical comparison to where we might be. It isn't an exact fit, but you could argue that we are where the Netherlands or Belgium were in 1940. A small Armed Forces with, in some areas, modern equipment and decent capability. But lacking the numbers of the most modern equipment/platforms required to seriously oppose a peer opponent of the sort we are most likely to face. And the gaps in capability are bad enough to present serious issues if the UK is fighting without support (or isolated from support). And numbers will count in a serious conflict. The UK seems to be relying on luck to prevent a peer vs peer war, and similarly on luck to avoid opponents exploiting our weaknesses. Where capability/tech gaps are present, the solution is in some cases a long distance away from being delivered.
In the case of the Netherlands and Belgium, the lack of effectiveness of their military was demonstrated in May 1940, at which point it couldn't be remedied as they were defeated before they could change anything.

Amusingly I've been thinking along these lines. I'd say the BEF was a better example.

A tiny (insufficient?) number of best in the world tanks, no APC or IFV ability. Cracking modern HAA, with a moderate LAA ability, and old outdated Arty.
It's fate is also well known so arguments can be closed with 'Yeah and look what happened to that!' I was thinking of sticking it in our joint project @Cold_Collation.

Maybe we need to suffer a humiliating defeat, clean out the stable and start again? The British Army today is a Greek Phalanx about to run slap bang into a Roman Legion.
Said it before, at the next Big war, we're going to get banged like a drum unless something is done. As usually happens. Then afterwards we go away, sort ourselves out, maybe have a cup of tea and a talking to. Then we come back with a half brick in a sock. That's our usual operating plan for big wars (and no small number of smaller wars!)
Of course it sucks to be the Div to get the spanking.
 
The tech gaps are not a long way from being delivered. There are plenty of fully developed options out there that could be bought off-the-shelf right now.

Capability, in terms of skill fade and the fervent ignoring of the 'dinosaurs' of heavy warfare, is another matter.
And (the need for) numbers in depth.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Amusingly I've been thinking along these lines. I'd say the BEF was a better example.

A tiny (insufficient?) number of best in the world tanks, no APC or IFV ability. Cracking modern HAA, with a moderate LAA ability, and old outdated Arty.
It's fate is also well known so arguments can be closed with 'Yeah and look what happened to that!' I was thinking of sticking it in our joint project @Cold_Collation.


Said it before, at the next Big war, we're going to get banged like a drum unless something is done. As usually happens. Then afterwards we go away, sort ourselves out, maybe have a cup of tea and a talking to. Then we come back with a half brick in a sock. That's our usual operating plan for big wars (and no small number of smaller wars!)
Of course it sucks to be the Div to get the spanking.
The difference being that the technical level of entry for previous conflicts (pretty much a rifle, helmet and waterbottle) no longer pertains. Nor does having large amounts of manufacturing capacity.

We don’t have the speed of response. We go with what we have on the day. That’s it, that’s all.
 
Top