Demise of British tank industry foretold admitted

#1
Link To Story

dont know if this has already been posted sorry if it has.
 
#3
ark-angel said:
Link To Story

dont know if this has already been posted sorry if it has.
Let's all try and act like we are surprised. :roll:
 
#4
And a few Merkavas wouldn´t go amiss for urban pacification and mountainous ops.

Like the article says, tanks are gone. We need a modern replacement.

Something swift and capable of a bit of smashy smashy. Survivability IS important. But as we found with warships years ago...

In Warhead V Armour... Warhead ALWAYS wins in the end.
 
D

Deleted 20555

Guest
#6
ooh Leo 2 or Merkava 3 - just think we could have either one of them now if only the British tank industry demised years ago!
 
#7
dont think we would have got the merkava - political reasons, leo 2 better as most european armies has it, also same gun as the yanks
 
#8
chocolate_frog said:
And a few Merkavas wouldn´t go amiss for urban pacification and mountainous ops.

Like the article says, tanks are gone. We need a modern replacement.

Something swift and capable of a bit of smashy smashy. Survivability IS important. But as we found with warships years ago...

In Warhead V Armour... Warhead ALWAYS wins in the end.
Very True - HMS Sheffield was a big loss but it served the purpose of being a dummy for the missile picket line and thus prevented the loss of an Air-Craft carrier to Argie Missiles. That would have been catastrophic.

I agree, modern replacements necessary.
 
#9
BIPOLAR77 said:
good now we can get leopard 2
Yeah but some idiot will insist on a British made engine or gun control system or laser range finder, or bowman wont fit in the space envelope (sound familiar) and then it will become a load of bolt on bits and be a total fcuk up

As we British are buying it we will also try to insist on influencing the build standard and as usual try to punch above our weight in the contract negotiations and again it will be a total fcuk up
 
#10
tru a better option dare I say it is to build under licence

But negating the tank get the German Weasel equipped with TOW/Javalin
 
#11
RogerOut! said:
Yeah but some idiot will insist on a British made engine
yeah, like we did with the Apache...

oh wait, doesn't that mean that UK Apaches can operate hotter and higher than US ones? :roll:
 
#12
Are Tanks really needed anymore? More Apaches? and a slack handful of A-10s. Maybe even fast air. Providing the punch to carrier mounted Inf, specialising in mobile fast manouvre. Draggoons even.

Something like the QLR in WMIKs in the desert.

Most of the Cav officers are in the AAC anyway :D

two sabre sqns of WMIKs, Vectors and Such like, and a 3rd sqn of Apache and A-10 to do the malletting.

Support Tps of Javelin armed vehicles.

Make it all light to medium armour.
 
#13
chocolate_frog said:
Are Tanks really needed anymore? More Apaches? and a slack handful of A-10s. Maybe even fast air. Providing the punch to carrier mounted Inf, specialising in mobile fast manouvre.

Something like the QLR in WMIKs in the desert.

Most of the Cav officers are in the AAC anyway :D

two sabre sqns of WMIKs, Vectors and Such like, and a 3rd sqn of Apache and A-10 to do the malletting.

Support Tps of Javelin.

Make it all light to medium armour.
That will set the cat amonst the pigeons with the old duffers in the RAC forum, good job they are all still sleeping off their Christmas dinners. :wink:
 
#14
BIPOLAR77 said:
dont think we would have got the merkava - political reasons, leo 2 better as most european armies has it, also same gun as the yanks
The other way around, actually. The Spams needed a good gun for their overpriced and overcomplicated new MBT. They bought the British 105 gun first, but later upgraded to the Rheinmetal 120 one.

Leo 2 is built to be 'customised'. The Norwegians, Dutch, Austrians, Canadians and Aussies all have their own radio's, different lasers, different MGs and different grenadelaunchers. So fitting Bowman won't be that difficult...

However... Isn't it better to try and find out who will need to buy new armour for their cavalry and see if they're interested in buying your product? That way the UK tank industry might survive!
 
#15
There is an old maxim along the lines of "Dont fight the last war".

Who knows what the next bad guys will have. Tanks are useful.
 
#16
Bravo_Bravo said:
There is an old maxim along the lines of "Dont fight the last war".

Who knows what the next bad guys will have. Tanks are useful.
Ditto.

The problem is that the bar swings from one sector of defence to the others over time.

Its currently on airpower, but who knows if in the future a laser system will make flying anywhere very dicey?

There was mention of electronic armour that vapourised incoming projectiles which will be the solution i think. No doubt the bar will swing again in the future and it will be useless against ground lasers!
 
#17
Has this one not been done to death before?
Nice shiney things flashing about in the sky can cause lots of death and destruction. For a little while anyway, then they go back home for fuel, bangy things and maintenance. They can't hold ground.
As for buying Leopard 2, is it really good enough to persuade us to rely entirely on the Germans for armour?
The nature of the tank may need to evolve over time but I don't think that is best served by limiting the Army to what is offered by others, having the ability to build to our own needs is of great value and shouldn't lightly be discarded.
There is a great tendancy (naturally, I suppose) on the hallowed pages of Arrse to talk about what is needed today and tomorow but little comment as to what may be needed next year or the year after.
All that leads to is the time quickly coming around when the armed forces do not have the equipment required. Again.
How little we learn from history.
 
#18
We live on an island. First and foremost we need the ability to protect our shores, skies and shipping lanes. When we win that bit, we have to take the fight to the enemy... that's the good bit for tanks. The tank is our friend and we need to build as many as possible.
 
#19
jagman said:
Has this one not been done to death before?
Certainly has

Dumping a capability because we may not need it right now is a tremendously foolish thing to do; Bravo_bravo is exactly right. We are looking at getting out of our current engagements as soon as is feasible right now; who knows where we might go next? Keeping our forces well-rounded will take some cash; everything from Bowman to Trident seems to be needing money at around the same time, but it is essential unless we want in a decade's time to be in the unenviable situation of becoming embroiled in a tank war with an army consisting of infantry and medium armour.
 
#20
Bravo_Zulu said:
jagman said:
Has this one not been done to death before?
Certainly has

Dumping a capability because we may not need it right now is a tremendously foolish thing to do; Bravo_bravo is exactly right. We are looking at getting out of our current engagements as soon as is feasible right now; who knows where we might go next? Keeping our forces well-rounded will take some cash; everything from Bowman to Trident seems to be needing money at around the same time, but it is essential unless we want in a decade's time to be in the unenviable situation of becoming embroiled in a tank war with an army consisting of infantry and medium armour.
Agreed. We "won" the Cold War, so why keep our anti-submarine capability... and while we're at it let's withdraw all our capability from Germany, because Ivan is no longer a threat. Munich anyone?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top