"UK MOD Mbt cuts" Topic

The MoD plans to cut Britain's mbt strength to its lowest levels…..press reports indicate the replacement of a third of the Challengers with the new lighter Ajax vehicle mounting a 40mm cannon……..puts Britain behind Serbia and Switzerland in the mbt stakes…….

Silver linings here… at least the MoD are learning to buy off-the-shelf rather than commissioning 'Project Reinvent The Wheel' every time they need new socks.
With that in mind, though… why not apply that off-the-shelf approach to buying new tanks?

Who still makes MBT's?
Abrams line has been converted to refurbish as has the challenger facilities…..Leopards all round?

Merkava?

See, that begs the question: if nobody's making new MBTs, then by default, is the Chally 2 still preeminent?
If so – refurb & retain. Way cheaper than any replacement program.

I thought the plan was to retain an armoured division.

Doesn't that… you know… require… er… tanks?

"Refurb and retain" is what we are doing

They keep saying tanks are obsolete yet they're continuously used in various wars to various degrees of success.

Indeed both Ukraine and Middle East has seen massive expansion of use of armour in active combat again.

Seems to me it's just further Western disarmament for the sake of redirecting money to more politically lucrative areas (aka social welfare).

I thought I heard the UK was down to 250 MBTs and even the Germans are at 350. High tech and the training to go with it costs. However, I believe that using upgraded, refurbished, etc., MBTs is the way to go. At this point, there is not reasons to design and buy brand new MBTs.

Seems to me it's just further Western disarmament for the sake of redirecting money to more politically lucrative areas (aka social welfare).

I believe that is the thought process in a number of nations including the USA. But everybody must know by now. An effective combat ready military does not happen overnight. And if you don't have one when a conflict breaks out. By then it may be too late.

The Germans are developing the Leopard 3. Will be many years.

Everybody knows the German's predilection with Panzers …

'High tech and the training to go with it costs.'

Which begs the question 'Why are the countries with most tanks' usually the 3rd World countries…

Re my comment above (not all 3rd World but certainly 'minor' nations):

link

Once past Russia/USA/China, France is 37 on the list, Germany 41, UK 42.

Compared with the likes of Ethiopia 13, Greece 17, Yemon 19, Morocco 21, Poland 23, Ageria 24, Romania 25…

Tanks don't seem to be as favoured as they used to be.

Western militaries have gone back to the 1920s – their main role is colonial warfare (aka COIN, peace keeping). That means a small force of professional troops with light equipment.

The third world (and Greece/Turkey) still lives under the threat of conventional warfare.

Threat has abated with rise of US hegemonic power since 1991 but these countries know history is fickle (in any case US hegemonic power is declining).

Ethiopia for example has potential conflict with South Sudan and Eritrea.

Morrocco has the threat of extremely well armed Polisario (Western Saharans "insurgents" with several armoured battalions, heavy artillery and IADS) and Algeria.

If you look at the number of fighter aircraft, you could make the same conclusion.

Today Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway combined have less fighter aircraft than Belgium did in 1991. After they re-equip with F-35, they will have even less.

Today Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania, Romania, Macedonia, Serbia combined have less fighter aircraft than Bulgaria did in 1989.

And most of the time they're not qualitatively better either. In fact often the modern ones are just Soviet era remnants.

Meanwhile number of fighter aircraft has ballooned in richer Arab countries, is maintained by Arab countries that aren't oil rich and haven't been targeted by USA. Numbers are also maintained/growing in Asia.

A country like Sudan has acquired more fighter aircraft in the last several years (at least 36 MiG-29s and Su-24s) than what Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Albania, Romania, all states of former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Switzerland, Slovakia, have in 20 years (12 F-16s for Romania, 5 MiG-21s for Croatia, 2 F-35 for Netherlands)!

About the only Western military to not shrink drastically after 1991 was Australia who maintained and actually grew all forces since 1991.

Which begs the question 'Why are the countries with most tanks' usually the 3rd World countries…

Because they are impressive to the locals/population. And basically, especially Russian are fairly easy to maintain. As well as there is always someone who will sell them to a 3d World country/minor nation at bargain basement prices. Along with ammo, spare parts, etc., and maybe even contract maintenance techs, etc., …

The filp side of all that. Is many of the those 3d Worlders/minor nations. Don't know how to effectively use them on other 3d Worlders/minor nations, with similar kit, etc.

Not to mention most 3d World leaders/minor nations always find the money to buy some tanks, etc. While their people starve, have limit medical support, etc., …

Tanks don't seem to be as favoured as they used to be.

Because, "High tech and the training to go with it costs." See a pattern here ?

And defence spending in the West doesn't generate votes unlike say middle class welfare.

The US is probably an exception here due to the country's particular role and place in the history.

Here in Australia, the only time anyone hears about the military is Galipolli and proposed building of submarines (mainly a job creation scheme for decrepit South Australia). Even the Kokoda Track campaign has been stripped of military significance and now appears to be regarded just as a hiking challenge!

"Tanks don't seem to be as favoured as they used to be".

Until the next major war, and then everyone will be screaming for them.

Right now I don't see why the UK needs more than 250 tanks.

We're in a period of expeditionary warfare, and MBTs are difficult to lug about.

We didn't need 250 for Iraq, and that's a bigger operation than we can mount these days.

If Putin does get uppity, then whether we have 250 or 1000 isn't going to make many odds – it'll go nuclear quickly.

And Putin knows it.

Numbers in inventory have little to do with numbers that can be used, training status ( and training beyond a company strength outside?) and actual efficiency.
A lot of Arab/ 3rd world inventory is more of an anxiogenic and status symbol+ corruption means than useful.

Well how many tanks are in an armoured brigade? If we're claiming to run an armoured division we need at least two armoured brigades…

We're in a period of expeditionary warfare, and MBTs are difficult to lug about.

But for the Grunt on ground the firepower is very useful at times. And in places like Iraq and A'stan, etc. MBTs have saved some Grunts lives by simply rotating their turret to the rear. And run over a mud brick hut/structure or two. Saving the clearing out of the enemy from room by room, etc. And of course the main gun on an MBT or Heavy MG can really do a lot of damage to many type structures.

And Putin knows it.

And whatever Putin knows, generally so do we … the West …

Numbers in inventory have little to do with numbers that can be used, training status ( and training beyond a company strength outside?) and actual efficiency.
A lot of Arab/ 3rd world inventory is more of an anxiogenic and status symbol+ corruption means than useful.

The number of MBTs/AFVs on hand is only one factor.

How many are Fully Mission Capable, i.e. Shoot, Move & Communicate ?

How well are the crews trained ?

How well does the leadership understand how to use MBTS, etc. ?

Well how many tanks are in an armoured brigade? If we're claiming to run an armoured division we need at least two armoured brigades…

Well a US Tank Bn has @ 54 MBTs, + or –

There are usually 3 Bns to a Bde and 3 Bdes to a Div.

And usually and Armored Bde has 2 Tank Bns and 1 Mech Bn.

So 250 may not make an Armored Div., based on an Army's MTO&E.

And generally things like MBTs and FA are better to have than not to have …

MBT's have proven useful in Iraq (especially urban combat ala Fallujah) and Afghanistan.

Another big issue in Western forces is the insane emphasis on limiting civilian (and even enemy) casualties.

This means avoiding indiscriminate systems (ala tank gun or non guided artillery).

They've now even started using concrete bombs to limit casualties. Anytime a system causes civilian casualties it is "grounded" pending investigation (this happened to HIMARS MLRS in Afghanistan).

The Australian government even refused to provide mortar support to Australian troops in Afghanistan due to political reasons.

As such not only are tanks going out of service in record numbers, but so is artillery greater than mortars.

The British army currently has:

115 105mm towed gun
117 155mm SPG
50 MLRS

And a few other NATO examples:

Belgium:
24 105mm towed gun

Denmark
15 155mm SPG (being phased out, only 3 operational)

Netherlands
57 155mm SPG (only 24 operational)

Germany
99 155mm SPG
38 MLRS

Canada
124 105mm towed guns
37 155mm towed guns

Poland
324 122mm SPG (198 operational)
106 152mm SPG (to be replaced by 120 155mm SPG)
200+ MLRS (operational)

In Australia they replaced Army Reserve M101 105mm field guns with 81mm mortars.

Again artillery is critical in both conventional and COIN warfare.

Air support is not always available and mortars aren't always sufficient in terms of payload or range.

Yep … Mortars just don't have the range and explosive power.

MBT's have proven useful in Iraq

Yes, as I said, it is part of the Combined Arms Tm. And like I said, with the structures in the Mid East and A'stan. They can just run over a small structure occupied by islamists, etc.

Again artillery is critical in both conventional and COIN warfare.

Agreed, in any conflict conventional or COIN, the Combined Arms concept is still very effective. Infantry, Armor and FA … that's just the way warfare works since about 1918 …