"Why Britain will need Main Battle Tanks in the Future" Topic

"This essay will examine why tanks continue to maintain relevance on the battlefield, and why if Britain wishes to maintain a significant position militarily within NATO and on the International stage it must maintain its tank force both today and in to the future.

While Challenger 2 did not deploy to Afghanistan. Foreign MBT such as Danish Leopard 2 did. Where, sometimes wile working with British forces, they proved themselves valuable assets. Able to not only provide direct fire support but could also monitor areas of interest using their sophisticated optics. Indeed, it was suggested that the simple presence of such tanks was enough to make the Taliban leave the area. Although there was good reason not to send Challenger 2 to the conflict such as the logistics involved in deploying and sustaining such a large vehicle in the region. As well as the escalation of theatres that the presence of Challenger 2 would have caused…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

No need to repeat myself … TMP link

Nah, give up the tanks, jets, subs, warships, rifles, soldiers, etc., etc., and embrace peace.

Set the example for the world, since surely if you do the above, peace is bound to break out all over the globe.

Just look how safe things already seem now, in many countries around the world.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The article mentions 8x8 IFVs and I find the western embrace of such vehicles to be an insane folly.

These are gigantic boxes that dwarf the older recce type LAVs. Their side armour is massive flat panels and they do not have the level of active and passive protective systems found on tanks. Armour protection against direct hits is guranteed to 14.5mm!

Armament is limited to a 25mm – 40mm autocannon and occasionally a couple of ATGMs if you are lucky.

You are looking at basically a giant target.

Even the latest French 6 wheeled "AFV," the Jaguar EBRC has a mere 40mm cannon and it's replacing AMX 10 RCs with 105mm cannon and Panhard ERCs with 90mm cannon! It's also replacing AT equipped VAB (VCAC) except it has two missile launchers and only 2 reloads compared to 4 missile and 16 reloads for a VCAC. Again protection only to 14.5mm.

And this thing will be France's most numerous AFV and Belgium's only AFV.

Apparently all these lightly armoured wheeled "IFV/AFVs" are more comfortable but more critically cheaper than tracked IFVs/AFVs.

New Boxer versus older ASLAV

French VBCI

French Jaguar ECBR – the soon to be most numerous "AFV"
of the French Army and Belgium's only "tank"

Yes, basically these wheel vehicles are an Armored and in some cases armored "Truck". Easier to maintain than a tracked AFV, generally.

And as we saw with both the Stryker and LAV they needed to be up armored once on the ground. Was in a Stryker once after I got off active duty. It seemed a little tight inside compared to the old M113s I was used to.

They are lighter and easier to deploy than most APCs/IFVs. But just like a APCs/IFVs they will not stand up to most heavy AT rounds, RPGs, LAWS, etc. Note the M2 Bradley had to be uparmored too once on the ground are well eventually.

Making them lighter so they are more deployable is fine. But it seems they have to be uparmored eventually. Even if like the Stryker used the "Turkey Cage" armor at first. To repulse RPG attacks.

Obviously an APC/IFV is not going to survive an MBT's main gun round or most Infantry AT Weapons hits. In some cases even Hvy MGs hits on the flanks & rear will do damage.

You have to use terrain masking e.g. camo, cover & concealment, etc.,. To assist in your survival, etc.

Note the M1 had to have a TUSK, Tank Urban, Survival Kit, retro-fitted for ops in Iraq and IIRC A'stan.

Errata … that should read armed "Truck" …

The lightly armoured IFV/AFV are basically colonial policing vehicles. And as destroyed VBCI proved in Mali, not exactly the best option either in a world where insurgents have upgraded from bolt action rifles of 1933 to IEDs, RPGs and even ATGMS of 2020.

And it's clear some NATO partners are very much viewing this as the future of their operations – France, Belgium and Netherlands comes to mind.

Agreed … and effective Infantry AT weapons has changed the equation a bit. But IMO it still comes down to combined arms along with not too tight ROE and fear of too much Collateral Damage. E.g. The Blackhawk Down battle. It the US was allowed to use their own MBTs & IFVs, with Mortar & FA support. And Gunships on weapons free. It would have been a different ending. I.e. the US losses many less troops and the Somalis would have suffered even more looses.

And yes the CD would have been massive. But as soon as those UH-60s started to take effective ground fire and one went down. It should have been a Thunder Run, with MBTs in the lead, M2s behind, both them blasting away thru the road blocks, along the roof tops, etc. With AH-64s flying cover and a rolling barrage of FA/mortars.

That is what should happen when you go to war … We use firepower to save our troops lives and kill as many of the enemies as possible in every engagement. And I said CD will be fairly large. But in this type of insurgency and in MOUT. It goes with the doctrine.

Legion,

I agree but the truth is NATO partners aren't investing in anything approaching combined arms or in terms of delivering accurate and/or sustained firepower.

Tube artillery is down to insignificant levels. Very often a country might have 12-18 pieces. Then there's problem of Eastern Europe where the calibres are non-NATO standard 122mm/130mm/152mm and often with obsolete Soviet era fire control systems.

In some countries the most powerful artillery available is 120mm mortars!

MLRS in western European states are also rare as hens teeth. They are more common in eastern states where the Soviet legacy of the Katyusha lives on.

Gunship numbers are in decline too. Eg Britain is acquiring 50 AH-64Es compared to 64 WAH-64Ds originally acquired. The Eurocopter Tiger has been shrunk massively in terms of procurement – instead of over 400 helicopters for Germany and France combined, they are acquiring about 135 between them and some of those will be withdrawn. Or the Czech Republic where the plan is to replace 18 Mi-35s and maybe 20+ other utility helicopters with AH-1Z and 8 UH-1Y. Then there's the Polish Mi-24s which no longer have guided AT weapons and procurement of new ones is stalled.

Then there's UCAVs – only Italy, UK and Turkey have invested in these (and Italy and UK only in small numbers).

Finally close air support as provided by fighters – also in decline even in countries like Poland.

Whereas Belgium alone once acquired 160 F-16s, planned F-35 buy for Norway,Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands is 159 aircraft in total.

British F-35 buy is in question. They have confirmed 48 of which 42 are on order. There is still a requirement for 90 after that but current rumours are this will be slashed to 22 for a total of 70 F-35s.

It gets worse in the east where most of the states are unable to maintain effective air policing of their airspace in peace time, let alone air superiority and let alone air support for their troops.

So with each year, the defence of Europe is increasingly reliant on the USA

So hollowed out are most European forces, there would be virtually no European reinforcements available for bolstering Russian aggression in the Baltics or elsewhere.

Indeed how do you reinforce your allies if your military consists of 4 under strength infantry battalions, a half battalion of obsolete tanks, a brigades worth of obsolete artillery and a single small fighter squadron?!?

I believe your evaluation is generally correct. For better or worse. But I think we can both agree it seems to be worse.

But if most players have no real effective combat forces … may be one way to "keep the peace". No one has the assets, will or need to go to war.

The only problem with that is just like in fighting an insurgency, peace only works if all sides agree to keep it that way.

And as we see with the number of small wars based on religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., differences in 3d world countries and failed states. This will probably be going on for awhile. Until some move into the at least the 20th Century let alone the 21st … Or wipe one another out.

For the same token I doubt there will be WWIII. All the major players have too much to loose, economically, etc. But also I don't see the US, Russia and China being big buddies either. "Frenemies" at best … or worse …

Probably a very reasonable assessment…if slightly dull for what-if ultra-modern gamers. Personally

Being cynical one might suggest the UKs real defence policy is too ensure that every countries 1% has so much cash stashed in UK hedge funds and London property portfolios that they'll immediately stymie any attempt by their government to start a war with the UK!

I suspect at some point we will return to more conventional warfare, even if not WWIII.

The rules that governed the conduct of the Cold War are no more and the world is far more complicated.

I also suspect nuclear weapons will be used in anger sometime in humanity's future. Not necessarily in MAD but limited usage anyway.

But if most players have no real effective combat forces … may be one way to "keep the peace". No one has the assets, will or need to go to war.

This totally hits the nail on the head within the concept of NATO. Other than the US no NATO country has capability to even conduct it's own defence let alone undertake offensive action.

Thus a European peace is predicated on near disarmament and a US security guarantee.

The problem of course is there is more to the world than just NATO. There is Russia, the bubbling middle east, the increasing recalcitrance of Turkey, the rise of China and the deterioration of NATO relations across the Atlantic (which predates the current US administration).

NATO itself is under constant question as to its value.

The worse thing is that once lost, sophisticated military capabilities are hard to reacquire.

NATO itself is under constant question as to its value.

I think it is better to have NATO and that organizational frame work, etc., there. Already in place. Then do away with it and then possibly have to start over is not prudent IMO.

You have NATO & the UN. And many nations are in both. Which is more "reliable" ? With the Russians & PRC/CCP in the UN P5 … seems to me NATO is a better option.

Surely it is better to have Russia and China nominally on your side, rather than on the other side. That's how wars start isn't it. Much as many people on here are priapic with excitement at the thought of all that lovely war to be had from fighting the red menace, it might be worth exhausting the other options first.

Back on topic our American cousins are presumably unaware how far into debt the UK has sunk lately. I fully expect our Trident programme to bite the bullet quite soon too, especially when Scotland leaves us (our nuclear submarines are based there), much to Scottish annoyance.

Surely it is better to have Russia and China nominally on your side, rather than on the other side.

But that would be their choice, yes ? And based on the past … that may not be the situation ? How would we get them on our side so to speak ? Economically is always the best first solution. But I think we have been doing that or trying to for a few decades. Maybe the things are now are the "new"/old Normal ?

it might be worth exhausting the other options first.

Assuredly, especially if someone starts tossing nukes around. But again I think that is their choice …

The last time the Russians & PRC were on the "West's side" was WWII.

I think it is better to have NATO and that organizational frame work, etc., there. Already in place. Then do away with it and then possibly have to start over is not prudent IMO.
You have NATO & the UN. And many nations are in both. Which is more "reliable" ? With the Russians & PRC/CCP in the UN P5 … seems to me NATO is a better option.

I agree but the truth is NATO is under a lot of pressure internally. There is no consensus on even basic issues and the future of the organisation is at risk.

Look at NATOs current lack of consensus on the reason it exists – Russia. USA is leading a group that is opposed to Russian expansionism, whilst Germany and a number of other countries are happy not rock the energy gravy train and to let the Russians do as they please.

It's down to the point that America is considering sanctions on German businesses engaging with Russia!

There's also no consensus on Iran or Libya. In fact Libya is fracturing NATO with Italy, France and Turkey holding diametrically opposing views. You've had a deterioration in Italian and French relations whilst the Turks have been actively locking on to French warships trying to impose the arms embargo and the French supporting Haftar, who is not the internationally recognised leader of Libya and is also chummed up with the Russians.

Then there's the hollowing out of European capabilities with Americans taking more and more of the load.

And now you've got NATO faced with a massive internal crisis between Greece and Turkey, both of whom are NATO members!

The Italian air force commander came out a few years ago and said defence planning has to include both NATO and the prospect of NATO no longer existing.

One can argue that NATO has lost its raison d'etre since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Without the singular purpose of deterring the Soviets from overrunning Western Europe, its members have been plagued with the lack of a unified vision, conflicting national interests, disagreement on how much sufficient military spending should be and utter disarray.

The US has finally acknowledged that its decades-long attempt to democratize China via favorable trade a la' Japan and S. Korea has failed and must come to terms with China's autocracy in a new modus vivendi.

Good points raised in both of these posts. But I still think NATO or something like it, [just change the name!] needs to be around. To have it's members train & prepared for a number of conflicts/contingencies. Especially when you look at generally the UN has proven to be of limited use in preventing conflicts, etc., sadly.

And I think the US and others were hoping the PRC & Russia would "embrace" democracy at least in spirit … But as we see … those "dawgs just don't hunt" ! Old habits are hard to break it appears. Especially when those in power, may be in power for life.

And of course it's good to be king ! 👑
E.g. the "Let them eat cake!" attitude towards their own people in many cases has worked out for them for the most part. And these kings will not have to worry much about losing their heads from revolting peasants …

Legion 4.

Totally agree.

I do think the Europeans need to start taking defence seriously. When Europe's largest economy with a population of 80+ million struggles to deploy a single battalion in an exercise or doesn't have a single functioning submarine then you have a serious problem.

struggles to deploy a single battalion in an exercise or doesn't have a single functioning submarine then you have a serious problem.

So sad but true …

back to the discussion on tanks / armored vehicles…

the issue revolves around usage / doctrine. If you try to use a stryker as an MBT, then you are in for a lot of destroyed Strkyers. If you regard the Stryker as an up-armored truck, which is it's main intended use, then you have a win-win for the infantry.

I'm in a stryker brigade. We call them "trucks". As in "Grab your *%@$#^ and get your butts in the truck! We're moving out!"

We regard them as a step up from the MTV and humvee. We do not desire to fight them as tanks, nor are we training to do that.

Also, the interior has AC, is bullet-proof from small arms, and the 8-wheeled chassis runs over rough terrain smooth as silk! You want to get to your battlefield in comfort? Talk to your friendly local Stryker dealer.

Then of course, there's counter-insurgency ops…
:)

Yes, though never served in a Stryker when on active duty, '79-'90, we had M113s. They are really an armored truck from what I understand. And just like the M2 Bradley IFV, you really don't use them on tank on tank engagements. The TOW on the M2 is to get it out of trouble … not to get engaged in a tank battle. But as we know it could like many thing on battlefield, AFAIK.

Bradleys were very effective tank hunters firing 25mm DU rounds in both Iraq wars.

Yes, they certainly have the ability to kill tanks. But that was geared more to the M2's survival if running into enemy tanks, AFVs, etc. But of course the TOW being one of the best tank killing missiles around. And the 25mm with DU rounds would kill a tank as well.

Plus if you are in an M2 and see enemy armor you certainly may take out as many as you could. Then possibly get out of the way. But if you killed them all. You may just remain in position, etc.

The M2 was never intended to go tank hunting but again, if you see an enemy AFV with all those AT weapons you'd probably take the shot(s). Your job is to kill the enemy. But it's primary job is to transport & support the Infantry it carries, not kill MBTs. Even if it can and did.

Again many things on the battlefield are not as it says in the FMs. E.g. the M2 was not intended to go into a tank battle. But it did kill tanks regardless. We fight combined arms of course …

I think we should also differentiate between "main battle tanks" that are aged and have poorly trained crews, v. a peer adversary that has similar gear and training.

In the former, you can get away with a lot of things that are absolutely forbidden in the manuals, probably for the same thrills that a Mk III would hunt a KVII in urban terrain. All well and good until you run out of thrill-seeking leaders.

In near-pear combat, the Stryker will be used as it should be, which is an enclosed halftrack, or a faster more luxurious M113, that has some HMGs to defend itself. The brigade has a few platoons with ATGMs and guns to ward off enemy light armor [here, "ward off" means blow a couple to bits and watch the rest fall back in a hurry].

Again, we always need to keep in mind the full picture, which is that doctrine, policy and DOLLARS all have to be brought together effectively to achieve a purpose worth risking lives. Overall, I'll take a STryker over an MTV any day of the week, and be grateful.

Stalkey hits the nail on the head.

15mm and 28mm Fanatik,

Though Iraqi armor was terrible in terms of both quality and how it was employed. It seems that in 8 years of peer level combat against Iran, Iraq learned all the wrong lessons (an indictment on Iranian tactics as well)!

To Stalkey and arealdeadone …

Good doctrine and the proper use of it. Plus a weapons system is only as good as troop/crew behind it. And it's leadership.

The Iraqis generally had none of that … And the same could be said about the Iranians …