"Survive: The Case for Armour" Topic

"On 25th August 2020, The Times published a story claiming that the forthcoming Integrated Defence and Security Review may see the British Army losing its Challenger 2 tanks in favour of other capabilities. A cynic might observe that stories like this are a routine part of the inter-service politics that marks every defence review. Other familiar targets include the Red Arrows, the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, and the Royal Marines. The Times article summed up the commonly used arguments against heavy armour. This line of thought has gained some support at the highest reaches of Defence, with the Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, writing "for too long we have had a sentimental attachment to a static, armoured centric force structure anchored in Europe".

Common to other arguments, Wallace's basis for this is that "our competition has spread out across the globe. If we are to truly play our role as "Global Britain," we must be more capable in new domains, enabling us to be active in more theatres". While there is undoubted merit in seeking to expand the scope of the Army to serve the needs of #GlobalBritain, and moving away from ‘an armour centric force structure' may well be a good idea, this does not mean that the Army should rid itself of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs). Despite the claims of the defence commentariat, the British Army still requires tanks if it is to be a force capable of fighting the majority of modern adversaries…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The decision will be made on cost grounds and some kind of justification cooked up behind closed doors.

I think it is highly unlikely MBTs will be replaced by a newer version in the British Army. Challenger 2s will likely stay on the inventory, perhaps in mothballs or at diminishing rate of availability due to maintenance and spare parts, and training will be cut until the crews become nearly ineffective. Death by a thousand little cuts rather than a single death blow.

Yeah, politicians want to be able to play boy-scouts in all kinds of 3th world failed states.
But politicians also want to decrease defense spending, and not increase it.
And then there is this tank force which, much like fire insurance, doesn't seem to bring much.
So out go the tanks, and nobody notices a difference, until a real war arrives.
By which time, with a little luck, it's someone else's watch.
That's how politicians work after all.

We discussed this topic or a similar one in 3-4 TMP threads, in the recent past. Bottom line in those threads, IMO as in this one. The MBT/AFV is still a very viable weapon. As someone pointed out on one of those TMP threads,

You don't need an Tank … until you do …

But politicians also want to decrease defense spending, and not increase it.

Most [but not all] politicians don't have any members of their family in the military. So those when the hits the fan, they don't have to worry about it on a personal level … It will be someone else's kids getting maimed and killed.

"Most [but not all] politicians don't have any members of their family in the military. So those when the Bleeped text hits the fan, they don't have to worry about it on a personal level … It will be someone else's kids getting maimed and killed."

Exactly, and in most cases they are well prepared to "get out of Dodge" fast should the brown stuff hit the ventilator.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Exactly, and in most cases they are well prepared to "get out of Dodge" fast should the brown stuff hit the ventilator.

Yes those plans have been in place since the beginning of the Cold War. And has got refined many times since then.

They spent a lot of $ on their kids' teeth and getting them into Ivy League, etc., universities. They don't want their debutant daughters or pretty boy sons rubbing shoulders with the lower class "rabble". Plus have the possibility of them becoming a name of a wall.