UK Army to stop using tanks

[Saintsman]

The MOD are considering 'scrapping' their tanks in an attempt to modernise the way they fight on the land.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/25/tanks-could-scrapped-radical-overhaul-armed-forces/

I'm in two minds about this. Yes they can put the fear of god in opponents and can cause a fair bit of destruction, but these days, they are quite vulnerable from missiles fired from the air or the ground (I remember that Saddam's tanks didn't last long).

So perhaps they have had their time and a new approach is required. For example, could small combat drones achieve the same sort of results? It could cost the same, but is somewhat safer for the operators.

[Harley Quinn]

The MOD are considering 'scrapping' their tanks in an attempt to modernise the way they fight on the land.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/25/tanks-could-scrapped-radical-overhaul-armed-forces/

I'm in two minds about this. Yes they can put the fear of god in opponents and can cause a fair bit of destruction, but these days, they are quite vulnerable from missiles fired from the air or the ground (I remember that Saddam's tanks didn't last long).

So perhaps they have had their time and a new approach is required. For example, could small combat drones achieve the same sort of results? It could cost the same, but is somewhat safer for the operators.

Can a drone carry a mix of 50 HE and AP rounds or deliver 4000+ mg rounds in support of ground troops? Would such a drone have the persistence of a tank? Would a drone be able to deliver 'soft power' in the way 50+ tons of metal does on the ground?

Does any of the above matter? I don't know, but these are probably questions that need honest answers.

[rudestuff]

Tanks are useful against infantry because they deliver a lot of heat and offer protection to those inside. But they can be defeated by missiles and other tanks, so maybe they've had their day? No amount of armour can offer the same protection as being 5000 miles away in a shipping container in Nevada with a PlayStation controller, which just leaves the question of ordnance...

[ORAC]

Already being discussed in the defence review thread.

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/627681-uk-strategic-defence-review-2020-get-your-bids-now-ladies-gents-20.html#post10869735

[trim it out]

Of course armour is infallible to anti armour weapons, just like airborne platforms are susceptible to anti air weapons. Have aircraft had their day too?

[Two's in]

But tanks are perfect against the natives of Umboto Gorge with their sharpened guava fruit...

[Lima Juliet]

“Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one — ten thousand Watusi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad.“

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/529x367/image_00b7469487983487fce39a3da6637aac504d617e.jpeg

[tartare]

Stood next to an M1 at the ADFA open day a few years ago - talking to the young chap who drove it.
For all the power and size, it felt like an anachronism - a hulking great tin can death trap.
Australia's 59 certainly are - good for training troops and aircraft how to deal with a main battle tank in combat, and not much else.
Unless I'm missing something...

[Willard Whyte]

Drone tanks then?

[trim it out]

Drone tanks then?

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1903x889/c3662fea_6ee2_4839_ae05_d83a58121eba_cdacf3a3a6cd50f09112287 7861cc09d224f0619.jpeg

[tartare]

Now that makes sense.
Along with drone howitzers, drone anti-aircraft missile batteries - and anything else that might be a big, fat target from the air...

[trim it out]

Now that makes sense.
Along with drone howitzers, drone anti-aircraft missile batteries - and anything else that might be a big, fat target from the air...
Bunkers full of servers?

The 0/0 war.

[tartare]

Nah.
They're hidden under the granite mountain... ;)

[trim it out]

Nah.
They're hidden under the granite mountain... ;)
I would carry on coming up with ideas of how AI/unmanned vehicles could fight these wars on our behalf but then I realised I’m just talking myself out of LSA and medals in the future :ooh:

[Fareastdriver]

then I realised I’m just talking myself out of LSA and medals in the future

Drone operators already have wings. How about theatre medals and eventually the Victoria Cross.

[Crromwellman]

The MOD are considering 'scrapping' their tanks in an attempt to modernise the way they fight on the land.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/25/tanks-could-scrapped-radical-overhaul-armed-forces/

I'm in two minds about this. Yes they can put the fear of god in opponents and can cause a fair bit of destruction, but these days, they are quite vulnerable from missiles fired from the air or the ground (I remember that Saddam's tanks didn't last long).

So perhaps they have had their time and a new approach is required. For example, could small combat drones achieve the same sort of results? It could cost the same, but is somewhat safer for the operators.

Many years ago I was given the task of preparing a presentation for a course on 'What will the tank of 2030 look like' I consulted with thr Operational Research desk officer at MoD, whose father was a distinguished Fleet Air Arm officer who had been involved in the Taranto raid. His answer was short and shrp - "An Attack Helicopter." My case rests.

[trim it out]

Many years ago I was given the task of preparing a presentation for a course on 'What will the tank of 2030 look like' I consulted with thr Operational Research desk officer at MoD, whose father was a distinguished Fleet Air Arm officer who had been involved in the Taranto raid. His answer was short and shrp - "An Attack Helicopter." My case rests.

All well and good until you actually want to hold any ground, which is where the tank comes into it’s own as an armoured mobile sangar with a decent sensor and comms suite plus a respectable reach with an accurate weapon.

[Harley Quinn]

Seems a lot of posters are still fighting the last (ME) war of uncontested airspace where allied ac roamed at will. Will tanks be so vulnerable under a contested air environment?

Anybody that thinks that a bloke who's daddy flew obsolete and vulnerable aircraft to sink a fleet in a defended harbour is a case for tanks to be redundant should perhaps think it through.

[NutLoose]

I always thought the Russians were heading down the route of drone tanks having already dispensed with having anyone in the turrets, heck, it even has a bog in it..

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-troops-to-receive-new-t-14-armata-tanks-in-2019/

[ORAC]

Seems a lot of posters are still fighting the last (ME) war of uncontested airspace where allied ac roamed at will. Will tanks be so vulnerable under a contested air environment?
Will a tank survive in a contested environment where the air is full of loitering drones with shaped charges roaming the battlefield looking for armour to attack?

[trim it out]

I always thought the Russians were heading down the route of drone tanks having already dispensed with having anyone in the turrets, heck, it even has a bog in it..

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-troops-to-receive-new-t-14-armata-tanks-in-2019/
Our Warriors have ‘toilets’ too. It’s just a seat with a removable cushion hole that you can stick a wag bag in. I doubt the Russians have put anything more complex than that in theirs.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1536x1024/bf72358f_b0f3_411d_bc45_875d21123a2e_f6a702e93b5e5455a6c82c0 0ec6915d1ab719626.jpeg

[trim it out]

Will a tank survive in a contested environment where the air is full of loitering drones with shaped charges roaming the battlefield looking for armour to attack?
If it’s a contested battle space then the tank probably has more chance of surviving than the loitering drone. Harder to camouflage a slow moving lawnmower in the sky.

We could go on and on but we’ll just end up arguing tactics, and as we all know those can’t be argued :8

[Fareastdriver]

We already have mobile phones that can be charged without being physically connected to the charger. Come the time where this technology, or something similar, will be able to charge, or discharge, over several miles.

A drone will then have no power or communication.

Possibly a manned fighter as well.

[dead_pan]

In an era of armed, cheap, autonomous, unmanned vehicles, be they land, air or sea based, I reckon all bets are off not only for tanks but also warships, subs, helis, even fast jets. You just can't compete with this level of technology.

Re warships and subs, in a few years I wouldn't be surprised there's a fleet of unmanned vessels (above and below the water) waiting in international waters offshore major bases to accompany any major vessels whenever they leave port. And not just of Chinese origin - western powers too.

Also, regarding MBTs and ACVs in general, recent events in both Syria and Turkey have shown them to be incredibly vulnerable to modern man portable anti-armour weapons and drones.

[dead_pan]

We already have mobile phones that can be charged without being physically connected to the charger. Come the time where this technology, or something similar, will be able to charge, or discharge, over several miles.


I guess you could do something with lasers or microwave.

[NutLoose]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NX7btiWLa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-oB3lwJEls

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ripsaw-m5-robotic-combat-vehicle-rcv/

[Fareastdriver]

Years and years ago, according to the legend, a mother dipped her boy called Achilles into the River Styx. This made him impenetrable to any swords or arrows at the time. She held him in the river by the heel, which is where a bloke called Paris shot him; fatally.

You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in.

Track that and you have got it.

[Lordflasheart]

...

Also, regarding MBTs and ACVs in general, recent events in both Syria and Turkey have shown them to be incredibly vulnerable to modern man portable anti-armour weapons and drones.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/how-syrian-civil-war-smashed-germanys-famed-leopard-2-tank-167592

Turkish Army lost several Leopards and Patton M-60s in Syria .. . ... While not arguing with any of the above posts ...

...... ............ Should have gone to Tank-Savers ... ... Trophy and or Iron Fist

...

[trim it out]

Years and years ago, according to the legend, a mother dipped her boy called Achilles into the River Styx. This made him impenetrable to any swords or arrows at the time. She held him in the river by the heel, which is where a bloke called Paris shot him; fatally.

You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in.

Track that and you have got it.
If GPS spoofing etc becomes a more prominent threat then I think it will change the game. As much as professional Western militaries like to think they could go reversionary, it’s not trained for hard enough. In my opinion we are getting to the complacent stage.

Interesting times where we are between traditional/conventional and ‘future’ cyber/EW spectrum.

[Asturias56]

"You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in."

That applies to a manned one as well of course....

[tucumseh]

"You can cover a remote fighting vehicle with armour but somewhere there is a point where the communication signal has to go in."

That applies to a manned one as well of course....


Don't mention the tank telephone to the RAC or poor bl***y Infantry!

[MAINJAFAD]

Of course, the real reason is that the Army are still welded to a Quadruped. As noted in a paper at Army Staff College by the original BomberH which had the following comment:

"The Army will only accept the Tank if it can eat hay and make noises like a horse",

Though some versions state the word "Defecate" in one of its forms for the later half of the above sentience.. .

[ambidextrous]

Move to a smaller, lighter, battle tank were you rotate the whole battle tank & not just the gun.- It's built in Sweden along with an excellent fighter and superior ball bearings!

[typerated]

If the tank is obsolete, so to is the APC presumably.
that might have more implications?

[Krystal n chips]

Oddball has the answer regarding tanks......me and Oddball have a lot in common I should add.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFGFCt-oHC0

[dead_pan]

Move to a smaller, lighter, battle tank were you rotate the whole battle tank & not just the gun.- It's built in Sweden along with an excellent fighter and superior ball bearings!

Not great if you were travelling down a lane and had to engage something on your flanks, also huge faff when hull-down (could it even do this?), also you'd have to keep the engine running the whole time, also...

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Stridsvagn S103 "S Tank" has been out of production - and service - for some time (since the 1990s). Hull-down was never a problem with it's years-ahead-of-it's-time hydraulic suspension. Why would tanks need to keep engines running? - that's what the APU is for, or in the case of the S Tank a combination of petrol engine and turbine engine. Swedish terrain and tactics didn't call for much movement down narrow lanes. Bovington tried the S Tank and liked what they saw... and were surprised by how well the tank did in comparison with other vehicles of the era that were capable of firing on the move. The real end for the concept came with development of truly-effective main-gun stabilisation in turreted tanks.

[Asturias56]

"If the tank is obsolete, so to is the APC presumably."

Doubt it - the PBI will still need transporting about faster than they can walk and an APC is some protection against snipers, other infantry and (distant) shell explosions - they're buses not fighting vehicles at the the end of the day - and of course a LOT cheaper.............

[etudiant]

"If the tank is obsolete, so to is the APC presumably."

Doubt it - the PBI will still need transporting about faster than they can walk and an APC is some protection against snipers, other infantry and (distant) shell explosions - they're buses not fighting vehicles at the the end of the day - and of course a LOT cheaper.............

Have you looked at the cost of the current generation of APCs? They match the cost of an MBT , thanks to the doctrine that the APC must carry at least a 40mm stabilized gun to fulfill its battle taxi role.
It does seem that all this gear is pricing itself out of the market, too expensive to buy, too complex to learn and too fragile to use.

[tdracer]

This all reminds me of a scene in "To Hell and Back":
Audie Murphy makes some comment to the commander of a Sherman tank about his being protected - the tank commander scoffs and says something like 'this thing only has 2 inches of armor', so Audie Murphy fingers his cotton shirt...
They may not call them tanks, but so long as they value the lives of the soldiers, there will be armored vehicles.

[tucumseh]

they're buses not fighting vehicles at the the end of the day.

The Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle Mid-Life Upgrade, endorsed in 1999, frozen for some years and then given an ISD of 2010, was, I think, also termed the Warrior Lethality Improvement Programme. New, possibly 2-man turret, stabilised cannon, optics, better comms, better integration with dismounted soldiers, etc. One of the KURs was to have the ability to engage targets at 2000m at night (implying fighting), and the new cannon was to be adopted by FRES.

It isn't clear to me if this has been delayed over 10 years, or what is being talked about is a second MLU(!).

Old project management maxim. Don't modify a modification. Not set in stone, but a warning that certain standing risks WILL bite you, such as component unavailability and configuration control.

[currawong]

Tanks are vulnerable to assets that are not always available.....

[RAFEngO74to09]

Videos on the planned extensive Warrior Upgrades:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27pLRKCqH40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8M9RVjAYyg

[Asturias56]

"Have you looked at the cost of the current generation of APCs? They match the cost of an MBT"

Well a German MBT cost around $ 5.7 mm in 2007 and a Styker AFV cost $ 1.4 mm in 2003 - big difference - tho (as usual) the UK's Warrior upgrade programme looks as if it will cost a god awful fortune......

[RAFEngO74to09]

Even the Foxhound Light Patrol Protected Vehicle (LPPV) - a battle taxi as opposed to a full-size Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) like Warrior - is around GBP 1M a piece - original order for 300 in 2010 for GBP 270M and a follow on 25 ordered in 2012 for GBP 30M.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/may_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industry/more_than_1_million_km_in_operations_for_foxhound_protected_ vehicles_of_british_army.html

[Willard Whyte]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1903x889/c3662fea_6ee2_4839_ae05_d83a58121eba_cdacf3a3a6cd50f09112287 7861cc09d224f0619.jpeg

That's not big enough for Lt. Gruber.

[esa-aardvark]

Having once, in a previous job, been introduced to the dial-a-nuke, I remain
of the (probably wrong) opinion that any serious central european conflict
will go nuclear round about day 3.

[rudestuff]

Have you looked at the cost of the current generation of APCs? They match the cost of an MBT , thanks to the doctrine that the APC must carry at least a 40mm stabilized gun to fulfill its battle taxi role.
It does seem that all this gear is pricing itself out of the market, too expensive to buy, too complex to learn and too fragile to use.

APCs should centrate on defeating infantry: 20mm and miniguns/MK19. Leave the tank killing to the drones and helicopters.