Pongo's Reactionary Protectionism....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bouncing around the Holding pattern
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pongo's Reactionary Protectionism....
For those of you who have seem the front page of the Sunday Times today, I'm sure you've had enough time to mull this over.
For those who haven't, the general gist is this. Our Ground Pounding bretherin are in the process of sending at least one squadron of Challenger 2 MBTs out into theatre...... No bead-window time, it's in the public domain where I got it from.
Now, for some years now, I was labouring under the apprehension that MBTs were not the correct system for the Theatre for some several reasons including but not exclusively:
1: Not cool for hearts and minds...
2: Some what lacking in mobility given the conditions/terrain etc
3: See points 1 and 2 ref all of the T52/55/72s littering the landscape, somewhat burnt out.....
So. This (mis)apprehension came from the meeeja, and some pongo mates who were in the process of bigging up the latest WartMasBullVikingIK to be purchased under UOR.
To quote "Only the Challenger can give them the combination of protection and firepower that they need."
Two questions need answering here.
Firstly, if the above quote is true, why the fook has the MBT not been a fixture with TFH for a good while now?
Secondly, and pertaining to this forum, is this not a blatant case of Army Reationary Protectionism? Given that "40% of the Army's Challenger 2 tanks are due to be axed" it does seem to be a rather timely deployment. Which makes somewhat of a mockery of their banter about "The War" and that most pongos that one speaks to don't think that the UK requires Fixed Wing Air Defence because it doesn't contribute to "The War."
I'd love to have been able to put this more elequently, so I hope some of my more erodite collegues can continue.
Discuss
For those who haven't, the general gist is this. Our Ground Pounding bretherin are in the process of sending at least one squadron of Challenger 2 MBTs out into theatre...... No bead-window time, it's in the public domain where I got it from.
Now, for some years now, I was labouring under the apprehension that MBTs were not the correct system for the Theatre for some several reasons including but not exclusively:
1: Not cool for hearts and minds...
2: Some what lacking in mobility given the conditions/terrain etc
3: See points 1 and 2 ref all of the T52/55/72s littering the landscape, somewhat burnt out.....
So. This (mis)apprehension came from the meeeja, and some pongo mates who were in the process of bigging up the latest WartMasBullVikingIK to be purchased under UOR.
To quote "Only the Challenger can give them the combination of protection and firepower that they need."
Two questions need answering here.
Firstly, if the above quote is true, why the fook has the MBT not been a fixture with TFH for a good while now?
Secondly, and pertaining to this forum, is this not a blatant case of Army Reationary Protectionism? Given that "40% of the Army's Challenger 2 tanks are due to be axed" it does seem to be a rather timely deployment. Which makes somewhat of a mockery of their banter about "The War" and that most pongos that one speaks to don't think that the UK requires Fixed Wing Air Defence because it doesn't contribute to "The War."
I'd love to have been able to put this more elequently, so I hope some of my more erodite collegues can continue.
Discuss
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Danes and Canadians have had Leopards there for some time. Whilst the cynics can argue the toss about the Army's move in the light of SDSR, it is a well-needed uplift in combat power.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nr.EGHI, UK
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBTs to who knows where...
Also in the torygraff.
Tanks 'needed to fight Taliban' - Telegraph
Following the fekkin cousins like sheep, again 
What's the betting that the RoE will make them impossible to use effectively?
Tanks 'needed to fight Taliban' - Telegraph
The move follows a decision by the US to send a similar number of heavy Abrams tanks.
What's the betting that the RoE will make them impossible to use effectively?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Secondly, and pertaining to this forum, is this not a blatant case of Army Reationary Protectionism? Given that "40% of the Army's Challenger 2 tanks are due to be axed"
Black buck anyone? 
If it's firepower the army are after, why don't they make better use of the stacks and stacks of air assets (including AH) armed with precision-guided weapons that orbit daily over Helmand? Given the small distances involved, there's always something within a few minutes' flying time, which means that the required 'smack' can be laid down in much less time than it takes to roll out a Chally - which at the end of the day is unguided artillery on tracks...
And TTH's point about the multitude of UOR armoured vehicles is well made; what a waste of time that all was, if the answer was sat in Germany all along.
And TTH's point about the multitude of UOR armoured vehicles is well made; what a waste of time that all was, if the answer was sat in Germany all along.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
multitude of UOR armoured vehicles is well made; what a waste of time that all was, if the answer was sat in Germany all along.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In WW1 & WW2 tanks towed trailers with supplies on board, even if the said supplies was ammo for their own gun barrels. They also had flails which would safely detonate an IED ahead of the tank.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am not sure what your point is? if it is protectionism then good for them, why not try and look after your assets no matter how cynical it may appear, if the government buy into it then jobs a goodun, perhaps the RAF could learn a few albeit late lessons in how to defend themselves from the chop.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps the RAF could learn a few albeit late lessons in how to defend themselves from the chop.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets just look at the recent form of the light blue:
Protectionism from the Army?
RAF: "Pot calling kettle, over"
Now don't get me wrong, the Tonka does offer a great deal in theatre and the Harrier fleet may have been broken. I also believe that you only make true savings, which we must make, by getting rid of fleets in toto.
What does grate is the way in which the RAF pursue a protectionist policy and conducts a no holds barred campaign to safeguard its future at the expense of the other services.
I just wish that all three services could work together to form a cohesive plan that takes into account the economic constraints and places the British Armed Forces as a credible military at the correct level on the world stage.
- Tornado out to Op Herrick, "lets make it look useful"
- RAF desire to scrap Harrier (Read desire to scrap FAA fixed wing)
- Resistance to transfer of Merlin to RN
- Continuous counter briefing
Protectionism from the Army?
RAF: "Pot calling kettle, over"
Now don't get me wrong, the Tonka does offer a great deal in theatre and the Harrier fleet may have been broken. I also believe that you only make true savings, which we must make, by getting rid of fleets in toto.
What does grate is the way in which the RAF pursue a protectionist policy and conducts a no holds barred campaign to safeguard its future at the expense of the other services.
I just wish that all three services could work together to form a cohesive plan that takes into account the economic constraints and places the British Armed Forces as a credible military at the correct level on the world stage.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If it's firepower the army are after, why don't they make better use of the stacks and stacks of air assets (including AH) armed with precision-guided weapons that orbit daily over Helmand?"
Because it has little to do with firepower, you can't seize and hold the ground with aviation. Aviation, however, can set the conditions to do so. It's all about the joint effect rather than my asset is better or more useful than yours!!
h
Because it has little to do with firepower, you can't seize and hold the ground with aviation. Aviation, however, can set the conditions to do so. It's all about the joint effect rather than my asset is better or more useful than yours!!
h
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The most valuable lesson to be learned here is that snivelling like a 4-year old because Johnny got the ball (again) doesn't actually help your argument much. Somebody made a good case for the benefit of CR2 in Theatre and now it's out there - what a radical concept for the deployment of defence assets.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In WW1 & WW2 tanks towed trailers with supplies on board, even if the said supplies was ammo for their own gun barrels. They also had flails which would safely detonate an IED ahead of the tank.
Flails were for mines, not IEDs - just to make a tiny correction there.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street.
When you say "If it's firepower the army are after, why don't they make better use of the stacks and stacks of air assets (including AH) armed with precision-guided weapons that orbit daily over Helmand? Given the small distances involved, there's always something within a few minutes' flying time, which means that the required 'smack' can be laid down in much less time than it takes to roll out a Chally - which at the end of the day is unguided artillery on tracks..."
Do you actually have much knowledge of the Chally2?
You make a fair point about the use of air power to react to situations, as long as you are happy for folks on the ground to have to wait many minutes longer for their fire power support. Have limited support, which will run out of fuel sooner or later (as will the Chally, but its 24 hours on station is somewhat useful, and almost limitless in a 'mobile firebase). The main gun on a modern MTB is also very effective for many uses in our current theatres, plus the baddies will often not be able to see the MTB to be able to fire back at it with RPG's etc (and lets face it, the Chally is more able to cope with RPG's than an Aapache!).
The British army has a good experience of using MTB's in fairly static locations to provide fire support, and as far as I see this, it's a win win situation for everyone.
Folks on the ground get added firepower on call (which is very accurate, even against moving targets). We get to save money by using cheaper ordnance. We also end up with air assets more able to concentrate on more distant attack and MERT cover.
The downside is that thanks to Noo labours penny pinching, the Chally2 is not as good a sandy environment weapon as it could be!
All just IMHO of course.
When you say "If it's firepower the army are after, why don't they make better use of the stacks and stacks of air assets (including AH) armed with precision-guided weapons that orbit daily over Helmand? Given the small distances involved, there's always something within a few minutes' flying time, which means that the required 'smack' can be laid down in much less time than it takes to roll out a Chally - which at the end of the day is unguided artillery on tracks..."
Do you actually have much knowledge of the Chally2?
You make a fair point about the use of air power to react to situations, as long as you are happy for folks on the ground to have to wait many minutes longer for their fire power support. Have limited support, which will run out of fuel sooner or later (as will the Chally, but its 24 hours on station is somewhat useful, and almost limitless in a 'mobile firebase). The main gun on a modern MTB is also very effective for many uses in our current theatres, plus the baddies will often not be able to see the MTB to be able to fire back at it with RPG's etc (and lets face it, the Chally is more able to cope with RPG's than an Aapache!).
The British army has a good experience of using MTB's in fairly static locations to provide fire support, and as far as I see this, it's a win win situation for everyone.
Folks on the ground get added firepower on call (which is very accurate, even against moving targets). We get to save money by using cheaper ordnance. We also end up with air assets more able to concentrate on more distant attack and MERT cover.
The downside is that thanks to Noo labours penny pinching, the Chally2 is not as good a sandy environment weapon as it could be!
All just IMHO of course.