British Army With No Tanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ramjam]

Just saw this on the BBC News web site.

Don't know what to say...................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53909087

After some research about the USMC doing away with their tanks..............

https://www.stripes.com/news/marine-...m1a1s-1.639355

What is the world coming too!!!!!!!!!

[Raellus]

Vladimir Putin has got to be over the moon right now. A major political rival falls seriously ill and then news that the Russian military will likely be facing 270 less MBTs in the near future? It's been a great week for Putin.

[Legbreaker]

Ditching tanks isn't going to happen. There's a demonstrated, historical NEED for a battlefield bully, and the tank fills that role nicely.
Yes, they're expensive, complex and difficult to move from one region to another, but without them the remaining forces could well be just so much minced beef.
In the unlikely even they do ditch them, it will be for political reasons and against military advice. A few years later the Brits would be chewed up in a combat zone and tanks hurriedly rushed back into service.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Ditching tanks isn't going to happen. There's a demonstrated, historical NEED for a battlefield bully, and the tank fills that role nicely.

But, crazy as it sounds, it is happening. Read the article. The Dutch have already gotten rid of theirs. The USMC is moving quickly in that direction. The UK, apparently, is next.

It strikes me as an incredibly short-sighted policy/strategy. Tanks are indeed expensive to develop, build, maintain and operate, but they're still the best anti-tank weapon. Infantry both love having tanks on their side (see the battles of Fallujah or the more recent battle for Mosul), and hate fighting against them for good reason. NATO could one day rue its members' cost-cutting evisceration of their MBT forces when the Russians roll their thousands of T-whatevers into Ukraine or the Baltic States.

[Legbreaker]

The way I read it is certain people are considering it as an option. I heard similar chatter back in the early 90's re the Australian's - we ended up a decade or so later with M1s.

I don't think they'll be as many tanks as 20+ years ago, but there'll always be some on hand with any competent military. Without tanks your force isn't really capable of more than counter insurgency and other low level conflicts. Admittedly that's the bulk of the last couple of decades, but there's still plenty of nations out there with T-72's or whatever who could become a problem in the not that distant future.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The way I read it is certain people are considering it as an option. I heard similar chatter back in the early 90's re the Australian's - we ended up a decade or so later with M1s.

I don't think they'll be as many tanks as 20+ years ago, but there'll always be some on hand with any competent military. Without tanks your force isn't really capable of more than counter insurgency and other low level conflicts. Admittedly that's the bulk of the last couple of decades, but there's still plenty of nations out there with T-72's or whatever who could become a problem in the not that distant future.

Back in 1995 there was chatter about replacing the Abrams with Future Combat Systems vehicles small enough that a C-17 could carry two (about the same mass as a Stryker MGS). It's 25 years later, and the Abrams is still being upgraded while the replacement program (OMFV) to the replacement program (GCV) of FCS was canceled at the beginning of this year.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The way I read it is certain people are considering it as an option.

I see it the same way - it's one of several options that are under consideration. We'll just have to wait and see where it goes.