BIG BOYS GUNS

[mrclark303]

As an ex Paratrooper we spent thousands of hours recognising tanks from every nation and learning every aspect of them, especially the Soviet ones obviously.
227 tanks remain out of the original 376. The British Army require the conversions to be finished by 2025. It is assumed that Challenger 2 will remain in service until 2035. However it will be a big task for BAE or it's competitor Rheinmetall Defence.

The tank shape seems to being going back to WW2 with more and more reliance on Chafe to deter missile strikes from the air, or have I a skewed view of tanks.
Being half German half Irish, I have always rated the LEOPARD German tank as one of the best, what does your country have U.S and Canada that compares on upgrades?

Below images left to right: CHALLENGER 2 - LEOPARD - M1 ABRAMS

"BAE or it's competitor Rheinmetall Defence".

Both have now amalgamated for the Challenger deal Gil...

With only 225 in the fleet, you have to wonder if there is much point?

Consider that the only time the UK has deployed armour in strength since WW2 is Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

Both of these depolyed 100 plus MBT's in a cohesive Armored Division...

The question is, can we with a total fleet of 200 odd tanks deploy 100 of them again?

If the answer is no, then I can't see the point in keeping them really...

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

Further to this, weapons like Brimstone and the follow on SPEAR 2 will make tanks little more than easy battlefield targets in the future.

I doubt Challenger 2 will be replaced post 2030, that's for sure.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[bigduke6]

Consider that the only time the UK has deployed armour in strength since WW2 is Gulf Wars 1 and 2.

John, They even had Centurions in Gulf 1, I remember seeing one getting some restoration on Salavage Squad, they managed to track one of the crew down and was on the programme, He climbed in and found the letter he had written home........ they weren't expecting that.

[Sunray]

"...L7 Ordnance..." Chieftain did and the Leopard 1 does. Challenger 2's do not. They have a rifled 120. Either way, Point Blank Range on an L7 is 1,000 yards.
The M1A2 Abrams is mostly about its armour. That being the Chobham armour developed by the Brits. It also uses a 120mm smooth bore gun. It's downside is its weight(71.2 tons) and size(Hull length: 26.02 ft. Width is 12 feet.) It needs to be able to use existing European bridges.
The real issue with tanks of any flavour is their cost. Each one of those Abrams runs $6.21 million USD each and are estimated in 2016 dollars at $8.92 million US each. That being Hillier's reasoning even though it wasn't mentioned. The CF doesn't have the budget, the political will or the means of transporting tanks anywhere anyway.
"...the LEOPARD on this list..." Usually more about who created the list than anything else.

[Flying10uk]

How many tanks on the ground in relation to having one Apache gunship in the air, worth on the battlefield? Or to put it another way, how many tanks would you trade for one Apache gunship?

There must be a figure/ratio, but has anyone ever figured it out?

[Fruler]

I've always been fascinated with the way Germans utilized anti-tank tactics in WW2. I would like to know how many tanks before the invention of the panzerfaust how many tanks were destroyed by artillery, bundle charges, anti-tank mines etc. I think a lot of the modern anti-tank weapons can trace their lineage back to the panzerfaust to a degree. Anti-tanks grenades were utilised in the 50s-60s by many NATO countries. I wouldn't have like to have been that soldier charging a t34 78 years ago with a bundle charge and magnetic anti tank mine... We've come a long way for a reason... To make things easier. There's always going to be something to counteract the newest anti-tank technology. I don't see tanks going out of favor anytime soon but I'm not an expert.

[Gil Boyd]

Sadly, Tanks scare the **** out of me.
Remember in Germany on exercise once when a group of lads had bivoaced against an embankment when a tank came over the top crashing down on the kit.
Luckily noone was asleep otherwise it would have been catastrophic!

[gary]

Thank You for the post and Thank You for your service

[Flying10uk]

I remember being told in the cadets that the deep rut left in soft ground was a good place for a soldier to sleep when out in the field. I remember thinking to myself, "but what if the tank decides to retrace it's tracks or another vehicle follows the same route while you're asleep?". I didn't say anything at the time but has anyone actually slept in the rut left in the ground after the passage of a tracked vehicle?

[browningautorifle]

the deep rut left in soft ground was a good place for a soldier to sleep when out in the field.

Well, if you think about it...that's where the water gathers first also... But, no sleeping on tracks or roads. Nor...under vehicles or inside them.

[CINDERS]

You don't hide under trucks either, well that's what my b/inlaw and a mate did when the VC dropped a few mortar rounds into their parking area the two of them legged it under this truck and went sorta a deathly grey once the rain of steel had stopped sure the truck did not get hit neither had they but had it been then they both would have been vaporized as it was chockers full of munitions. Fate is the Hunter for sure......