Sunday, 13 September 2020

Is an Army really an Army without Tanks?

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

4 comments:

Khusru said...

I would say, yes, Equipment changes over time and with need.
But, the armed forces have cut infantry units down to unacceptable levels. You need boots on the ground to take and hold ground.
You also need the means to defeat armoured units if you don't have your own. I don't think the army has that, or enough of that, yet.
I see it as what it is, a cost cutting exercise despite what the government says

Simon said...

The time of the tank may well be over. AT helicopters and cheap missiles can easily defeat MBT’s now. I think the US Marines are on the verge of ditching their Abrams.

Renko said...

Yes, just not necessarily one capable of fighting

Geordie an Exiled FoG said...


Khusru and Simon, I can hear what you say .. but ..
It certainly makes me very nervous .. don't throw away "an arm" for no good reason other than an accountant says so .. accountants don't deliver national security .. and that's a lot of AT kit for your infantry to lug about which makes them slow .. do you have two schools of tactics (1) when you are fighting somebody without tanks and (2) when the enemy has tanks .. mobility .. two legs good but tracks better (?). Feels wrong to me .. I am certainly with Renko on this one .. but what do I know .. I like making model tanks .. but my argument doesn't seem the same as a cavalry-man's (as in horse) dislike of AFVs .. was it tanks or an aircraft carrier I wonder? Sack the accountant and get a better one IMHO !!!