![]() While Western tanks retain qualitative advantages over Russian armor and would benefit from better air support, the quantity disparity still risks growing too great-particularly as NATO cannot, by agreement with Russia, permanently deploy forces to the Baltics. Likely, they are less than thrilled.Ĭurrently, Russian is estimated to field 2,700 tanks in active-duty units, including 760 in the area around the Baltic states. Indeed, according to The Times the British military has been sounding out its European partners as to their attitude about such a change. And that at a time when tensions between Europe and Russia, and particularly the UK and Russia, remain high for reasons ranging from election interference to a deadly botched assassination attempts. However, there is one arena where main battle tanks are pretty tough to replace: helping NATO hold Russia’s larger, tank-heavy army at bay in the Baltics. Still, critics of the tank argue the UK’s shrinking main battle tank fleet is a sensible sacrifice to free up funding for more readily useable forms of military power, such as F-35 stealth jets, anti-submarine frigates, lighter Ajax and Boxer armored vehicles, and especially more satellite, air defense and cyberwarfare units. (Photo by Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images) Getty Images Nato troops operating in the south and in the province of Helmand are preparing for a new wave of the offensive after US-led Afghan troops killed the Taliban's top military commander Mullah Dadullah last week. Regiment ride their Scimitar tank in a location in the desert to conduct counter Taliban Operations on in Southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan. HELMAND PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN - MAY 19: British Soldiers from the B Squadron of The Light Dragoons. That said, NATO tank units have enjoyed some combat successes in deployments to Afghanistan and Bosnia. And tanks simply aren’t applicable to the kind of stand-off-range strikes and light-footprint special operations warfare Western militaries have favored in the Middle East and North Africa.įor low-intensity conflicts, lighter armored vehicles often bring adequate firepower to bear and are more practical in terms of cost and logistics. That’s because it’s very difficult to transport dozens of 70- to 80-ton vehicles to distant warzones and supply the gas-guzzling beasts with monstrous amounts of fuel. It’s also uncertain whether the UK will be able to afford a next-generation stealth jet or airplanes for its second aircraft carrier.Īrmored fighting vehicles remain much cheaper than jet fighters but are harder to employ. To be fair, defense spending cuts have drastically shrunk nearly every sector of the British military since the 2008 economic recession. Air Chief Marshal Stirrup told The Times described the cuts as “eviscerating” and “dressing up financial pressures as a capability source.” Another senior officer told The Week that a British Army without tanks would be seen as “not credible” by fellow NATO countries. However, the tank retirement concept is receiving push back from some senior officers, even from outside of the Army. Marine Corps too is retiring its tank units despite the major contributions they made in prior conflicts. Military historian Max Hastings argued in an editorial in the Sunday Times against feeling “sentimental” about a weapon of war he says is just as much past its prime as horse cavalry in the World Wars. This context has undoubtedly helped energize the opinion that the British Army would be better of doing away with the expense of both the shrinking Challenger and Warriors fleets and their upgrades entirely.īroadly, the critique is that tanks are both too difficult to transport to the battlefield, and too vulnerable to modern guided anti-tank weapons.Īrmy chief Sir Mark Carlton Smith recently characterized tanks as a “sunset” capability versus “sunrise” technologies such as cyber and electronic warfare. ![]() The UK may award a contract to a BAE-Rheinmetall joint-venture, but the projected cost has risen from £400 million to £1.5 billion just as the British economy enters a new period of decline due to Brexit and the Covid pandemic. For the Challenger 2, that includes a new engine uprated from 1,200 to 1,500 horsepower, modern fire control systems, sensors and computers, and a more conventional 120-millimeter smoothbore gun that can use the same ammunition as the Abrams and German Leopard 2 tank. However, both the Challenger 2 and Warrior have not received the upgrades of their American and German peers, and now badly need them if they are to remain viable through 2035-2040. (Photo by PA Images via Getty Images) PA Images via Getty Images ![]() Marines move into Abu Al Khasib, a suburb of Basra in southern Iraq. An Iraqi Sentry Post that was booby trapped is blown up near a Challenger Tank as 40 Commando Royal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |