Army 'could be left with just 50 tanks'

HAVE YOUR SAY

12 January 2011

If this is true, i hope they put them in storage and do not sell them off for a pittance, one day we might well need them.

You can not run the armed forces like a business, this one department has to be an exception to the rule,unforeseen events must be catered for.
tim dainton - romsey

12 January 2011

This is just ridiculous. So the mastiff, ridgeback and warthog that have all been vital to protecting our guys on the ground will be got rid of?

Do politicians learn anything?
john - uk

12 January 2011

I think between the lines the government are saying that after Afghanistan, they don't want us to get involved too heavily in any International events after 2015-Keep the units in reserve just in case-but Fox stated in the SDSR that they would only deploy a Brigade sized unit in the future at any one time. Personally I foresee state on state warfare will become more and more frequent, as natural resources are used up (oil primarily) it will cause regional & international conflicts in the long term. Especially with China-It is pre-empting this need to 'defend its interests' by building up their forces now...If a conflict is in 30-40 years though, all of the materiel mentioned above would be obsolete by then anyway.
Laskovar - UK

12 January 2011

Its not just the equipment that is lost (even if it is in storage) it is the skills that take years of development and constant practise that will be lost with them. You can't just throw soldiers in tanks and tell them to fight, modern Armoured Warfare is complex, fast paced and needs constant training.

It would take a generation of soldiers to re-learn the skills lost.
Rob (Former CR-2 Troop Leader) - Telford

12 January 2011

Given the sale of Invincible may be linked with recently announced business deals and then the recently announced future business with Brazil regarding ship purchases. Britain's defence capabilities may well be taking a back seat from now on. No doubt BAE and its shareholders will be saying "Let the good times roll". Of course I won't ignore the jobs implications, but is that an entirely balanced position?

http://brazil.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/09/14/brazil-finalizes-bae-deal/

Chris - Keighley

12 January 2011

Its not just the equipment that is lost (even if it is in storage) it is the skills that take years of development and constant practise that will be lost with them. You can't just throw soldiers in tanks and tell them to fight, modern Armoured Warfare is complex, fast paced and needs constant training.

It would take a generation of soldiers to re-learn the skills lost.
Rob (Former CR-2 Troop Leader) - Telford

Indeed, and I must say the Challenger 2 has proved it's resilience, utility and capability many times over.

In fact we have lost more apaches which everyone said were a better bet that we have Challengers.

It's a fantastic tank and the training and understanding of our tank warfare is really beginning to show with the roll out of the Challenger and Challenger 2 in succession as world leading tanks.

So we must must not lose this capability. Even in Iraq where it was not an engagement that was playing to the Challengers strengths it showed it's worth.

It's hard not to get despondent about the whole thing really.
Anthony - Bristol, United Kingdom

12 January 2011

They are saying "get rid of the budget deficit", but keep the hardware stored, like the Green Goddess fire engines used to be, and the Tribal class frigates which were brought back into use in 1982 after the Falklands war.
j.cassford - ex ROC

12 January 2011

Dannat, when C in C asked the idiot brown for Challenger 2 to be sent to Afgan, browns repley was that they were too aggressive.
The US are to send MBT's to Afgan, the canadians and Danish have MBT's already there.
Apparently a couple of weeks ago, there was a request for Challenger 2 to be sent to Afgan, The Government said,the request would be considered.So if the UK do send Challenger 2 to theatre, how many would be left in the UK?
Why is Russia building 20,000 new MBT's?
Why is Iran showing of their new MBT ?
A MBT is an offensive weapon, it is not a defensive weapon.
The Challenger 2 is the finest MBt in the world,it has never beed taken out in combat, apart from a blue on blue in Basra, at point blank.If your known adversies or your suspected adversies have MBT's, so should you.
Quote from Erwin Rommel- Always expect the unexpected.
I see Brazil refused HMS Clyde entry to Rio, not suprised, when the Falklands Guardship is a OPV with a 30mm cannon on the bow.Now is that what the MOD, call a deterrance to aggression, god help us.Brazil is laughing at the Uk, because the UK cannot do anything about it,We have hardly any warships.There's a lot more of this, to come and it will escalate.The Argies are receiving support from South America, all they have to do is wait.
John - GB

12 January 2011

In weaker moments, I have said the MBT has been replaced by the attack helicopter. Partly true, but you still need tanks to put on the other guys lawn. A tank can just sit there, while a helicopter has to go off & refuel.
We need a minimum of 260 MBTs. Without that any future BEF risks heavy casualties. Our dear leaders may only want to deploy a light force, but the enemy may have other ideas. The equivalent of taking a knife to a gun fight.
We need a Challenger 3 with longer gun, more powerful engine, better mine protection & cctv awareness in built up areas.
Or a CV90120T more easily deployable.
Sadly neither will happen, as our politicians are useless airheads. They will give the money to the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators instead.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

12 January 2011

It is the coalition government we have that is causing the problem. The Tories are hell bent on pushing their ultra free market economic policy to the exclusion of all else. And the Liberals are determined to push their agenda, including their obsession with eliminating the UK as a world military power.

Hence, so long as the Liberals leave the Tories alone to push for ultra small government, negligible business regulation and low direct taxation, the Tories will let the Liberals push their agenda, which includes the destruction of the UK armed forces as we know them and the arms industry that goes with it.

Hence, instead of the coalition moderating Tory/Liberal policies eading to a more pragmatic government we are getting a bi-polar government that will let one side do what ever it wants so long as the other side lets them do what they want.

It is hard to believe, but we are now experiencing a government that is worse than the last one.

Crazy!

Marin Bayliss - Stroud

13 January 2011

I believe the Challengers will be thankfully placed in storage...Just in case.

It would be a waste if the Mastiff and Ridgebacks are not maintained past operations in Afghanistan; it sounds like the government intention is to run them into the ground and not repair any OPDEF / worn systems on their return.

A true waste.

I wonder if the reductions include the forces in Germany and the Canadian Trg Centre? 50 seems way to low support the most basic 'peacetime' operations; the boys on the ground won't like this!

Possibly another MR4 / GR9 type decision I fear...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

13 January 2011

With five brigades 50 tanks is just 10 tanks each. A tank squadron is 14 tanks so something somewhere does not add up. Is one of the new brigades not going to have the heavy armour component. Or is this just scaremongering.
JIm Sweeney - Newcastle

13 January 2011

We currently have five Armd / Mech Bdes with one Armd Regt each, these Regts do not normally hold their full stock of Armour in peacetime anyway, normally they hold about 1/4 to 1/3 of their strength.

For Exercises they use a pool fleet on Salisbury Plain or in BATUS Canada, the rest are held in storage or are going through upgrades / major maint, simlilar to the way the RAF manage its aircraft fleet.

With the Heavy Cav (and the Tankies) now operating mainly as Infantry taxi drivers in Afghanistan, driving Mastiff, Bronco etc, it is yet another case of short term solutions to save a few bucks now rather than looking at the long term.
Rob - Telford

27 January 2011

Mothball do not sell, there is no value in making a small cash return as a short term policy. We need to maintain the ability to build and sell these type of products around the world for the good of our own armed forces.
I have to say this goverment is looking a bit silly now with the defence cuts let's have a proper impartial defence review published prior to any irreversible decisions are made and actioned e.g. the breaking of the Nimrods as they are leaving the factory. Here our voice Mr.Cameron/Clegg.
Richard Wakefield - Tamworth uk

29 January 2011

When one looks at the British armed forces,it is on a par with some third world countries.
Equipment getting trashed to save money.and as pointed out years of experience will be gone .
Which tooks years of time effort and money.rest assured around the corner is the next conflict,which we will be totally unprepeared for.
After the pull out from Op Herrick the British forces will be closed for business.
Mick T - Leicester

22 February 2011

Unless we pull out of Afghanistan completely in 2015 (which I doubt) the Mastiff, Ridgeback and Huskey etc will still be needed to transport advisors, support staff and supplies around. "Combat operations" may indeed end, but the threat from IEDs wont have; in fact it may well increase. To think the Taliban will pack up and go home if we end combat ops is pie in the sky thinking.
Bob M - Surrey UK

04 April 2011

why oh why should england tremble
with idiots like cameron at the controls
bob james - winsford,cheshire, ex RAC

20 September 2011

A Soldiers Life Is Deemed To Be Worth Less Than A Tank.
Well Obviously So Or Why Hasn't The Afghan Theatre Been Sent Many Challenger 2 Tanks!
Lets Get 50 Out There Immediately.
Not Got Them, Build Them!
Dazzer - Plymouth

26 September 2011

these things should be left to the military to decide and not politicians who give most of "our" money away and seem not to be patriotic or interested in our armed services who are fighting very bravely in 3 wars.Why dont they cut the number of mps we have in this country as we have 600 mps,i say cut the number of mps to 300,half,and the extra money from cutting mps then spend it on the services.
nick - manchester

25 October 2011

Bulding tanks and ships and all weapons we need means that we will have to pay skilled workers good money.This money will be invested in comunities across the land and inturn boost other industries which in turn will be a catalyst for everything we need,this will lead to a surplus that together with systems and support units will create export opportunities and more orders and more jobs .We the people are outward looking thats our nature.
Politicians are lazy egotystical patronising ratbags that can't get a job but rely on cronies to prop them up with a word in the right ear with a nod and a wink.
They know nothing about the real world but oh boy can thay talk down to you and put you in your place. this practice has to stop.
MP's must have proven skills to be tested by a neutral selection panel of judges bishops bankers and business people including a new style institute of directors that will never allow another rover group syle fiasco ever again CROOKED DIRECTORS SHOULD BE PUT IN jAIL TOGETHER WITH THEIR CROOKED POLITICAL FREINDS we need a new order now.
Shaun - Devon

13 November 2011

will now not vote tory, destroying our armed forces. labour are just as bad. no point to vote, all mp are liers especially cameron. get rid of bonuses for high earners and spend on our armed forces. we will soon never have any flexibilityleft
ian farlane - maidstone

09 December 2011

@ Shaun in Devon.....spot on mate, we're being stripped bare, you only need look at whats happening between Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran to see an axis evolving, china sea trialling new aircraft carriers and developing stealth technology, preparing its navy for war (in their own words).....things are brewing and what do we have??? Un qualified, idiotic politicians running the place into the ground, destroying our ability to defend ourselves to save cash whilst sending BILLIONS abroad in aid (one country we send aid to actually has its own space program!!!). Our armed forces are in serious threat of becoming un usable, the MOD has already informed the navy that even if the 2 new carriers planned are ready by 2030, we wont have the manpower to crew them!!!
This madness should stop, the ineptitude is bordering on treason!!!
Johnnyboy - Gloucester, England

11 December 2011

not so long ago the Govt decided that there would not be any more British made tanks. At that time the favorite to replace the home grown tank was the German Leopard.

50 tanks would in a battle like Kirsk last about 10 mins.

Madness to strip us of a top notch battle tank
John Dale-Glossop - Bude Cornwall

26 February 2012

i think if the cull takes place as 8o year old this is the worse thing that ever happend to england and take number 10/11 and takethemto asmall planet and leave them
ivan sampson - chigwell essex

03 September 2012

To be honest i doubt they will be sold, as we are knowen for getting involved in major conflicts and these tanks and vehicles will be obviously need.
So, the media always gives us have the story. Like cuts to the active troops by 20,000 by 2020. What people dont relise and are not being told is that the reserve troop are due to rise by 20,000+ by 2020. So the UK isnt losing actually any troops or equipment, alot of it is just being put in reserve cause thats cheaper. Then when a major war pops up they will be taken out of reserve and used again. For example Syria! Our goverment with france and the America have said that if chemical weopons are used our response will Major and completly devastating. If all these troops and vehicles were being lost completly how could we still make a comment like to syria.
Ryan - Littlehampton