I was beginning to think I was the only one old enough to get that one Captain…..

Lol again….

Did he work on Nimrods then? Same toolkit for both jobs…

From the info I got the gearbox and final drives are also being upgraded as part of the program. With all the additional modular armour, the extra weight has played havoc on the final drives, really shortening their lives.

holly crap thats over powered! 60mph for that amount of protection! programable ammo! what is this a tank from 5050! coor! i would do anything to have one of them!

Takes a long time to remove a twisted torsion bar from Leopard when battle damaged, Expect torsion bars have all to be changed when extra armour added to leopard or splines repositioned to correct ride height. Hydro-gas just needs a bit more nitrogen added! Would also think torsional dampers on bars also problematic with weight of tanks!

yes i understand. things have come a long way since ww2 and the early cold wars where menuverbility was everything. now days u can menuver all u want but the atgms will eventually get u.

Fishing expedition??

Nope sorry.

We bought 408 tanks, delivered from 1998.
Some 227 are in service, (but I don’t know the breakdown of this figure), 59 in training fleet, therefore 122 in storage although I heard that one vehicle was written off. Not sure whether the BATUS vehicles are counted in the training fleet or the in-service numbers.

Many more for storage now that the in-service fleet will go down to 112 in two regiments.

CR3 fleet will be just 148, ie 112 in-service plus a mere 36 to be split between BATUS, UK-based training fleet and the attrition reserve in storage. Did someone get their sums wrong or did they run out of money.

Many thanks for this information Graham, at least we still have an additional 122 that could be upgraded if required.

A sorry state of affairs in my opinion.

No, I think he means Ashchurch?

Sorry I meant Ashchurch depot Tewkesbury, thats what I heard from a former CH2 guy ,could be wrong.

Well yes, there are several thousand vehicles in Ashcurch. Not all in CHE mind.

Here some latest info on Ashchurch depot, Daniele.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/military-bases-urgent-revamp-set-5399308

Thanks M. It was due to close a few years back so pleased to see the MoD changed that decision. It stores several thousand vehicles, boats, and plant, and has rail access.
Madness to move it but it did need updating as the article states as several army forums describe the shit state some of the vehicles are in when in non CHE hangers.

Land contaminated with asbestos so not such a good buy for some chum to develop for housing !

Ashchurch

We don’t/won’t know until or unless they are put to the test in a representative testing conflict, everyone is upgrading them because they don’t know either until similarly put to the test. No one wants to risk getting it wrong or jumping to soon despite there being serious questions over their viability especially since the Armenian debacle. For Britain a small amount of very effective and well defended tanks is still vital while alternative solutions are examined and tested I think but in a decade who knows what the best option(s) will be I certainly doubt it will be a tank mind. Trouble is those upgraded tanks are needed now or in few years not 2027 I reckon when circumstances may already prove them obsolete compared to alternative solutions which however are not yet predictably ready for prime time.

I wouldn’t use the Armenian conflict as a benchmark. Armenia were significantly out “teched” by Azerbaijan, as they had both Israeli and Turkish assistance. It would be interesting to see how successful the suicide drones are against a more representative opponent. If anything I would base my assumptions on the Ukrainian conflict as both sides are about level technology wise.

There is simply no alternative to the MBT, which marries both fire power and protection. In the future it will still be a numbers game. Where the success of a MBT and its use will be dictated by how successful its APS is, how easy is to repair and get back in the fight, the ability to see a target and shoot first, plus the ease of sharing battlefield data that is easy to use.

It is fair to say there “…is simply no alternative to the MBT, which marries both fire power and protection”, if the goal is to define a vehicle we can position where it will receive incoming fire that would overwhelm every other vehicle in a similar position, such as IFV/APCs. It doesn’t necessarily mean its the correct approach for the future.

The question is whether we should continue to develop and use such vehicles, or if there are better ways we have visibility of even today, and especially in the future, to achieve similar effects to a MBT, without having to expose a vehicle in the same way.

MBTs are getting rather expensive for what is only a 120mm mobile direct fire gun in terms of its effect. That effect might be achieved more affordably, with greater flexibility and with greater numbers by other means.

How do you hold or take ground with a drone? Tanks and infantry are still going to be needed.

Totally agree. After Russia’s recent experience of using the unmanned Ural-9 tank in Syria, I’d say we have a very long way to go yet. Most unlike Russia, they published the problems they had with operating the drone in Syria. See attached link:

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-light-deficiencies-russian-unmanned-mini-tank.html

The upshot was poor Russian build standards, but also poor technology (low quality cameras etc). Fundamentally, it was the laggy and disrupted command and control that was the main issue. Until they can sought out the communications issues, there will always be problems operating this type of vehicle out of line of sight and in built up areas.

I have no issues with the employment of new technology, but only when its not at the expense of tried and trusted methods. The use of drones as replacement for personnel and manned vehicles has always struck me as being blinded by science, which sadly this country has a history of (e.g. Sandys white paper). Where in fact, a reality check is ion order.

Two problems with holding ground in a hypothetical confrontation in the Baltics.

It ties down personnel and equipment, a problem with the relatively small numbers of both in modern army’s.

It fixes forces in position. That makes them much more easily targeted by Russia’s strengths in tube and rocket artillery and cruise missiles. Also more easily targeted by Russian air power while their IADS is up and effective enough to counter western 4th gen aircraft.

The strategy is to make targeting NATO forces hard and creating dilemmas for a Russian force by attacking at many different locations simultaneously, overwhelming their ability comprehend and respond. Sidelining their legacy tube and rocket artillery capabilities against massed concentrations of armour. This is why the IR and earlier papers talk about using more mobile, agile, less protected assets.

The broader point is that there is no inherent value to taking and holding ground, illustrated by conflicts where ground was taken at great cost, then ceded without a fight, because it wasn’t practical to continue holding it. The goal is to defeat the adversary’s ability to wage war through attrition, illustrated with Azerbaijan’s defeat of Armenian armour in the recent N-K conflict, that forced an end to the war. Also by interdicting supply and reinforcement routes to prevent replacement of assets.

I disagree. There are many reasons why you might want to hold ground. For instance if you are liberating a city then you need to hold it otherwise it is not liberated. Also you may need to evacuate an area and so there is a need to hold it for a time in order to allow the evacuation. Neither of these things can be done effectively with drones. (Certainly not now or the near to mid future).

There will also always be a need to haul logistics overland and these will need protecting. Again drones are not always a good fit for this and Tanks will be needed.

In the future there is a possibility that remote vehicles will be able to do the job but it will be quite some time before that happens. However these will still be Tanks they will just me unmanned. The technology just is not good enough right now for remote operated or autonomous Tanks, so we will need first class manned vehicles for the near to mid future.

You are going out on a limb to say that land forces don’t need to seize and hold vital and key ground. Although I agree that it has to be for a purpose and intrinsically linked to defeating the enemy, but that rather goes without saying. Wars of attrition are largely a thing of the past, even for large armies; manoeuvre warfare has taken hold near-universally and is far preferred for reasons of minimising duration of conflict and cost to the nation in ‘blood and treasure’.

This is the critical point “…it has to be for a purpose and intrinsically linked to defeating the enemy”. One of the lessons from Nagorno-Karabakh, had it been necessary, is to focus on comprehensively reducing the adversary’s ability to wage war, rather than focus on trying to take and hold territory. If successful in the former, then the latter follows, because the adversary cannot prevent it.

We constantly hear the doctrine from the US and UK of creating multiple dilemmas for the enemy, to overwhelm their ability to respond. Taking and holding territory is the opposite of that, as it fixes and probably also concentrates forces for much easier understanding and targeting.

Only a 120mm gun? The infantry which comprises 25% of the army don’t have a weapon of that calibre, but has some punch of a different nature with mortars and ATGW, admittedly. Otherwise only RA and AAC have firepower of that magnitude, and they have no role to seize and (with Infantry) to hold ground.

“Only a 120mm gun” is in the context of the high cost to deliver that 120mm gun effect on a MBT platform, versus say a similar effect from a 120mm assault gun, direct/indirect fire 120mm mortar, or even using ATGMs against fortified positions.

All the latter are more lightly armoured than a MBT (or lacking any protection at all with an ATGM dismount team) because, with the exception of ATGM, they are not primarily intended to directly attack a MBT. We accept their vulnerability as a trade off, because we cannot build an entire armoured force protected to the same levels as a MBT. I’m not suggesting that we don’t provide the firepower a 120mm gun gives.

People predicted the end of the manned penetrating bomber aircraft from the 60s and the end of the manned fighter for at least the last 10 years. Both are still going strong (as is my car CD player which was also slated for scrapping). There will always be a need for a well armed, highly mobile, well protected mobile weapon system for land forces, one that can create shock action and seize ground and hold it with other arms. The tank will continue to evolve, and future designs are likely to be more radical.

if it has ecm anti drone capabilities then, can it defend against atgms?

ATGMS have always been a threat, they get better, tanks get better, ATGWS get smarter, tanks need more active defensive systems such as Trophy etc to be smarter…its called evolution.

yes i know what evolution is thank you. but how does it fair against tanks like the t14?

What, C3? At the moment I would put my cash on chally 2 never mind 3 against the Armata. Theres a lot of hype about the T14, im sure some true but some will be just that, hype. But its a bit of a moot point as its unlikely that in the near future they will be engaging each other in combat. For a better comparison it may be best for you to get an answer of the tankies on here as they will have a more in depth knowledge.

With the Rh120/L55 firing preferably M829A3/4 or the DM53/63 APFSDS, the Chally 3 will stand a much better chance of a kill against the T14, compared to the Chally 2 firing Charm 3.

The Chally 2’s best option frontally would be a mission kill against the T14, whereby it takes out the tracks or damages the gun or optics. The Charm 3 doesn’t have the oomph to penetrate the T14’s hull frontally, if you believe the Russian PR about its armour cage protection. From the side and rear aspects a Charm 3 fin round will still do a lot of damage to the T14.
However, if the Chally 3 uses the US M829A3 or the newer A4 Fin round. It will have a much better chance of penetrating the T14 frontally. The combination of the high velocity L55 gun compared to the Abrams L44 and the higher propellant content of the M829 cartridge; means this combination will out perform the Abrams and Leopard.

The Armata is a big PR exercise. There are rumblings that it is already marked to be replaced as it is useless. For a start the crew are in a lethal position if there is a breach of the hull as they all have to exit out of the drivers hatch. It has also apparently got a lot of issues. I have seen videos where it can not get up the ramp onto a truck!

I don’t think there are even many made. I think the number is around 20 and even then the number initially meant to be built was just 100. Russia just can’t afford all of this stuff. (It seems like they have now scrapped the new aircraft carrier project in favour of repairing the current outdated one).

If there is a breach of the Hull, will there be a crew left to be able to exit the vehicle?. One video of a cock up does not mean the Armata is rubbish. We underestimate the possible opposition at our peril. I don’t think the Soviets/Russians have made a bad tank yet.

Yes they only got 16 this year 10 each year after that nothing to be worried about you would think they had thousands of these things the way people go on lol.

Never gunna happen, third carrier they have “planned” as far as I remember they don’t have a big enough facility to construct it! Like all there paper tigers

Just going to point out there is plenty of space for tanks in Non-Peer conflicts. Look no further than Afghanistan: Canadian and Danish Leopards where really appreciated by everyone there.

Hopefully our tanks won’t be operating under an attritional warfare doctrine. I thought we were all mannouevrists nowadays.

Ajax still late on delivery, must be issues with CT40 still ?

I think too much is made of this issue. In all my years in the army, I never heard of any weapon system of whatever calibre or type receiving ammunition from a non-UK supply chain.

I don’t follow, you mean you don’t think it’s an issue that our tank rounds are produced in Belgium or you don’t believe they are produced abroad? I think it was only the HESH rounds that were were running low on that were contracted abroad (I believe to a Belgian firm).

Brilliant knowledge and info, thanks.

Great information as usual Davey. However, the problem I see with relying on AESA to take multiple hits is the use of explosive/incendiary rounds from a .50 cal. In that scenario a single round might destroy the entire panel and/or its connections to the rest of the system, taking down a quadrant of the defensive screen for each panel.

An alternative approach might use large air burst munitions directly above a tank, detonating beyond APS range, designed as an anti-APS sensor (and anti- every other exposed sensor) weapon, fired from a 120mm mortar or 105mm indirect fire assault gun as an example, or even 155mm artillery. Existing anti-personal air-burst rounds might already provide an appropriate capability or be programmed to achieve it. Perhaps, with the advent of modern gun and mortar systems such a round might be timed to be directly followed by a top penetrating second munition, when any surviving sensor capability might have trouble seeing it.

Exhaustion of APS kinetic defence rounds may also become an alternative or complementary approach. We already have Bonus rounds, so cluster artillery rounds using a greater number of sub-munitions, with the specific goal to exhaust defensive APS rounds, or if not intercepted, then continue to blast all the sensors off the tank. Similarly with land and air-launched anti-tank missiles.

Its for these and the previous reasons that I temper enthusiasm for APS on C3.

That is bizarre. It is like saying that Challenger is not necessary because it can be destroyed…

US Army got the last Trophy fore the 4 brigades that defend Europe.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-receives-final-trophy-aps

Its not saying that. It is pointing out that APS isn’t a panacea, even against the threats its designed for, if an asymmetric approach is used against MBTs, and it may come at the cost of other assets, given the expense of APS and of modern MBTs.

I also haven’t seen anyone suggesting APS will counter long range tube and rocket artillery. Perhaps it can counter missiles such as air or ground launched Brimstone, or perhaps not.

There’s a prevailing perspective, apparently across much of the defence world, that is putting MBTs up on a pedestal as some almost mythical weapon system, that we can’t possible do without. IMV that’s dangerous.

I also have doubts about MBT viability, but that means that guided artillery wins.
Nevertheless extended wars show that a mixed approach is better because it is always easier to play one enemy asset type. So if you have only artillery then the enemy pivots to destroy or neutralize that.

If you are deploying anti material teams which need to be highly trained and coordinated that means one less anti-tank team and you are increasing detection to the anti tank team they are working with.

It wasn’t my intent, if I gave the impression of focusing just on artillery. I believe we’ll see a mix of land and air assets used, but its going to take some time to get there for the UK. Hence why C3 is still required, because we have nothing else currently and its likely to be at least a decade until we do.

For land, some mix of 105/120mm assault gun, 120mm mortar, land launched Brimstone, with these systems hosted on Ajax and/or Boxer platforms would address many of the tasks a MBT might undertake, with the exception of countering an opposing MBT with direct fire. Complemented with wheeled 155mm and HIMARS, the latter with the updated US munitions in development.

For air, its likely to be rotary and fixed wing assets, integrated far more effectively at a much more local level to land forces.

Today, we don’t have any of that so we have to gradually migrate to it with the wheeled 155mm program and the upgraded MLRS platform. We’ll have to see what eventuates for Boxer, as a more likely candidate than Ajax, for the other effects.

I’m not following on why anti-material teams impact ATGM team numbers? But we shouldn’t just be thinking of ATGM dismounts in any case. The anti-material teams would enable any of the other anti-tank capabilities to be more effective.

Hi mate, yes. I think you are right artillery will become a more important factor on taking on MBTs that are fitted with APS, especially using guided shells like the BAe Excalibur.

The current batch of APS were designed to counter ATGMs and RPGs, not artillery. Some APS are only designed to counter lateral threats and not top attacks, such as the Russian Afghanit system. The Israeli systems due to combat experience have been primarily designed to counter asymmetric ambushes in built up areas, so protection from top attacks was a key requisite. Trophy with its claymore like blast will have a maximum effective range probably around 50m, whereas Iron Fist might be double that, as the effector is semi-guided. I do know that Iron Fist has been used in trials to take out HEAT rounds fired from a MBT and that one of the two systems has defended a target against a laser guided bomb, as it took out the bombs laser sensor.

To take out an artillery shell may be what the next APS development will be. A standard 155mm shell hitting the top of tank’s turret will kill the tank, even with ERA fitted. IMI who make Iron Fist, have shown in some trials that it can deflect a Fin round’s trajectory, making it glance off a tank’s armour. They have been looking at making it more effective against Fin rounds, which probably means increasing the explosive content of the effector, but possibly including a timed directional blast, to increase the concussive effect.

Whether this would be enough to stop a top attack from Brimstone, Spear 3 or Excalibur is the one million dollar question. A top attack EFP like SADARM may be more effective against an APS defended vehicle. Though I would suspect a Iron Fist type effector could deflect the penetrator.

Note that if there will not be viability to MBT there will not be for Boxer,Ajax too.
Because those are even worse. We should think about that.
Exoskeletons for all soldiers for the last 30km to make not viable to send a missile against just one?

Currently the heavier Spike can have almost 30km range. since they can be sent in general direction and then acquire the target, 200 Spike destroy a Brigade without APS.

I think the Integrated Review is recognising this arms race between sword and shield, along with the likely increase in significantly improved and pervasive networked surveillance. Making it challenging to ensure survival of battlefield assets if changes aren’t made.

Hence the focus on mobility, dispersed operations (no massed armour concentrations) and creating dilemmas to force an adversary to have to use more complex weapons, combined with needing a fast, more efficient kill chain, if they hope to counter. This strategy undermines the value of classic tube and rocket artillery grid square removal capability, where Russia has a lot of legacy equipment. Perhaps one reason why we see the C3 speed upgrade.

I’d observe that the greatest challenge isn’t protecting C3, its protecting every other vehicle operating in a dispersed battlefield, if they don’t keep moving and/or take advantage of low thermal, audio and visual observability techniques. Not just Boxer and Ajax class vehicles, but also the MRV-P solutions, which may have to be better protected than the program originally envisioned, per ThinkDefence’s recent blog.

The Estonian speed bump will be improved… that’ll give them pause for thought when combined with Estonian infantry.

Yep, but the C17 issue has to be addressed at some stage…the US are now realising a shortage! New aircraft, or a re-established line for an upgraded version…they have to be looking at this!

That future is the dream of 16 Bde and 16 Bde only. Ok, maybe some particularly stupid politicans.

It’s been a dream before, and a load of bodies will come home again when that dream gets smashed again.

It’s just completely ignorant of the lessons of history and what we always do becasue its always in our interests to do. This idea we can do the “sexy” smashing the door in the handing over just never happens – for a start, it’s a “you broke it, you fix it” world.

A400 is a colossal waste of money, but we’re stuck with the bloody thing. Jury’s out on whether it can be made to deliver something useful before Herc bites the dust. Personally I doubt it but I could be wrong, first time for everything…

Perhaps so, A400 was a typical euro screwup, but it’s what we have and it simply has to be made to work.

Our future now lays in small bespoke operations, expect a lot of door kicking, firepower and bugging out, like it or not Rogbob….

We’ve had 20 years of enduring operations that have accomplished the square route of Fu*k all, just brought home far too many body bags and thousands of physically and mentally effected youngsters who will have to live with seen and unseen injuries for years to come…

We have to hope that our current and future political masters, use wisdom and a great deal of thought before our armed forces are deployed, boots on the ground, in the years to come…..

If we go somewhere, we’ll stay. It’s what we always do, for the same underlying reasons that will make us stay again. We can pretend otherwise but have no doubts it is a pretence, and the body bags will still come. Raids and so on are SF territory – not in the public realm, deniable and small so the costs (especially human) dont really register. Thinking we’ll have Coys of troops doing stuff like that is fantasy – it’ll get very short political shrift.

If the US gets a new airlifter project going in the next 10-15, I could see us ditching A400 in the longer term, especially if industry is involved.

Re the direction of our Armed forces Rogbob, I’m not saying I agree with it, but it’s the grand plan.

We simply won’t have the assets to put more than 6,000 boots on the ground for short periods, if more manpower is needed in any form of persistent manner, then we simply have to let it go and let someone else deal with it…

Re the A400, it has been a bloody nightmare, but it’s the only option left open too us…..

After all these years it still isn’t fully cleared for the range of missions it was supposed to do, absolutely rediculus!

Hopefully it’s the last Euro mess we involve ourselves in….

No, quite the opposite. I think it was the Chieftain that was the first to store the propellant charges in bins surrounded by water. This didn’t stop the charges from cooking off, it just gave the crew more time to escape after being hit. All of the Russian T series that use an autoloader store the rounds and charges under the floor of the turret. They are not housed in an armoured bin or surrounded by water. This is what happens after being hit.

This was a Sudanese army T72, it was hit on the side of the hull. The crew did not get out!

https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/48x0nm/turret_blown_off_a_sudan_armed_forces_t72ab_in/

During Gulf War 2 and the later Iraqi fight against ISIS, a number of Abrams were lost, through IEDs, mines and ATGMs. Even though some of the tanks were a total loss. The crews managed to get out. By pacing the one piece rounds in the bustle, the crew are separated from the rounds by an armoured door. Even though some of the rounds cooked off, the blow off panels did their job, and allowed the crews to escape.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-034ae86bfaf4fa9b9bde1ae968194b3c

Of the 148, a good number will be in maintenance and upgrade (as a digital asset, regular updates will be unavailable), others will be utilised for training in Bovington and Canada.

The two brigades will have 50 a piece at best, one Brigade will always be in a training cycle, so there’s your 50 deployable Chally3’s….

Deploying both Brigades will of course be possible, but only in a real emergency I would guess and it certainly wouldn’t be sustainable for long.

I’m sorry that makes no sense.

We’ve got ~50% more than our total op effort requires.

Again, is there any other equipment we hold such a margin of? Any of the Ajax family for instance? The to-be-upgraded MLRS fleet?

“digital asset”. You mean its a piece of equipment with electronics in it. Like nearly all other pieces of equipment? That sounds an awful lot like Type31e… you know, the one that hasn’t even been close to being exported, unless you count ours where the design was exported, to us.
Never beleive the BS!

Cool your jets Rogbob,

You asked for a breakdown and I just pointing out that 148 equates to 50 deployable, battle ready and fully trained tanks and crews facing angry men on the front line…

148 will typically mean = 50.

I assume that’s were they got 148 from, it really is the bare minimum they can order and still retain the capability.

Not really sure what you are arguing about to be honest, I didn’t order them mate!

If someone says that doesnt make sense, its hardly getting upset!

I’m asking for someone, anyone to explain the constant bleat of “its not enough”, when it actually provides 50% reserve – something we dont have of other stuff.

Noting the Regts will have about 20 in peacetime and manpower wi

Ah button pressing faff.

This actually started with you asserting we need 500.

So far, 148 seems 50% more than we strictly need (although I am well au fait with maint, upgrade and trg margins!). So why a further 200%+ increase?

What are we going to do with them all? Recreate BAOR?

Are you addressing me? When did I say we needed 500 tanks??

I’ve given you a breakdown of the numbers needed to get 50 deployed … We clearly don’t plan on deploying more than a single Brigade with our ‘in and straight out’ operations in the future…..

I doubt they will ever see combat to be honest.

We had 900 in 1991( a mix of Chieftain and Chally1) and could barely scrape up 150 combat ready MBT’s for the Gulf War, the fleet being in such poor order.

Another factor for ‘148’ is probably the minimum order for making Chally3’s unit price very expensive, as opposed to ridiculously expensive, if we only ordered 100…

Of the 148 CR3s, 112 will be for the 2 tank regiments leaving a mere 36 for the BATUS fleet, UK training fleet and an Attrition Reserve. We certainly aren’t ordering 50% more than we need, rather that we are ordering too few!

But those Regts will only have a fraction of that normally, so the BATUS fleet and maint overhead is sustained from that mechanism. As will a “ready deployment force” of 1-2 sqns which is what a Regt would deploy with, not the tanks it trains with.

Only 1 Regt would be deployed, if both in some dire emergency were required at full strength then there would be no need for BATUS etc.

Again, any other equipment we hold this kind of reserve for?

This “we must have more” is so tedious.

True that Regts do not have their full quota of tanks when in barracks, under the Whole Fleet Management mechanism, but they draw additional equipment from depot for a Regt scale exercise or operational.deployment.
We deployed 3 Regts on Gulf War 1, that was 221 tanks, which included of course an in -theatre attrition reserve. We clearly would not be able to do that again in future.

Yes, and we now have 2 Regts. So as before, 50% more holdings than max task.

Again, anything else we have this ratio of?

In GW1 we send 70 odd Tornados, 20 Jags and a dozen Buccs. They mainly dropped dumb 1000lbdrs.

Do we need to do that again? GW1 was off the back of Cold War BAOR force structure. I dont think we pretended that was endured.

GW 2003 seems more appropriate, we sent what, 1 Regt with 50-60 tanks. Clearly we could do that again, and that’s the ball park we are aiming for.

I would love a larger better resourced force, but this constant “woe is us, just have more more more of everything” is tedious. We no longer have an IFV in the plan – one that was seen as very useful in every conflct we’ve had.

That seems something to be upset about far more than not having an even greater reserve of tanks.

true. especially now days when u engage with guided ammo and that kinda stuff. but u never know what situation it might come across. all we know is it could be fighting a t90 in an open field!

then it would definitely need a auto loader to be the first to strike if the first shot doesn’t get the job done.

I agree with your comment. As an ex squaddie myself I really wish we could get back to having three (Combat Divisions) possibly one Heavy (MBTs) and two Light (Boxers), with the Para’s, LI and Gurkha’s as a Rapid Reaction Force.

As for Trident, I understand why the policical parties want it but to throw it in to the MoD budget without the corrisponding increase has cut all three servicies ability to build and develop. That is my major headache, the politicians keep wanting the Army RAF and RN to do this that and the other without the numbers or the equipment to do it.