First ever Challenger 2 tank lost in combat

Yes

I used to be in command of anti tank platoon – definitely looks like a Challenger 2 to me

Then that it what it is, sadly.

Hopefully it is recoverable and not a total loss.

Agreed Daniele. Some of the Leopard 2s that were first reported as knocked out, were in fact recovered and repaired.

Not to beat a dead horse but this definitely is a Challenger 2 unfortunately – the TOGS was a clear giveaway.

Thoughts and best wishes are with the crew – if they survived, then the Challenger 2 did it’s job.

My only concern now is what if the Russians recover it before the Ukrainians do – can they learn anything about the Dorchester armour? This was always my concern sending them to Ukraine in the first place. I know the MoD never invested in upgrading the armour aside from bolt-on packages but by all accounts, Dorchester is still pretty stout and is still top secret from what I understand.

I agree. I was also concerned that they were sent. A mere 14 is a political statement. They can do damage, sure.
And if the Russians get hold of one, even an earlier model.
I think, the way Ukraine are advancing, this is behind the lines and safe from Russia, and that it will be recovered.

I’d imagine it is recoverable. Seeing as a bunch of Ukraine army troops just drove past it in a beat up 4×4 to record the video.
Drag it out of there and hopefully recover and repair. Might be a total loss though.
I hope it gave the Ruskfascists a pounding before succumbing to battlefield damage.

I doubt it will be repaired if it’s on fire. The Leopards that where shown burning are the ones that where written off.

A Ukranian work colleague told me that the Dorchester armour was removed when transferred.
Not sure about the veracity of his statement.

A lot depends on the term ‘knocked out’. Almost all vehicles can be recovered, the main exception being if the territory has since been overrun by the enemy. The Ukrainians will not have the same capability to repair a CR2 (obvs) as we would have. They should certainly have a tank coy fitter section, but I don’t know what else they have in-country. I also don’t know what spares they have in-country. If the tank is badly damaged (which it probably is – mine strike and Lancet attack and subsequent fire, by all acounts) they won’t have all the spares they need, thats for sure. I would guess this one is BR (Beyond Repair).

We gifted 14 tanks ie 10 for the tank coy and 4 spare tanks (call them Atrrition Reserve). UKR will just take a tank from the 4-tank reserve pool, for the tk coy.

Recover it and send it back to the U.K.

Read yesterday that we will not be replacing the lost Challenger 2.

We gave UKR four tanks for Attrition Reserve on top of the 10 for their tank company.

So the current rumour on the internet is that it was Mobility killed (either mechanically or by artillery) and then denied by it’s crew. Skeptical because people are generally saying it was quite far from the front so, why would you deny a tank that the enemy won’t be capturing, but that’s the rumour.

Yes, I’m sceptical at that too. If it’s true that the UKR Army has the momentum, and the numbers, in that area and is pushing forward with little in tbe wsy of local counterattacks by the Russians to retake ground then why not recover if you can?
What do I know, all speculative.

Yeah, even in the 3 hours since I posted the narrative is changing. Now I’m reading mobility kill, crew bailed, then Lancet hit. I’d wager there will be more variations as time goes on.
The main thing is, Russia is so desperate for success their foreign embassy has already started leveraging it.

If it is recoverable then it’s not the first as ones were made inoperable in Iraq also but were recovered.

Virtually all damaged tanks are recoverable. The big question is whether it is repairable after a mine strike, Lancet attack and subsequent fire at several positions.

Considering they have been cannibalising the fleet for years to keep them in service, I suspect even if it was repairable the parts are probably not available.

We sent 120 tanks on Op Telic (Gulf War 2) – we would probably not have had more than that number of TES kits.

The tanks supplied would have needed some mod’s to fit the TES kit on and you need crane to lift side armor off for servicing running gear .

Thanks mate. The BBC said much the same and also thought all crew had escaped after the mine strike but before the Lancet drone attacked. If there has been a turret fire as well then I am sure it will be a write-off.

It is seemingly in the engine bay… Turret seemed to be intact other wise I’d expected to have seen smoke from the barrel and open hatch etc.

Who knows… If it’s not recoverable I’d be hitting it with a storm shadow just to be safe.

Oh good 👌👍TVM Gavin.

Though there is this:-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-mYm7bH_4c0

Yep,tvm Gavin.read/seen it 👌👍.

That’s for leopards mate.

👍

I too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have been 31 plus some Attrition Reserve

I too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have beenI too think that 14 was a feeble number to send - should have been 31 plus some Attrition Reserve 31 plus some Attrition Reserve

Indeed but here’s the thing: After NATO controls the skies what comes along with the ground forces? Tanks.

Leaving aside the whole “Air superiority won’t always be achievable” angle, you still need tanks to support infantry.

When you have nothing else to support infantry then a tank will have to do but its not optimal for today’s or future battlefields. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that regardless of what armour the destroyed CH2 might have had, it was still taken out of the battle by a mine and then destroyed by a loitering munition but could as easily have been a smart artillery round if the Russians actually had any. Nothing on CH3 would have prevented losing a track and damaged running gear. Maybe APS would have prevented the hit from a first loitering munition, more questionable about the ability to do so on subsequent attacks though; the top of tank is always more vulnerable as well.

Still, infantry support is probably primarily why we ended up going for Challenger 3, because we don’t have a modern IFV with a modern 30mm, let alone one with a CT40 for over match support, in any plans, or any plans for an equivalent to the M10 Booker assault gun. We also don’t have a modern mobile heavy 120mm mortar capable of firing smart rounds, like AMOS or NEMO. We also don’t have modern tube and rocket artillery yet and may not have enough of it in the future. So we basically don’t have any heavy support for infantry apart from CH2/3.

BUT if we went down the path of a modern AFV, plus all the modern indirect fire weapons with smart rounds, coupled with the persistent surveillance I mentioned, then we would be able to call down accurate fire on both line of sight AND indirect targets. We could use what will be an eye-watering budget for any follow-on brand new tank after CH3 (with all the protection measures its going to need) to develop a far more capable and flexible armed force without MBTs.

Either way, with tanks or my suggested alternative, we will need comprehensive VSHORAD/SHORAD, but leveraging indirect fire we can remove assets from the most exposed frontline positions. We can largely eliminate the threat of mines to indirect fire assets such as mortars, as well as ATGM attacks from dismounted troops, vehicles, or even from attack helicopters that would be too vulnerable to operate far enough forward to target the mortars.

Sorry, but the US lost over 7,000 tanks on the Western Front between 1944 and 1945. Does it follow that the tank was obsolete in 1944? Of course not. One, even many, destroyed tanks mean very little, just as one killed infantry soldier means very little. Losses will happen in war.

If you are bothered about an MBT going down, and IFV will definetly go down (oh and btw even a 40mm CTA is not a comperable match for a 120mm). Infantry needs a variety of supports and it’s not a case of 1 size fits all. You will need something that can carry then and provide some self defence.

Indirect fires are not a substitution for direct fires. These are complimentary capabilities. If you want to use a platform that is meant for indirect fires in a DF line of sight method, you’ll soon find that you’ll have to armour it and before you know it, you’ll have an MBT (which are generally capable of IDF anyway, they’re just not optimized for it).

I’d also suggest you take a moment to think about the disadvantages of indirect fires over direct fires. Indirect fires are never as immediate as direct fires, nor, even with drone spotting, will they be as accurate, and will also require a bigger EW signature to operate.

Then there’s also the issue of what you have to go through to stop a tank. If your enemy has MBT’s then every section needs AT weapons, I’m not even going to touch on anything else you’d need. Just forcing every section to carry an NLAW is already putting a penalty on them over what their ATGM free infantry opponents will be dealing with.

No professional army, including the two currently fighting in Ukraine, thinks that the Tank has had it’s day. In fact both the Russians and the Ukrainians are constantly trying to scrounge every tank they can get their hands on.

Sorry, but the US lost over 7,000 tanks on the Western Front between 1944 and 1945. Does it follow that the tank was obsolete in 1944? Of course not.

Those tanks were mostly destroyed by other tanks.
The battleship was also not obsolete when also were other battleships destroying it.
If the tanks will be destroyed mostly by other assets then the question needs to be made and answered: for what the 120mm smoothbore gun is necessary.
This do not even mean a vehicle with a gun is not necessary, but will it be the 70t MBT?

That’s not really true, for starters see the image below, First Army (that’s the army that ended up taking most of the Ardennes Offensive on the chin so probably the most representative for tank on tank losses), lost 900 tanks between Normandy and the end of the War.

Of those only half where due to gunfire of all types. That’s tanks, assault guns, and anti-tank gun emplacements.

Now the most produced German tank of WWII was the Panzer IV, with about 9,000 produced, on the other hand the most produced towed AT gun, the Pak 75 had about 23,000 produced. But lets be generous and give 1st Army’s gun losses a 50/50 split between tanks and towed AT emplacements.

That means that the US Army that was on the recieving end of the Wehrmachts biggest armoured thrust, only lost about 250 out of 900 destroyed tanks to enemy tank fire.

That’s about 1/3, so not “mostly”.

https://i0.wp.com/www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Attrition-Fig.-50.png

As for your next point, it’s falling into the typical trap of thinking that a vehicle other than an MBT will be less vulnerable to battlefield threats. It won’t be. If you want a fire support vehicle it’ll have to be heavily armoured. MBT’s aren’t slow, and it’s hard to go faster than an MBT off road.

That’s not to say the 120mm will always be the answer, and there have been tanks in the past that can fire ATGM’s from their guns, the tank will evolve. But the basic mechanics of the battlefield means that there will for the foresable future be a tank.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/MGM-51.jpg

(I don’t really want to try and decipher that battleship line, it’s giving me a headache XD )

You are entirely ignoring the points I’ve already made and introducing a strawman argument. I never stated losing 1, 100, 1,000 or even 10,000 MBTs made tanks obsolete, my point is that there are better ways of supporting infantry today and those will only get better in the near future in defence terms, i.e. next 10-20 years. The clue was me talking about the CH3 replacement. The only reason I advocate for IFVs with 30/40mm is to provide some covering fire/support for dismounts, since you need some type of vehicle to move them. APCs will not be enough on their own, assuming only light armament. And yes any vehicle right on the frontline will be vulnerable, which is why we have Leonardo and partners working on the Icarus APS program to deliver a lower cost, more affordable system to counter ATGM as well as UAS with the goal to mitigate losses across many more platforms than just MBTs.

I also wasn’t advocating using a system like AMOS/NEMO in a direct fire role, even though they are capable of it. Not sure why you assumed I was. I also stressed the use of smart munitions, not dumb indirect fire rounds. The combination of accurate targeting from modern and developing surveillance with smart munitions provides the accuracy, including for targets that a direct fire weapon cannot see to target. Immediacy of support is coming. I fully expect small troop units in future to be fed processed, actionable, surveillance data for targeting in close to real time, using networked assets from low level drones through to LEO satellites, leveraging the SDA capabilities being developed today.

I already addressed why using feedback from Russia and Ukraine needs today ignores the fact neither side has air dominance. Why are you repeating it?

regardless of what armour the destroyed CH2 might have had, it was still taken out of the battle by a mine and then destroyed by a loitering munition

It’s not a strawman argument, it’s directly addressing this line of yours. No matter how well protected tanks are, you’ll always loose some. That includes to mines, hand held AT weapons, or artillery, whatever.

I wasn’t assuming you where advocating using ATMOS in a DF role, I was pointing out the capability provided by a tank and the issues with using things other than tanks to try and fill the void left if we stopped using them.

As for feeding troops data, I don’t think so. EW signature gives away your position, and soldiers have to carefully manage theirs. As long as an EW signature can give away your position, or be interrupted, immediacy of support by IDF will never replicate a direct fire platform. Seriously, the twitter and online stream view of war might paint a picture of troops constantly being in the loop with what is being fed to them via smart devices but the truth is anything but. It’s a constant battle, finding signal, risking com scheds, and having to scoot after EW bursts (talking first hand experience here). The only way a war would work the way you are painting it is if you have total EW superiority, in which case you probably also have superiority in enough domains that it’s more of an asymetric counter insurgency than a peer on peer conflict.

Why am I repeating it? Because I do not accept your position, and I refuted your “air superiority” points, so it bears repeating (in fact I expanded on it but you chose to ignore that since we’re now accusing each other of ignoring points)

Its a strawman argument because I never said the loss of a tank made it obsolete. Please quote me where I said it made it obsolete. If we can’t get past this point then I can’t see much point in pursuing the rest of the discussion after this post.

You wrote “If you want to use a platform that is meant for indirect fires in a DF line of sight method, you’ll soon find that you’ll have to armour it and before you know it, you’ll have an MBT (which are generally capable of IDF anyway, they’re just not optimized for it).” I never made that point so you again made an argument against something I didn’t write or even imply. This is the very definition of a strawman.

What you write regarding the EW vulnerability and mitigations is true today and may or may not continue to be true in the future timeframe I outlined. Either way that doesn’t mean its invalidated. A MBT on the frontline is far more detectable versus just EW emissions from infantry.

Was the following quote you refuting my air superiority points because I’m not seeing anything else?

“Leaving aside the whole “Air superiority won’t always be achievable” angle, you still need tanks to support infantry.”

If so then I would be curious what scenarios you see where we would be deploying MBTs but not establishing air superiority. BTW, when I say “we” I mean the UK and its allies. But if you have scenarios where just the UK is deploying then by all means include them.

Yes, but USA is evidently already drawing conclusions re current battlefield survivability of Abrams, before the first M1A1 arrives in UKR. Article in DefenseNews.com (6 Sep 23) stated M1A2SEPv4 program has been summarily cancelled, and the Army is now proposing a M1E3 version (w/ due R&D and contractor input). Unstated subtext of article would probably include the observation that staff officers are duly alarmed re MBT survivability longer term. Prediction: Enhanced MBT protection will materialize as an AUKUS Pillar 2 program at some point. Imagine everyone would prefer forcefields and phasers, but may be forced to settle for DEWs in the nearer term. 🤔

As of this moment, only the Israeli Trophy active protection system (APS) has been proven in combat, to protect the tank against multiple ATGW and RPGs. However, it does have a couple of weaknesses.

The first is the number of effector reloads, which have to be replenished from outside of the vehicle. How many reloads does it hold? The original only had one reload per turret, but that has since been upgraded. There will be a line in the sand, where it will run out of effectors.

The effectors are similar in effect to how a Claymore works. An explosive charge throws pre-formed tungsten cubes towards the threat. These cubes will shred soft skinned threats, such as RPGs and ATGMs. However against a denser artillery shell it will have minimal effect, unless its lucky enough to strike and detonate the fuze. Artillery shell like the SMART155 and semi-active laser homing (SALH) Excalibur, could be vulnerable to Trophy’s effector, as their sensors can be damaged/destroyed by the tungsten cubes.

Similarly, a MBT fired armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS). The long rod penetrator made out of tungsten alloy or depleted uranium, which is travelling at a really high velocity, will not be deflected by the small tungsten cubes of the effector.

You could also ague that the four AESA radar panels could be damaged by splinters or from machine gun fire etc. But that no different to the tank’s optics. Plus have four separated panels does give some redundancy.

APS will become the very necessary requirement for vehicles to survive on the modern battlefield. Other APS systems like the Iron Fist have shown that their explosive effectors not only can defeat RPGs and ATGW, but can also deflect APFSDS during trials. Currently not enough to make the round miss the target. could the concussive force of one of these effector deflect an artillery shell’s course, enough to miss the target? I think the explosive effector will be the way forward, but it will either need a much larger charge to have a greater effect on the threat. Or the effector will need to be able to control the direction in which the concussive force is directed. Thereby focusing the blast concussion directly at the side of the threat, so more energy can deflect it away from the target.

On a different note in a previous discussion, I mentioned that the radar that is used for APS, could also be used for other airborne threat searching and tracking. If this was linked to a RWS, the vehicle would have a modicum of air defence. Depending on what weapon was fitted to the RWS. Another example would be Ajax (stop swearing!) with its 40mmm CTAS. Which has a really high elevation (+75 degrees), plus has an effective range out to 2500m at least. If coupled to an APS radar could provide an effective anti-aircraft/drone system.

Pity they didn’t make a 57mm CTAS gun. Then it could also use the smart ammo developed for the Bofors 57mm gun. With the shells repackaged in the telescoping cases. But now with increased muzzle velocity for an increase in effective range. Ajax with a 57mm autocannon firing smart ammunition, Ooh, suits you sir!

Hi Davey, the CT40 already fires:
KE-AB : Kinetic Energy AirburstAir Defence ammunition to defeat aerial threats
Leveraging proven Airburst technology, the KE-AB munition delivers a payload of tungsten pellets with a directional terminal effect. It is particularly effective against all aerial threats, as well as certain ground applications such as infantry or blinding vehicle optics or antennas.

and:

GPR-AB-T : General Purpose Round – Airburst – TracerDefeat behind-cover or dug-in targets
Delivers an air-bursting detonation above the target at a range of 60 to 2,500 m. This programmable high-explosive ammunition is optimised for fragmentation effects, providing coverage of up to 125 m² on the ground or behind obstacles. It is particularly effective against certain ground applications such as infantry or blinding vehicle optics or antennas.

Both natures are programmed before firing by an installed AB programmer using lased range.

Hi Ian, cheers, I knew the CTAS40 could fire programable shells, hadn’t realised there were at least two types.

I still stand by my conviction, in that the Ajax fitted with an APS which uses radar to detect threats, could be upscaled to become an effective anti-air platform using its CTAS40. Along with the programmable ammo, it could be just as effective as the Gepard in taking out small drones, as well as low flying cruise missiles.

Still feel there is a case of developing the CTAS40 to a 57mm calibre. Where it could then use the smart rounds such as ALAMO, ORKA or MAD-FIRES. The telescoping case holds more propellent than a standard case. Which means it generates a greater range. The can style packaging also makes it easier to design feed and handling systems.

The Raytheon/DARPA MAD-FIRES in particular could be a game changer, if it ever gets in to production. From the information I’ve gleaned from the publicly released information. It has a slightly better effective range than Leonardo’s DART fired by the 76mm gun. Which I take is due to it being a rocket assisted sabot round, where it it’s really a gun fired missile. Unfortunately at the moment, this technology cannot be scaled down to a 40mm calibre.

Hi Davey,
The AJAX could already be an effective counter UAS platform. It has very good TI sights, a clever auto detect and tracking system and turret cueing. I would imagine the icing on the cake would be an AESA radar with it’s longer range. If the turret were modified to use the WR AHS which has/had a larger round capacity then more bang! In a fantasy world, a heavily redesigned turret could mount 2 40mm CTA cannons with an AHS each side and radar in the middle👍😎

Hi Ian, that’s a good point in regards to Ajax’s extant sensors. Though I’d be surprised if they could detect the small toy like drones, until they got really close. Unless the drone is seriously working the battery, it won’t be massively hot for a thermal camera to detect from distance. Whereas, a X-band, Ka/Ku or W band radar will detect these small drones at a minimum a couple of km away.

In a fantasy world, I’d also include a vertically mounted container on the rear of the vehicle. It would contain at least 8 vertically launched “Starstreak 3”. These are soft launched and use tail mounted reaction jets to point the missile at the target. Instead of three darts, it uses a single unitary fuselage that contains a larger multi-function programmable warhead and includes proximity fuzing. Which means the missile can be used to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, rockets, cruise missiles as well as aircraft.

Sadly I don’t work for Thales!

Good points to make on APS Davey. Based on past comments I’ve seen, I suspect some look on APS as providing a “cloak of invulnerability” when it should really be considered as a mitigation, with hopefully a very high if not 100% protection against the first on target weapon (except for APFSDS), with reducing probability of protection for subsequent on target weapons due to sensor shrapnel damage. But that still raises the bar significantly for an enemy to achieve either a kill or disablement/mission kill by requiring multiple on target hits and perhaps restricted to only one segment/quadrant of the APS shield. BTW many moons ago I had also observed that a team comprising ATGM launcher plus anti-material sniper might be the low cost way to take out the AESA to leave a quadrant/segment unprotected just prior to firing the ATGM, albeit a potentially suicidal technique if the vehicle survives to return fire.

As Ian M observed, CT40 has the airburst natures for ground and air counters and as you noted depending on turret design can have a very high barrel elevation. It would seem a natural fit for Boxer, either as a dedicated VSHORAD/SHORAD vehicle or just as one of the two natures loaded in a ground role, given the UK’s lack of SHORAD. However, I suspect we are also going to need laser and/or EW VSHORAD counters for UAS to provide a very deep magazine with extremely rapid response time and target tracking to counter fast moving swarm attacks. In the context of your 57mm ideas its perhaps also worth recalling why we pursued CT40; namely over-match against 30mm armed AFVs that dominate today but without compromising the magazine depth since there are never enough rounds when needed. 57mm even as a CTAS solution would probably compromise the load out for armoured vehicle applications more than might be desirable.

The UK’s Icarus program, which started in 2017, announced late 2021 that they had successfully trialed and demonstrated a Modular Integrated Protection System (MIPS). There is a potential 2027 date given by DSTL for a MIPS system derived from the Icarus program being brought into service. The scope was expanded during the program so MIPS can also support a wider range of threat defeat capabilities such as countering UAS, counter-surveillance and ground-based air defence activities. So perhaps any vehicle fitted with a system might be able to use the AESA sensors for EW too in that context. Leonardo UK clearly has the IP for such an AESA solution.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/icarus-advances-armoured-vehicle-protection

It’s definitely not a cold war.

I recall that the whole point of BAOR and its allies in a hot war was to fight a withdrawal in contact for as long as it took politicians to decide to press the nuclear button. They needed plenty of thinking time.

Tanks are the best protected weapons systems on the battle field, so why do people say lets get rid of our most potent and survivable direct fire equipment?

From everything I read Graham the expectation was that all of the armies on the IGB would end up being shattered with the soul purpose to give time and hopefully some small option to get Russia to blink before the wests nuclear button was pressed. Also the level of forces ensured the Soviet Union had to make a maximum effort and not allow the nibbling away of territory or less than maximum effort…it was effectively a strategic defence based around creating a mutual blood bath of armies followed by mutual assured destruction…of course part of that would be the use of space for time…but in the end the inner German boarder was not that far from the boarder of France..and France had always made it clear that at the point a soviet army crossed its boarders it was going to trigger MAD….so there was not so much space to trade for time…so most of that time was going to be purchased in shattered units.

yes the whole tanks are redundant brigade’s arguments have generally been as poorly thought out as the carriers are redundant brigade..combined arms forces will by necessity change to manage new threats but it will not change the need for an offensively focused capability that balances mobility, fire power and protection… from 600BC to the early campaign of WW1 that was provided by heavy Calvary ..from WW1 onwards its been the tank and at present that’s still human operated MBT…maybe in generation it will be something a bit different…but not now. Tanks will only be finished when when the ubiquitous infantry firepower and protection overcomes the tanks firepower and protection or there is a far superior capability developed ( as happened to heavy Calvary….infantry firepower could easily overcome its protection and infantry protection wire, trenching and earthworks overcame its firepower). So once the standard infantry weapon ( rifle) can come overcome a tanks protection..and it’s firepower is no longer overwhelming it will become pointless….but I’m not seeing any standard infantry weapon that can do that unless someone invents a hand held standard issue Infantry Particle beam rifle or plasma beam rifle and I would say we are a lifetime away from that.

A point of interest, I’d recommend the book “Horsemen in No Man’s Land” which takes a deep dive into the British Cavalry in WW1, using their casualty statistics, regimental diaries, and, where available, the same from the German side, to actually look at their actions. Paints a pretty interesting picture of a capability that was actually far from obsolete, and was done over by popluar narrative, badly recalled eyewitness testimonies from 20 years later and internal MoD politics.

Interesting post. Back to BAOR days – I believe we may have used the term ‘delaying battle’ back in the day. Certainly NORTHAG and CENTAG in a hot war would have traded space for time by fighting delaying battle(s) to buy the politicians time to have a lovely chat and finally decide to approve release of Tactical Nuclear Weapons. That would have happened well before we were rolled back to the Franco-German border. What would have happened after release of tac nukes (air and ground launched) is anyone’s guess!

I don’t see a drive for the Infantry to one day adopt weapons that could replace the tank…and I don’t see that the evolution of the rifle would be that route. The Infantry has anti-tank weapons now of course but they do not replace the tank.
Historically a successful army has always had the 3 components – Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry. [Cavalry of course evolved into the two subsets of armoured recce and tanks, in the 20th Century]. I don’t see that ‘holy trinity’ changing ever.

Battle ships became obsolete for a host of reasons – the cost to build, operate and maintain; the eventual limited range of their guns compared to missiles and carrier aircraft; their vulnerability to destruction by submarines and aircraft. I don’t see that the tank is in the same position – whilst some question their vulnerability (but isn’t everything?), they are still affordable and deliver huge effect.

Nobody really suggests a credible alternative. It’s always “lightly armoured faster moving vehicles” as if Tanks weren’t fast moving, and the answer to accurate guided weapons is… less protection, or IDF (because Artillery is a substitute for direct fires apparently, or Artillery that can moonlight in a direct fire role, so a much worse tank).

Honestly I think it’s a deep set desire to be the next wave of people smugly pointing out how obsolete Battleships where in WW2 (even though Battleships were not obsolete in WW2 and continued to provide an important role throughout but that sort of nuance gets lost 😛 )

Yep the battle ship was never obsolete they Simply became to expensive for what they provided. Armoured gun armed warships were still a thing right up until the last quarter of the 20C…after all then General B was sent to the bottom not because it was pointless but because it would have shredded any RN frigate or destroyer that it got within range of….the sverdlovs were considered a realistic threat until the end of the Cold War. The mighty Mo as the last battleship would have been essentially immune to anything other than heavy weight torpedoes If supported by an interested air defence system.

That’s an incorrect way of thinking? No shit? It’s almost like I was holding up something that was wrong and comparing it to the way people are treating MBTs.

It does sound non-sensical that advancing to contact is safer than falling back. But it has been proved correct time and time again. You cannot allow the enemy time to plan, otherwise you can be outflanked. You must take the initiative away from the enemy aggressively and outfight them.

As Gunny Highway said: “Show me your war face!”

Its disturbing looking back on “one’s” tours and thinking how the feck did I get out of that? Training, training and more training. Knowing that your mates would stand by your shoulder and have your back, was I think the crucial factor above all else.