How big are the British armed forces?

Yup, agree

You are right, IF they are equipped correctly.
Hammond wanted a max of 50,000!

Well… 100,000 without equipment is not much more use than 72,000 without equipment.

Yeah but he was an absolute twat. He would have reduced us to a self defence force if he could have gotten away with it.

Totally agree there!

He was! Spreadsheet Phil. Preferred him to Fallon or Gareth Ainsworth mind.

Yes like so many others in UK politics the idea of defence of the nation is mentally an morally beyond them.off shore tax havens for the moraly bankrupt and terminally greedy is all that counts.Yes more people and far better use of resources especially money would seem vital

that figure of 50,000 was the max number of rows allowed in Excel at the time. Lol

BAOR was fiftyfive thousand with the best of everything just to protect the inner German border, We could not protect the UK home islands now.

72,000 is fine if they were armed to the teeth!

If we had more tanks, more artillery, more helicopters – especially another 25 or so Apaches, then yeah, a small force with massive firepower would be fine.

The thing is if the Army was 100,000 strong it still wouldn’t be armed to the teeth and now you’d have a force with a higher turnover, and with less training.

I would broadly agree Dern, 72,000 well equipped, paid properly and looked after, with good accomodation and career prospects.

We’ve (in reality) dispensed with the capability to deploy a full division, except in an emergency, and in future will likely only deploy in reinforced Brigade strength, 3,500 ‘ish’, depending on support assets required.

72,000 with the RM Corps is enough to meet a slimmed down mission set, based on rapid reaction, in and out operations.

With a well trained and equipped Reserve to back them up when needed for emergencies too…

I don’t agree with Army dropping below 100,000 regulars, but providing we reduce our expectations accordingly, then I’m happy enough….

Obviously I’d rather see the Army have 100,000 regulars, that goes without saying, but I don’t really see the point if those 100,000 are less capable than 72,000.

The ability to deploy a division atm is more to do with stockpiles of spares and the state of the vehicle fleet more than manpower, so an increase back up to 100,000 (and the cost that would come with it) would honestly only make the situation worse, not better.

So, honestly in future, if the Army can get it’s warehouses (see what I did there) in order, then there’s no reason we couldn’t be seeing a full division deploy again in the future. We have the log tail, we have the manpower, it’s just the fact that the vehicle fleet is geriatric after afghan.
(Also why I get a bit techy when people complain about the SA80’s not being replaced, the money is needed elsewhere.)

With 148 total Chally 3 on order and two Armoured Brigades in total, we are clearly telling the world that we have no intention (or the equipment) to deploy any more than a reinforced Brigade, with 50 or 60 Chally 3 at its core.

The future will be reinforced Brigade strength (at best) actions, underpinned with Carrier Strike AAC and limited RAF support.

A focus on short term operations. I personally don’t have a particular problem with the light ethos, as long as we pick our fights and cut our cloth to fit our budget.

An armoured regiment has 56 Challengers, at 148 that’s enough for two brigades with spare for training and maintenance, and since they’ll be rebuilt from the ground up they’ll, at least to start with, have better availability.

Bearing in mind that both Op Granby and Op Telic only deployed with 2 and 1 Armoured brigade respectively, only having about 100 Challengers in total.

Evening Dern,

With 2 Brigades and 148 in total, I’m going to make the following operationally available assessment.

The Chally3 is going to be a very high tech beast, requiring regular systems, software updates etc, so I wouldn’t go expecting sky high availability for a start…

With only 2 Brigades and a limited number of assets, we will be fortunate to have 50 Chally3 per Brigade.

One will be at readiness to deploy and one in training and at a lower readiness state, at any one time. Unless we were in a situation of dire national peril, we will never dispatch our entire active MBT Capability.

So, a similar ‘Gulf War type’ deployment will be pared down to a single enlarged Brigade, possibly with some top up Reserve, perhaps 65 MBT’s??

Perhaps new wonder weapons like Spear3 will make up the difference in the loss of armoured mass, I guess we will see one day.

When we drop to 2 Armoured Brigades and a total fleet of 148, we greatly reduce the capability of Chally3, because, even if you believe the hype that it’s going to be the best tank out there, the fact remains we can no longer deploy in the numbers found to be necessary in the past. Simply put, way below critical mass.

Unfortunately MBT’s are becoming a side show of a side show in the modern British Army.

I expect the capability to be totally gone by 2040, as we complete the transition to a lighter force.

I don’t particularly agree with this, it’s just the direction of travel…

We will only lose MBTs if other nations lose them, especially threat nations. Only little Belgium has abandoned MBTs – for purely budgetary reasons.

You do know that in the second Gulf War we fielded a single armoured brigade right?
It was 1x Armoured Brigade, 16AA and 3Cmdo IIRC.

I disagree with your assessment, 2/3rds deployable shouldn’t be unrealistic, which means, with the current force structure 2 heavy brigades should e achievable.

Morning Dern,

I admire your viewpoint, I really do, it has a youthful hopefulness to it and that’s refreshing.

Availability is currently so low, we would have to be on General War footing to deploy 100 tanks.

Are you sure you’re thinking of the right army😉

Moving forward, with a total of 72,000, we should be able to assemble a force of 10,000 in a heavy ‘ish’ Brigade, with 50/60 MBT’s at its core.

If things deteriorated with Russia and a show of force was needed, the above formation would be about what we could deploy to Poland, short of general war and mobilisation.

On the other hand, they will be augmented by by systems like Spear3 etc, so theoretically, although the mass will be considerably less on the ground, the forward strike abilities at the tip of the spear should be considerably greater than yesterdays….

So it’s not all bad news.

John, I’ve served for a decade in the British Army, in a variety of roles including armoured formations, I can assure you I know what army I’m thinking off and I base my views on what I’ve seen in the Army, not on headlines meant to stir up emotions in the public.

Morning Dern,

“not on headlines meant to stir up emotions in the public”.

I was so shocked by that statement, that I dropped my Vodka on my Stalin Tone PC while sat at my desk in the Kremlin….

I’m off to the Siberian Salt mines now the gigs up. I have tried very hard to subvert the plucky British spirit with my cynical musings of whats ‘actually achievable’ in the real world, against day dreaming youthful optimism.

I salute you Dern, my MSB career is in tatters now, I don’t stand a chance of making the ‘never ever’ payments on the Lada now…. 😉

Bear with me while I loose sleep over that 🙂

Ah excellent, so millennials do have a sense of human after all,or a grasp of sarcasm at least 😂 😉…

Dern, we are procuring 138 CR3s, not 148.

Your two brigades clearly each only have one armoured regiment – total of 112. You would probably want to deploy with 20 more for an Attrition Reserve. Total 132.
So you have just 6 tanks for the other locations – BATUS fleet, UK Training Fleet, Ashchurch, Germany vehicle depots. That’s a quart in a pint pot. We could not deploy 132 tanks out of 138. Plus the full number of CR3s is not going to be available until FOC in 2030.

Op GRANBY involved 221 CR1s – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1
Op TELIC involved 120 CR2s – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2#Operational_history

“As planned, the Army will invest around £1.3bn in our armoured capability by upgrading 148 of our main battle tanks to ensure the Challenger III will become one of the most protected and most lethal in Europe”
Some of the standard guff but that’s where I’m getting the 148 number from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974661/CP411_-Defence_Command_Plan.pdf

Yes, 120 represents a shade more than 2 Armoured Regiments (56 CR per regiment), but we’ve not orbated an Armoured Brigade for more than 1 CR regiment per brigade for a long time.

Op Granby was larger, but it’s worth bearing in mind that it still was only a division with 2 armoured brigades.

Sorry Dern, you are right about the 148 figure – in a senior moment I mixed up my CR3 numbers with my F-35B numbers! Inexplicable.

Op Granby (Gulf War 1) certainly was larger with 221 CR1s deployed than Gulf War 2 with 120 CR2s deployed.

If you consider that our effort on GW1 was underwhelming as we did not (or could not?) deploy 3 bdes, that was from a base of a regular army of 120,000.

Do you really think we would deploy 120 tanks out of a fleet of 138? I don’t.

A full warfighting divison (of a HQ, three (non-light) brigades, with Div Tps and a National Support Element) would top out at about 25,000-30,000 troops. No way can you find that manpower from an army of 72,000, unless you cut virtually all other commitments and call up thousands of Reserve Army soldiers.

The issues regarding state of vehicles and spares have never been insoluble.

Perhaps Dern means stretched to the limit in a War emergency?

We would have to call up the Army Reserve and call up people on the reserve list….

I don’t see any other way to make Derns Division happen.

No kit however, one man gets the rifle, the next gets the ammunition perhaps…..

I refer to putting 3rd UK division out the door, that is achievable. 2x Heavy Brigades, + 1x Medium brigade.

We could not get a force that size out of the door in 2003 for Op TELIC, when the base was stronger. We had to put 2 light bdes (3 Cdo Bde, 16 AA Bde) into the Orbat (in addition to 7 Armd Bde).

Not insoluble, but require funding to get the numbers back up. It’s been a while since I’ve been in 3 Div, but back when I was there it was common practice to rotate vehicles between the brigades, because although the manning was there, the vehicles to deploy where not.

So when my unit went onto high readiness we received the vehicles from the previous unit, and when we came off, we sent them on to the next (without replacement). The fleet is old and clapped out, with most vehicles being older than the SNCO’s, which again means more maint, which means fewer ready for the frontline.

Chally 3, even build on old hulls, will at least have the benefit of not being worn out, which means that it’s entirely possible that with a reduction in the fleet, we’ll still see an over all increase in available platforms.

Depends as to whether 72,000 is sufficient to meet the nation’s needs. It is smaller than Spain’s army and they do not have global roles and responsibilities.

It will be difficult to impossible to field a strong warfighting division with an army this small, unless you pull in thousands of Reserve Army troops as well. I wonder how much credibility we have with the Americans – we could not do ‘Gulf War 1’ again.

I think that’s the point Graham, they don’t intend to deploy in Divisional strength again…

The army has the aspiration to be able to deploy in divisional strength from 2025.

Yes, agree with you. If the Royal Navy manages to reach the 24 Destroyer/Frigate total, l think that would suffice. I guess normally out of that total of 24 you would have perhaps 15 or 16 active, if not a little bit more. Including deployed /training and so on..

Hi RobW,

Yeh, exactly. How our expectations have changed. I remember thinking the RN was too small when the minimum was set at 50 escorts!

24 is OK for current tasking, but the armed forces are an insurance policy. God forbid we ever have to fight another Battle of the Atlantic! I don’t think NATO, let alone the RN could keep the North Atlantic Sea Lanes open against even a small force of well handled SSN’s. With Climate Change shrinking the polar ice China could one day threaten us in our own backyard.

Growing the fleet to 24 escorts, even with capable autonomous vehicles available, won’t be enough if things go real pear shaped.

The thing about Climate Change is that it is likely to cause conflict in the future as well and given China has trashed much of its fresh water supply, water is likely to be the cause of future wars at some point. So given the broken promises around fixing the environmental situation I forsee a time when desperate governments with real military power start throwing their weight around. As such I think are current level of preparedness makes the 1930’s look good!

Cheers CR

Hi CR. To be fair though, the 50 number was in the late 80s at the end of the cold war. Also, the older type 21s & Leander cost nothing like modern assets – Type 26/45.

So it’s a tough (but important) goal to get to 24 ships, given today’s environment of 50% defence spend of what it used to be.

Hi Klonkie,

I wouldn’t argue with anything you are saying. What I am highlighting is that the threat will rise as time goes on and if the UK and NATO does not respond we will loose the next war. If we want peace, prepare for war. It is expensive but a damn site cheaper than fighting and loosing a war.

The Third Battle of the Atlantic is the battle that we should be planning for. Given the current political set up and a 20 to 25 year rolling planning and analysis cycle the possible threat to consider is a combined Russia Chinese attempt to cut the Atlantic Sea Lanes.

Given the the Russians are already escorting 100’s of merchant ships along their Arctic Coast line very summer and the rate at which the Sea Ice is retreating I can easily forsee a scenario where a Chinese task force deploys to Russian bases for exercises and doesn’t go home..!

This is the type of threat based analysis that we used to do, but has been watered down to the point where the scenarios are no longer testing enough – if they were I don’t think NATO would be as week as it currently is or, more tellingly, as week as it is likely to be over the next 20 to 25 years.

In terms of preparedness it is 1935 / 36. If we are to get oursleves back up to a bare minimum to hold the line or, preferably to deter agression, we are going to have to spend much much more.

Unrealistic! Which is truly unrealistic the current fairy tail level of preparedness based on ‘best case’ hoped for political thinking or honest analysis and assessment of possible threats? Are political leaders need to wake up.

Climate Change will increase the threat because China has already trashed its water supply, for example. 1.7 billion thirsty people will put serious pressure on the Chinese Communist Party. Water, not oil, will be the resource trigger for conflict in the future this has long been understood within defence analysis circles.

We life in interesting times. Hopefully they will not get any more ‘concerning’.

Cheers CR

excellent post CR. I can but only completely agree. it is interesting you referenced preparedness to 1935/6. I was thinking along similar lines. Historical lesson never seems to have the respect they deserve.

The elephant in the room(or panda in the room) is indeed China. Western political leaders should understand the driver for Chinese expansion is their exhausting internal resources. Spot on re your comment-it is about water (or rather the lack of it)!

It’s unimaginable now isn’t it, sadly.

Agree. I’d be ecstatic with 24.

With 24 vessels our escort fleet would actually be larger than that of the Russian Navy’s by one ship (counting only frigates and destroyers) so I’d be very happy with that.

Well their ships aren’t really in the best condition or modern either. I’d rather have the rn than the Russian navy even with current numbers

That’s very true.

The only real advantage they’d have is in antiship missiles, which is where we need to catch up.

My fear is what happens when Labour gets in again. Blair had a field day in 2004 cutting RAF/RN numbers.

I’d like to see some form of bi partisan agreement to protect force numbers in the future. In Australia, they do a reasonable job in that respect. Defence investment is largely ring fenced

Agreed. There should be party wide agreement ring fencing defence.

There won’t be, sadly.

32 in 1998 would have seemed plausible. Given the complexity and shear cost of high end surface combatants today, 32 seems like a pipe dream. Even the US navy today is smaller than what it was in 1998.

Now in my opinion, that’s no excuse for having far fewer that we could and should have – 19 simply isn’t enough for what the RN is tasked with performing. Change the tasking or provide more hulls – simple as that.

Hopefully the 24 escort number will be realised and the Type 31 and 32s are not just under-armed tin cans there to make up numbers.

The Army wasn’t that size through much of the Cold War, with around 160,000 regulars in the 80s.
While we all want larger more capable and effective forces I also like to be realistic.
Where is the money and political will coming from to equip and maintain such a force? Dern reminded me of the issues involved of equipping even 100,000 in this very thread.
Also, what of the RN and RAF? As an island nation I myself prefer a RN and RAF first strategy. How many escorts and Jets do they also need at the same time as the 300,000 strong army? Or are they kept as is?

A 70,000 army will probably have about 17-18,000 infantry.

I am afraid your wish of a 500,000 army (Reg and Reserve) is very wishful thinking – we didn’t have those numbers at the height of the Cold War.

I think we need an an army of 160,000 (120,000 regulars and 40,000 Army Reserve), but that is also wishful thinking.

We currently have 33 Regular Battalions and 16 Reserve Battalions but that is before the downsize to 72,000 regs.

Cheers mate!

Klonkie, It hasnt been called the TA since 2012 (Army Reserve now).

Many, many gunner units – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Army_Reserve_Units_(2021)#Royal_Regiment_of_Artillery

Thanks Graham . I’m giving away my age by referencing TA! I should clarify my point relates to the number of guns available to the corresponding number of active/reserve light brigades.

Being ex Air Force , I’m no expert on matters artillery but the number of 105 light guns available seems , well… light?

Mate we have gaps in many parts certainly CS and CSS, but Reserves Arty has light gun and AD and GMLRS. Not many, not well supported but they are there. Cheers.

much obliged Airborne – I completely overlooked the GMLRS!- good point.

But your still right Klonkie as the reserves are certainly very light on pretty much everything, to include the Light Guns lol. However we have to be realistic and for the last 10 years the Regular Army has been pretty much a cluster so little hope for the reserves and their prospects mate! Sad but unfortunately true.

👍😆!

WTF are you rattling on about! Calm your pants, remove gigantic chip from shoulder and learn to interact in a more grown up way! Blimey is it still school holidays?

Hey, leave Airborne alone. His comments are pure gold. He does not dispute that the army has many problems.

Hey thanks Graham, very nice of you to say so 🍻

Well who ever you are (I do not hide behind a nick name) you seem to take a grate pleasure in talking down to people I just wonder if you do the same when the person is in front of you.
Are you a back room clerk working for an obscure department in the Civil Service working out your frustrations as no one will listen to you at work, as that is what you come across as. May be you are a real nice person but to hid behind a nick name slagging people off on an open forum makes me wonder just “Why” you take part in these open discussions.

SAR- Whilst I disagree with the nature of your commentary in your first post, you have a right as a tax payer to voice your opinion.

The realty is that this forum has knowledgeable and experienced people contributing valuable insights. If you ask a question as opposed to making an empty statement , you are likely to get meaningful answer . Just my 2p worth!

Cheers Klonkie, I just replied to Derns comment about the oft used but silly Wembley Stadium analogy in regard to military numbers we all see being used by commentators and I’m getting my nuts tugged by an angry SAR! Bloody hell no wonder I don’t bother with Facebook if that’s the level of grumpiness you get on social media….🤮👍!

I can but only agree with you Airborne. Wembley stadium analogy – nuts!

I don’t bother with Facebook for the same reason, but I feel passionate enough about the state of the UKs armed forces to put my head above the parapet under my real name so I can be counted. I may not be up to date with all the latest Gen but what I do know is that you can not do More with Less as we are constantly being told by our so call political elite.

Stephen, we all agree with you.

Hello Graham, Just getting a bit fed up with the little click who seem to take grate pleasure in trying to belittle people who refuse to accept or question the proper gander put out by the government. I accept being patriotic is now seem as being a dinosaur but maybe if the old dinosaurs like me start nipping at the heals of the decision makers then maybe we can have a small influence and help the guys on the front line get some proper kit so that they then can do their job correctly.

Real name or not for an avatar, my head has been over that parapet for fucking real, on many many occasions and I am fully aware of the real and ongoing issues within my previous 29 years served organisation. I will comment both serious and light hearted, as I see fit but do me a favour, cut out the keyboard fucking Rambo shit and the abusive nappy mouth. Grow up, don’t get excited about putting your real name on here, as some of us are still not able to do so, for any amount of previous or current reasoning, even if we wanted to. Here endeth the lesson, take it how you see fit. Now can we get back to grown up posts please. Thank you.

Well Mr Angry what can I say, apart from take the mirror away when you are in front of the key board as you seem to be talking about yourself!!!

See, there you go again! Bloody hell how old are you? Stop waffling chuff, grow up and maybe re-evaluate your initial, yes initial, post to me. You replied to a random post which I was replying to another poster. You got angry, you got patronising then you got sad. FFS good luck to the mob you may have served on as they must have been a bit chip shop.

There is that PTSD creeping in again!!

PTSD is a real issue for many of the lads and you see fit to use it to score points and a term of piss take! Total chip shop special you are, sad sad sad! And yet again you totally ignore the fact you replied to a generic post that wasn’t to you, you sent me a rather abusive rant, and when you get a reply you don’t seem to like challenging you, you revert to troll behaviour. As previously stated, very sad.

I do not try to score points at all I simply put my ideas over the net,

I do however feel for you as I recognise the symptoms of PTSD as I myself have suffered from it in the past. It took me about 10 years to get over it. That is why I mentioned it and if you took it the wrong way then indeed I do apologise but I would recommend that you talk to someone about it as it will eat you up from the inside.

Thanks for the concern but no issues my end in regard to PTSD, so please can we get back to defence matters and no more 👜 stuff 👍 cheers!

And if you read my history of comments Steve you will see you and I are more often than not singing off the same song sheet when it comes to the concern for the current state of most of our military! It is dire in some areas but reasonably healthy in others and we all need to be supporting and championing the modern, forward thinking ideas and plan, but also raising hell about the rest. Cheers and keep posting!

Fair comment, I just wish some of the people with the knowledge would use it more constructively and help publish the real state of the UK’s armed forces instead of spending most of their time trying to belittle people who are not in their little click.

Mate, we can agree on your concern on the sate of the military being far from acceptable. I’m no expert, but it does seem the army has the thin edge of the funding edge. So I share your frustration.

I recall the narrative in the early 1990s of “the peace dividend” requiring about half the defence funding of the 1980’s. So say 2 to 2.3% of GDP. Logically that suggests force levels circa half cold war size. Problem off course is the cost of modern assets spiraled (large type 26 frigates, type 45 destroyers, F35 etc) . So have force levels are way under the 50% threshold. In particular RAF jet combat Sqns levels are circa 25% of cold war levels.

That being said, the RN appears to be in pretty good shape, se perhaps we need a shift in priorities towards the army?.

At the risk of sounding real pessimistic, my fear is once Labour return to power, well have another round of defence slash ‘n burn. God know how things will look then!

Chin up though, Xmas is around the order and perhaps the MOD will surprise us all with some good news!

You are right, but until we start spending at least 2.5% to 3% of GDP on defence then we are not going to make any inroads into the problems we have at the moment and I do believe that the politicians from all sides of the house would rather donate their left tactical to science than put more money into the forces. The army has suffered more under the present government.

no argument on that Sir!

Also thinking about it, in the modern world you can’t really go into a country and then expect to asset strip it after like happened historically. Now a days the expectations would be for rebuilding the country after, which would come at huge cost, so avoiding some of that has to be a positive to the UK economy.

Depends, Rebuilding Germany was if anything a net benefit to the Americans (in general rebuilding the country instead of leaving it an impoverished pariah state that will be forced to try to stir up trouble again is a good thing).

How hard it is to rebuild a country is pretty much a direct correlation to how badly you stuff up pacifying it in the first place.

British Army was 2.9m by the end of WW2 and was certainly in the field.

Massive logistic chain rapidly slow deployment in the longer term though and come at a cost we can’t really afford.

Agree the tanks provide a big deterrence but I suspect a boxer with a proper gun would probably similar deterrence. Clearly they need a proper gun, but with the retirement of the warriors, you have to assume they will get them eventually

Kind of the British Army can’t maintain a longer term armoured deployment of any scale anyway, it never has. Even at the theoretical height of the Cold-War Army, Op Granby was effectively a one shot of every armoured vehicle the BAOR could scrape together. But once your in theatre then it’s no longer strategic mobility, but operational mobility, and then yes, tanks are not as mobile as medium weight armour, of course not. It’s that old iron triangle again.
Really the limiting factor is it’s harder to maintain Tanks at high readiness constantly, but it’s not impossible, and it just means (like we’ve always had) that the tank fleet will be smaller than the infantry, but then it doesn’t have to be bigger.

True to a degree, though a boxer with a big gun is not as intimidating as a MBT, nor is it as insurmountable an obstacle. My main reason for bringing it up is to counter the “MBT’s only have a place in high end warfare” argument pre-emptively.

My thought is that we have a very limited budget that can’t cover the capability we have. As such as costs keep going up for new tech gear, capability will just keep getting sliced.

So either we keep doing wide spread cuts, cutting each capability a little and gradually reducing everything uniformally, and resulting in none of the assets being in big enough numbers to be used in any war and meaning the armed forces are totally undeployable, or we accept we can’t do everything and abandon certain capability, whilst channeling that money into others. It just won’t be popular, any government that decides to say cut all tanks, would have news media going nuts, so would need to be a strong government, which we clearly don’t have.

We would need a gov and military commanders that have a clear vision on what we want to do and how we intend to do it, which again we clearly don’t have with the constant new strategies that they create before they have even fully migrated to the last one.

Dern, you surely exaggerate a bit. BAOR in 1990/91 was 3 divisions in Germany under a Corps HQ. We deployed one Div (-) to Op Granby so not all A Vehicles went to the desert. A lot of A Vehs which did not deploy were however pillaged for spares.
In terms of operational mobility tanks are not as mobile as medium weight armour, it is true – but if you need a tank to do the job, you send a tank, even if it takes a bit longer than a ‘medium’ but don’t forget that you can operationally move heavy armour quickly by HET(ie tank transporters).
We will never have a tank force bigger than or equal in size to the infantry – I am not sure what your point is there.
A Boxer with a big gun is not a tank and cannot fill the role of a tank.

We invented the tank in 1916. It has only ever deployed operationally overseas in an expeditionary sense. We manage to deploy tanks (and other AFVs) with the big logistic tail. Its not impossible. We clearly stand the cost of so doing.

We have used tanks more in a hot war, than the Navy has used their ships and submarines in anger (1982 was too far ago to count as a recent conflict). Tanks are not just deterrents, they actually get used.