Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 62

Thread: British army (maybe) getting a new MBT?

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,912
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    But still need those 3. And wasn't that issued after the "Armada scare"?



    Apart from (at least) an old rifled gun that can't fire the more modern versions of APFSDS, overweight issues...



    Doubtfull, tbh. The french are still developing the Leclerc, the germans are transforming the Leopard 2 beyong recognition, and the rest don't have the $$$ or armies to think about a new tank...
    The French and Germans are supposed to be looking at a joint MBT, for what that's worth (hopefully it won't be the 21st century MBT-70).

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    Well…the L7/M68 105mm was such a winner that the Brits are probably reluctant to admit that the Rheinmetall L55 smoothbore is the way to go. Thought the Chinese or Russians had some tank they're developing with a 140mm gun on it.
    The Chinese supposedly had a 140mm tank gun they were working on back in the 2000's, but nothing's been seen or heard of it since then; the only company seriously looking at a 140mm is Rheinmetall (what a surprise).
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  3. #18
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,360
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    I hear the US Army has something like 6000 Abrams tanks in their inventory, despite only wanting around 2000. They apparently keep buying tanks at the behest of congress when they would prefer to use those funds elsewhere. Perhaps the US could donate a couple thousand to the UK or anyone else in NATO that wants new toys. Are the Europeans ok with DU armor and projectiles?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Operators

    Steve,

    Not sure what you are specifically referring to.

    Per the attached over 10,000 were made.

    There are 6,000 approx in US Army service with another approx. 500 in USMC. They are split between M1A1 & M1A2 variants.

    The Army is not saying they only want 2000 M1s.

    They recognize the M1 fleet needs to be rebuilt/refurbished. The force structure going forward can easily absorb 4500 of those M1s.

    Don't forget when they say Army they ae also talking ARNG.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Steve,

    Not sure what you are specifically referring to.
    I've seen articles for several years now about how the Army leadership has decided that they already have plenty of tanks and would rather spend their budgets upgrading older models or preferably buying other things. (a HMMWV replacement comes to mind) Yet Congress disagrees and specifically funds continued procurement of tanks.

    It is essentially the same thing Congress likes to pull with the battleships with the Navy, and the A-10 with the Air Force.

    Now I fully appreciate getting a hard on for the kind of big guns that tanks, battleships and A-10s supply, but it also seems unlikely that legislators would know better than the military about what kind of kit they should be buying.

    Below is an example of what I'm talking about.

    Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno agreed with Manchin.

    "We are still having to procure systems we don't need," Odierno said, adding that the Army spends "hundreds of millions of dollars on tanks that we simply don't have the structure for anymore."

    For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II.

    Each time, Congress has pushed back. In December, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that funded $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades.

    The Army and the Marine Corps currently have about 9,000 Abrams tanks in their inventories. The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that the Army doesn't need more tanks.

    Odierno lost then too. Congress voted for another $183 million for tanks despite Odierno's argument that the Army was seeking to become a lighter force.
    "When we are talking about tight budgets a couple of hundred million dollars is a lot of money," Odierno said.

    "There are lots of people that have looked at procurement reform. And the one thing that has been frustrating to me is as the chief of staff of the Army is how little authority and responsibility that I have in the procurement process. I have a say in requirements, to some extent, but I have very little say."

    Adm. Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said that there needs to be clarity on the chain of command when it comes to procurement.

    "There are too many people involved in the process," Greenert said. "If I say 'I need a thing' ... there are a whole lot of people telling us 'no, this is what you really need.'"
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...esnt-need.html

  5. #20
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    You can always give a few.Give each Baltic nation a brigade worth of heavies etc... Yeah,it's freebies,but it's cheaper being the arsenal of democracy than the one doing the dying.And it's not like you are going to spend money.It's about making good use of bad at the time investment.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    You can always give a few.Give each Baltic nation a brigade worth of heavies etc... Yeah,it's freebies,but it's cheaper being the arsenal of democracy than the one doing the dying.And it's not like you are going to spend money.It's about making good use of bad at the time investment.
    Could they even aford to maintain them?...

  7. #22
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    The Chinese supposedly had a 140mm tank gun they were working on back in the 2000's, but nothing's been seen or heard of it since then; the only company seriously looking at a 140mm is Rheinmetall (what a surprise).
    This smacks of a solution looking for a problem!
    Chimo

  8. #23
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    Could they even aford to maintain them?...
    Of course.If they can't,send some bucks.The issue is simple.NATO moved East.Great for the westerners,no danger of them dying.But the downside of this expansion is they must pay for the defense of the East,or they'll be back to square one.

    And no,I don't want the M1 specifically.A logistical nightmare.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    Of course.If they can't,send some bucks.The issue is simple.NATO moved East.Great for the westerners,no danger of them dying.But the downside of this expansion is they must pay for the defense of the East,or they'll be back to square one.

    And no, I don't want the M1 specifically.A logistical nightmare.
    Yeah, especially if you're not set-up for it to begin with; that tank, as good as it is, would require a completely separate logistics chain, stretching all the way back to the US. Plus, it has an oddball power plant; the Americans and the Russians are the only ones who stuck a gas turbine in their tanks, and the Russians aren't even building theirs anymore.

    It would make more sense for you guys to get a decent diesel-powered tank, maybe a Leopard A6 or a French LeClerc (personally, I'd take the Leo).
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,099
    I'd take the Leclerc.Lighter,more suitable to the existing infrastructure.The Poles call their Leo's the best tank to fight between rivers.
    The one thing that does make a difference is the USAF.No,not the shiny stuff.The C17's and C130's that can carry a lot of ATGM's in a few hours.

    On a side note,IIRC there was diesel engine kit for the M1
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    I'd take the Leclerc.Lighter,more suitable to the existing infrastructure.The Poles call their Leo's the best tank to fight between rivers.
    The one thing that does make a difference is the USAF.No,not the shiny stuff.The C17's and C130's that can carry a lot of ATGM's in a few hours.

    On a side note,IIRC there was diesel engine kit for the M1
    Yeah, multi-fuel turbocharged diesel engines have come a long ways since the 20th century; I remember when a "big" turbodiesel was only putting out 700 or 800 HP, whereas the gas turbine in the Abrams pumped out a (then) whopping 1500 HP. Now we've got turbodiesels putting out at least that much, sometimes more!
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    Yeah, multi-fuel turbocharged diesel engines have come a long ways since the 20th century; I remember when a "big" turbodiesel was only putting out 700 or 800 HP, whereas the gas turbine in the Abrams pumped out a (then) whopping 1500 HP. Now we've got turbodiesels putting out at least that much, sometimes more!
    And what's more they emit almost no pollution.... on the EPA test cycle. :D

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    I'd take the Leclerc.Lighter,more suitable to the existing infrastructure.The Poles call their Leo's the best tank to fight between rivers.
    The one thing that does make a difference is the USAF.No,not the shiny stuff.The C17's and C130's that can carry a lot of ATGM's in a few hours.

    On a side note,IIRC there was diesel engine kit for the M1
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we had our batch of M1A1s retrofitted with diesels.

  14. #29
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,488
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    And what's more they emit almost no pollution.... on the EPA test cycle. :D
    I didnt know VW built tank engines!

  15. #30
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we had our batch of M1A1s retrofitted with diesels.
    Nup. Just M1A1 AIM.
    Ego Numquam

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian army or the British army? which one?
    By 1947 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 12 Feb 13,, 17:25
  2. Afghanistan: how the US army battled it out with the British
    By troung in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07 Jul 12,, 22:29
  3. British Army 700 new armoured vehicles
    By VarSity in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 24 Sep 09,, 18:35
  4. Yon gets down with the British Army.
    By Bluesman in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10 Dec 07,, 15:23
  5. British Army unveils new Trojan tank
    By Boltonian in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15 Feb 07,, 11:02

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •