Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Works of fiction/Waltering/Dreaming/"We need hovertanks!"

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Works of fiction/Waltering/Dreaming/"We need hovertanks!"

    No its not a bad joke...
    Browsing through in the past i notice it is mentioned often,and the concensus always is we dont need them.
    However I have it on good information that many MBT Types are being offered to us,including
    Leopard 2 A4s,British Challenger 1,M1A1,and a lot of Dutch and British stuff.
    It seems the Poles got similar for free recently.
    Fail to prepare....prepare to FAIL!

  • #2
    What would we us them for??? we`re not exactly going to attack some other country on a whip?? Although the Challenger 1 would be nice, but we really have no use for them. we could do with more apc`s and the mowag eagles plus a good replacement for the aml`s
    Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

    "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory" Proverbs 11-14
    http://munsterfireandrescue.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Don't forget that these could be reasonable re-engineered to carriers once the turret is removed.
      Never look a gift horse in the mouth anyway.

      I'd doubt Ireland would accept cos, they would have to pay for the parts and the lefties would scream "NATO bribe".

      We could use warriors and the like though.

      Perhaps we could use MBT's in the EURRF?

      Comment


      • #4
        Problem, as always, is support. Tanks would need ARVs, bridge layers, transporters and a very heavy maintenance/logistics supply train.

        BUT

        Presuming we got them for free, something like the Leo 2 A4/A5* would make a hell of a fire support vehicle. Deploying them abroad will always be a pain, but if we're moving equipment by sea anyhow, the extra weight of a few tanks won't really matter all that much (volume is usually more of a concern). And given the choice between a 105mm MGS/LAV III as support, and a MBT with 120mm smoothbore and three machine guns, I know what I'd prefer if it was my ass on the line.

        And if the CAV are to get 105mm equipped AFVs in the near future anyway, the training areas for one could be used for the other.

        Perhaps they could be used in a similar way to the manner in which the USMC has traditionally used/deployed M1A1s, with (say) 4 being deployed afloat with some of the MEU as fire support/anti armour. In other words, to provide a contingent and organic anti tank capability. So for RRF missions that require such a capability, they could simply be added to the slate.

        They'd be handy for training too.

        There really wouldn't be much point in getting the usual 12-14 of them though, to make the supply and servicing/training worthwhile it might make more sense to go all out and get (say) 45-50 (hell, they're for free). Would be enough for a battalion (I think?!?) if necessary, and plenty to ensure that there'd be a company's worth available for training or deployment when needed. All that we'd need then was a few ARVs.

        *Aren't the Swedes considering disposing of their Strv 121 (Leo2A4) as soon as they have their full complement of Strv 122 in service?

        Comment


        • #5
          Who says these MBT's have to be stationed here?

          Let assume we're getting these MBTs for free from a European power ot enhance our RRF capability. Why not leave them on the continent & deploy them from there?
          A school could be established in Germany, for argument's sake, where the crews can train alongside their RRF partners. When needed, these MBTs can be shipped out with the German contingent to wherever they're going.

          A small number could be held here for familiarisation & basic training.
          "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

          Comment


          • #6
            "A school could be established in Germany, for argument's sake"

            Or Poland, for that matter

            Comment


            • #7
              Excellent idea there, after all we would never be on operational missions on our own, why not be attached to another army.
              another good idea to get as many as possible is because we can butcher excess MBT's if the money dries up for parts etc.

              Comment


              • #8
                Actually in a discussion on future cavalry and fire support vehicles one person has argued that Leopard 2A5s would be cheaper to run and operate than the kind of wheeled heavy FSV that people might normally consider more in Irelnad's natural preserve.
                The issue of support vehicles is my main objection to MBTs and I feel that theres a line between being useful or token that would be crossed by relying on allies for ARVs etc.
                "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                Comment


                • #9
                  Acquiring 30 Leopard2 A5 second hand would be cheaper than buying 14 centauro's brand new, they're interoperable, used by Germany, spain, Switzerland, Greece, Holland, Poland (second hand), Denemark (second hand), Norway (second hand), Austria(second hand), Sweeden, Finland(second hand), no shortage of spare parts, whereas the Centuaro is only used by Italy and Spain; as for support vehicles they also could be acquired surplas. You could have regiment with a PDF and an RDF squadron with 12 MBT and let it not be forgotten the DF has experience of operating tracked vehicles with the scorpion. Its essentially the Battlecruiser vrs Battleship question, the battlecruiser had the same weapon as a battleship, but not the armoured protection, and while the idea was good in theory, a look at british losses at Jutland in 1916 or the Bismark vrs Hood shows how dangerous that can be. But than again, the chances of it actually happening are non-existant
                  Last edited by paul g; 29 May 2003, 20:38.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think the Swedes are about to give them away
                    Meh.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Brits and the Germans are selling them very cheep and this idea is growing in stature and I have to say Im now preswaded to the idea.
                      Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

                      "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in abundance of counselors there is victory" Proverbs 11-14
                      http://munsterfireandrescue.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, this idea is growing in stature, however, only among members of this board.
                        Meh.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Rather than tanks, we actaully need more anti-armour weapons, mines, and training.
                          "In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it." Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Rommel
                            Rather than tanks, we actaully need more anti-armour weapons, mines, and training.
                            In fairness, the best anti-armour weapon is another tank...

                            If they're just giving the things away.. (I don't believe Jordan paid anything for its Challenger 1s), I don't see how it would hurt that much. Yes, there would need to be some increase in the support structure, but I wonder how much, in practice, of an increase there would need to be for such a thing compared to buying Centauros and such?

                            NTM
                            Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A few Heavy trucks and low loaders..I recon a scania T cab 550 should be fine..nothing too dramatic anyway...that and a few more recovery vehicles..


                              Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X