Uk Military Bought The Wrong Tank

[ck1]

I saw a story about the UK military buying the wrong type of tanks. In reality, why did they buy any tanks at all? With drones and guided missiles being available now, is there really any need for tanks and fighter jets etc?

[douglas9401]

Yes, CK1, there is.

[Mamyalynne]

I'm guessing this is the story you saw.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/bad-news-british-army-bought-wrong-tank-52727

[youngmafbog]

Each conflict will be different.

Drones and guided missiles have their place but not the be all and end all.

[bookbinder]

Tanks are sometimes needed for conflicts that involve street fighting. A tank can go up and down city streets, and take out individual buildings. A guided missile would not be suitable for such task, and a drone might not be powerful enough. Anyway, a drone could perhaps not carry enough ammunition for the kind of task that a tank in a city could do.

[Old_Geezer]

There is more than one consideration when deciding on purchases. Maybe it would have been better to design in collaboration with another trusted ally from the off.

Yes conventional 'tracks on the ground' military is always necessary.

[Prudie]

That was the opinion of one person. Maybe the Army chose to select a vehicle originally manufactured by a British Company for starters. The CR2 has had some upgrades and is used daily by the Army, it paid a huge part in both Gulf wars and remains in constant use for training and exercises. As for drones and missiles, conflict is not just about blowing things up on such a scale. Troops need to move around.

[ck1]

When was the last time we faced any kind of aggression for which this kind of military technology was needed? It's amazing what fighter pilots can do but if they were all grounded, would it really matter?

[youngmafbog]

I'm glad you are not planning our Military.

You plan for what could happen, not what is happening right now. You can't just go out and buy a few fighter planes and train some pilots if something kicks off.

[Ken4155]

No matter what firepower was used in the first instance, mopping up operations will still probably have to take place in a good percentage of conflicts. This can only be done with ground troops. Hence the need for tanks.

[Prudie]

Are you basing this on aggression on our soil ck1? You'd be surprised then at what pockets of aggression are going on in the world where the UK military have a presence right now.

[jno]

rebellious Scots to crush, remember.

[Khandro]

https://hugokaaman.com/2019/03/18/last-resort-when-main-battle-tanks-are-used-as-svbieds/

[dannyk13]

ck, we used Canadian & Danish tanks in Afghanistan.

[ck1]

But arguably we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan anyway. The main threat we face is terrorism for which no amount of tanks is going to help.

[dannyk13]

ck, agreed, I was just pointing out when we last used tanks in answer to your post.

[ck1]

dannyk13 - I see, thanks! And the last time we used them when we were involved in something legitimate was...

[dannyk13]

Depends what you call legitimate,probably Korea.

[Hopkirk]

You need tanks so that you can send them to Heathrow when there is a threat of some sort.

[dannyk13]

In any battle you still need troops on the ground and that includes tanks.

[Prudie]

'we' didn't use any Danish or Canadian tanks in Afghanistan - do you mean NATO? The British Army didn't use any of their tanks in Afghanistan.