irish army mbt

kevinhalvey

hi im wondering does anyone know what the main battle tank of the irish army ive been looking around and all i found is these

http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/scorpion/index.htm

http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/aml90/index.htm

http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/vehicles/cav/aml20/index.htm

do we not have any thing that can pack a punch ????

IrishGrimReaper

That's about the height of it lol. We do have a nice APC though....:pac:


But yeah, that tank "Scorpion" it's called I think is the main thing. We don't have anything fancy, fancy things cost money.

kevinhalvey

yea they do
i really think the army should invest in some leclercs and bradleys


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/images/Leclerc_11.jpg


http://img225.imageshack.us/i/m2bradley19bw.jpg/

IrishGrimReaper

kevinhalvey wrote: »

yea they do
i really think the army should invest in some leclercs and bradleys


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/images/Leclerc_11.jpg


http://img225.imageshack.us/i/m2bradley19bw.jpg/

God I wish, the Irish army would never spend the money on that kinda thing. But even to have just a few of them would be a real morale booster, if I was in Lebanon or somewhere and knew some of those were about I'd feel a whole lot safer.

If I recall right, the army bought a few jets off Italy or someone years ago, and they are now sitting in a hangar somewhere, apparently they don't work or something. Maybe someone can find a link to this, I can't remember the details, it was awhile ago now.

kevinhalvey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8h7Uc_aqKM little vid

Manic Moran

im wondering does anyone know what the main battle tank of the irish army

I thought the comedy forum was -thataway-...

NTM

Steyr

IrishGrimReaper wrote: »

If I recall right, the army bought a few jets off Italy or someone years ago, and they are now sitting in a hangar somewhere, apparently they don't work or something. Maybe someone can find a link to this, I can't remember the details, it was awhile ago now.

First off its the Air Corps not Army and they never operated Italian Jets, Who told you the above????

They first operated UK Built DH Vampire T55 Jets
Numbers:
185,186,187,191,192,193,198 (198-ground airframe )

Then they Operated Fouga CM170 Super Magister Jets ( French Built )
Numbers:
215,216,217,218,219,220,221, ( 221/3-KE Ground Airframe )

They Operated Italian SIAI Marchetti SF260WE Aircraft too, these were Italian Built but not Jets they are prop Aircraft
Numbers:
222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,233,235, ( Leased N402FD,N405FD,N407FD )

Who told you the above?? All the above had long careers with the Air Corps in the Light Strike/Training Roles and have long since been retired.

Steyr

kevinhalvey wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8h7Uc_aqKM little vid

What has that got to do in a thread about Main Battle Tanks which we dont have?

concussion

kevinhalvey wrote: »

do we not have any thing that can pack a punch ????

This

kevinhalvey

concussion wrote: »

This

i meant with tracks

Poccington

IrishGrimReaper wrote: »

God I wish, the Irish army would never spend the money on that kinda thing. But even to have just a few of them would be a real morale booster, if I was in Lebanon or somewhere and knew some of those were about I'd feel a whole lot safer.

If I recall right, the army bought a few jets off Italy or someone years ago, and they are now sitting in a hangar somewhere, apparently they don't work or something. Maybe someone can find a link to this, I can't remember the details, it was awhile ago now.

The Defence Forces would never spend money on something like that?

The DF doesn't have the money to spend on MBT's. It's nothing to do with not wanting to buy MBT's, we merely have a ridiculously small Defence budget.

kevinhalvey

very true but at least we have our elite rangers

DylanJM

We actually had a few Churchill tanks back in the in the 50's and 60's. They were retired in 1969.

The point is though, we don't have mbt's because we simply don't need them, the budget could be better spent elsewhere.

kevinhalvey

i really think that the government should re-vamp the army it does need a bit of up-dating is there sidearm still the browning hi-power or did they change it to the sig saur p226 p229

Donny5

kevinhalvey wrote: »

i really think that the government should re-vamp the army it does need a bit of up-dating is there sidearm still the browning hi-power or did they change it to the sig saur p226 p229

It's a H&K USP.

kevinhalvey

then do the rangers use the p226 because i seen them with it ??

http://kildare.ie/defenceforces/ORG/org_images/Pistol_Man_small.jpg

http://www.fianoglach.ie/unitequipment.html

that website is good for irish ranger stuff

Donny5

kevinhalvey wrote: »

then do the rangers use the p226 because i seen them with it ??

http://kildare.ie/defenceforces/ORG/org_images/Pistol_Man_small.jpg

http://www.fianoglach.ie/unitequipment.html

that website is good for irish ranger stuff

They're Rangers; they can probably use whatever they want. The issue sidearm is a 9mm USP.

kevinhalvey

a right nice

DylanJM

Eh, why are you guys talking about what pistol we use on a thread about tanks?

Donny5

DylanJM wrote: »

Eh, why are you guys talking about what pistol we use on a thread about tanks?

Well, because we don't have tanks, but we do have pistols.

youllneverknow

the rangers have two roles black and green
green would be normal army things but better obviously then the black role would be like freeing hostages from terrorists

DylanJM

green would be normal army things but better obviously then the black role would be like freeing hostages from terrorists

What?! This thread is funny.

Steyr

IBTL.:D

Delancey

Why would the Irish army not buy used tanks , e.g. Leopard 1's from the Bundeswehr ?

civis_liberalis

delancey42 wrote: »

Why would the Irish army not buy used tanks , e.g. Leopard 1's from the Bundeswehr ?

For the same reason they don't buy new tanks. They don't have the budget for it.

OS119

civis_liberalis wrote: »

For the same reason they don't buy new tanks. They don't have the budget for it.

actually they don't have the doctrine for it, deliberately, and purely to please both politicians and the military-phobic public.

the Irish Army is the only Army in the EU that doesn't believe you need MBT's for both peacekeeping and warfighting operations, the Irish Army is also the only Army in the EU that doesn't believe in air mobility, that doesn't believe in Artillery, and doesn't understand what happens to an Army that doesn't have Air Superiority when it meets one that does.

obviously very other Army in the EU is wrong, and the IA has a unique grip on future wars.

Morpheus

No no no, tanks? are you MAD man?

dasterdly noisy things,

green party wont have them, damage the habitat of the rare lesser spotted yellow slug in the glen so they would, cost lots of money so they do, all them tracks and belching smoke and roaring engines?? God, we'd need bigger ear muffs for the lads and gas masks to protect them from the fumes, cant be having that Im afraid...

whats that you say? fighter jets - sure were neutral, we dont need an... whats that? were NOT neutral you say? shhhh dont tell the europeans!!! anyway where was I, damn jets, nothing but a pain in the back side, noisy frightful things that scream around the place damaging the hearing of blue tipped great tits up in the wicklow mountains, frighten the poor sheep...

Did you say helicopters? Good lord someone call the funny farm... what on earth would the Irish army need to be flown about in helicopters, theyre only needed for ministers on important duty, like opening pubs and other such em.. eh... important things yes... the army are trained on their feet man, marchy marchy march, they can get ANYWHERE in ireland in a day or two, absolultely no need for those horrid chopper things, even sounds dangerous, "choppers", probably chop up poor eagles and owls and stuff, couldnt have them flying at night time either, too much noise, people cant sleep....

swords, yes SWORDS!!! nothing like the gentle caress of cold steel, the rattle of sabres at first light, they dont like it up em, cost less than choppers too and scare the enemy more, up the middle with smoke and swords at dawn after a 2 day brisk walk through the peaceful glen of imaal. thats the way wars should be fought!!

The irish will show the rest of the world how its done, never fear - save money too so we will.... :rolleyes:

Thats a brief glimpse into the mindset of todays politicians, lots and lots of sh*t excuses to NOT spend money on something that they simply do not, can not and never will understand, thats:
what a military is for,
how it operates and
why its needed....

sad but true The irish army is doomed to forever aspire to heights it can never reach...

BostonB

Why would we need MBTs? I know they are useful away big battles etc, ie in urban fighting, like in Iraq but thats not something we do either.

We had/have these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion

I'm all for having well equipped defense forces, but they should be appropriate to the role.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

...I'm all for having well equipped defense forces, but they should be appropriate to the role.

MBT's would have been astonishingly useful in Chad - little is more able to demostrate your physical mastery of an area that having your 70-ton tanks drive around it with total impunity while possesing firepower barely dreamed about by those one wishes to 'keep in their box'.

the problems the IA faced in Chad - and in those incidents where it could be said to have failed in its mandate - were caused, imho, by a lack of mobility, and a lack of fear of its response on the part of its opponents.

PK ops have found, time and again, that having overwelming force - as demonstrated by putting a fecking great tank on the street - and being thought of as being prepared to use it, are precursors to a successful op.

tfitzgerald

Donny5 wrote: »

Well, because we don't have tanks, but we do have pistols.

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

MBT's would have been astonishingly useful in Chad - little is more able to demostrate your physical mastery of an area that having your 70-ton tanks drive around it with total impunity while possesing firepower barely dreamed about by those one wishes to 'keep in their box'.

the problems the IA faced in Chad - and in those incidents where it could be said to have failed in its mandate - were caused, imho, by a lack of mobility, and a lack of fear of its response on the part of its opponents.

PK ops have found, time and again, that having overwelming force - as demonstrated by putting a fecking great tank on the street - and being thought of as being prepared to use it, are precursors to a successful op.

On UN operations it seems the problem is a lack of will to use the firepower, than a lack of firepower. Though I accept that shock and awe and intimidation work wonders to stop things kicking off.

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

On UN operations it seems the problem is a lack of will to use the firepower, than a lack of firepower. Though I accept that shock and awe and intimidation work wonders to stop things kicking off.

oh absolutely - what matters is whether the locals believe you'll unleash the beast, not whether you will or not.

the Irish in Chad were hampered by not having something that looked intimidating, and was able to move around within the Irish Area of Operations - one could argue that a MOWAG with a Javelin team could rumble past and make a big bang, but it just doesn't do the intimidation thing in the way that a tank does.

what matters it what works, not what makes people feel better - there is, imv, no doubt that humanitarian efforts were disrupted, supplies lost, refugees killed, injured and indimidated, and the ability of an EU battlegroup to deny an area to bandits and gangsters compromised, because of a deep, wide streak of anti-militarism within the Irish body politic.

i hope they are very proud of the consequences of what made them feel better.

BostonB

Where there not other countries with MBT there too?

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Where there not other countries with MBT there too?

the French took some medium armour, but they also had their own fast jets to swan about being noisy in. theoretically the air support was a 'force asset', but guess who's area saw them most...

generally each national contingent has an area of responsibility, and its up to that contingent to police its area as completely as possible - having half-a-dozen nationalities, all with their own doctrines, operation procedures, rules of engagements and national command over-rides operation as part of a single functioning command is usually a complete pain in the arse. some things, like air support and theatre logistics are thrown into a pot and used for the benefit of everyone, but by and large each contingent just gets on with its own area and needs to use its own capabilities to do it.

one nasty event took place less than half an hours drive from the main Irish base - what anybody else incountry had brought with them was pretty irrelevent.

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

... what anybody else incountry had brought with them was pretty irrelevent.

Their experience of using the MBTs would be relevent.

Manic Moran

BostonB wrote: »

Why would we need MBTs? I know they are useful away big battles etc, ie in urban fighting, like in Iraq but thats not something we do either.

We had/have these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV101_Scorpion

I'm all for having well equipped defense forces, but they should be appropriate to the role.

What role does Ireland undertake that tanks are inappropriate? Let's look at some places Ireland has gone...

Peacekeeping in Kosovo?


Peacekeeping in Bosnia?


Peacekeeping in Lebanon?


Peacekeeping in Somalia?


MBTs provide a unique capability which no other asset can provide.

NTM

Morpheus

we dont even deploy our own arty...

Anyway what sane (irish) politician is going to suggest we purchase even a squadron of MBT's, EVEN under the auspices of a overseas UN requirement?

This is Irelands Military in 2010 - like Irelands Military mid celtic tiger... only slightly MORE broke.

BostonB

Manic Moran wrote: »

What role does Ireland undertake that tanks are inappropriate? Let's look at some places Ireland has gone......
...

Territorial and home security. I don't think we should have to massively upscale just for peace keeping missions. We can't afford it. Though perhaps some used MBT's would be of more practical use than the PC9's.

kevinhalvey

so do ireland use u.n tanks when undertaking u.n operations ??

DylanJM

so do ireland use u.n tanks when undertaking u.n operations ??

No. We don't have any tanks of our own to train in. You can't just hop in someone else's tank and without any training.

kevinhalvey

DylanJM wrote: »

No. We don't have any tanks of our own to train in. You can't just hop in someone else's tank and without any training.

well obviously

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Territorial and home security. I don't think we should have to massively upscale just for peace keeping missions. We can't afford it. Though perhaps some used MBT's would be of more practical use than the PC9's.

you can make arguments about the utility of an armoured force with regards to territorial defence (and all the miriad of assumptions that such a theoretical exercise entails), but with regards to PK missions the future is pretty clear - relatively self-sufficient national contingents operating within a collaborative framework, with those national contingents capable of looking after themselves should it all go tits up.

those who can't do that, won't be able to go. Ireland won't be allowed to redefine the current trend in EU/UN/NATO peacekeeping just because it doesn't like the look of it or doesn't want to spend the money required.

personally i think the PC-9's - though a ridiculous purchace that the proposer and authoriser should be shot for - could be quite useful in a PK op, fit a decent realtime downloading reece pod, a budget chaff/flare arrangement, external fuel tanks and Hellfire missiles and you have a moderately useful overwatch/ISTAR/CAS platform. you couldn't take it to Afghanistan, but you could take it to Chad, its already been paid for, and its better than nothing.

Delancey

Some really good arguments both for and against the Irish Army purchasing MBT's . Lets say we did buy them and they were , say , used Leopard 1's or Challenger 1's - how many would we need ? How much would they be each ? How much would the logistics train needed to support them cost ?

Salivate away at the Abrams but cost alone would rule out Ireland ever purchasing that IMO.

kevinhalvey

well as far as i know the french army in 07 had 375 main battle tanks which is a fair amount for a large nation

Manic Moran

DylanJM wrote: »

No. We don't have any tanks of our own to train in. You can't just hop in someone else's tank and without any training.

Though not tanks, how much training did the Irish get before using XA-180s, M113s or SKPFs on deployment? The latter two, they picked up in the Congo.

And why has nobody ever taken a photo of an Irish M113!?

NTM

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

...those who can't do that, won't be able to go......

Makes perfect sense not to go if we don't have the capability, or the means to fund it. The country is broke. Cut your cloth.

It wasn't me!

BostonB wrote: »

Makes perfect sense not to go if we don't have the capability, or the means to fund it. The country is broke. Cut your cloth.

You've to weigh that against the wasted investment of the DF if they're not being deployed operationally, the stagnation in positions as a result of not cycling through tours and so forth. This is one of those curious areas where your the returns on your investment, to a point, are exponentially greater the more you put in, rather than diminishing.

BostonB

Every deployment does not require MBTs, even for those countries that have them. Therefore there will always be opportunities, as there has been for decades.

It wasn't me!

BostonB wrote: »

Every deployment does not require MBTs, even for those countries that have them. Therefore there will always be opportunities, as there has been for decades.

But look at the range of deployments already illustrated where the Irish have served alongside forces who thought them important enough to justify the enormous spend to ship them there. My point was more general though than merely regarding the MBT question. If you cut defence forces spending, you make it less worth investing in overall. You detract materially from it. However, if you increase it, it returns exponentially more the more you do so.

BostonB

Thats a different topic. But it can't be a bottomless pit. We can't afford even a shallow one.

iceage

I think it was Manic Moran who posted up a Tank Exercise vid (was it Canadian?) a while ago. I couldn't find it but I hope he will be kind enough to post it again...As to the the ability of a MBT's ability to dominate the ground in a particular area or to prove a point to..the vid Says it all really.

In the words of Basil Brush, BOOM BOOM!