irish army mbt

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!

OS119

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.

absolutely, there will always be opportunities for constabulary-type, light-infantry role PK missions - the problem is that Ireland, like everyone else, doesn't just do PK ops for the goodness of them, it does them to gain international brownie points, and to test and develop its armed forces in a deployed, operational environment that increases the ability of those armed forces to perform their central role - warfighting.

if Ireland doesn't keep up with the cutting edge of european peacekeeping/peace enforcement, it will lose its (already scant) ability to operate with european forces (or, as disturbingly, on its own) when Ireland really needs to, it will lose out politically in europe by not being 'one of us' - only being able to do 'vanilla' PK ops and with the kind of partners one might not automaticly believe to be paragons of military efficiency.

OS119

iceage wrote: »

I think it was Manic Moron ...

someones looking for a ban!:D

petergfiffin

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

I accept he's primarily talking about keeping tank regiments rather than anything we would be looking at in this country but the general thrust seems to be the nature of warfare will continue to be primarily dismounted infantry (like Afghanistan) rather than large scale armour.

I accept the sight of an MBT rolling into town would tend to focus minds on a PK op but shouldn't a military like ours be really focusing on being light, (air) mobile and packing a heavy punch in a small package?

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

absolutely, there will always be opportunities for constabulary-type, light-infantry role PK missions - the problem is that Ireland, like everyone else, doesn't just do PK ops for the goodness of them, it does them to gain international brownie points, and to test and develop its armed forces in a deployed, operational environment that increases the ability of those armed forces to perform their central role - warfighting.

if Ireland doesn't keep up with the cutting edge of european peacekeeping/peace enforcement, it will lose its (already scant) ability to operate with european forces (or, as disturbingly, on its own) when Ireland really needs to, it will lose out politically in europe by not being 'one of us' - only being able to do 'vanilla' PK ops and with the kind of partners one might not automaticly believe to be paragons of military efficiency.

What you saying is we need to keep up with the jones for brownies points.

Whereas its quite obvious we can't afford to. Even assuming we made good buying decisions which they usually don't.

I'd question that the central role is (or should be) warfighting. We never had the resources or the public/political mandate for that. Constabulary-type, light-infantry and special ops, we can do, and it makes sense to do. Because that also needs to be done.

BostonB

petergfiffin wrote: »

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

I accept he's primarily talking about keeping tank regiments rather than anything we would be looking at in this country but the general thrust seems to be the nature of warfare will continue to be primarily dismounted infantry (like Afghanistan) rather than large scale armour.

I accept the sight of an MBT rolling into town would tend to focus minds on a PK op but shouldn't a military like ours be really focusing on being light, (air) mobile and packing a heavy punch in a small package?

Well thats a bit misleading, while during the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. But the Abrams came into its own in urban security/ fighting where it can takes hits from RPGs and all sorts, wheres some of the troop carriers were quite vulnerable to that and mines. Same in Afghanistan.

So while massed tank battles seem unlikely there are still the meanest mother on the ground.

petergfiffin

BostonB wrote: »

But the Abrams came into its own in urban security/ fighting where it can takes hits from RPGs and all sorts, wheres some of the troop carriers were quite vulnerable to that and mines. Same in Afghanistan.

True but that was before the newer MRAP vehicles were available (or even existed in some cases), also it wasn't that Abrams were immune to RPGs just more resistant and many were destroyed also. The advantage of tanks is never really in question but I think for Ireland it will always be a case of trying to get the most out of the small amount of cash which is going to be made available for defence which is why I would never see MBTs being purchased for front line use as I don't think the cost could ever be justified.

BostonB wrote: »

So while massed tank battles seem unlikely there are still the meanest mother on the ground.

No argument there!! There is very little is going to come close for sheer psychological value

iceage

OS119 wrote: »

someones looking for a ban!:D

Trust you to spot that. In my defence check the time of my post and it was after a late steak dinner and a couple of bottles of good red wine.

Oh and a pint of fizzy Guinness....thats the one what did the damage your honor!:o






You reckon Manic Moran missed that?

gizmo555

petergfiffin wrote: »

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

Lewis Page, the author of the piece linked to, is ex-Royal Navy and wrote the excellent Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military .

(Loved the closing line of the article - Of course the cavalry's real job on the battlefield, as the Punch cartoon caption of long ago put it so well, is "to lend tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl")

concussion

gizmo555 wrote: »

(Loved the closing line of the article - Of course the cavalry's real job on the battlefield, as the Punch cartoon caption of long ago put it so well, is "to lend tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl")

That's an artillery quote, and it should be dignity, not tone.

gizmo555

concussion wrote: »

That's an artillery quote, and it should be dignity, not tone.

He's a sailor, probably doesn't know the difference between cavalry & artillery . . . .