Manic Moran wrote: » 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
Pyr0 wrote: » Is it just me or does the Danish battle tank look a lot like a King Tiger ?
OS119 wrote: » 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.
BrianD wrote: » The might of the US and British armies don't seem to have the effect that you speak of in either Iraq and Afghanistan. Heavy armour is great for invasions but doesn't seem effective when you have to hold a territory. Peacekeeping forces are effectively holding a territory. Greater numbers of lighter vehicles such as the Mowags seem to be more apt in this aspect. Certainly more effective then MBTs. The Irish Army were certainly not compromised through lack of MBTs. They are probably the best equipped Irish army in years - ironically under an FF government who have always had a distrust of the military.
Avgas wrote: » Good post..... I agree that we can't afford MBTs, and therefore don't need them say like we need urgently Level 4 protection MRAPs.....but I don't think we're as well equipped as we sometimes think.....our professionalism and attitude and education is probably up there with any of them...our material resources are much weaker........IMHO the contingent in Chad should have had proper UAVs...not handheld orbiters which are fine in a niche role.....they should also have had more support vehicles such as the Pirhana MRVs...we've only a handful.......probably packing something heavier than a 30mm Bushmaster.....
Avgas wrote: » Hi Blaas...look I'm not going saying that the Stryker mobile gun system looks just pants.......cause I don't really know if it is crap or not....but...Blaas...its got wheels....it looks like the gun mounting is poorly balanced with the bulk of the vehicle....no doubt its stabilized with fancy gizmos and what-nots....and comes at a massive price.......I mean...it just reminds me of those great big Panhard EBRs the French experimented with after the war...usually with a high velocity 75mm.....they were fine ...until they met heavier opponents and terrain. Italians have also developed a wheeled tank-like-thing for 'heavy recce'-Centurio or something.......but AFAIK nobody has bought it other than themselves.........I just don't buy into the wheeled mobility idea overall.....if you want a tank it should look like a tank...and there is probably an evolutionary reason why not many successful wheeled heavy combat vehicles have emerged...outside of scout car duties/convoy guard, etc. You know my views on the used T54s market seeing as I rarely lose an opportunity to stress the BORAT option, or how we should copy the IDF in terms of improvising armour, along with butchering Scorpions if we're game. But as a civilian such views doubtless count for little.
The might of the US and British armies don't seem to have the effect that you speak of in either Iraq and Afghanistan
Things like the Stryker or the Italian Centauro aren't meant to face up 1 v 1 to MBTs (except in extreme emergencies) but they would be handy for blowing holes in roadblocks, blowing up hi-luxes full of irregular troops etc.
petergfiffin wrote: » Couldn't we just get a standard IFV and add body kit and REALLY loud stereo??
Manic Moran wrote: » ..Indeed, because you could hear a tank coming at some distance, often firefights would end before we could even get to them. They don't pacify the entire country, but they certainly pacify anything within about 1km and line of sight....
Avgas wrote: » I didn't realise Manic was over there with actual Tanks...I thought the Abrams were NOT deployed in ASTAN.......not sure.......I'm skeptical on Strykers generally.....but having said that.....I've never seen one in action close up......and I wouldn't fancy my chances takin one on with an RPG7 and maybe an IED which they may or may not agree to walk into.....something brown in my pants comes to mind.:rolleyes: I still prefer a real tank in the same way I prefer real butter, real milk, real beer, real coffee and women who really are women. (not being disrepectful to anyone else's preferences which are fine for them no doubt and good luck to whatever is your own gig) So I vote second hand German Leopard 2s............just a dozen.....to celebrate the Easter rising big parade in 2016 in some style...... Think of it like a national fashion statement...like a tatoo...we're back and we're bad...........:)
Avgas wrote: » I didn't realise Manic was over there with actual Tanks....:)
BostonB wrote: » MBT in Irag and Afghanistan have come under heavy fire at times. Which suggests they don't always run away at the sight of them.
believe the Manic lad was a tank commander in Iraq before he took a trip to A'Stan?
Manic Moran wrote: » This is true. But unless they come specifically prepared with a plan to deal with tanks, which is rare enough (Outside of ineffective IEDs, it only happened once to our company in 11 months) a tank's arrival tends to cause things to quiet down: Either by the enemy running away, (usually) or the enemy getting blown up (Occasionally). Manic, you'll probably find this deeply annoying....... which is not what I mean.......but why do you say "ineffective IEDs"? I've no disagreement with your overall point that the Tank is the meanest piece of kit any insurgent anywhere will generally avoid and that they have a calming effect as you describe. However, dreaded Wikipedia suggests that around 80 Abrams have been "forced out of action" (doesn't say lost/written off mind you) and the majority of these by IEDs.........I know a few kills were by RPGs in the rear...... [BTW it should go without saying RIP to all concerned] Just I thoughT the EFP and supersized type IEDs WERE actually a v. serious threat to Abrams crews and that at one stage some insurgent teams were targeting Abrams for a propaganda trophy kill...the way Hezbollah have targeted Merks....? ..... Maybe the story is more nuanced or I've got it all wrong (again)?
don18 wrote: » we dont have any mbts because they are no good in irish terrain...
delancey42 wrote: » I thought the reason was the chronic underfunding of defence spending here .
