Lord Jim wrote:harks back to the days when they were responsible for the Army's dedicated Anti Tank units.
Quite right. Or even further back, when the US tanks were developed as infantry support tanks (up to Sherman) and the more effective ones belonged to artillery
- evidenced by the fact that when the fight was where not expected, in the Ardennes, it became the only main engagement in Europe where the effective kill distances by US forces surpassed those of the opposing German tanks. Simply because most of the "tanks" that happened to be there were with artillery and had more potent guns on them
Lord Jim wrote:All of the above show how the Army has seen the least investment of the three services.
Lord Jim wrote: with the lion's share of funding going to the hugely expensive highly complex programmes run by the Navy and Air Force
You can't look at equipment budgets in isolation. For sure RAF/ RN are more capital intensive and army more manpower intensive... it is the nature of 'things'. The ultimate example is the deterrent: relative to the huge upfront cost, cheap to run (until renewal comes around... as it does).
Lord Jim wrote:The Army need to re focus on top tier high intensity warfare purchasing equipment that is both effective in the this but able to be used in less hostile environments. Boxer is the key
RunningStrong wrote: for the mid term (full AJAX fleet, CR2 LEP, MIV, WCSP, MRVP part 1 and 2) then you're looking at about £10Bn
There's more than that for AFVs in the EP; it is the bunching up that gives the problem.
mr.fred wrote:I could see a use for the short range weapons on a turret, especially when armour is used in complex terrain, and I wouldn’t put much faith in the CT40
Quite. Nort German plains is the past, the boreal forest to the North and East the present. In the latter the effective engagement distances average 400 meters.
mr.fred wrote:look to the Israeli and Russian concepts where the infantry vehicle uses many of the same systems and components as the MBT.