Off-topic/General chat for Britain

[TD_SEB]

Im guessing its talking about this one

[warhead_beast]

yes

[Tim_TeaDrinker]

Great news, a marathon in ground battles can be held on Lancaster)))

[Morvran]

https://youtube.com/shorts/_fkXiQ_v568?si=LRzy51B3SGTlnCtF

So who is writing the bug report for this missing feature

[Mytho-GR1]

when you win sometimes your crew do say put the kettle on

[Tim_TeaDrinker]

I am interested in talking about the development of the British tank industry. Why did Britain decide they didn’t need fast, lightly armored, high-caliber carriers?

How you can see that
Russia (Sprut-SD)
USA (striker)
Germany (Lynx 120mm)
Sweden (cv90120)
Italy (Centauro 120)
Japan (Type 16)
China with their prototypes

But why did Britain refuse to develop something like this? Do they even think about the mainers of the British branch of development?

[Crazed_Otter]

I feel I can probably answer your question.

‘Light Tanks’ were a bit of a dead end as far as British AFV use was concerned in WW2. Yes, you had the popular Honey/Stuart but that was used as a well-armed recce vehicle rather than a ‘tank’.

So post war they go for wheeled recce. Wheels are fast. Wheels enable you to sneak around. Wheels are also easier to maintain. Hence the Ferret etc. Since the prime role is gathering information rather than getting into a fight, weaponry was limited - probably as much to stop the crew from getting any ideas as anything else.

CVRT is where they decide to dial up the firepower a bit with the various versions.

I believe the British approach was thus - if you’re going to the expense and logistical headaches of making a tracked vehicle you might as well go the whole hog and make it an MBT with the armour, etc. Hence Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger and so on were made without a ‘light’ tank-gun-armed counterpart.

This has more or less continued to the modern era. If you need a tank-calibre weapon - you call up the Armoured Farmers in their CR2s. Most lesser threats would be handled by IFV weaponry, ATGM teams and/or the Army Air Corps. The latter (Helicopters) being far more rapid response than even the fastest Stryker, etc.

If you REALLY want something to go away you call upon the RAF to visit His Majesty’s Wrath upon whatever urchin you wish to dispose of. (Brimstone applied directly to forehead).

Just my 2p worth.

[Tim_TeaDrinker]

Of course, I agree with most of it. But I’m just wondering, now all countries have sharply bet on this type of equipment, but Britain did not even think to put 120mm on ajax))

Either Britain’s defense industry is very lazy or very calculating. Because Britain has been using CVR and Warrior so far and is not in a hurry to replace them at all. And now it turns out that armored vehicles are not effective at all, because the means of counteraction are much superior to armored vehicles)))

[IronVanguard]

Do we know the current state of the Black Night prototype? I doubt that the equipment installed on it has been dismantled

[DevilO6]

Well, its gone afaik
Plate on it is DR 12 AA, you can try tracing it if you want

[FlyingOstridge]

Lightweight Multirole Missile for Stormer HVM - Slower but Surer

poll Alvis Stormer HVM is a vehicle known for firing a unique in its design Starstreak missile. However, the 3 darted menace is not the only missile that the Stormer can threaten its enemies with. There is another one, a missile that is as deadly to ground targets, as it is to the air targets. Introducing Lightweight Multirole Missile Every great thing has its start, so let me explain its development to you.

The Lightweight Multirole Missile was initially conceived as Thales’ response to th…

[Crazed_Otter]

I think you do still need a tank for when tank-stuff needs doing - that need of a big armoured box that can route around with a big gun won’t disappear any time soon. However if you have £X billion to spend on armour - do you…

a) Spend a decent chunk of it on a fire-support-vehicle. Not a tank and thus not able to do all the tank things. You might need to buy a tank later to cover that gap in capability.

b) Spend your money on a tank. Which can do fire-support as well as all the other tank-type things.

Some states obviously see the need to go for a bit of option A and a bit of option B. Other nations are happy to stick with one or the other. Britain falls into the latter option - probably a reasonably sensible one given the limited pot of money the Army has access to relative to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

[Tim_TeaDrinker]

Wtf? Centurion T-64BV???

[Mytho-GR1]

i cant find info on it but it seems real

[FlyingOstridge]

Unlike something else cough cough

[Mytho-GR1]

its a vismod
like what the M1 KVT is in game

[FlyingOstridge]

I was thinking more along the lines of the Ukrainian Challenger 2.

[Tim_TeaDrinker]

I didn’t find anything either, but there are a lot of photos, and from different angles

[llSolitairell]

@Tim_TeaDrinker

Of course, I agree with most of it. But I’m just wondering, now all countries have sharply bet on this type of equipment, but Britain did not even think to put 120mm on ajax))

Either Britain’s defense industry is very lazy or very calculating. Because Britain has been using CVR and Warrior so far and is not in a hurry to replace them at all. And now it turns out that armored vehicles are not effective at all, because the means of counteraction are much superior to armored vehicles)))

The MoD is neither lazy nor calculating

just cheap, though that’s not entirely their fault: the explanation risks running a little to political, though if you want to play a small game try to find years where rumours weren’t swirling of something being scrapped to save costs from the tank fleet, the AH-64s to the Royal Navy.

Warrior and CVR were supposed to be replaced by AJAX something like a decade ago but the entire thing kept hitting problems and delays. There wasn’t really any urgency to replace anything with the end of the Cold War.

[Mytho-GR1]

no clearly i was on about something else