Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/7/2009
Posts: 221
Points: 647
Location: Mansfield
|
|
Rank: Warlord member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/14/2009
Posts: 3,211
Points: 8,046
Location: Rugby
|
It's just another nail in this countries coffin.
Shame on the government and hope that this is just a press error. Thanks for the heads up Steelers
Place in ground, keep at arms length, light the blue touch paper and stand back!
|
Rank: Warlord member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/6/2009
Posts: 1,433
Points: 2,894
Location: 19th Century Lincolnshire - well it feels like it!
|
No shock or surprise here - we don't make anything anymore. we have become a country of finishers instead of the once great workshop of the world.
|
Rank: Special Forces member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/10/2009
Posts: 711
Points: 2,042
Location: England
|
I think of the uncyclopedia article when I see this, where it said all British people work in call centres - it's almost true.
Still, only MBTs will be stopped, not light tanks. I think the Warrior IFV with 40mm has potential, also the ACAVP. What I'd have is a Light tank based on the Scorpion, with the Centurion AVREs 165mm gun.
To be honest though, I can see the point in scrapping Brit MBTs - I think they're obsolete, the reasons:
Their competitor would be the T-95, against which, they'd have no chance (?...)
The RPG-29 took out a Challenger 2 from the front. Light tanks with spaced armour may now be better.
The rifled gun is obolete against modern tanks, yes it was good against the T-55, but that was a WW2 design. The Rheinmetal 120mm is the standard NATO gun, the Abrams uses it, so too should the British - as its better and in the interests of standardisation. Dont forget that the British 105mm L7 was the best and so became standard. If Britain makes crap, no-one will buy it. It's like the Austin Allegro vs the VW Golf MKI. This is partly the arsehole Governments fault yes, but also British workers, Red Robbo types and those who do not want to do a good job. Management and designers more concerned with Powwerpoint presentations and CAD than intelligent design. Appraisal commitees that get bribed etc.
British tanks have become underpowered - the Meteor in later Centurions, Leyland in the Cheiftain, the Rolls in the Challenger and the Perkins in the Challenger 2. The MTU is by far the best IMO. I always wondered why the Centurion and Chieftain didn't use the Continental AVS 1790, as the Israeli one did?
I suppose this NIH hampers Brit tanks now as much as it did the Germans and Yanks in WW2 (with the Panther and M36 Jackson and Sherman 76mm).
However, they may be necessary against Korea and Iran (Zulfiquar), if it kicks off. I think the Abrams wont have such an easy time against that one, though the Devonshire armour might come in handy.
I always thought a Eurotank was a good idea. The Eurofighter is flawed yes, but hear this:
Britain makes the hull, turret & Armour (Next-gen Chobham/Devonshire) - this would allow the factories to stay.
Germany makes the engine (MTU).
France does the complex bits - the AMX40(?) has some great features.
The Challenger has some interesting features - Hydragas suspension, for eg, but perhaps hydropneumatic is better? The Frnch are the experts in this, and the Leopard is Hydropneumatic IIRC.
There could be differences in ammo - bagged for Brit, Autoloader for French, manual for German & Yank etc, but all using the basic design.
I know the MBT 70 didn't work, but it had potential and a combined Abrams/Leopard would be great.
|