It’s for when rubber bullets won’t be enough against these folks.
Posted on 09/04/2025 12:23:16 PM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The United Kingdom’s new Challenger 3 is a technologically impressive and formidable main battle tank, but the decision to procure only 148 units renders the fleet “patently inadequate” for its strategic needs. This small, “brittle” force lacks the numbers and depth required to sustain heavy combat operations, honor NATO commitments in Eastern Europe, or project power effectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
The don’t have any sea lift capability so why bother.
L
It’s for when rubber bullets won’t be enough against these folks.
“Why do they even need tanks? “
Target practice for the Russians in Ukraine.
The US was going to build over 30 Zumwalt destroyers. Very high tech. Very impressive. Main weapon is an Advanced Gun System that is really remarkable. We spent a ton of money, decided to stop after building 3 of them. And the ammunition for the Advanced Gun System is far too expensive, so we don’t fire them. We just sail around a little bit. It’s great.
The MiG 15s are not there to fight F-16s
Russia is utilizing older Soviet-era T-62 and T-72 main battle tanks, along with some T-80s and T-90s, in Ukraine, having lost a significant portion of its more modern fleet to Ukrainian forces. The use of older tanks, some dating back to the 1960s, indicates Russia’s reliance on reserves and derelict storage to replace heavy losses in modern equipment.
https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+tanks+in+ukraine
Can they fit thru the Chunnel?..................
I’m surprised they can still build anything related to war.
“The MiG 15s are not there to fight F-16s”
They have MIG-29s for that!
The US was going to build 750 F-22 fighters (1985). Reduced multiple times, first to 648, then to 339, and later to 183 by 2004. 195 were built in total (187 delivered to the Air Force), with the final jet delivered in 2012.
We built 1/4 of the original plan.
> but the decision to procure only 148 units <
That number actually concerns me. Right now the British Army has more horses than tanks. How will they manage that delicate horse-to-tank balance?
Will they add more horses?
Or will they retire older tanks?
🤔
The Brits had to build the Challenger 3 in order to maintain their armor industrial base, and then put it into service in order not to lose the military expertise. Otherwise, the Brits would have lost the capability in case events take a bad turn. Now that they have, the Brits are embarrassed to recognize that the level of force the bought is not enough combat power to be worth deploying.
“The British Army’s Challenger 3 Tank Mistake Still Stings”
the good news is that the UK can use the savings to give free housing in ritzy hotels to even more mooselimb invaders ...
They will drive them through the chunnel? But seriously folks, they won’t have enough tank drivers to mobilize a sufficient force because most of the men of warfighting age won’t be drafted because of conscientious objector status on religious grounds. Not that their religion is against fighting, but that it is against fighting for the Crown.
They’ll do what the British always do. Sucker someone else into fighting for them.
Hey - they’ve committed to boots on the ground in Ukraine - as soon as
there is a cease.fire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.