Main Battle Tanks for the DF

Maskhadov

In order to fully complete any armoured division that the DF wants to deploy as part of the ERF it really needs to purchase a number of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

I think they should go for the leopard

Hagar

Thread title edited for clarity.

This is very like your Cavalry thread that you started just minutes before?

Maskhadov

I wanted to seperate the two out so I put up another thread. Heavy armour is a unique role that any self contained battle group should have. Nothing else can break down enemy defences. In addition many new variant are specially for MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) and peacekeeping. It can also be used for buldozing, recce, survellance, and riot control.

FiSe

I think this is only highly "what if..." thread. But...
Why Leopard? Why not LeClerc or Challenger? Or let's say Korean, Brazilian or Russian machines?

Manic Moran

FiSe wrote:

I think this is only highly "what if..." thread. But...
Why Leopard? Why not LeClerc or Challenger? Or let's say Korean, Brazilian or Russian machines?

Challenger is, as far as I know, no longer being offered for export sale.

Brazil has been out of the tank business for years. The EET-1 Osorio was a nice try, but nobody bought it. Engesa declared bankruptcy in 1993, I think it's out of the armour business entirely now.

I just know we have had tank threads on this board in the past. My opinions are stated there, as are those of other persons.

NTM

Maskhadov

I would just stick to the western equipment.

Challenger
Leopard
Abrams

I dont think the LeClerc or the spanish mbt cuts it.

Not really a what if seeing that the DF has signed up to the ERRF.

Hagar

We have indeed had tank threads before, we should however not deny people who are new to the forum the opportunity to put forward their views.

If there are any new opinions or perhaps recent equipment developments to discuss fire away, otherwise the thread will just fade into obscurity for lack of input.

Nature has a way of taking care of these things.

micdug

Maskhadov wrote:

In order to fully complete any armoured division that the DF wants to deploy as part of the ERF it really needs to purchase a number of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

I presume you mean the ERRF (European Rapid Reaction Force). Why? The ERRF is for rapid deployment to stabilise and provide peace keeping/peace enforcement. Tank brigades would be unsuitable and too slow to deploy. We have cavalry Mowags with 30mm cannon which are more than sufficient and air deployable. The day of the MBT is long over, and would be an unnecessary expense.

magick

leopard ftw great power to weight ratio

Manic Moran

micdug wrote:

I presume you mean the ERRF (European Rapid Reaction Force). Why? The ERRF is for rapid deployment to stabilise and provide peace keeping/peace enforcement. Tank brigades would be unsuitable and too slow to deploy. We have cavalry Mowags with 30mm cannon which are more than sufficient and air deployable. The day of the MBT is long over, and would be an unnecessary expense.

I don't think anyone's advocating entire brigades of the things. Just enough to get people's attention. They have quite a use for peacekeeping, as various nations have started to figure out.




(Breaks the page)
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4127/dfst9804790fu5.jpg

And that's before you get to the green ones such as IFOR/KFOR.

NTM

AbusesToilets

I think of the 3 main western ones mentioned above,it would make more sense to go with the more battle proven platforms such as the Abrams and Challenger.Were the DF to go for an MBT it would need to invest into the capabilities to depoly such an asset.I don't have any knowledge of the DF's transport capabilities but i know that Europe wide,there is certainly a lack of a heavy lift air capacity.Which kind of calls into question the usefullness of the ERRF in the first place.

Judt

I think the German's are offering the Leopards cheap.

Still, what do we need with MBT's? We're a light infantry force. If someone else wants to bring tanks, let them. They wouldn't even be particularly useful in a QRF role - have you seen half the roads in Liberia, for example?

And where would we train with them? Ireland is too boggy in the bits of open countryside, MBT's tear it up and the Brits for example use a huge chunk of Canada when they really want to have a go with their tanks.

Affordability? We'd have to pay for the tanks, the recovery vehicles, the munitions, the fuel (if you think a Humvee guzzles it up...) etc.

What do you get for all of this?

Some nice shiny tanks for the Easter Parade. No use for them in our army.

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

Still, what do we need with MBT's? We're a light infantry force. If someone else wants to bring tanks, let them.

The issue is that of self-reliance. If an Irish patrol calls in of an Irish headquarters "Hey, we could use a tank here", you know an Irish tank and crew would do its damndest to get to where his compatriots had asked for the help. There is no such guarantee when you are relying on other nations, they may have their own priorities or restrictions. The Dutch reliance on French air cover at Srebenicze should be an excellent case in point.

NTM

Maskhadov

A tank is one of the most armoured vechicles available to an army. Their uses are numerous. Purchasing them would not be expensive and would make any RRF self sufficent.

Mick86

Maskhadov wrote:

In order to fully complete any armoured division that the DF wants to deploy as part of the ERF it really needs to purchase a number of Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

I think they should go for the leopard

I don't want to rain on your parade but the entire DF would have great difficulty in forming a division of any sorts let alone an armoured one.

On top of that our ERF commitment is and will forever be one infantry battalion.

micdug

Manic Moran wrote:

The issue is that of self-reliance. If an Irish patrol calls in of an Irish headquarters "Hey, we could use a tank here", you know an Irish tank and crew would do its damndest to get to where his compatriots had asked for the help. There is no such guarantee when you are relying on other nations, they may have their own priorities or restrictions. The Dutch reliance on French air cover at Srebenicze should be an excellent case in point.NTM

Except the tank would be 2000 Miles away in the Curragh because it was too difficult to transport, supply and maintain.

micdug

Maskhadov wrote:

A tank is one of the most armoured vechicles available to an army. Their uses are numerous. Purchasing them would not be expensive and would make any RRF self sufficent.

Purchasing and maintaining them would be extremely expensive. If we needed transport capability alone it would cost $800 to buy 4 Globemaster III's to transport 1 Tank each at a time to any potential warzone. It's not just the sticker price - it's the entire cost to maintain and deploy.

The Australians bought some Abrahms and found big difficulties transporting them - this in a flat desert like country!
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20460399-2,00.html

Judt

The issue is that of self-reliance. If an Irish patrol calls in of an Irish headquarters "Hey, we could use a tank here", you know an Irish tank and crew would do its damndest to get to where his compatriots had asked for the help. There is no such guarantee when you are relying on other nations, they may have their own priorities or restrictions. The Dutch reliance on French air cover at Srebenicze should be an excellent case in point.

NTM

At the end of the day when you're operating an army of 8,500 souls, combined arms isn't a realistic prospect. We have to rely on other nations to fill in our gaps, so long as we keep on being good at what we're doing. MBT's are too expensive, we have nowhere to train on them, we can't deploy our own infantry battalion without having to thumb down a lift, let alone tanks... Etc etc. In an ideal world the Irish army would be 50,000 strong, have combined arms galore and be able to get itself anywhere in the world in 24 hours. At the end of the day that's neither feasible, nor do we particularly need the capability.

A tank is one of the most armoured vechicles available to an army. Their uses are numerous. Purchasing them would not be expensive and would make any RRF self sufficent.

About €5 million per tank to buy, then you have to purchase all the extras - recovery vehicles, spare parts galore (tanks go through em), petrol to run them, etc etc. Then you have to find space to train in them - Ireland's terrain is unsuitable, and because they tear the place up you need a huge, wide-open expanse of space. We're on a small island. So chalk up more money to train overseas.

Then we need the men for them. The tank crew, the training cadre and - more importantly - the support crew of mechanics and so forth. Probably have to give a dedicated engineering company to them as well, for putting in the infrastructure you need for the tanks overseas - everything from mechanics shops to shoring up some roads and bridges for them (not a very rapid reaction force if you come across a not-stern-enough-bridge versus your 60 ton tank.)

Then we need to deploy them. As is noted in this thread, one globemaster per tank, thankyouverymuch. At least a couple of merchant ships, with a port on the other end to offload them (how is Monrovia's ports these days? I hope they have some pretty big cranes, or would we have to purchase, maintain and move those ourselves?)

Then you have to get them to your battle. As I've stated already, these are things that are moved on trains and the back of big trucks wherever possible because they tear the roads up, and bad roads their them up (their tracks, specifically.) So we're operating a QRF with tanks that have an operational range of 500KM tops on rough terrain (we're in the back end of Africa at the moment, not driving down the Autobahn on the way to Berlin) at a top speed of 65KM/h, but in reality much, much slower - go too fast on a firm road, let alone a back road and you make it impassible to other vehicles. Plus you have to secure supply lines for all their fuel, spare parts and ammunition if you actually get into a battle - a 37.4 liter tank on a leopard tank, phwor, even if you didn't have to pay for it that's a lot of fuel to shift down the road, better give them a dedicated S&T company, too, and a security company on top of that for them too... A platoon, if you're cutting corners... And, in fact, you'd need to double up on everything because we can't keep the same folks overseas forever. Forget about it all during the wet season, of course. Tanks don't react well to mud (ask the Germans), and it'd almost be a case of the mules eating all the food by the time the trucks get the supplies through to the tanks.

And then when you get them to your battle, what do you have? A 105mm - 155mm gun on a highly armoured vehicle mainly designed to kill other tanks. How many T-90's have we been coming across lately? We expecting to go to war with the Soviet's any time soon?

You'd be better off buying those 105's-ona-MOWAG as has been suggested. MBT's are designed to kill other MBT's. If you want to take out a machinegun emplacement, using a tank is the equivalent of getting a four year old to try and lift a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

MBT's are, if we're serious, a wet dream for the Walters out there and nothing else as far as the Irish Defence Forces are concerned.

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

About €5 million per tank to buy, then you have to purchase all the extras - recovery vehicles, spare parts galore (tanks go through em), petrol to run them, etc etc.

Comments about the absolute cost of a squadron of tanks are quite correct, but I think the relative cost is overstated.

Consider the CVR(T)s. There are all of, what, 14 of the things? Yet the DF still had to train the mechanics to service the engines, buy spare wheels which only those 14 vehicles could use, the spare tracks which only those 14 vehicles could use, spare engine components for only those 14 vehicles, transmission components and so on and so forth. Ditto the half-dozen PC-9s, and anything else that is complicated which the DF have only bought a small amount of. Training a hull mechanic to maintain and service the diesel on a MOWAG isn't going to cost a hell of a lot less than training him to maintain and service the diesel on a Leopard. Really, the background costs incurred in going for an MBT as opposed to something lighter like a CV-90 (As suggested elsewhere) aren't all that different. The up-front sticker price per unit is going to get noticed, yes.

On operations, again, you can look for commonality between users. Look at all the countries that Ireland traditionally seems to go on peacekeeping operations with: Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada.. They all use Leopard 2s. Some form of shared infrastructure support could well keep the relative costs down. (Many of these countries also use CV-90, if you really must have something smaller)

Then you have to find space to train in them

Since I think it’s accepted that Ireland will never need to conduct a Brigade Mechanised Exercise, you don’t exactly need the dry deserts of NTC or the wide open plains of BATUS. Look at some of the other small users of Leopards, for example. You can’t be more than half an hour from the sea in Denmark so large areas are probably at a premium. Yet they seem to have room for 60 MBTs. Holland, being somewhat soggier than most places, probably even Ireland, has 220 of the things. And Switzerland, having no open plains at all that I’m aware of, and probably a lot of bridges, has nearly 400 Leo2s. Ireland is quite tankable, particularly if your primary focus in training is infantry/armor co-op in the peacekeeping environment.

Then we need to deploy them. As is noted in this thread, one globemaster per tank, thankyouverymuch.

When the Dutch wanted to move their 55-ton howitzers to Afghanistan, they asked the US for a lift. There are pictures of Irish soldiers getting on US Air Force transports to get to the Congo. Or if you really must, you can rent an AN-124 for a couple of days. Iarnroid Eireann could do it to fly a 90-ton locomotive around, so I don't see why the Army couldn't.

Then you have to get them to your battle <snip>

Yet despite all the possible issues you mention, other countries are thinking it worthwhile to go through those hassles and are sending their 50-60 ton tanks out and about in UN White. Why?

And then when you get them to your battle, what do you have? A 105mm - 155mm gun on a highly armoured vehicle mainly designed to kill other tanks. How many T-90's have we been coming across lately? We expecting to go to war with the Soviet's any time soon?

The same question applies to countries which have already sent their tanks out and about. Although admittedly the French in Lebanon might have some Israeli armour in mind. However, with proper ammo such as the Swedish HE round, today's average tank is quite capable of dealing with anything likely to be found on the Irish scene. Plus a tank has a most definite psychological effect which lesser vehicles do not have, even 30-ton ones like Bradleys, and surely you will agree that in peacekeeping, the ability to affect people without shooting them is more desireable than the ability to obliterate them.

MBT's are designed to kill other MBT's.

With the exception of Abrams and earlier Leopard 2s which could rely on Bradleys and Marders, both of which are undergoing capability changes as a result of lessons recently re-learned, a common misconception. A tank is designed to support infantry, which is a role it has had since it first trundled onto the battlefield back in 1916. It is to be noted that the standard T-XX ammunition loadout is some 70% HE, and the British have been reluctant to move from the rifle because of the capabilities of the rifle-only HESH round.

NTM

Judt

Comments about the absolute cost of a squadron of tanks are quite correct, but I think the relative cost is overstated.

A dollar spent is a dollar spent, and even if it only cost us a tenner a tank you'd still have to justify it if we could buy a lighter, easier to use, maintain and employ vehicles for the same money, or less - less overall, I would say, given the support requirements.

On operations, again, you can look for commonality between users. Look at all the countries that Ireland traditionally seems to go on peacekeeping operations with: Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada.. They all use Leopard 2s. Some form of shared infrastructure support could well keep the relative costs down. (Many of these countries also use CV-90, if you really must have something smaller)

In order for Ireland to deploy its shiny new tanks we'd need to reach agreement with a couple of other countries, so? I can see that working well.

Training:
These other countries train in Germany and so on, don't they? But I accept that yes, finding space to train with the tanks is not an impossible thing. But I'm giving you the overall argument against MBT's which I'll sum up below.

When the Dutch wanted to move their 55-ton howitzers to Afghanistan, they asked the US for a lift. There are pictures of Irish soldiers getting on US Air Force transports to get to the Congo. Or if you really must, you can rent an AN-124 for a couple of days.

You'd probably not use air transport, I would guess, as it's inefficient on all but the speed count. Then you have the ports issue. But if you did use that solution, great, we've just bought another heavy piece of kit we have to thumb down a lift for. If we're not discerning enough to figure out what's overkill on a mission, then the people paying to put us there might tell us to sod off with our tanks. Particularly nowadays, when even the US is using a lot of its air transport capabilities on a daily basis itself, let alone being able to spare a squadron or two to go lift our jollies.

Yet despite all the possible issues you mention, other countries are thinking it worthwhile to go through those hassles and are sending their 50-60 ton tanks out and about in UN White. Why?

More money than us? Less sense? Sure a MBT is a scary thing to be able to put into the field. I agree, if you want to kill something then there's SFA better to be using. What I'm also saying, as my key point, is that for all you have to invest to get a few tanks in the field - sticker price, running costs, the extra troops to support them etc etc etc - you're not gaining enough economy to justify it.

To put a handful of tanks into a UN mission we'd need an extra battalion, minimum, in order to have the crews and the support staff, x2 (at least, though I'd want to have no family life to be deploying every 6 months with the Irish Armoured Corps). For that we put a half a dozen tanks into the field in a major engagement (of which we see many and are likely to see even more in the future, yes?) and we're either down on actual infantry manpower, or we're down on budget, so our tanks are s*** hot, but our infantry aren't there for the follow-through.

The MBT's don't justify every hoop you have to go through to own them - hoops magnified in their problems due to the small size of our army. If we needed MBT's then I'd tell you "Jump the hoops." But we don't. We're a light infantry force that can do our job - and do it better, even - without MBT's.

As I say, MBT's are for people who imagine us fighting big battles like Fallujah or similar, and see us fighting them as the US does. If we need MBT's then we need a squadron of A-10's (or better), self-propelled artillery and heck, we can enlarge our army and actually use it as a tool of foreign policy and go kick some arse without the ascent of the UN. Hooah. Great dream, I'm sure, but not going to happen.

Bearing in mind all the logistical headaches:
1. We don't go into the type of engagements where MBT's are critical to success
2. In the situations where they'd be nice and handy, we have cheaper, lighter alternatives that even do the job better (a MBT is no good if it can't drive down the road to the battle....)
3. If we did get into a real shooting match where MBT's were critical or just handy, the government would have Irish troops running back to the Curragh before you can say "Jadotville."

At the end of the day, we're a small army that does light infantry jobs. Tanks? Nice, but not for us.

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

A dollar spent is a dollar spent, and even if it only cost us a tenner a tank you'd still have to justify it if we could buy a lighter, easier to use, maintain and employ vehicles for the same money, or less - less overall, I would say, given the support requirements.

Which is the best argument for a MOWAG 105 as a compromise option. (I think 105 over 90mm as there are more ammo types and manufacturers around for it these days). That it's a good compromise option does not, however, detract from the validity of an operational need to have tanks. The primary stated reason for having the Scorpions is to retain the knowledge and capabilities of operating tracked vehicles. Evidently the Army thinks that there might yet be something to it. It's not as if the Scorpions are being used for operational purposes, is it?

In order for Ireland to deploy its shiny new tanks we'd need to reach agreement with a couple of other countries, so? I can see that working well.

No, I'm just suggesting it as a cost reduction possibility for operations.

These other countries train in Germany and so on, don't they?

Holland and Denmark might, all right, at least for the mechanised fight which nobody is seriously proposing for Ireland. I doubt Switzerland sends its tanks anywhere.

You'd probably not use air transport, I would guess, as it's inefficient on all but the speed count. Then you have the ports issue. But if you did use that solution, great, we've just bought another heavy piece of kit we have to thumb down a lift for.

This is not a change from the current situation anyway. The MOWAGS and everything else that Ireland brings around the globe aren't exactly being delivered in the back of the Air Corps CASA, neither are more than a couple delivered by the Naval Service. What's four more 60-ton tanks to a ship?

you're not gaining enough economy to justify it.

Well, what's the economy you're trying to get? There is nothing on the battlefield which has the same abilities to intimidate others, or if required, actively support an infantryman, both of which are useful attributes on Irish operations.

To put a handful of tanks into a UN mission we'd need an extra battalion, minimum, in order to have the crews and the support staff, x2 (at least, though I'd want to have no family life to be deploying every 6 months with the Irish Armoured Corps).

I think you overstate the issue. Ireland bought how many AML-90s? Yet they were still able to send a couple here and there when required. A squadron of vehicles is all you need. Same with the SISUs.

As I say, MBT's are for people who imagine us fighting big battles like Fallujah or similar, and see us fighting them as the US does.

Yet the three photos of white-painted tanks I linked to above were from Lebanon, Bosnia, and Somalia. All places where the Defense Forces have sent troops with the UN. Unless the Danes were somehow fighting Fallujah-like battles around the corner from the Irish troops and we missed it, they appear to disagree with you.

Bearing in mind all the logistical headaches:
1. We don't go into the type of engagements where MBT's are critical to success

Somewhat disagreed. Experience is showing that contrary to the former prevailing wisdom, MBTs are extremely useful at the low-intensity operations which Ireland primarily carries out.

2. In the situations where they'd be nice and handy, we have cheaper, lighter alternatives that even do the job better (a MBT is no good if it can't drive down the road to the battle....)

Nothing prevents a fight from starting in the first place, or finishes it if it starts by simply showing up and not shooting anything any better than an MBT. Yes, we all know the arguments about how a long 120mm is optimised for long range shooting, not close anti-infantry stuff where a 30mm is objectively better. This ignores the psychological effect a tank has which is far greater than that of a MOWAG or IFV. Yes, Liberia is not good tank country. The other places the Defense Forces have recently been; Lebanon, FRY, Eritrea are.

3. If we did get into a real shooting match where MBT's were critical or just handy, the government would have Irish troops running back to the Curragh before you can say "Jadotville."

If there were time for such a withdrawl. Again, other forces in the same UN missions as Ireland have found tanks suitable. I think a large part of the argument is post-facto justification: "We can't afford tanks, we have to make do without tanks, so we'll just pretend that we don't need them/want them for what we're doing right now"

NTM

newby.204

Ehem, dont need them, the cost:benefit ratio is way too high for the government to even consider!!!! Imagine the uproar if we bought mbt's with the state of the health service!!!!

Maskhadov

health ? what about all the money they are spending at the moment with little improvement.

40 - 50 tanks would be nothing to purchase. they would have to buy those truck transporters to move them around ireland and any overseas deployment would have to be done via ship probably. Hardly a major problem to deal with. The DF lands at the moment are too small for the APCs so nothing new there.

Could you deploy MBTs with the pirhana III (with a 30mm cannon ) in a convential armoured thrust ? Or do you really need the likes of the bradly ?

Judt

Ultimately it is that cost/benefit ratio. Looking at it from a purely logistical point of view (I don't need to wheel out the cliched sentence among present company) they don't stack up. Yes it would be nice to have MBT's, but not critical, and for the cost of doing the job it's not feasible.

As you say though, those 105 MOWAG's or similar might be a good middle of the road solution.

jmayo

After seeing this thread and previous ones on here about what the army/air corp should buy, I seriously believe some of the people posting must be about 10 years old.
Talking about Armoured Divisions and calling Army HQ to send MBTs to give patrols a dig out is cloud cuckoo land.
Who the hell are we going to be fighting, how the hell do we get there and who pays for it?
As a country we can't afford a large standing army with armoured divisions using MBTs and all that entails. Why do people always think that you just buy the weapon itself and they never appear to think of the logistics behind it?
If you want to discuss MBTs and armour divisions then fine, but can we get some grasp of reality.

OS119

Manic Moran wrote:

I think a large part of the argument is post-facto justification: "We can't afford tanks, we have to make do without tanks, so we'll just pretend that we don't need them/want them for what we're doing right now"

NTM

agree whole-heartedly, while there is is good reason to say 'this is what we want to do in support of our foriegn policy objectives, what tools do we need to execute that support?' there is also an awful lots of circular logic floating around. a "we only do small-scale, uncontested, safe peacekeeping where we can piggy-back on others logistics, air support and armour because we only have a small defence force", and "because we only have a small defence force so we can only do small-scale, uncontested, safe peacekeeping where we can piggy-back on others logistics, air support and armour"

having very small small defence forces that only go to the most benign peacekeeping operations (and the circular, self-fullfilling prophesy that keeps it that way) is a very convenient way for the Irish political class to avoid nasty, hard political decisions about taking part in conflicts, it also allows a somewhat disjointed view - and a very politically convenient one - of the wealth of the Irish economy compared to its european friends/competitors. you can walk the streets and see the same roads, buildings and infrastructure that you would in any western european state and judge that you are as wealthy as they are - which is great for the political class, yet its not a true reflection as the other western european states, as well as having the same roads, buildings, public transport and health services as Ireland, also bear the costs of credible military capabilities.

Kosovo was about as benign as any credible peacekeeping operation has been, yet many participants saw the need for, and provided, MBT's to allow their forces to complete their PK tasks most effectively. the Germans, Canadians, French, Brits, Americans, everyone on that op saw MBT's as an inherant part of the PK's toolbox - and used them to ensure that brick-throwing demo's didn't turn into something much worse, and if it did to stop said unpleasentness in its tracks (pun).

the requirement for such operations was the closest possible infantry/armour co-operation - an infantry platoon operating with a 62 tonne tank requires very careful management - just is not possible when they belong to different armies, especially different armies with radically different operating doctrines, training regimes and languages.

Judt

OS119, what foreign policy objectives would those be again? Our military is not a tool of foreign policy beyond lending some credence to us being on the UN security council every once in a blue moon. It's not a tool as how, say, France, Britain or the US would use it.

Frankly, we don't need a big military and we don't need to go kicking down doors overseas. Now I'd say that we could do with growing more of a pair so that we could go to the "dangerous" places like Darfur when we're really needed, not when it has all calmed down. But I'm still only talking about having <1,000 troops overseas at any one time.

The people dreaming of Ireland having a big military are in a different world to the rest of us. And that's the way it should be - we're a small, neutral nation that contributes a lot more in real monetary terms than we do by putting boots on the ground. We can put some on the ground, and there is scope for them to do a lot more good than they currently do. But, frankly, we don't need 55,000 troops and a whole bunch of MBT's and suchlike - IE a big military. And in the context of our small military, such kit would be prohibitive to our wider operations, on a logistical front.

OS119

Judt wrote:

OS119, what foreign policy objectives would those be again? Our military is not a tool of foreign policy beyond lending some credence to us being on the UN security council every once in a blue moon. It's not a tool as how, say, France, Britain or the US would use it.

Frankly, we don't need a big military and we don't need to go kicking down doors overseas. Now I'd say that we could do with growing more of a pair so that we could go to the "dangerous" places like Darfur when we're really needed, not when it has all calmed down. But I'm still only talking about having <1,000 troops overseas at any one time.

The people dreaming of Ireland having a big military are in a different world to the rest of us. And that's the way it should be - we're a small, neutral nation that contributes a lot more in real monetary terms than we do by putting boots on the ground. We can put some on the ground, and there is scope for them to do a lot more good than they currently do. But, frankly, we don't need 55,000 troops and a whole bunch of MBT's and suchlike - IE a big military. And in the context of our small military, such kit would be prohibitive to our wider operations, on a logistical front.

i wouldn't dissagree on principle with anything you've written, its just that actual experience has shown that MBT's make peacekeeping operations more effective - and are a much more effective buy than CVR(T) that has a similar annual budget yet does nothing in operational terms.

maintaining and operating 24 MBT's isn't, in logistical terms, that much different to maintaing 14 CVR(T)'s. more expensive certainly, but at the moment Ireland pours money into a CVR(T) black hole, yet gets nothing for it.

there's no need for a 55k strong army, but what there is a need for is a battalion-group sized force that is capable of going to a semi-permissive area and being relatively self-sufficient while carrying out its task - say Darfur for instance.

there is no reason why a 10,000 strong army belonging to a first world nation cannot provide a battalion group of 650 infantry, 120 gunners in a mobile artillery battery, 120 engineers, 120 loggies, 120 cavalry in a MBT SQN and enough support helicopters to keep the whole thing moving on a 6 months on, 6 months off basis - in that Ireland provides said BG to the UN/EU for 6 months of the year. i accept that providing one on a constant basis is a bit much at the moment, though to be fair the economies of scale mean that going from a deployment every six months to a constant deployment isn't that much of a jump.

testicle

I think perhaps that the image i posted in the Cavalry thread is more suited to here.

jmayo

nice one ... testicle :-)
Maybe when the construction boom ends all the out of work builders can join the army and we can use the catepillar & komatsu drivers for the armoured divisions?

Judt

OS119, the reason why we have our light tanks is mainly the good old step-up doctrine we have, so that we can train on tanks when world war 3 breaks out. We don't need MBT's when we can tape a gun on top of our existing fleets of light vehicles. Yes a MBT is handy to scare someone, but at the end of the day you do need a while lot more to actually deploy and maintain and operate a handful overseas. That disadvantage far outweighs any advantages when they're a luxury, not a desperate requirement. Waltering indeed...