irish army mbt

OS119

BostonB wrote: »

Every deployment does not require MBTs, even for those countries that have them. Therefore there will always be opportunities, as there has been for decades.

absolutely, there will always be opportunities for constabulary-type, light-infantry role PK missions - the problem is that Ireland, like everyone else, doesn't just do PK ops for the goodness of them, it does them to gain international brownie points, and to test and develop its armed forces in a deployed, operational environment that increases the ability of those armed forces to perform their central role - warfighting.

if Ireland doesn't keep up with the cutting edge of european peacekeeping/peace enforcement, it will lose its (already scant) ability to operate with european forces (or, as disturbingly, on its own) when Ireland really needs to, it will lose out politically in europe by not being 'one of us' - only being able to do 'vanilla' PK ops and with the kind of partners one might not automaticly believe to be paragons of military efficiency.

OS119

iceage wrote: »

I think it was Manic Moron ...

someones looking for a ban!:D

petergfiffin

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

I accept he's primarily talking about keeping tank regiments rather than anything we would be looking at in this country but the general thrust seems to be the nature of warfare will continue to be primarily dismounted infantry (like Afghanistan) rather than large scale armour.

I accept the sight of an MBT rolling into town would tend to focus minds on a PK op but shouldn't a military like ours be really focusing on being light, (air) mobile and packing a heavy punch in a small package?

BostonB

OS119 wrote: »

absolutely, there will always be opportunities for constabulary-type, light-infantry role PK missions - the problem is that Ireland, like everyone else, doesn't just do PK ops for the goodness of them, it does them to gain international brownie points, and to test and develop its armed forces in a deployed, operational environment that increases the ability of those armed forces to perform their central role - warfighting.

if Ireland doesn't keep up with the cutting edge of european peacekeeping/peace enforcement, it will lose its (already scant) ability to operate with european forces (or, as disturbingly, on its own) when Ireland really needs to, it will lose out politically in europe by not being 'one of us' - only being able to do 'vanilla' PK ops and with the kind of partners one might not automaticly believe to be paragons of military efficiency.

What you saying is we need to keep up with the jones for brownies points.

Whereas its quite obvious we can't afford to. Even assuming we made good buying decisions which they usually don't.

I'd question that the central role is (or should be) warfighting. We never had the resources or the public/political mandate for that. Constabulary-type, light-infantry and special ops, we can do, and it makes sense to do. Because that also needs to be done.

BostonB

petergfiffin wrote: »

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

I accept he's primarily talking about keeping tank regiments rather than anything we would be looking at in this country but the general thrust seems to be the nature of warfare will continue to be primarily dismounted infantry (like Afghanistan) rather than large scale armour.

I accept the sight of an MBT rolling into town would tend to focus minds on a PK op but shouldn't a military like ours be really focusing on being light, (air) mobile and packing a heavy punch in a small package?

Well thats a bit misleading, while during the Gulf War, M2 Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi armored vehicles than the M1 Abrams. But the Abrams came into its own in urban security/ fighting where it can takes hits from RPGs and all sorts, wheres some of the troop carriers were quite vulnerable to that and mines. Same in Afghanistan.

So while massed tank battles seem unlikely there are still the meanest mother on the ground.

petergfiffin

BostonB wrote: »

But the Abrams came into its own in urban security/ fighting where it can takes hits from RPGs and all sorts, wheres some of the troop carriers were quite vulnerable to that and mines. Same in Afghanistan.

True but that was before the newer MRAP vehicles were available (or even existed in some cases), also it wasn't that Abrams were immune to RPGs just more resistant and many were destroyed also. The advantage of tanks is never really in question but I think for Ireland it will always be a case of trying to get the most out of the small amount of cash which is going to be made available for defence which is why I would never see MBTs being purchased for front line use as I don't think the cost could ever be justified.

BostonB wrote: »

So while massed tank battles seem unlikely there are still the meanest mother on the ground.

No argument there!! There is very little is going to come close for sheer psychological value

iceage

OS119 wrote: »

someones looking for a ban!:D

Trust you to spot that. In my defence check the time of my post and it was after a late steak dinner and a couple of bottles of good red wine.

Oh and a pint of fizzy Guinness....thats the one what did the damage your honor!:o






You reckon Manic Moran missed that?

gizmo555

petergfiffin wrote: »

Timely article on The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/richards_interview/) where the guy tipped to be the new head of the UK's armed forces has said "...modern warfare has now left the tank behind as surely as it has the horse."

Lewis Page, the author of the piece linked to, is ex-Royal Navy and wrote the excellent Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military .

(Loved the closing line of the article - Of course the cavalry's real job on the battlefield, as the Punch cartoon caption of long ago put it so well, is "to lend tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl")

concussion

gizmo555 wrote: »

(Loved the closing line of the article - Of course the cavalry's real job on the battlefield, as the Punch cartoon caption of long ago put it so well, is "to lend tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl")

That's an artillery quote, and it should be dignity, not tone.

gizmo555

concussion wrote: »

That's an artillery quote, and it should be dignity, not tone.

He's a sailor, probably doesn't know the difference between cavalry & artillery . . . .

iceage

Ubique Que fas et gloria ducunt.

concussion

Be at the bursting doors of doom and in the darkness, deliver us.

Pyr0

Manic Moran wrote: »

What role does Ireland undertake that tanks are inappropriate? Let's look at some places Ireland has gone...

Peacekeeping in Kosovo?


Peacekeeping in Bosnia?


Peacekeeping in Lebanon?


Peacekeeping in Somalia?


MBTs provide a unique capability which no other asset can provide.

NTM

Is it just me or does the Danish battle tank look a lot like a King Tiger ?

Avgas

If the debate is moving on to whether Ireland needs MBTs... (because I think most people are conceding just how useful some are even on deceptively so called light PK missions)......then I think a dose of realism is called for....

There will NEVER be a purchase of MBTs....in the near or far future ...given budgetary constraints.......and sadly just for image reasons alone....public perception being what it is...no minister would be happy to sign off on buying the army tanks at 3-10m Euro a go at a time when 400,000+ are unemployed.

HOWEVER ..... the Irish military could play a 'long game' viz procurement.....and begin now making a case for heavy tracked surplus/second hand mechanized infantry combat vehicles.....I'm thinking these could be be bought or leased -say a dozen or two dozen-from either the USA/Canada (modified M113s) or more interesting perhaps from Sweden....a lease of some CV90s.....

While NOT a tank of course...if up armoured and up gunned.. [crucial if] perhaps they would have some 'force projection' capabilities and good anti-IED potential by better off road/track mobility.....

It could be that for FIBUA...where the Tank has now rediscovered a role for itself arguably.....the same job could be undertaken by a heavy tracked MICV with say one of those new mortar systems [AMOS] in 120mm.....which to lay-man [me:D] look sorta scary and quite like a tank gun at low elevation and indeed it can do direct fires of HEDP...but also indirect fires....as well...v. useful....obviously it doesn't have the high velocity kinetic performance of a real tank gun......but it would be support fires rather than AT fires we would presumably want it for.....

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IFV%29

and especially.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS


For your spend you get...
(a) The fear factor of a Tank to laymen/crazies
(b) a better protected MICV than our Pirhanas
(c) a SP artllery asset as well

Both the standard 40mm on the basic Swedish CV90 is a calibre we know and buy...and if a 120mm ATOS turret was fitted on a few ...we stock and know 120mm mortar rds as well.....

Delancey

Pyr0 wrote: »

Is it just me or does the Danish battle tank look a lot like a King Tiger ?

Sorry I think it must just be you ! King Tiger turrett was much taller ( and more high profile ) . BTW is that Danish tank a leopard 1 ?

Manic Moran

Leo1A5DK

NTM

xflyer

Pyr0 wrote: »

Is it just me or does the Danish battle tank look a lot like a King Tiger ?

Well to be fair the Leopard is from the same stable as the King Tiger so to speak. I do think there is a family resemblance. It is German after all.

As for an Irish MBT, that'll be the day:rolleyes: Them and jet fighters and attack helicopters. I'm with OS119 and others. There is a complete lack of political will to equip the defence forces properly for even the the limited role they are allowed to do. We don't need MBTs or jet fighters but we do need to support troops properly. Am I the only one who thought it farcical to have to hire in Russian choppers in Chad for troop transport. Not least because the helis we have are simply incapable of being deployed overseas?

As for the suggested role of providing menace for the locals. What about the upgraded museum pieces the AML20 and AML90. The AML90 looks scary if you squint slightly. Why wasn't that deployed to Chad? You don't need a big tank. You just want something with a big gun.

concussion

The DF operated tanks up til the middle of the 70's, the last models being Comets.

BostonB

I dunno, for me its looks nothing like a King tiger, other than its also a heavy tank. Mind you I had a Corgi Leopard and a Matchbox King Tiger as a kid. So they are kinda etched on my brain.

BrianD

OS119 wrote: »

oh absolutely - what matters is whether the locals believe you'll unleash the beast, not whether you will or not.

the Irish in Chad were hampered by not having something that looked intimidating, and was able to move around within the Irish Area of Operations - one could argue that a MOWAG with a Javelin team could rumble past and make a big bang, but it just doesn't do the intimidation thing in the way that a tank does.

what matters it what works, not what makes people feel better - there is, imv, no doubt that humanitarian efforts were disrupted, supplies lost, refugees killed, injured and indimidated, and the ability of an EU battlegroup to deny an area to bandits and gangsters compromised, because of a deep, wide streak of anti-militarism within the Irish body politic.

i hope they are very proud of the consequences of what made them feel better.

The might of the US and British armies don't seem to have the effect that you speak of in either Iraq and Afghanistan. Heavy armour is great for invasions but doesn't seem effective when you have to hold a territory. Peacekeeping forces are effectively holding a territory. Greater numbers of lighter vehicles such as the Mowags seem to be more apt in this aspect. Certainly more effective then MBTs. The Irish Army were certainly not compromised through lack of MBTs. They are probably the best equipped Irish army in years - ironically under an FF government who have always had a distrust of the military.

Avgas

BrianD wrote: »

The might of the US and British armies don't seem to have the effect that you speak of in either Iraq and Afghanistan. Heavy armour is great for invasions but doesn't seem effective when you have to hold a territory. Peacekeeping forces are effectively holding a territory. Greater numbers of lighter vehicles such as the Mowags seem to be more apt in this aspect. Certainly more effective then MBTs. The Irish Army were certainly not compromised through lack of MBTs. They are probably the best equipped Irish army in years - ironically under an FF government who have always had a distrust of the military.

Good post.....

I agree that we can't afford MBTs, and therefore don't need them say like we need urgently Level 4 protection MRAPs.....but I don't think we're as well equipped as we sometimes think.....our professionalism and attitude and education is probably up there with any of them...our material resources are much weaker........IMHO the contingent in Chad should have had proper UAVs...not handheld orbiters which are fine in a niche role.....they should also have had more support vehicles such as the Pirhana MRVs...we've only a handful.......probably packing something heavier than a 30mm Bushmaster.....

I'm open to correction on this but the days of FF distrust of the Army belong to the 1930s when Dev took power....the Emergency had a major healing effect...and many officers and enlisted men with FF and FG (or even Blueshirt leanings!] served more or less well together. The Emergency "made" the modern Irish army.

It is true that a major expansion of equipment was undertaken by the FG led government in 1973-1977 but that was as much driven by events......NI.....

Also a major expansion of the DF was attempted in the late 1970s and early 1980s when FF were in office and Charlie was.....well doing what Charlie did......say the 'cheque is in the post'........again that was partly driven by NI considerations....

Just another view.

BlaasForRafa

Avgas wrote: »

Good post.....

I agree that we can't afford MBTs, and therefore don't need them say like we need urgently Level 4 protection MRAPs.....but I don't think we're as well equipped as we sometimes think.....our professionalism and attitude and education is probably up there with any of them...our material resources are much weaker........IMHO the contingent in Chad should have had proper UAVs...not handheld orbiters which are fine in a niche role.....they should also have had more support vehicles such as the Pirhana MRVs...we've only a handful.......probably packing something heavier than a 30mm Bushmaster.....

You could probably get a bunch of 3rd or 4th hand T54/55s for half nothing

But seriously, perhaps something like the Stryker Mobile Gun System would be suitable for the Irish army, it packs a punch but isn't as OTT as an MBT for the roles that the Irish army performs. Its lineage is the Mowag platform so it could have some commonalities when it comes to logistics and maintenance.

Avgas

Hi Blaas...look I'm not going saying that the Stryker mobile gun system looks just pants.......cause I don't really know if it is crap or not....but...Blaas...its got wheels....it looks like the gun mounting is poorly balanced with the bulk of the vehicle....no doubt its stabilized with fancy gizmos and what-nots....and comes at a massive price.......I mean...it just reminds me of those great big Panhard EBRs the French experimented with after the war...usually with a high velocity 75mm.....they were fine ...until they met heavier opponents and terrain. Italians have also developed a wheeled tank-like-thing for 'heavy recce'-Centurio or something.......but AFAIK nobody has bought it other than themselves.........I just don't buy into the wheeled mobility idea overall.....if you want a tank it should look like a tank...and there is probably an evolutionary reason why not many successful wheeled heavy combat vehicles have emerged...outside of scout car duties/convoy guard, etc.

You know my views on the used T54s market seeing as I rarely lose an opportunity to stress the BORAT option, or how we should copy the IDF in terms of improvising armour, along with butchering Scorpions if we're game. But as a civilian such views doubtless count for little.

BlaasForRafa

Avgas wrote: »

Hi Blaas...look I'm not going saying that the Stryker mobile gun system looks just pants.......cause I don't really know if it is crap or not....but...Blaas...its got wheels....it looks like the gun mounting is poorly balanced with the bulk of the vehicle....no doubt its stabilized with fancy gizmos and what-nots....and comes at a massive price.......I mean...it just reminds me of those great big Panhard EBRs the French experimented with after the war...usually with a high velocity 75mm.....they were fine ...until they met heavier opponents and terrain. Italians have also developed a wheeled tank-like-thing for 'heavy recce'-Centurio or something.......but AFAIK nobody has bought it other than themselves.........I just don't buy into the wheeled mobility idea overall.....if you want a tank it should look like a tank...and there is probably an evolutionary reason why not many successful wheeled heavy combat vehicles have emerged...outside of scout car duties/convoy guard, etc.

You know my views on the used T54s market seeing as I rarely lose an opportunity to stress the BORAT option, or how we should copy the IDF in terms of improvising armour, along with butchering Scorpions if we're game. But as a civilian such views doubtless count for little.

Perhaps I should clarify what I'm saying. The Irish Army dosen't need a full MBT. There is no situation where the Irish army should be facing up to MBTs. What they could do with is a vehicle complimentary to those that they already have, which is economical and isn't a strain to army logistics and which gives the mobile Infantry just a bit more punch then they already have.

Things like the Stryker or the Italian Centauro aren't meant to face up 1 v 1 to MBTs (except in extreme emergencies) but they would be handy for blowing holes in roadblocks, blowing up hi-luxes full of irregular troops etc.

BTW its not just the Americans and Italians that are investing in this type of system, the French have had the AMX-10 and Panhard ERC-90 since the 80's. These may be replaced in the next 10 years so the Irish Army could get some on the cheap possibly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFsw_xgLkwM

BostonB

Seems very like the AML 90 they have.

Manic Moran

The might of the US and British armies don't seem to have the effect that you speak of in either Iraq and Afghanistan

On the contrary. They have precisely that effect. I had several months of complete boredom to attest to this. Wherever the tanks are tend to get very quiet very quickly. Indeed, because you could hear a tank coming at some distance, often firefights would end before we could even get to them. They don't pacify the entire country, but they certainly pacify anything within about 1km and line of sight.

Things like the Stryker or the Italian Centauro aren't meant to face up 1 v 1 to MBTs (except in extreme emergencies) but they would be handy for blowing holes in roadblocks, blowing up hi-luxes full of irregular troops etc.

Fails to have the psychological effect of an MBT. Even an IFV like a Bradley is light enough that the opposition may feel like taking a crack at them. Tanks, being designed to be the toughest thing on the battlefield, are a very risky proposition to take on. Something like a Stryker MGS or Centauro does not excude the 'You don't want to try it' presence that a tank does. Otherwise nobody would bother sending tanks out and about.

NTM

petergfiffin

Couldn't we just get a standard IFV and add body kit and REALLY loud stereo??

BostonB

petergfiffin wrote: »

Couldn't we just get a standard IFV and add body kit and REALLY loud stereo??

Kelly Hero's?
http://scahms.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=125151&page=1

BostonB

Manic Moran wrote: »

..Indeed, because you could hear a tank coming at some distance, often firefights would end before we could even get to them. They don't pacify the entire country, but they certainly pacify anything within about 1km and line of sight....

MBT in Irag and Afghanistan have come under heavy fire at times. Which suggests they don't always run away at the sight of them.

Avgas

I didn't realise Manic was over there with actual Tanks...I thought the Abrams were NOT deployed in ASTAN.......not sure.......I'm skeptical on Strykers generally.....but having said that.....I've never seen one in action close up......and I wouldn't fancy my chances takin one on with an RPG7 and maybe an IED which they may or may not agree to walk into.....something brown in my pants comes to mind.:rolleyes:

I still prefer a real tank in the same way I prefer real butter, real milk, real beer, real coffee and women who really are women. (not being disrepectful to anyone else's preferences which are fine for them no doubt and good luck to whatever is your own gig)

So I vote second hand German Leopard 2s............just a dozen.....to celebrate the Easter rising big parade in 2016 in some style...... Think of it like a national fashion statement...like a tatoo...we're back and we're bad...........:)

Poccington

Avgas wrote: »

I didn't realise Manic was over there with actual Tanks...I thought the Abrams were NOT deployed in ASTAN.......not sure.......I'm skeptical on Strykers generally.....but having said that.....I've never seen one in action close up......and I wouldn't fancy my chances takin one on with an RPG7 and maybe an IED which they may or may not agree to walk into.....something brown in my pants comes to mind.:rolleyes:

I still prefer a real tank in the same way I prefer real butter, real milk, real beer, real coffee and women who really are women. (not being disrepectful to anyone else's preferences which are fine for them no doubt and good luck to whatever is your own gig)

So I vote second hand German Leopard 2s............just a dozen.....to celebrate the Easter rising big parade in 2016 in some style...... Think of it like a national fashion statement...like a tatoo...we're back and we're bad...........:)

I believe the Manic lad was a tank commander in Iraq before he took a trip to A'Stan?

iceage

Avgas wrote: »

I didn't realise Manic was over there with actual Tanks....:)

Yeeeaaaah

Manic Moran

BostonB wrote: »

MBT in Irag and Afghanistan have come under heavy fire at times. Which suggests they don't always run away at the sight of them.

This is true. But unless they come specifically prepared with a plan to deal with tanks, which is rare enough (Outside of ineffective IEDs, it only happened once to our company in 11 months) a tank's arrival tends to cause things to quiet down: Either by the enemy running away, (usually) or the enemy getting blown up (Occasionally).

believe the Manic lad was a tank commander in Iraq before he took a trip to A'Stan?

What he said.

NTM

Avgas

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is true. But unless they come specifically prepared with a plan to deal with tanks, which is rare enough (Outside of ineffective IEDs, it only happened once to our company in 11 months) a tank's arrival tends to cause things to quiet down: Either by the enemy running away, (usually) or the enemy getting blown up (Occasionally).

Manic, you'll probably find this deeply annoying....... which is not what I mean.......but why do you say "ineffective IEDs"?

I've no disagreement with your overall point that the Tank is the meanest piece of kit any insurgent anywhere will generally avoid and that they have a calming effect as you describe.

However, dreaded Wikipedia suggests that around 80 Abrams have been "forced out of action" (doesn't say lost/written off mind you) and the majority of these by IEDs.........I know a few kills were by RPGs in the rear......

[BTW it should go without saying RIP to all concerned]

Just I thoughT the EFP and supersized type IEDs WERE actually a v. serious threat to Abrams crews and that at one stage some insurgent teams were targeting Abrams for a propaganda trophy kill...the way Hezbollah have targeted Merks....? .....

Maybe the story is more nuanced or I've got it all wrong (again)?

don18

we dont have any mbts because they are no good in irish terrain...

BostonB

I think they've been damaged but not "killed".

I could only find info on destroyed ones in the Gulf Wars.

Hard to know will all duff info on the web.

BostonB

don18 wrote: »

we dont have any mbts because they are no good in irish terrain...

?

punchdrunk

our terrain is just like the uk's so thats bull****e

the real reason is our woeful road system couldn't handle transporting them

Delancey

I thought the reason was the chronic underfunding of defence spending here .

punchdrunk

delancey42 wrote: »

I thought the reason was the chronic underfunding of defence spending here .

that too,but even in the good times we didn't buy them
in reality a force like ours doesn't need them when compared to what we are chronically lacking in i.e air mobility

concussion

*cough*

concussion wrote: »

The DF operated tanks up til the middle of the 70's, the last models being Comets.

punchdrunk

But the comet was a cruiser tank,not an MBT

don18

punchdrunk wrote: »

our terrain is just like the uk's so thats bull****e

the real reason is our woeful road system couldn't handle transporting them

most of the british tank Divisions are based in germany .like the 1 Armoured Division. ...which was for the cold war...and you said that the reason we dont have tanks was our road system couldnt handle transporting them...

why would we us a motoway to transport our tanks when we do not have air Superiority..

punchdrunk

Absolutely! Just look at the iraqi's in the last war and you'll see that transporting armour by road in wartime is a risky venture!

But I was really talking about peacetime disruption caused by tank movement
our railway couldn't handle it (don't we use some strange narrow rail gauge track? It would mean buying custom made freight cars too even if they could take it)

and more importantly alot of our roads would be too narrow for an MBT tank transporter

BostonB

I thought it was because we didn't need them.

As for the Comet being a cruiser tank not a MTB, thats irreverent because its effectively a WWII design, and intended as match for the German tanks when it was designed. As it had the 17 pdr gun. It was a heavy cruiser tank.


Service history

The 11th Armoured Division was the first to receive the new tanks in December 1944 and the only division to be completely refitted by the end of the war. Because of its late arrival, the Comet did not participate in any major battles though it did see combat against the Germans. The Comet was involved in the crossing of the Rhine and the later Berlin Victory Parade in July 1945. The Comet's maximum speed of 32 miles per hour was greatly exploited on the German Autobahns.
During the following Korean War, the Comet served alongside the heavier Centurion, a successor tank introduced in the closing days of World War II on an experimental basis, but too late to see combat. The Centurion was formally adopted in 1949 and was partly based on the Comet's design. The Comet remained in British service until 1958, when the remaining tanks were sold to foreign governments; up until the 1980s, it could be found in the armies of various nations such as South Africa.
41 Comet Mk I Model Bs were also used by Finnish Defence Forces armoured brigade until 1970. The tanks were stored until 2007, when four of them were auctioned out.

Eight Comets were delivered to the Irish Army, beginning in 1959. Severe budget cutbacks were to severely harm the service lives of the Comets, as not enough spares were purchased. The Comet appealed to the Irish Army as it was cheap to buy and run, had low ground pressure, and good anti-tank capability. In retrospect, it was an excellent buy, and would have stood the army in good stead had vital spares been supplied initially.[citation needed] However, faulty fuzes meant the withdrawal of the HE ammunition, limiting the tank's role to an anti-tank vehicle. With stocks of 77 mm ammunition dwindling in 1969, the army began an experiment to prolong the life of the vehicle. It involved replacing the turret with an open mounting with a 90 mm Bofors Pv-1110 recoilless rifle. Lack of funds saw a cancellation of the project. The last 77 mm Comet shoot occurred in 1973 and the tanks were withdrawn soon afterwards. One is preserved in the Curragh Camp, one in the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence, and two more survive in other barracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_tank

punchdrunk

Isn't the centurion regarded as being the first MBT?
About ten tones heavier than the comet

BostonB

The comet is really a WWII tank. The centurion is a post war tank. Its seems we bought comet because they were cheap.

Which is the same problem we have now. We can't afford MBTs. Even if we needed them which we don't. They are a nice to have not a need to have for Irish defense. We have other priorities. Peace Keeping duties I see as a separate issue tbh.

Avgas

Comet was around 33 tonnes...your average MBT would be nowadays well over 50 tonnes...I don't have the ground pressure data for various models...a google search may throw that up... but it is usually a good linear relationship between increase in overall weight and increase in ground pressure.. and that is before you consider vehicle width/ barrel clearance issues, etc......interestingly the big issue with TANKs is not so much road width BUT Bridge weight restrictions...Argentines made much of the TAM tanks being able to manage weight limits on their bridges....I think a vehicle between 30-50t is about the upper limit our infrastructure and geography can cope with before your into serious mega-hassle....so that would speak against modern MBTs in the Leopards 2 class perhaps...but you know I still say.....go for it.:)

Those new motorways are v. underused......:rolleyes:

BTW Irish Rail gauge is ODD but not because its narrow ....its 5ft 3in or 1.6m in width whereas the standard British and west European rail gauge is 1.435m...so our Gauge is actually then broader and wider...and I've heard that some engineers regards it as fundamentally superior....eh....that is deeply deeply sad trivia.........sorry for the GEEK ATTACK:)

BostonB

Logistics of moving MBT's for peace keeping would be another problem.

don18

well are main tank is ALM 90 and it done the job at the Battle of At Tiri..