Are you saying the entire Falklands is impassable to MBT, they were designed for the heaviest going.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Are you saying the entire Falklands is impassable to MBT, they were designed for the heaviest going.
2 cruisers v 8 counties I think the RN made the right call. The crippling cost problems of the RN in the 70s, the RN should have focused on one missile; Sea Dart that had the potential to be developed. Sea Wolf was a mistake as it could not adequately replace Sea Cat, the expensive fit required a ship as big as the T42. This dictated hugely expensive refits with few carried out and the rest of the fleet had to go to war with no effective AA armament. A cheaper Rapier or even Blowpipe (though that had issues) could have been installed on most of the fleet. Alternatively we should have gone with a Phalanx/3" fit. The money saved on not developing Sea Wolf could have gone into Sea Dart.
A move to 3" from 4.5" earlier might have led to a heavy weapon on fewer ships for NGS.
Oh so the Falklands are impassable to MBTs?
To help you a bit here are some ground pressure figures from Wiki doesn't have an Cheftain (which maybe less as its lighter) but has a Abrams:
Hovercraft: 0.7 kPa (0.1 psi)
Human on Snowshoes: 3.5 kPa (0.5 psi)
Rubber-tracked ATV: 5.165 kPa (0.75 psi)
Human male (1.8 meter tall, medium build): 55 kPa (8 psi)
M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)
1993 Toyota 4Runner / Hilux Surf: 170 kPa (25 psi)
Adult horse (550 kg, 1250 lb): 170 kPa (25 psi)
Passenger car: 205 kPa (30 psi)
Wheeled ATV: 240 kPa (35 psi)
Mountain bicycle: 245 kPa (40 psi)
Racing bicycle: 620 kPa (90 psi)
As I understand it the majority of the islands are roadless and covered in boggy tussuck grass. The Royal Marines new all about the terrain, they had garrisoned it for years and I recall reading that at the time some doubted that even the Scimitar and Scorpion would be much use, though hindsight says many more of them would have been helpful. The Scorpion and simitar are however designed to have a low pounds per square inch, footprint, weighing just one fifth of a chieftan with a good power to weight ratio. The islanders choice of mobility where even landrovers failed was a good old fashioned tractor, so yes, much of the island would have been impassible, especially any route across the island and through the mountains.
The argentines used their tracked amphibs and panhards (?) around stanley where the few stretches of roads are, along to the airfield and i think from photos there is a track upto Moody brook so if you fancied a USMC style full frontal assault directly into stanley, then maybe a tank would help, if you didnt mind butchering the local population in the process.
The other issue is that some of the ex tankies I work with will tell you that the chieftan was fine in forward and reverse, try and go in any other directions and it started to break down, reliability was always an issue with it. so add a whole supply trail and the shipping space and in my humble opinion you would see marginal use and probably none at all. More scorpions/scimitar yes, but MBT down there?
The RM would not be much interested in tanks as they don't have them. From what I have seen the Scorpion has a PSI of just over 5 and the Cheftain 12.8 (a walking man would be greater) an ATV 35 so not surpising landrovers had trouble.....that why they invented tanks....
It doesn't have to be a driect frontal assault, but the shock effect of all arms armoured assault removed the need a Goose Green.
I am surpised you can see the additional value of a Scopion over a Cheftain. It did have an unreliable engine but the basic design set the standard for the modern MBT.
The Aegis was after my time in the navy and I thought that the illuminators did not have a separate tracker but when I checked the open source it lead me to believe that it was very much like the SPG-51C.
How exacty do you get from San Carlos to Goose green with this armoured formation? MBTs actually rarely move from A to B under their own power outside the immediate battlefield, they are shifted about on tank transporters, upto the edge of the battle area already fuelled and armed and whilst doing that require a large supporting force of engineers, recovery vehicles and workshops, especially the Chieftain that was maintenance heavy. Even in GW1 the large left hook maneover into the iraqi desert saw the heavy armour being shifted to the large part on transporters and that was with the far more reliable challengers, I can recall a stat that some units of Chieftains in flash inspections had an 80 percent UN-servicability rate. Moving Chieftains over 20 miles on that terrain would be difficult, let alone then coordinating that with the paras or marines. At least if you really wanted to a scorpion can be airlifted by a chinook.
The Chieftain was designed with armour protection and firepower over mobility, never mobility as with the Leopard for instance. In the initial version something like 550BHP, later given a whopping hundred more and its deployment was more suited to a hull down defensive war. The logistics footprint on already packed ships would be huge. A good tank for N.Europe. Maybe there are some other posters on here who could give a professional opinion.
I dont think you credit the scorpion/scimitar. It was an excellent recce vehicle, with at the time the UK's best night vision equipment and both the 76mm cannon and 30mm rarden excellent for dealing with dug in positions and did provide heavy and accurate fire support. Those vehicles at goose Green would have made a difference and Gen Thompson said as much in an interview, rather than a raid he says he should have sent more supporting units.
If I was to come up with one hindsight wish -item it would be that LGBs and a designator package for SHAR/GR3 was available before the conflict. The runway would have stayed shut so no need for the vulcan raid, there would have been a systematical destruction of argentine assets such as Roland, artillery and AA and a swifter and less bloody conflict.
Last edited:
Some complex commercial projects have taken a lot longer. The intergaration task for these vessels was of a similar scope.
I think you greatly underestimate the capability of the Cheftain, agreed not an ideal leyland multi fuel engine but you are painting it like a WW1 Mk IV.
With such firepower you don't have to land in San Carlos, you could go straight to somewhere like Bluff Cove no need to split your air defences. Surely you accept the basket case Cheftains could make it the 20-30 miles up the road to Stanley?
Well the Mk IV would probably do better. Usually ground pressure is all you have to consider but on unimproved roads in high water table terrain gross weight is important as well. Basically a full weight main battle tank like the Cheiftan would squash the limited road network of the Falklands; the entire road would break up and sink into the ground under you.
Well the tanks might be fine but the rest of your amphibious force would be pounded by Argentine artillery.
Slightly off topic, but why did the RM never go for any Assault Amphibious Vehicles such as the USMC's AAV-7A1? I know that they have the VIKING (or now BvS 10) but it is much more lightweight. Something like this would have surely helped in the falklands and a similar vehicle in my opinion would be useful now.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Probably because the Royal Marines are a commando force rather than an infantry force like the USMC.
The Royal Marines would be best compared to the Australian Army 2nd Commando Regiment or the American 75th Ranger Regiment rather then the USMC.
These tanks don't need roads, and they have less ground pressure than a walking man. The effect on the Argentinians of MBT would probably be similar the the Germans in WW1.
Thinking again at this, it would have been interesting the impact on the RN if they had been able to fit the 6" twin to the 8 Counties instead of the 2 x2 4.5" and all the Types 41/61/12/Leanders had been fitted with the 3" twin. When later the trend was for lighter single mounts we might have seen the the RN take the lead with 6" or 155mm gun and a rival to the OTO 76mm series.
Its not as simple as that. A walking man applies weight for only a second or so to a particular piece of ground. The tank applies weight for a lot longer as the track is planted. The tank is going to sink into the ground and get bogged.
kev 99
Member
Can we all stop arguing about tanks please? It's off-topic and 1805 has already proved that both armed forces were wrong not to send them by cleverly deploying a table of ground pressure figures from wikipedia, there's obviously no other considerations that are relevant to the decision or the operation of tanks on rocky and marshy terrain.
And on that note, maybe we could get back to the RN? Happy to read ideas about how the British could have fought the Falklands differently, but if it's related to armour, it might be best to start a new thread in the Army forums, because it'll only derail this one. Cheers guys.
Good point, though perhaps 1 Rifles could have them... I think we should have a medium weight rapid reaction brigade alongside the RM and Paras that could be deployed either by air or sea. These could also be part of their equipment inventory.