![]() Rather, we need to ask how arguments for keeping armour in the US Marine Corps or the British Army weigh the resources necessary to train, maintain and sustain armoured units against other capabilities such as uncrewed systems, cyber, and air defence which achieve similar effects. The key question is not “are tanks valuable on the battlefield?” Because they are. There is agreement that shock and mobile, protected, firepower are likely to remain valuable on future battlefields. Removing heavy armour is not a repudiation of the value of heavy armour on the battlefield. ĭespite this criticism, almost all of the naysayers have missed the critical point of the debate. Both announcements garnered a flurry of criticism. In August 2020, news broke the British Army was considering a similar move to scrap all of it’s 227 Challenger 2 main battle tanks. The news was formally announced in the Force Design 2030 Report, but word of the move came out a few days prior in the press. At the time the US Marines fielded three active-duty tank battalions and one reserve tank battalion. This will save lives and, if done right, could save Canadian taxpayers money by reducing pointless fleet maintenance fees.In March 2020 the United States Marine Corps announced that it would be disbanding its tank units. And we should make a reasonable effort to fix and donate our broken tanks, along with whatever tanks cannot be fixed so that Ukraine and its neighbours, who have shown a talent for repairing and refurbishing tanks, can either do the repair work themselves or strip them for parts. ![]() The department acknowledged my questions but was unable to immediately respond to them.Ĭanada should give Ukraine whatever operational tanks we have left, saving them from our neglect. In an email, I asked the Department of National Defence how much money has been spent maintaining Canada’s Leopard 2 tanks and how many of them are currently operable. Together, they are more than credible enough to raise eyebrows. ![]() However, each paper is detailed, well-argued and thoroughly-cited. Article contentĪs these are academic papers, this analysis doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinion of the Canadian Armed Forces or any government department. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |