Tanks a million but you're finished

Tanks are so yesterday. Or so think some sections of the UK Ministry of Defence which believes that tanks have had their day and can be mothballed just in case they might be needed in some future conventional land war. Well it's true to say that the last time Britain sent tanks off overseas to fight a war was 17 years ago against the Iraqi Republican Guard. The British Challenger 2 tank unquestionably played a role not only in defeating the Iraqi regime forces in the south around Basra but also in protecting soldiers. Likewise the Warrior infantry fighting vehicles which are also facing the scrapheap. It IS possible that tank warfare is a thing of the past and wise defence ministries now need to focus more on moving into a new high-tech warfare mode, spending money on long-range super-fast missiles and drones and cyber weapons. But can this country, or any country, really know for sure whether tanks are no longer going to be needed? Tanks are the real symbol of land warfare. The US are retaining their tanks although only with the army. The Marine Corps is in the process of divesting itself of its 200 or so tanks, as well as its heavy artillery, preferring to switch to a lighter more flexible warfare rolle. The Royal Marines don't have tanks. Never have. Tanks are the preserve of the British Army and if they all get mothballed, then the army will be deprived of one of its reasons for existence. The Royal Tank Regiment, the King's Royal Hussars and the Queen's Rpyal Hussars would disappear or be obliged to take on a different role altogether. By the way, as General Lord Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, stated on British Forces Broadcasting Service today, the idea of mothballing tanks in case they might be needed in the future is both naive and impractical. It would be like putting an E-Type Jaguar into a garage for several years and expecting it to come roaring out into the sunlight in full working order. The mighty tank battle between the latest Russian high-tech tank and the mothballed British Challenger 2s! I don't think so. Basically the Challenger 2 has had its day. It has been around for more than 20 years and needs replacing which would mean allocating billions of pounds for a new tank in the next few years. Where would the money come from? That's why there is talk now of scrapping or mothballing the Challenger 2s and Warriors. It's about money and don't let anyone claim otherwise. But if the removal of the tank from a battlefield in which the British Army has a role to play is going to make sense it will have to be shown that the UK government has a proper strategy for the defence of this nation. In other words, if not tanks, what else? Will it be hypersonic missiles or super drones capable of destroying the enemy? Probably. But only heavy armour can actually hold ground against a charging enemy, so do we just leave that to others while we fancy around with super high-tech wizardry? Is that the strategy? It better sound good when the current defence review is completed in November. Otherwise anyone with any knowledge of defence will say the review was all about saving money, not spending it.