British Amphibious question

Thanks. That sounds reasonable, but I am trying to see if there is any evidence the Royal Marines had that support in the 1980s. Unlike the Australians in Vietnam, who were not expecting any other use for their tanks; the British Army IMHO needed all of its tanks in Germany.

I don't disagree but suspect that they could find a squadron for the other largish NATO commitment.

Iiuc BAOR had 3 armoured divisions in the 70s and 80s, each with 3 tank regiments of 76 tanks; thats ~700 of the British Army's 900 Chieftains. I also believe that there were a number of tank regiments in the UK, but these had something like 42 Chieftains, but may have been padded out with Fox armoured cars. This is where many of the other ~200 chieftains were assigned. I don't know what the wartime roles of these armoured regiments were but I suspect that if the British felt the need to find a sqn of tanks for Norway it would come from these home based units.

In any case if the war in the Central Front hinges on 16-20 British tanks then all was lost before it was begun.
 
I don't disagree but suspect that they could find a squadron for the other largish NATO commitment.

Iiuc BAOR had 3 armoured divisions in the 70s and 80s, each with 3 tank regiments of 76 tanks; thats ~700 of the British Army's 900 Chieftains. I also believe that there were a number of tank regiments in the UK, but these had something like 42 Chieftains, but may have been padded out with Fox armoured cars. This is where many of the other ~200 chieftains were assigned. I don't know what the wartime roles of these armoured regiments were but I suspect that if the British felt the need to find a sqn of tanks for Norway it would come from these home based units.

In any case if the war in the Central Front hinges on 16-20 British tanks then all was lost before it was begun.

My understanding is that the Chieftains had a fair amount of maintenance issues. I expect that from that 200, 50 or so are in the training base and another 50-70 are a maintenance float, being issued to units when their tanks need depot maintenance. I agree that would still leave a company worth for Norway, so they could have done it. I just haven't seen any evidence they did it, or that they tried to land a Chieftain over the beach.
 
9E4ECB22-297A-4BBC-9151-65CCCA3FB56C.jpeg
ABB76C41-0EFF-420A-8109-8857A87790E1.jpeg
In the 1970’s the Royal Navy experimented with the VT2 hovercraft. Above sketch clearly shows it being capable of carrying a Chieftain tank.
 
Any Armoured support for 3Cdo brigade was to be supplied by the household cavalry in scorpions. These were especially designed to operate as part of 3Cdo as their ground pressure was lighter than a mans foot.
Heavy armour Chieftain or M60 would be unable to operate in northern Norway due to their size and weight. All they would be was sitting ducks.
As such the role of 3Cdo was to guard the northern flank, and as the strategic situation was then, there was no requirement for the amphibious deployment of heavy armour. Although with HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid the capability was there if needed.
 
View attachment 445237 View attachment 445238 In the 1970’s the Royal Navy experimented with the VT2 hovercraft. Above sketch clearly shows it being capable of carrying a Chieftain tank.

Any Armoured support for 3Cdo brigade was to be supplied by the household cavalry in scorpions. These were especially designed to operate as part of 3Cdo as their ground pressure was lighter than a mans foot.
Heavy armour Chieftain or M60 would be unable to operate in northern Norway due to their size and weight. All they would be was sitting ducks.
As such the role of 3Cdo was to guard the northern flank, and as the strategic situation was then, there was no requirement for the amphibious deployment of heavy armour. Although with HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid the capability was there if needed.

Thanks for the information. Would it be fair to say that while the UK had the technical capability to amphibiously land heavy armor, it was not an actually trained and practiced capability because it did not fit the British Armed Forces strategic requirements after the early 1960s? The only armor needed for Norway and the Falklands were light tanks or armored cars like the Scorpion or Fox, so that was what was practiced.
 
The best thing the Heavy MBTs in Norway would have achieved would be temporary roadblocks on the few good roads in the region.
 
After fighting two world wars WW3 was imminent, at least in the minds of those who actually run the country. Realistically, though the Soviet Union had 10,000+ tanks it did not have the logistics to support a “dash to the Rhine” or a ‘dash to the Atlantic’ nor did it ever really want to.
Three British Armoured Divisions, 1500 West German Leopards, American M60’s plus other NATO units, anti tank helico, HOT, TOW & 84mm ‘ball shakers’ were more than capable of smashing up the T55’s & T34’s still in use. Where as as the Falklands not only Britain but as with Vietnam NATO countries had the logistic supply chain to ‘push to Moscow’.
The Russians knew this and after the blood bath of’the great patriotic war’ armed itself to prevent that happening again.
 
The best thing the Heavy MBTs in Norway would have achieved would be temporary roadblocks on the few good roads in the region.

Which is likely the tactics the RMB would have used in Norway; to occupy Brigade positions (possibly with a handful tanks) to block the Soviet advance.
 
Until the early 00s the Royal Navy had LSTs the Round Table class I made a trip across the North Sea in one in bumpy weather and I can still remember the wave of vomit rolling up and down the corridor outside the toilets. They certainly carried MBTs though we loaded/unloaded via a proper dock.
 
Top