As somebody who served in tanks and who, reporting from war zones, has seen and smelt the ghastly consequences of armoured vehicle crews burned to a crisp, it would be just fine by me if @BritishArmy came up with an alternative to sending people to war in armour 1/7 https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1298018122021183501

But as we see fm Afghan to Iraq, once you send people into harm's way- whether delivering medicine, training police, or peacekeeping, risk averse UK wraps them in steel. That's why poorly armoured Snatch Land Rover became a scandal & a 40t recce vehicle is replacing an 8t one 2/7

The growing prevalence of drones and long range missiles increases the vulnerability of vehicles, particularly in a place like Libya, where there's little cover. But in eastern Ukraine or Syria armour is still key to the survivability of armies. Why? 3/7

Because armour still provides protection against many of the threats on the battlefield, from the simple rifle bullet to much of the long range artillery that now finds it targets with drones. If you are going to have people on the battlefield you will need armour, even...4/7

If you aim to focus on gunship helicopters, armed drones, or unmanned ground vehicles, you will need forward operating bases to re-fuel and rearm them. So that takes you back to ground holding troops, the need to protect them, and heavy armour 5/7

what we also know from current conflict is that drones are easily shot down, concealment is still possible (nb in built up parts of the world like Europe) & 'active protection' systems can be successful in neutralising anti-tank missiles 6/7

also 'robot tanks' are not ready (tried by Russia in Syria) for large scale use + heavy, crewed, armoured vehicles will be with us for a while yet. All of which means that if @BritishArmy wants to be effective in a wide variety of Ops in next 25 yrs, it will need new armour 7/7