![Very Cool! Make Your Own Star Wars: Legion Imperial Agent & Officer | Review [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/12/Star-Wars-Imperial-Agent-_-Officer-coverimage-V3-225-127.jpg)
CHRISTMAS CARNAGE (Tenth Game!) - P2
Britain's Amoured Battles of Tomorrow - Speculative Wargame (P1)
Once again we take our wargames into the near future, with a look at what Britain’s armored forces could possibly look like on tomorrow’s battlefield.
The scenario is Estonia in 2028-2030. Having closed the Ukraine War and taken a pause to recover, the Russians now push into the Baltic States. Here, Britain’s “Operation Cabrit” force finds itself amidst an Article V NATO response, deployed to check one of the spearheads of the 1st Guards Tank Army.
Using unclassified technical data, I’ve put together a “guestimated” Panzer Leader force including Britain’s upcoming armored vehicle programs like the Ares, Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3. Heavily outnumbered by older Russian equipment, will the Kings Royal Hussars and Yorkshire Regiment hold out against the 27th Motor Rifle Brigade?
Intresting start to the battle Jim I’m surprised you haven’t got any A15? tanks in the Russian forces ?!?
Thanks, @zorg – do you mean the T-14 Armata? I don’t think we’ll ever see those in large scale combat. They were supposed to come out in 2014, never did. They had them in the 2015 Victory Day parade, where they broke down in the middle of Red Square. The Russians are afraid to deploy to many T-90s in Ukraine, can’t manufacture full T-80s anymore (primary factory was in Khar’kov, Ukraine when the Soviet Union broke up), which is why they keep upgrading their old fleet of T-72s.
Indeed the Armata is a non-starter. Just a shell with a shoddy transmission. The Orcs are down to upgraded T-55s now. And that’s a real shame (said no one, ever … )
🇺🇦
I can’t argue with any of that. 😀
Yes Jim T-14🤦the video I’ve seen about it was very complimentary on how bad it is and a step back for tanks for the Soviets
Yeah, whenever people start talking about “modular” weapons systems, you need to raise an eyebrow. Tanks, artillery platforms, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft … these aren’t lego kits you can just buy once and clip together in the field to meet different missions. Many nations have tried this kind of thing (including the US and the UK) and it’s never worked or saved money. The T-14 Armata “family” is probably the biggest example.
The quality vs quantity argument has been at the core of NATO doctrine for … 50 or more years?
Engagements such as the Golan Heights in 1973 with the highly trained, slightly more modern Centurions vs the Valley of Tears Syrians makes the argument valid. And that’s a staggeringly time ago! Ten Centurions with 105mm up armoured tanks held the field against the “super modern” with night vision T-62s – crews made all the difference.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve done Valley of Tears several times in several systems. The warning there, though, is that while 7th Brigade made their famous stand, 188th Brigade was damaged much worse and eventually lost its position. The Syrians damned near broke through along the southern end of the Purple Line. And I’m pretty sure the Syrians were hesitant to deploy their two or three T-62 brigades until later in the fight?
I agree in principle, don’t get me wrong. All I’m saying is that properly applied, numbers CAN matter, regardless of technology. I mean, the Soviets DID beat the Germans. And the Russians DO guive the British some tense moments in this game. In 9 out of 10 fights though, yes … I’ll take technology, crew training, and doctrine over numbers for sure.