Tanks today

[AmericanAirborne]

How important do you think tanks are for todays modern battlefield?

[dootybooty]

The tank is rapidly becomming obselete. In a conventional warfare context
the tank is more vulnerable than ever to infantry held weapons and most of all the battlefield assault helicopter. Few nations can afford to invest in main battle tanks now. Although sucssesfuly used in the last Iraq war Abrahams and Challengers did not face any serrious oposition from enemy tanks. They out gunned them , and thanks to sattalite technology outmanouvered them. Nations that can afford the technology will dominate those that can't will go to the wall. The days of major tank battles have gone, apart from the one sided contest that we have seen in two gulf wars.
The american use of tanks in built up areas exposes their vulnerability to RPGs etc. It seems that the tank is just being used as a mobile gun platform or a mobile strongpoint.
When one witnesses a peasant in flipflops take out several million dollars worth of modern technology with a hundred dollars worth of antiquated short range obselete hand held mass produced equipment one wonders about the viability of the tank.
As is shown by medal rolls all over the world a single brave man can take out a tank. In past wars tanks were cheap to make, now they are not. At the end of the day governments will decide the future of the MBT based on cost and nothing else.

[Statistic]

I don't think Tanks are obsolete necessarily, like all parts of an army they rely on support from other elements, it's all about interdependence. Your point about satellites and outmanoeuvring is a good point to use as an example of this. In conjunction with the correct support - Intelligence, Infantry, air support, etc. I personally think tanks will have a place in many of the worlds armies for a while to come.
Besides I for one am not going to argue when several Challenger 2's are rolling full steam towards me at 80 miles an hour or what ever they go at these days, would scare the hell out of me!

JZ.

[dootybooty]

While tanks will retain a place in most of the worlds armies for many years to come their role will deminish. Compare the tank to the armoured knight, the knight became an expensive anachronism, the prestiege that existed around the knight and the expense associated with that prestiege ensured the demise of the knight in battle. The English peasant bowman and the Swiss peasant pikeman destroyed the myth of knightly invincibility much as arab peasants with RPGs are showing the limited use for tanks in warfare today.

At the end of the day it will come down to cost, tanks are expensive to build, operate and maintain. The ability to take out a tank has increased twentyfold since my days in the service, Wombats and Carl Gustav's have been replaced with more efficient and deadly anti tank weapons, the battlefield helicopter with its ability to engage and destroy multiple targets in seconds has changed the face of the modern battlefield. No modern military would contemplate the mass tank attacks of old against a similarly equiped enemy.

While the tank still has a role it is a diminishing one and one that will continue to shrink over the comming years.

What began on the Somme in 1916 will probably share the same fate as the Battleship by 2050. If you told anyone in 1940 that the Battleship was obsolete they would have laughed at you. World War Two saw the end of the battleship as a viable, cost effective weapon. I suggest the same fatewill befall the tank.

[Dave.Mil]

gone

[dootybooty]

I never intimated that the attack helicopter would replace the tank, I was saying that the tank has become more vulnerable since its introduction, as for tanks tanks holding ground, that implies a static defence and as almost everyone knows, with one or two exceptions a static defence has not worked.
I agree that there will always be a demand for a mobile gun platform, the disscusion seems to be revolving around what form that will take. It could be airborne, in the future it could even be satalite borne, which seems a logical extension of GPS technology.
One of the lessons of military history is that weapons keep developing, anyone who plans to fight a future war using the last wars weapons systems is on a hiding to nothing.
As we seem to be moving more towards the empty battlefield, in a conventional war sense, and the reluctance of civilian populations to accept heavy casualties amongst their servicemen the likelihood is that more remote systems will be utilised.
These have the political benefit of minimising casualties and being cost effective. As always it comes down the scumbag politicians to decide how to spend Defence budgets and they always look for the cheapest option.

While there will always be a need for the man on the ground with a bundook in his hand his equipment and support systems will always be changing. I am a traditionalist but I recognise, with regret, that many things will have to change about our armed forces in the coming years.

Getting back to the original thread I believe the Tank, as we know it, will be consigned to the history books, the same as the Kight, the Battleship,
the longbow and Brown Bess.

[Chappy]

I know nothing about this matter. Just want to say that theres some good informative views here, I know more about this subject than I did five minutes ago.

[Dave.Mil]

gone

[dootybooty]

With the increase in the effectiveness of rounds and ballistics certainly the light afv seems the way to go. Speed, all terrain capability and an effective round, one hit one kill, would be excellent. An apc/afv which offers both protection all terrain mobility and adequate firepower would be a great concept. However, looking at the size constraints on air portable or assault ship viable configurations we have a problem.
The british system will not be top to bottom integrated. It will be the same old story of making a vehicle fit the space available rather than designing a complete integrated system. It strikes me that we are capable of designing good individual weapons systems, that is unfortunately what they are, individual.
The new assault ships were not designed with new vehicles in mind, we have no new air transport, the lift capacity of our few choppers was designed for an older generation of weapons. We are constantly playing catch up with technology.
This will always be the case with budget sensetive governments. Untill we have a well thought out integrated procurement system, without Admirals Air Marshals and Field Marshals beating their particular service drum we are doomed to follow the same old route.
I hate change and I love tradition, but if we want to stay in the forefront of the worlds military organisations we are going to have to look very closely at what we want our force to do and what they are going to do it with.

[Dave.Mil]

gone

[Tab]

Britain has only lost one Challenger tank in Iraq and that was knocked out by another Challenger tank, even the American Air Force has managed to pass them by, mind you they have hit every thing else on wheels and tracks. No they are not obsolete, and I don't think they ever will be. Armoured mobile artillery will always be needed. Will it be change with time, yes I would think so, I would think in time tanks will become smaller but just as heavily armoured. The guns will all become self loading, the size of turret will become smaller and not so pronounced as it is as the moment, and they will have a crew of three rather than five, but stay they will.

[Dave.Mil]

gone

[Jessy]

Its all about combination now days.
You need infantry to back up the tanks and visa versa, then Apache helicopters in proximity of your own tanks.

This way, infantry can take out anybody gets close enough to use an RPG, tanks can still do their shit while the apache takes out targets from long range (Anti tank defend, enemy helicopters)

If you just had tanks on their own then yeah, they'd get slapped.

[goreD.]

Watch this link. Imagine facing the gunman youself.

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/ ... 4/abd.mpeg

Gore.

[Chappy]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR