Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moving0target You throw out a lot of ideas here, but each one of them introduces a multitude of variables. The most easily identified and most telling variable is, of course, which tank you're talking about. Of the mainstays on the field right now, all are different. They all have different strengths and weaknesses.
Tanks do not have to deal with helicopters and specialized tanks killers. That's the job of their air support. A war machine is a multifaceted tool. One aspect cannot successfully function alone. Tanks won't survive long without infantry support. Infantry won't be nearly as effective without heavy fire support. Air support, cannot take and hold ground. Each requires the other. |
Thats assuming air support is available. The last few conflicts the US has operated against enemies that had little or no air support. But there will come a day that it will have to face a foe with better Air Support and even if the US maintains air superiority, thats no guarentee that a low flying chopper or aircraft will not sneak through. That makes the tank somewhat vulnerable, espically when you consider that the air to surface weapons now have a greater range than the mobile air defences designed to protect the AFV. For example, the FIM-92B Stinger has a range of 4.8 KMs while the Russian AT-16 which is commonly found on the SU-25 Frogfoot and the MIL family of gunships has a range of 8-10 KMs.
Going back to might original idea, future unmanned tanks might trade armor for speed and mobility while keeping its main armament. A good example would be the WWII vet the M24 Chafee. Cheaper, Weaker and less sophisticated than a MBT, but faster and a reasonibly good punch, not to mention expendable.