Will the battle tank become obsolete?

It's hard enough to get relevant and sensible answers from some people in these threads, without introducing arty crafty "concepts" to take us off track.

I watched a documentary TV series several years ago that did just that, tracing the salt trade right through to space exploration. It was a very informative series, but not vaguely related to this subject... (I digress)
 
In fact, I'm interested in the link between salt trade and space exploration.

And I dont think that I went too far. Tanks are "just" a way to use armor to be able to kill the enemy without being killed. or to resist the enemy's fire without losing your ability to kill.

It's the same idea or concept as in the use of plate armor versus arrows. And then, they introduced missile weapons capable of piercing this armor, crossbows and long bows...

And once again, it's the same idea or concept as in the use of anti tank weapons, that are supposed to pierce through the armor and kill the person inside rather than to destroy the whole armor.

So I can say pretty safely that the relation between a crossbow and plate armor is the same relation we find between anti tank weapons and tanks.

And then we push it a little further and say that there is a relation between the medieval plate armor and modern tanks.

And it's pretty simple ideas.

And dont tell me that it's stupid... The israelis named their tanks "Merkava". And I think it means "chariots".

Are you going to say that the Israelis are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a stupid medieval chariot with no god damn relation with the real thing?

Something is wrong with you guys.

Oh, you want straight answers?

Yes, the tank will be obsolete in the future, when mankind will be fighting with star trek like spaceships...

And then, some guy named "HolographicMask" will say "oh, we are using energy shields like our the primitive humans were using Shabom armor to protect their tanks. So in fact, our spaceships are just space tanks."

And then, some guy named "SpaceKangooroo" will tell him: "You drink too much space-wine and you have space-cheese in your datalink. You dont make any sense. There is no link between armored space ships and tanks. Look, we are in space."

And then some guy named "03SpaceMarine" will say :"You have to put that on your ship's hull LAOOO (laughing my a** out of orbit")."
 
In fact, I'm interested in the link between salt trade and space exploration.
And i'm interested in the link between my buttcrack and quantun physics.
And I dont think that I went too far. Tanks are "just" a way to use armor to be able to kill the enemy without being killed. or to resist the enemy's fire without losing your ability to kill.
Captain Obvious is obvious.
It's the same idea or concept as in the use of plate armor versus arrows. And then, they introduced missile weapons capable of piercing this armor, crossbows and long bows...
Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.

And once again, it's the same idea or concept as in the use of anti tank weapons, that are supposed to pierce through the armor and kill the person inside rather than to destroy the whole armor.
That depends on how much money you have to burn, top attack ATGMs (ie designed to hit the upper side of the vehicle where its armor is weak) are designed to blow the hell out of a tank, killing the crew/partially disabling the vehicle is the economy version where you can't afford expensive guided asset.
So I can say pretty safely that the relation between a crossbow and plate armor is the same relation we find between anti tank weapons and tanks.
No you can't, crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular.
And then we push it a little further and .
And we enter imagination land where you fart when you burp and you burp when you fart!

-by Peter Griffin.
say that there is a relation between the medieval plate armor and modern tanks.
Yep, both are made of metal.

And dont tell me that it's stupid...
Apart from the obvious bits yeah its very stupid.

Are you going to say that the Israelis are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a stupid medieval chariot with no god damn relation with the real thing?
And Germans named their tank Leopard, are you going to tell me that Germans are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a cat with no god damn relation to the real thing?

The better question for XXI cent is how the tank will evolve since its not going away anytime soon, Yanks are leading here but as far as i know they havent developed even a technology demostrator.
 
Last edited:
And i'm interested in the link between my buttcrack and quantun physics.

Captain Obvious is obvious.

Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.


That depends on how much money you have to burn, top attack ATGMs (ie designed to hit the upper side of the vehicle where its armor is weak) are designed to blow the hell out of a tank, killing the crew/partially disabling the vehicle is the economy version where you can't afford expensive guided asset.

No you can't, crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular.

And we enter imagination land where you fart when you burp and you burp when you fart!

-by Peter Griffin.

Yep, both are made of metal.


Apart from the obvious bits yeah its very stupid.


And Germans named their tank Leopard, are you going to tell me that Germans are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a cat with no god damn relation to the real thing?

The better question for XXI cent is how the tank will evolve since its not going away anytime soon, Yanks are leading here but as far as i know they havent developed even a technology demostrator.



LMAOOOoooooooooooooo Ok that was funny! But crack and quantum physics, hold on I think there's a link.

On a more serious not, I know US, Russia, Spain +++++++ are looking into the HoverCraft system they already have.
I remember seen on paper drawings of Tanks and APC.

zubr1.jpg



military_hovercraft.jpg
 
Last edited:
Haven´t bee following all the pages, but Mr. Panzercracker got a few details wrong here (though I admit it is a nice rhetoric effort):

-snip- Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.-snip-
While they were riding on horses and using lances, indeed it is the same *concept*. This is the key word here, the similarities related to the thechnology level are striking. If they were warping and shooting themselves up with photon torpedoes it would still be the same *concept*.

-snip- ...crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular. -snip-

Here you are definitely factually wrong, crossbows *were* specifically designed as armor piercing weapons, and an improvement on the longbow. They would penetrate chain mail and plated armor, whereas the longbow would be held off about 50% of the cases and did his effect on the horses rather.

From RPG-forums:

Regarding the armor piercing power of crossbows: they were so deadly that they were the only weapon ever banned by the Pope. I forget when (1139, Rattler), but somewhere in the 1300-1500 era, crossbows were banned as an unfair weapon. They were too powerful, had too long a range, and could be used by any idiot with less skill required than a bow.

From Wikipedia:

Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor
Rattler
 
Last edited:
Haven´t bee following all the pages, but Mr. Panzercracker got a few details wrong here (though I admit it is a nice rhetoric effort):


While they were riding on horses and using lances, indeed it is the same *concept*. This is the key word here, the similarities related to the thechnology level are striking. If they were warping and shooting themselves up with photon torpedoes it would still be the same *concept*.
Nope, the concept of a tank is to be able to take and hold ground, while the tank is by principle used as an offensive weapon the concept is to have a mobile bunker.

A medieval knight on the other hand was a purely offensive creature completely unable to support other types of arms, hold ground or be employed in defensive operations, just because both units are offensive doesnt mean they're the same idea, based on that we could say that celtic berserkers who ran at the enemy dressed stark bloody naked are the same concept as tanks since they were both offensive units.

The only thing knights and tanks have in common is Civilisation PC game series.

Here you are definitely factually wrong, crossbows *were* specifically designed as armor piercing weapons, and an improvement on the longbow. They would penetrate chain mail and plated armor, whereas the longbow would be held off about 50% of the cases and did his effect on the horses rather.

From RPG-forums:
From Wikipedia:

Rattler
At the time crossbows were first widely employed there was no plate armor and chain mail was thin as paper (late Roman Empire) whoever wrote wiki probably got the idea from Discovery or somewhere, by late medieval you had half plates, heavy haubergons and other armors to which a normal hand drawn crossbow could do little to nothing.

The reason why crossbow was so widely used is because it required no training whatsoever, if there ever was an idiot-proof weapon crossbow is it, draw the string, put arrow in and point towards the enemy.

Crossbows were not employed so widely because of armor improvements because the only serious threat to plate armor were windlass siege crossbows or heavy arbalests, hand drawn crossbows were only a thread at 30~ feet, crossbows were employed so widely because it took only a couple of hours to train your average Joe the peasant in their use so they're not analogous to development of tanks vs AT weapons.
 
Wow you guys just love to argue semantics this is now getting so far off topic its silly we are now on mediaval weapons & yes main benefit was a weeks training & you were pretty proficient but like any weapon it developed & was very good at piercing armour. In the Romans case it was the for runner of the MG to using tactics similar to later musket men. Fire off your "magazine" & reload. Nasty weapon for the day.

On semantics I would not say the tanks role is to take & hold ground its more to support the guys that do this good old Mr flexible infantry without them its nothing more than a mobile gun platform waiting to die.
 
On semantics I would not say the tanks role is to take & hold ground its more to support the guys that do this good old Mr flexible infantry without them its nothing more than a mobile gun platform waiting to die.
There's nothing semantic, the tanks are still breakthrough weapons and spearhead any assault, what you just said is basically parroting the early WW2 doctrines of the allies and soviets vs the german doctrine of using the tank in a way not much different to how everyone uses it today.

The tank is not a support platform, it has significant capacity in that area and can perform the role but its built with one primary purpose - assault.

Also a tank without supporting infantry is still 50~ tonnes of armor with a remote mg, cameras, smoke projectors and a big focking gun, carefull with killing it just like that.
 
I agree with the take ground bit its the hold ground I was more disputing but upon rereading your post you then said "principle used as an offensive weapon" so yes me bad.
 
Il take 4 appaches over 16 tanks any day.
That means I have to use twelve less missile launchers to obliterate your attack force's main punch. Plus, your helicopters can only stay in the air for so long before you run out of ammo, pilot endurance, or fuel, or some combination of the three. Tanks can hold ground far better than any whirlybird ever could.....Unless the helicopter was a transformer....but that is another matter altogether.
 
The tank as a weapon platform

:tank:
Already smoothbore tanks can fire a lot o different projectiles- from fire and forget missiles, incendiary and all kinds of anti personnel, to traditional tank busters. in the future they will probably launch digital warfare projectiles or some other sci-fi stuff . they are already in use as mobile mini command centers with all their computers on board ant radio relay stations- and modern tanks are now getting good anti missile active gadgetry and retaliators. road bomb sniffers are in develop too (infantry can't carry those) they are also very resistant to germ and chemical warfare. I think that right now a fully modernized tank is almost equal to a modern chopper in 1 on 1 scenarios. if you think tanks are not proving their financial worth in low intensity- and counter terrorist warfare that is common today- i would say you are mistaken- they have a nice fear aura that is well respected still (if not by the actual fanatic warriors then by their civilian supporters) and if all else fail the can always develop new turrets that will make them real urban warfare worthy (i can imagine a turret with 3 smaller rapid fire guns at 120 deg from one another with special digital anti personnel systems that will be specially designed as an urban sniper hunter that will support infantry inside big cities- but I bet u can imagine other turrets too)
 
The tank as a weapon platform

:tank:
Already smoothbore tanks can fire a lot o different projectiles- from fire and forget missiles, incendiary and all kinds of anti personnel, to traditional tank busters. in the future they will probably launch digital warfare projectiles or some other sci-fi stuff . they are already in use as mobile mini command centers with all their computers on board ant radio relay stations- and modern tanks are now getting good anti missile active gadgetry and retaliators. road bomb sniffers are in develop too (infantry can't carry those) they are also very resistant to germ and chemical warfare. I think that right now a fully modernized tank is almost equal to a modern chopper in 1 on 1 scenarios. if you think tanks are not proving their financial worth in low intensity- and counter terrorist warfare that is common today- i would say you are mistaken- they have a nice fear aura that is well respected still (if not by the actual fanatic warriors then by their civilian supporters) and if all else fail the can always develop new turrets that will make them real urban warfare worthy (i can imagine a turret with 3 smaller rapid fire guns at 120 deg from one another with special digital anti personnel systems that will be specially designed as an urban sniper hunter that will support infantry inside big cities- but I bet u can imagine other turrets too)
 
Eh Uppercut, using the fear factor against civilians is just plain wrong...

You cant name an acceptable amount of fear that can be used on unarmed civilians. Because this amount will change with time. It's inevitable.

So, any kind of attacks against civilians is criminal and must be punished. So saying that tanks scare everything but fanatics means that its fear factor isnt working when fighting against fanatics.

The civilians have to support the people who fight for their interests. It's up to the governments to find working solutions to the civilians' problems.
because when you forget to do that... terrorists get support. And then, you lost an important battle...

And if we start to speak like terrorists... Then the tanks are awful weapons. They are hard to produce. And they are easy targets for the enemy who got A-10s, helicopters, accurate missiles, powerful and accurate shoulder carried anti tank missiles etc etc...

We are speaking about these weapons from the perspective of a democracy. A real democracy... Not like in Syria or Iran...
 
Many around the world now say that tanks are irrelevent, a relic of the cold war...In Israel there are rumors that the Merkava project was completely scraped....Do you think the tank is at its end?

Well with the invention of those things that basically knock an rpg out of the way or a missile headed towards an armored vehicle there really is no need for that much armor. Besides, a small light chassis can still carry a large caliber gun, and be much faster in the process.

The IDF is light years ahead of the game on most stuff. So I would probably take their rumors, as things to come.

And shalom to you by the way.
 
Trusting the Israeli knowledge is one thing, but still, armor is still needed in a battlezone.
The armor that protects you against RPGs can also protect you against IEDs.

If you have a system that can counter RPGs, what about artillery shells? tank shells? high caliber munitions?

If you care about naval warfare, they made battlecruisers, and we can define them as vessels with less armor and much bigger guns... So they can inflict more damage to the enemy than they could take. And they were faster too.

This is a sound tactic when you are fighting in open seas, where you cant hide unless you can dive (submarines)... And where the amount of armor needed to assure a good survivability underfire is just huge because of the powerful modern guns...

But is it the case for ground troops?

The big enemy of the MBT is still the costs... They are not cheap. And there is a lot of other weapons systems that can do the same job... But only in low intensity conflicts/wars... Like the war against terrorism.

These high tech toys are just additions to heavy armor. they can kill the reactive armor and such addons... But I dont think they are efficient enough enough to make heavy armor obsolete...

The only way it could happen... is... If they make fully automated or remote controled tanks with light armor...
 
I think there will be continued convergence between APC's and MBT's. I also think that there will be continued development toward heavy APC's. Man-portable anti-tank weapons are getting better and better. Tanks will be around for a long time, but in the future I see some kind of hybrid vehicle that has both APC and Tank features. Is the APC version of the Merkava a true tank because of its ability to carry troops? Is the BMP-3 really an APC or does it's 100mm gun really make it a tank? Some countries are turning old T-55's into "Heavy APC's" I think armored vehicles will be around a long time, but perhaps not the tank as we now know it.
 
A medieval knight on the other hand was a purely offensive creature completely unable to support other types of arms, hold ground or be employed in defensive operations, just because both units are offensive doesnt mean they're the same idea, based on that we could say that celtic berserkers who ran at the enemy dressed stark bloody naked are the same concept as tanks since they were both offensive units.

The only thing knights and tanks have in common is Civilisation PC game series.

Not necessarily, the reason medieval men-at-arms were the dominant arm was because they were what we'd call multi-role. One the one hand they could fight as heavy horse. On the other they could dismount and fight as heavily armed and armoured infantry. Or he could remove the heaviest bits of his gear and perform as a light cavalryman.

@ Rattler, the Pope's ban on Crossbows was largely for political reasons (He didn't want an enemy of his to be using them against him) And Mail and Plate performed very well against Crossbows.
 
I don't see them becoming obsolete on the short run. However, like the battleship, it may suddenly and spontaneously become obsolete. Who knows. Maybe Iron Man will ruin the battle tanks
 
Tanks, like machineguns; and they are a basic military technology that will always be needed to an extent, too. I'd rather develop tanks in case we are suddenly fighting a tank heavy army.
 
Something to think about,...

Anti tank weapons are smaller, lighter, cheaper and far easier to get to any specific battlefield than a great lumbering tank with it's large crew and highly specialised support team.

I think that we are in a transition stage at the moment, but eventually the tank will go the way of the battleship.
 
Back
Top