Originally Posted by 19kilo30K4

No thanks, it's hot over here, so I'll stick with Red Bull, and I don't need you to welcome me to modern warfare, the Iraqi Republican Guards did that just fine. I know they were not semi intelligent adversaries acording to you, but then you didn't have to fight them. You are absolutely right, just because there is an effective means to counter a threat, it makes it useless. Because anti ship missiles like used in the Falklands made all naval warfare pointless from then on, the SAM made all aviation pointless, the ATGM makes all armor pointless. You are absolutely brilliant in realizing that infantry carrying a full load can move just as far, just as fast as modern armor and go right into the attack just as fresh. I don't know why I didn't realize the error of my ways before now. I obviously won't change your mind even though actual facts are on my side. You are playing the theoretical game, sir and I live in the actual world. No tank force in history has been completely devastated by infantry the way you describe, but the oposite has happened. You continue to live in the world of "what if" and I'll continue to build off lessons learned in combat (after all, my life does depend on it). When an American armored force gets destroyed by some guys in the woodline, I'll change my mind, but not before. Perhaps you are aware of the American history of adaptation to the enemy's tactics (i.e. the Revolution, to Kasserine Pass). We don't always win, but we always learn.

Welcome to the world of modern application of proven facts.
Want a can of Red Bull?

Well the AS missile almost stopped the Falklands invasion ya know?
Had there been a few more Exocets I doubt the Brits would have had the guts to risk their carriers after they realized how inadequit their air defence systems were.

And you missed my point as well mate.
A well trained advesary wouldn´t have to hump his stuff hunting Tanks.
He would set up at chokepoints along the way and dig in.
He would KNOW how to fool many of the systems used to track ground elements.
The republican guard, while you might have experienced them as a modern tough fighting force were a shell of pre 90,s rep guards.
And what do you know of my experience?
I have been doing this for a shitload of years and I have met the best soldiers te US have to offer.
Good men all of them.

You want to stick up for your armor, fine by me.
I´ll hump my kit and be able to move on my own.
Both are needed in the current conflicts.

The future will tell who´s right in this case.
I´ll take you up on that Redbull soldier.

//KJ.

I don't think that MBT's become obsolet. 1. Who know's what the future brings? There is still a possibility of a "high intense" war between more or less equal opponents. And in such a war a MBT is a very important weaponsystem.
2. Even in such scenarios like they are actually in iraq and afghanistan a MBT could be very helpfull.
For this reason, the manufacturer of the german Leopard-tank is in developing a special version of the Leo 2 called PSO (Peace Support Operations) for such kind of operations. (http://defense-update.com/products/l/Leopard-PSO.htm, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syCbKoDYM54)

I think that no one can seriously say that tanks are obsolete.

I just said that we are in an era where the tank is so powerful that no smart enemy would dare to face him in a terrain/domain where the tank can be effective.

So this is why there is people who are working on lighter weapon platforms. Like the strykers in Iraq. Active defense systems rather than tons of armor (Jammers etc). And high rate of fire weapons rather than armor piercing weapons. More mobility by using wheels rather than tracks. etc etc...

We cant afford to have heavy tanks to patrol the cities or the roads. They are too heavy, too expensive and they arent made as cost effective platforms. They are made for a quick domination of the battlefield.

It's just that the modern conflicts are moving far from the tank's domain. Conflicts in urban areas, with light weapons, against very mobile and slippery foes etc...

Now, I dont know about the future conflicts. I say that every defense force should have enough tanks to be able to fight in a conventional/traditionnal war.

But if you want to fight a war against terrorism... You will need something else...

And thanks QuiGon, this PSO Leo looks like a really good idea. And it's still heavily armored and capable of engaging tanks... Nice.

The American's should make their PSO Abram's

Originally Posted by KJ

You want to stick up for your armor, fine by me.
I´ll hump my kit and be able to move on my own.
Both are needed in the current conflicts.

//KJ.

At last we agree. I don't claim to know your experience, but unless you were in 3rd Infantry Division in 2003, my statement about the invasion is accurate. I have worked with many international forces to include Aussies, Brits, Estonians, and Ukranians. I enjoy working with international forces fully, and am not trying to imply anything in regards to your military record I assure you.

As for LeMask, IFVs do seem to be a little more politically correct over here right now. Tanks have been a big no no lately, but I was able to sign for a Bradley CFV instead and I was able to use it more (19D Cav Scout and 19K Armor Crewman spend a lot of time with eachother). The argument from the chain of command was that tanks on the streets send a message to the population that things are getting worse not better. The Bradley holds up fairly well with the new urban kit upgrades and you can be a lot more selective on your targets without the same risk of collateral damage as the 120mm. The Bradley can also elevate it's gun to +60 degrees, so is a lot more useful near buildings. At a time where we are trying to get the Iraqis to take charge and govern themselves, tanks are inappropriate for the policing actions we are conducting now. You are right on the money about the shock value being a double edged sword. This is my third tour to Iraq, but the first one where we haven't used tanks daily. On the previous tours tanks were essential, but we are trying to lower our profile right now, and an M1 makes a huge statement.

The tank will certainly be around, but it's going to change a whole lot.

There will always be a need for an armored vehicle with a big gun on it.

But yeah, as armor gets lighter and better, I think the MBT will change. The focus now is on making faster, lighter, more fuel efficient tanks.