...sorta hard to take and hold ground with air support.

Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?

I think tanks are fearsome weapons in a combined arms attack, but on their own they are highly vulnerable. You need airsuperiority to deploy them, but when you get them on the ground with the infantry they can slug through anything on the ground.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?

That's because it's just anti-tank gun.

A Stryker? You mean the underarmored, poorly thought out troop carrier? It's armor can be defeated by a .50 round. Plunking a 105mm gun on the top doesn't make it a replacement for a tank.

I'd say deploying a couple tanks with infantry support are cheaper than replacing a bunch of Strykers. Is the Stryker a POS? While I have heard the argument that it is, I don't necessarily think so. It has issues being an LAV. Lets not make it be a tank, too.

Tank isn't going anywhere anytime soon. They have more than proved their worth to the US military not only in the past, but the present, You won't have a need for a tank in say, Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean there aren't times where you do. Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example.

The worst thing a military can do is rid itself of its conventional weapons and equiptment. Nothing can drag down combat effectiveness lower than thinking "we don't need it anymore." As sure as you say that and DX it, you'll need it.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?

As MovingTarget said, the Stryker is not a tank. It can't do what a tank can do.

I dunno, I think the Tank is very vulernable. Even in WWII tanks could be easily destroyed by a varity of methods from aircraft, mines, AT equipped infantry, artillery not to mention other tanks and AT-platforms, and this was BEFORE the advent of the AT-Missile. On top of all this all tanks now have to deal with Helicopters which are ideal tank hunters and specialist tank killers such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II and AH-64. Even Iraq has showed that even a car packed with explosives is capable of disabling all but the most heavily armored of tanks. Thats not even mention all the MANPORTs and Technical mounted systems out there.

I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I dunno, I think the Tank is very vulernable. Even in WWII tanks could be easily destroyed by a varity of methods from aircraft, mines, AT equipped infantry, artillery not to mention other tanks and AT-platforms, and this was BEFORE the advent of the AT-Missile. On top of all this all tanks now have to deal with Helicopters which are ideal tank hunters and specialist tank killers such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II and AH-64. Even Iraq has showed that even a car packed with explosives is capable of disabling all but the most heavily armored of tanks. Thats not even mention all the MANPORTs and Technical mounted systems out there.

I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...

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.

Does anyone know if they are planning to start mounting Stingers on Abrams or anything? It seems like it would increase their survivability against helicopters by a lot.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...

That is precisely where I think the the future of the tank lies.

Originally Posted by major liability

Does anyone know if they are planning to start mounting Stingers on Abrams or anything? It seems like it would increase their survivability against helicopters by a lot.

It wouldn't usually be necessary. Tanks rarely operate without support so there would usually be some sort of anti-aircraft equipment available.