Will the battle tank become obsolete?

[KJ]

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.

 

[QuiGon]

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)

 

[LeMask]

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

 

[19kilo30K4]

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.

 

[Hunt3r]

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.

 

[Yin717]

For me the tank will never be dead. Amittably war is changing and tanks are at their best when assaulting, which sadly we do little of now, yet it is very important bit of kit and very important support vehicle. They can also access many areas where even soldiers may find hard to get to. So no, I would never say the tank is dead.

 

[Korean Seaboy]

Of course not

Well, at this point, tanks won't be wiped out overnight. If the tanks have a few modifications like good AA guns or missiles, they will become a true power. Well, obviously the tank still have its uses. Also, many people are posting on this thread, thinking that the tank is alone. Problem is: The tank is never alone. It will always have air support around.

 

[Panzercracker]

And you missed my point as well mate.

Quite frankly so did i and while i'm pushing papers for the past several months i probably do have your experience.

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.

Yeah he would set a chokepoint on an open field and the tank would nicely come up to him.

To stop a tank offensive in a simetric conflict you need either artillery support with good recon, your own tanks or heavy assault choppers like Hinds or Eurocopters, CAS with fighters equipped for the task or dedicated bombers wont hurt too.

Infantry in itself will get f*cked by principle of not being able to take return fire, the only conceivable scenario where infantry heavily saturated with modern AT assets can stop an armored advance is either in heavy urban enviroment or densely forested area and even then you have to have an overwhelming amount of infantry and AT at a right place and at a right time and enemy tanks have to have limited infantry and IFV support, otherwise you're still focked.

He would KNOW how to fool many of the systems used to track ground elements.

How about you stop the bullsh*t? Another internet soldier ...

Yes there's ways to conceal yourself but again one shot one kill is a rare scenario for a variety of reasons such as angle, range, possible obstructions, the fact that the tank will more often then not be a moving target, the infantry and IFVs around the tank.

Yes you can do all the stuff you describe but you need perfect conditions and in 99% of situations you will be at a disadvantage where you just wont have perfect conditions, not to mention unless your army has heavy mechanized units of its own you just wont keep up with tanks/tracked IFVs as they dont depend on roads nearly as much so apart from slim chances of your scenario there's even a chance you wont be where the fight is.

This is exactly why Poland got so focked in 1939, relatively well armed infantry was unable to get to the fight fast enough due to lack of trucks, today the focus shifted to tracked IFVs, and if you have tracked IFVs you need tanks to protect them for obvious reasons.

The republican guard, while you might have experienced them as a modern tough fighting force were a shell of pre 90,s rep guards.

Iraqi invasions were not symmetric conflicts so its pointless to use them as an example.

And what do you know of my experience?

What experience? You're either just another internet soldier or the most incompetent trooper i've met.

I have been doing this for a shitload of years and I have met the best soldiers te US have to offer.

Posting on internet forums? Yeah apparently, also what does meeting US soldiers have to do with your personal competence (or lack of thereof).


While i agree that both are needed fighting any semi-competent armored force in a symetric conlict is a lot more complicated and infantry vs supported armor always ends the same way in such outcomes.

 

[FO Seaman]

Quite frankly so did i and while i'm pushing papers for the past several months i probably do have your experience.

Yeah he would set a chokepoint on an open field and the tank would nicely come up to him.

To stop a tank offensive in a simetric conflict you need either artillery support with good recon, your own tanks or heavy assault choppers like Hinds or Eurocopters, CAS with fighters equipped for the task or dedicated bombers wont hurt too.

Infantry in itself will get f*cked by principle of not being able to take return fire, the only conceivable scenario where infantry heavily saturated with modern AT assets can stop an armored advance is either in heavy urban enviroment or densely forested area and even then you have to have an overwhelming amount of infantry and AT at a right place and at a right time and enemy tanks have to have limited infantry and IFV support, otherwise you're still focked.

How about you stop the bullsh*t? Another internet soldier ...

Yes there's ways to conceal yourself but again one shot one kill is a rare scenario for a variety of reasons such as angle, range, possible obstructions, the fact that the tank will more often then not be a moving target, the infantry and IFVs around the tank.

Yes you can do all the stuff you describe but you need perfect conditions and in 99% of situations you will be at a disadvantage where you just wont have perfect conditions, not to mention unless your army has heavy mechanized units of its own you just wont keep up with tanks/tracked IFVs as they dont depend on roads nearly as much so apart from slim chances of your scenario there's even a chance you wont be where the fight is.

This is exactly why Poland got so focked in 1939, relatively well armed infantry was unable to get to the fight fast enough due to lack of trucks, today the focus shifted to tracked IFVs, and if you have tracked IFVs you need tanks to protect them for obvious reasons.


Iraqi invasions were not symmetric conflicts so its pointless to use them as an example.

What experience? You're either just another internet soldier or the most incompetent trooper i've met.

Posting on internet forums? Yeah apparently, also what does meeting US soldiers have to do with your personal competence (or lack of thereof).


While i agree that both are needed fighting any semi-competent armored force in a symetric conlict is a lot more complicated and infantry vs supported armor always ends the same way in such outcomes.

Hold on now. Just calm down Panzer, we're all professionals here, lets use logic and reason to argue our points, not foul language and insults.

While I am in no doubt of your military service and achievements, but KJ is no more an "Internet Soldier" than you. We're all here to learn, discuss and debate.

Besides I do like you Panzer and I'd hate to see a mod or admin have to ban or suspend you.

Now not to just track and lock on Panzer here, and I am no one of any authority on this forum but I think we all need to take a knee and do some educated thinking. We're all educated professionals in our respective services, branch and countries. We're all ambassadors for our countries, services and branches. Lets make it a comfortable, relaxed place to discuss possible scenarios, and not a hot bed for flaming and internet debauchery.

Rational thinking, intelligence and reason should be our foundation and cornerstone for discuss and debate, not yelling and arguing, and remember it's always a good thing to have hard proof, such as links, photos, documents, ect...

But, as back to a topic related discussion...


I am in the agreement that the tank and armor combat have yet to meet it's demise, if even a possible glimmer of it's minimization, I can't foresee ground commanders of any nation letting the Knight of battle be taken from the board, it's like trying to take arty or CAS out of the picture, not something I can foresee happening.

 

[LeMask]

Oh, come on, there is efficient ways to fight tanks...

What are tanks? They are heavy armored weapon platforms. If you try to destroy their armor, you will need heavy weapons... And if you try to have more firepower than a tank, you will have heavy casulties...

But you know, as a warrior, you learn to never attack your enemy where he is strong... But where he is weak.

Attacking a tank is stupid... They are made to survive attacks. But tanks need support and cost a lot of ressources... You can attack their support units. Fuel trucks... ammo trucks...

And maybe the use of mines and light anti tank weapons to damage the tanks... Without disabling them... There may be ways to destroy their tracks... a mobility kill is a good enough victory...

I mean, harassing the enemy... Maybe there is light weapons capable of damaging a tank's equipment... Optics and such... These things cost a lot...

 

[FO Seaman]

Oh, come on, there is efficient ways to fight tanks...

What are tanks? They are heavy armored weapon platforms. If you try to destroy their armor, you will need heavy weapons... And if you try to have more firepower than a tank, you will have heavy casulties...

Tanks have evolved beyond just a weapons platform, it's a form of combat.

An AT-4, LAW-77 or RPG-7v aren't rather heavy weapons, and can be carried by one man.

you know, as a warrior, you learn to never attack your enemy where he is strong... But where he is weak.

Sun Tzu, exploit your enemies weaknesses, find the chink in his armor and focus all your energy at that point.

a tank is stupid... They are made to survive attacks. But tanks need support and cost a lot of ressources... You can attack their support units. Fuel trucks... ammo trucks...

No, attacking a tank is not stupid. If applying the proper tactics, weapons and maneuvers you can take a tank out with relative ease, what your big worry should be is it's assist combat arms, like infantry, or air support.

While attacking an enemies logistical support will cripple them, 9 times out of 10 the enemy knows this too, and will protect their support units with said tanks, and air support and infantry.

maybe the use of mines and light anti tank weapons to damage the tanks... Without disabling them... There may be ways to destroy their tracks... a mobility kill is a good enough victory...

I find this statement to be a bit hypocritical of you previous ones.

If mines are used once a tank is damage by one, the enemy isn't going to use that avenue of approach until it's clear by engineers, so then you've effectivly wasted time laying a mines.

Yes and no, if a US tank is damage or end up as a "mobility kill" we simply pick up it's peices, send it back home for rebuild and it ends back up in theater a few months later, other than costing the enemy some money you've effectively done nothing.

mean, harassing the enemy... Maybe there is light weapons capable of damaging a tank's equipment... Optics and such... These things cost a lot...

Yes and no, most tanks have secondary and even more basic forms of optics on their armor, tanks are no longer lightly armored, little rumbling beasts with a single 75mm gun and a single day optic.

We're talking heavily armored and armed, multiple weapon vehicles, with multiple optics and communications abilities, as well as supporting arms to call upon.

 

[LeMask]

Well, my point is that modern tanks are too powerful. You need other tanks to face them effectively.

You spoke about Sun Tzu... And you are right. I think that the weak spot of modern tanks is their costs. Their price and also the support their need. And I'm not even talking about the armed support... Just the support trucks. They need roads to reach the units they are refueling... etc...

That's the "area" you have to attack...

You are thinking in a military point of view. Where you are looking to destroy or disable a tank definitively. I'm thinking about something else... I gave up on the idea of destroying tanks a long time ago.

I'm thinking about making them obsolete because of their costs.

Yeah it's not very smart... Because it's sending troops at the enemy until they are out of bullets... But if you find a way to "bankrupt" the enemy... It's better than losing the war.

Think of the Japenese at the end of world war II. If they knew that the Americans were out of atomic bombs for some months... Who knows what would have happened.

 

[FO Seaman]

Well, my point is that modern tanks are too powerful. You need other tanks to face them effectively.

Not true, todays tank posesses the ability to somewhat adapt to their eviorment, but a tank is not a conquer all vehicle, it's best in it's role as either armor on armor, or in infantry support. Most countries have build tanks to upgraded and adapt as time and combat evolve.

You spoke about Sun Tzu... And you are right. I think that the weak spot of modern tanks is their costs. Their price and also the support their need. And I'm not even talking about the armed support... Just the support trucks. They need roads to reach the units they are refueling... etc...

This idea was tried by the VC and NVA during the early days of Veitnam, doesn't work well. When Veitnam ended, we where dumping M48's and UH-1's into the ocean, tells you we had money to spend. It could take decades to "bankrupt" an enemy into not being able to spend in defense, most countries around the world spend most of their GDP in defense spending.

You are thinking in a military point of view. Where you are looking to destroy or disable a tank definitively. I'm thinking about something else... I gave up on the idea of destroying tanks a long time ago.

I think the word your looking for is "conventional" I am think in conventional terms and you are thinking in unconventional terms.

I'm thinking about making them obsolete because of their costs.

I can't foresee this happening. When a military invests in a weapon they plan on using this weapon well into the foreseeable future. The US has plans to use the M1 until well into the new millennium, and we don't build any of them new, we take older platforms and upgrade and update, saves money, time and manpower.

Yeah it's not very smart... Because it's sending troops at the enemy until they are out of bullets... But if you find a way to "bankrupt" the enemy... It's better than losing the war.

How are you going to bankrupt an enemy? Wars can rage for decades and money is not an issue, as long as your enemy has a means to continue to fight he will.

Think of the Japenese at the end of world war II. If they knew that the Americans were out of atomic bombs for some months... Who knows what would have happened.

When we planned to drop the bombs, we warned Japan of our plans, and they hunkered down for what was to come, thinking we only had one, and boy when we dropped the second on Nagasaki they where very confused and stunned, in addition it is unknown if did or didn't have more bombs, I'd assume to this day that information is classified.


I understand what your sayings, but unless you plan to somehow infiltrate an enemies political or military development, I can't see how you would cause an enemy to design or build tanks that would bankrupt them.

What the US spends in a day in Iraq is the GDP for some counties per year.

 

[Panzercracker]

Oh, come on, there is efficient ways to fight tanks...

Of course, assault helis, CAS, artillery, other tanks.

Dedicated tank destroyers are a support weapon, not a stand-alone system.

However only other tanks have flexibility, all other weapons are purpose built and have severe limitations, helicopters will get blown off the sky if they encounter well prepared AA, CAS requires complete air superiority and artillery requires good recon which in symetric conflict is not that easy.

Attacking a tank is stupid... They are made to survive attacks. But tanks need support and cost a lot of ressources... You can attack their support units. Fuel trucks... ammo trucks...

This assumes you have air superiority and that supply lines are exposed, also modern tanks have quite some range, M1 which is a gas guzzler has nearly half a thousand kilometers so short term severing of supply lines is not gonna cut it and for long term operation you need to completely rule the sky, once you do you've practically won anyway.

And maybe the use of mines and light anti tank weapons to damage the tanks... Without disabling them... There may be ways to destroy their tracks... a mobility kill is a good enough victory...

Yes its also hard as hell, first of all you need to set up a high density minefield, second you have to have a large unit heavily saturated with said light AT weapons and then you may be able to damage a few tanks.

See Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

I mean, harassing the enemy... Maybe there is light weapons capable of damaging a tank's equipment... Optics and such... These things cost a lot...

The problem is that the enemy will harass you back with 50cal and 120mm fire as well as 20-30mm autocannons and infantry support, if you're trying to harass a significant enemy unit with light AT assets you're dead, its pure mathematics they're going to kill you a lot faster then you kill them.

Such an armored formation would move as it pleases anyway and your light infantry would most of the time be supressed or forced to abandon their initial positions becasue as you have noticed light AT has no hope of stopping an armored formation dead in its tracks, in no time your unit is either dead or withdrawing.

@FO

And yeah Seaman i'm sorry had a rough day when replying back then.

Well, my point is that modern tanks are too powerful. You need other tanks to face them effectively.

Not neccesarily, helis, CAS or arty will massacre even large tank formations, they're not as flexible as tanks since helis cant fight in an enviroment spiked with AA, arty is not as mobile/armored/able to fight in direct combat and CAS is limited by a variety of things i'm too lazy to recount and none of them can hold ground but all of them can mangle armored formations pretty badly.

 

[LeMask]

Well, I can only agree with you guys...

But I have one question, you speak about using artillery against tanks... I dont fully understand that.

Unless you use smart munitions capable of searching for a target... I dont see how an artillery round can be efficient on a tank.

Is it accurate enough to fall right on a tank?
Is an artillery round capable of piercing a tank's armor?

I just cant imagine how an artillery strike can be effective on tanks...

If the Russians invade tomorrow with hundreds of tanks... I wouldnt even think of using artillery. Where am I wrong?

And you spoke about the Israeli tanks in Lebanon. I never heard about saturated minefields... I heard about infantry and AT tank teams... But nothing else. And thay had pretty poor results, not?

 

[FO Seaman]

Well, I can only agree with you guys...

But I have one question, you speak about using artillery against tanks... I dont fully understand that.

Unless you use smart munitions capable of searching for a target... I dont see how an artillery round can be efficient on a tank.

Is it accurate enough to fall right on a tank?
Is an artillery round capable of piercing a tank's armor?

FASCAM is an artillery weapon which can be a deadly weapon against a tank.

For the US, the use of FBCB2 and BFT assist in batteries lending support armor, able to track friendlies with transponders and enemies with satellite imagery, also the ability to use a 3G network helps, being able to transmit sensitive data over non-voice nets.

I just cant imagine how an artillery strike can be effective on tanks...

It can actually be quite effective, if you have the means and firepower.

If the Russians invade tomorrow with hundreds of tanks... I wouldnt even think of using artillery. Where am I wrong?

Actually if Russia invaded, the US was mostly dependent on the A-10 and M1, but artillary was a fairly large apart of the equation. If I'm not mistaken, a good portion arty that was stationed in East Germany was armed with tactical nuclear shells.

And you spoke about the Israeli tanks in Lebanon. I never heard about saturated minefields... I heard about infantry and AT tank teams... But nothing else. And thay had pretty poor results, not?

Bit of a differance in that aspect, Israel is in a better position to use mines, they're defending rather than in an offensive posture.

 

[Panzercracker]

Well, I can only agree with you guys...

But I have one question, you speak about using artillery against tanks... I dont fully understand that.

Unless you use smart munitions capable of searching for a target... I dont see how an artillery round can be efficient on a tank.

Quite simple, speaking from Polish example, we send an UAV or a commando on a quad he locates the target send coordinates to artillery and they come up with firing solution.

Is it accurate enough to fall right on a tank?
Is an artillery round capable of piercing a tank's armor?

It doesnt have to but with smart munitions it can, depending on ammo and caliber it can pierce the armor and since it typically hits the upper part where the tank is weak it can be lethal.

I just cant imagine how an artillery strike can be effective on tanks...

Extremely, a large well placed battery with good firing solution can mess up even large armored units somewhat nasty.

If the Russians invade tomorrow with hundreds of tanks... I wouldnt even think of using artillery. Where am I wrong?

Well then you would be mistaken, long range platforms capable of taking out or damaging tanks with little risk to themselves, Poland for example is basing its AT defenses on modern artillery augmented by air recon via choppers, fighters, UAVs, scout vehicles and commandoes on quads.

Most armies have similar solutions, with wealthier countries using satelite surveillance to further augment the accuracy, all in all artillery is a pretty mean AT weapon when supported by good recon.

And you spoke about the Israeli tanks in Lebanon. I never heard about saturated minefields... I heard about infantry and AT tank teams... But nothing else. And thay had pretty poor results, not?

I didnt mean mines, i meant anti-tank assets, they shot thousands and Israelis still operated relatively freely, minefields are tricky for a variety of reasons, not least of which is they take time to establish and can be bypassed and obviously you're not going to heavily mine your own positions, fighting in the middle of a minefield sucks

As for Russia? I doubt it could muster more then 1500 tanks, artillery can then center on the front wave, target chokepoints and provide fire screens and finally it can destroy armor with direct fire.

 

[FO Seaman]

I just cant imagine how an artillery strike can be effective on tanks...

You know thinking of it, I remember a armored vehicle we (US) had feared would be certain causality in artillery strikes, the M220 TGMEC and M113A1 TOW CAP, what was eventually replaced by the M901 ITV and then the M2/M3.

 

[Wallabies]

The only hand held AT weapon system that can defeat a modern MBT is the Javelin, anything else and they won't even get close to penetrating the armour.

Artillery ****s tanks up. Put them up on a hill and turn them into direct fire, extremely accurate, high rate of fire, heaps of ammo. WW2 style.

 

[LeMask]

Please be patient with me guys.

Do you label are a TOW vehicle as an artillery vehicle? Doesnt it fall with mechanized infantry with AT capabilities?

Because if a TOW attack is efficient on tanks, you can use HUMVEES with TOWs on heavy tanks aswell...

And I know that some European countries are using tank hunter squads, it was lightly armored vehicle with ATGMs. But I fear that these kinds of vehicles are made to be used in a certain terrain to be effective. Their light armor could make them easy target in the open desert as an example...

And do you think that the tanks might evolve to abandon their heavy canons to use smart missiles. More and more tanks have artillery and missile capabilities (think of the Merkava). Dont you think that tanks might evolve in this way, to take rapid fire canons to be effective on buildings/infantry and to use missiles against armor?