Will the battle tank become obsolete? - Page 17




 
--
 
October 21st, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
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 wouldnŽt 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.
IŽll hump my kit and be able to move on my own.
Both are needed in the current conflicts.

The future will tell whoŽs right in this case.
IŽll take you up on that Redbull soldier.

//KJ.
October 21st, 2009  
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)
October 21st, 2009  
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
--
October 21st, 2009  
19kilo30K4
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ

You want to stick up for your armor, fine by me.
IŽll 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.
November 4th, 2009  
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.
November 22nd, 2009  
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.
January 15th, 2010  
Korean Seaboy
 
 

Topic: 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.
January 16th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
A well trained advesary wouldnŽt 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ
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.
January 17th, 2010  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
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.
January 18th, 2010  
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...
 


Similar Topics
Main Battle Tank Battle
US main battle tank destroyed in southern Iraq
What's your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)?
I want Redleg banned.
Yom Kippur war - Shmuel Askarov story