Will the battle tank become obsolete?

SHERMAN said:
people who blow up 400kg IEDs arnt concerned about colleterall damage
Click to expand...

True - but we have to be concerned, we are the ones who more than likely will end up repairing what we destroy, plus it is not good for relations because of a few sh_t birds. We are even eliminating heavy armor out of cities due to the wideness of the streets because of potential damage and speed to get to trouble spots. The Stryker is the perfect vehicle for this.
 
which somehow returns us to the original point of this thread... can the stryker do what a tank dose...i believe it cant...
 
becuase iraq is not the only, and certinly not the last conflict the USA or other nations will fight. you cant have 8000 M1s and 8000 Strykers. At least my country cant. The tank is a very flexible AFV. Its uses are numerous in high, medium, and low intensity conflicts. The Stryker is almost useless as far as i know, when it comes to fighting in a real two sided armoured batlle. If Israel can only have one tool, id rather struggle to kill ants with a hamer than try to fight tigers with twizers.
 
SHERMAN said:
becuase iraq is not the only, and certinly not the last conflict the USA or other nations will fight. you cant have 8000 M1s and 8000 Strykers. At least my country cant. The tank is a very flexible AFV. Its uses are numerous in high, medium, and low intensity conflicts. The Stryker is almost useless as far as i know, when it comes to fighting in a real two sided armoured batlle. If Israel can only have one tool, id rather struggle to kill ants with a hamer than try to fight tigers with twizers.
Click to expand...

Sherman - your country has alot of experience when it comes to fighting in this type of environment thus the reason for the designing factors inregards to the Merkava series. The cold war era armies are set up for eating up alot of territories with lightning speeds, they were not intended to fight in this type of environment, my country has learned this the hard way again for the second time. Yes - the IDF is lean and mean and doesn`t have alot of territory to play with and tanks serve the pinnacle of your defense and offensive tactics, people wonder why you guys do not bother to go to a auto cannon mounted on a IFV and I can understand why, it is not needed. With us you are going to see two different types of units that will consist of light versus heavy, we have come to the conclusion that heavy armor still is needed on the battlefield for the initial destruction of a major army, after that has been achieved then you can go to a lighter faster vehicle to maintain control. lighter vehicles will also play a factor in quick reactionary type engagements also for the lesser trouble spots that are out there. The IDF has recently purchased Strykers that you intend on adding your version of RA, what is the mission that these vehicles will be used for. Our tank and Bradley losses are down in a big way since we have gone to the Stryker type vehicle, also think of all the logistical costs that we can save along with vehicle overhauls. Technology can be placed on a lighter vehicle that makes it effective in getting the job done in a urbanized setting and the U.S thanks Israel for working with us to make this a viable solution. I threw in some photos of the Stryker to show some of the weapons systems potential that are out there, if you look at the vehicles in the convoy road march you will notice Reactive armor on them, this will be mounted soon on all Strykers.
 
Last edited:
I think the stryker, if at all fielded here, wil be fielded as an IFV. tis is no problem seeing as its far better by any measure when compared to the M-113. We have thousends of the M-113 APCs and frankly they are junk. No protection, no real armament, and not too great on speed. But replacing Merkavas with strykers or anything lighter than a main battle tank is crazy. look good at IDF OBs and try to see by what you know what size is our tank fleet....all comes at a price. most countries cant have vast fleets of IFVs and vast fleets of MBTs. Israel cant manouver, at least not on our main fron(IE the Golan). We have to breakthrough by assaulting. Wouldent want to assault with anything thinner than a tank, considering the ammounts of threats in the Golan-
RPG-7v, RPG-29
ATGMs(Including Milans and AT-14)
T-55AMV(AT-10),T-62(115mm) T-72AV(125mm)
Mi-25, Gazelle(HOT)
artilelry rangng from 81mm to 160mm.....

Try to push through that with a stryker and you end up as dead as you can get.

Its clear to me that this is a very specific situation, but i firmly believe Israel needs an IFV that can keep in advance with the Merkava, and this means either Achzarit or Namer, because no one is selling this type of vehicle, apart from mayb some rusky new APCs(BMP-T, i think its called)
 
As my prior post stated I do understand the importance of the IDFs battle doctrine and how the tank plays a important factor into that, I am not stating that the Stryker should be in the initial phase of a fight due to limitations of the vehicle, but it does work well in urbanized and quick reactionary forces, it is not designed to take on a major blunt punch from a sizable force, that is why we are keeping our heavies around for a few more decades. The Namer will be a good companion to travel along with your tanks even though it is only equipped with a 50 cal MG with some of them set up with ATGM platform. Yes the Russians are trying this approach also which isn`t needed for their battle doctrine and where they will be fighting, the Ukrainians have some even wilder examples that are out there built on T-55,T-64.T-72 and T-80 hulls. Russian BMP-T is specifically designed for urbanized warfare and really doesn`t serve any other purpose, and it is based on T-90 hull armor protection levels. They also have one called BTRT which is more of a infantry hauler where the BMP-T doesn`t carry infantry, time will tell on what they actually will build in numbers. IDF is supposingly getting at least a battalions worth of the Strykers and it will be of interest on what role they will play. The U.S can afford to offer both light and heavy armored units, and this was long in coming with the responsibilities and obligations that my country must uphold to. Here is some photos of Russian infantry haulers made out of tank hulls.
 
Last edited:
naturally the needs of usa armed forces are greatly diffrent than the IDFs. either way it seems to me that neither can afford to let go of its MBTs for now.

I wonder if those rusian ICVs are as mean as they look...Israel dosent add cannons or atgms to APCs because its not part of our doctorine. the IFV carries IDF troops to combat but dosent charge the enemy. fire support is given by Merkavas. In urban areas like gaza battle teams of tanks, heavy APCs and D-9s operate togather and compliment each other.
 
SHERMAN said:
naturally the needs of usa armed forces are greatly diffrent than the IDFs. either way it seems to me that neither can afford to let go of its MBTs for now.

I wonder if those rusian ICVs are as mean as they look...Israel dosent add cannons or atgms to APCs because its not part of our doctorine. the IFV carries IDF troops to combat but dosent charge the enemy. fire support is given by Merkavas. In urban areas like gaza battle teams of tanks, heavy APCs and D-9s operate togather and compliment each other.
Click to expand...

Bmp-T is kinda of a neat concept:

Twin 30mm offers high angle firpower when shooting into buildings and roof tops.
Kornet ATGM launchers that can fire a thermaboric warhead, nasty buggers.

We will need heavies for a long time in coming, you will see a M1A3 here in the near future with all kinds of goodies being offered.:)
 
SHERMAN said:
Just dont sell the bugger to the egyptians...
Click to expand...

I do not think the IDF has to worry about that, they are already upset that we will only give them some of the M1A2 electronic upgrades versus the whole setup. Also they wanted to upgrade their Tungsten penetrator rounds to what we are giving Australia and we gave them a big NYET on that also, they will continue to use the older version of that round.:)
 
I'll take the Canadian Army as an example: At first, we only had troops over there (Afghanistan). Then, we wanted a something that would really make the war VERY unfair. The something was: Leopards C2! It was pretty much something to set us apart from the enemy who relied only on Guerrila Infantry (apart from IEDs, damn IEDs...). If your enemy doesn't have tanks, get some and watch them struggle to take them out. If your enemy has them, get better ones (it was either the first or second Gulph War where the American's destroyed all of Sadam's petty Russian tanks without loosing one).

Tanks are useful in urban combat situations believe it or not. If you look at videos on Youtube, pesky insurgent snipers in Iraq have been made short work of with the Abrams' Cannon. The ability of laying down a very large amount of firepower (one you would find on an Abrams' tank: .50 cal, 7.62, and another 7.62 co-axial) will very easily turn the tide of battle.

Tanks in an open environment? Even better.
 
Cdt Matteo said:
I'll take the Canadian Army as an example: At first, we only had troops over there (Afghanistan). Then, we wanted a something that would really make the war VERY unfair. The something was: Leopards C2! It was pretty much something to set us apart from the enemy who relied only on Guerrila Infantry (apart from IEDs, damn IEDs...). If your enemy doesn't have tanks, get some and watch them struggle to take them out. If your enemy has them, get better ones (it was either the first or second Gulph War where the American's destroyed all of Sadam's petty Russian tanks without loosing one).

Tanks are useful in urban combat situations believe it or not. If you look at videos on Youtube, pesky insurgent snipers in Iraq have been made short work of with the Abrams' Cannon. The ability of laying down a very large amount of firepower (one you would find on an Abrams' tank: .50 cal, 7.62, and another 7.62 co-axial) will very easily turn the tide of battle.

Tanks in an open environment? Even better.
Click to expand...

You are looking at two different theater of operations where tanks are being used, tanks are not having to fight in urban environments in Afghanistan and no they are not the perfect answer for every encounter in Iraq either regardless of what you are watching on the tube.
 
I was in Paris the 14 July... and I saw the military parade. I remember some armored vehicules with some big guns on their top...

It was some AA guns I think... 30mm or something of this kind... you know,with 4 barrels... and I saw these guns idly aimed at the skies... and I thought that it was the perfect weapon to fire on someone hiding in a moutain.

4 high caliber machine guns... If a Taliban is hiding in a hole on a moutain and firing at you... It would be the PERFECt gun to return fire.
I dont think that a normal tank can fire at such angles...
 
AA guns were used by many countries to hit infantry in diffrent situations. Israel used the Vulcan SPAA against infantry in lebanon in the 80s and 90s. We also used 203mm SPA to fire directly at buildings. If you know your gear well, you can find surprising uses for some of it:)
 
Or even against tanks ^^

I remember a documentary about WWII. they said that the Germans used some AA guns to hit tanks... and that the high velocity rounds were perfect to tear through armor.
 
I remember a documentary about WWII. they said that the Germans used some AA guns to hit tanks... and that the high velocity rounds were perfect to tear through armor.
Click to expand...

Well they used the 88mm Flak that was bigger than most tank guns of the day. And later on it was used as a tank gun on the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. I dont think a 20 or even 40 mm AA gun could penetrate a modern MBT, but than again, who knows...Israel Marketed the 60mm high valocity gun as a T-55 killer, and indeed it was, so i guess anything is possible.
 
Continued from other thread:

Bacara said:
that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.
Click to expand...
I believe that there is already a missile that will overcome active/reactive armour with two spaced charges, the first just to detonate the reactive armour.

A pair of infantrymen with a missile cost nothing like what a tank does, they are smaller, cheaper, more flexible, easier to train and maintain, and far quicker to replace if needed.
 
yes but active armor shoots the missle before it hits, also the missiles cost almost a million dollars!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top