Will the battle tank become obsolete? - Page 5




 
--
 
January 29th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
I believe the SP Gun is the more viable option for Defense Dollars now days.
March 14th, 2007  
Bob
 
What is the tank's fate in the future of combat? The tank like all other forms of warfare will evolve to meet the requirements of the battlefield as all other units have. An example of this is how in the beginning days of tanks they were used principally for infantry support roles. Then in World War 2 the tank was used as a spearhead unit and was a chief component of the war. Now a days the tank has, in some ways, gone back to its first role as infantry support. In Iraq and Afganistan tanks along with air support are mainly used to clear out any hotspots that is too dangerous and strong for the infantry to take out. This is the tactic being used in the occupation and policing a country. The verdict? I believe that the tank in the future will be used to spearhead adnances across the battlefield, but return to its old tactic of infantry support after the major fighting has ceased. But let it be known that no matter what form the tank will take shape in the future, heavy or light, it will always have a place in the military.
March 24th, 2007  
sandy
 
No,Tank will alive in the future.
ATM is much expensive than gun for long time.
And,developpers learned threat of russian Anti-tank weapons and they will develop new defence weapons.
The rumor,mitsubishi tank designers changed their tank model greately by result of Israel-hezbollah war last summer.
--
April 11th, 2007  
RFOWELL
 

Topic: Will the battle tank become obsolete?


Or should the title be "When will the battle tank become obsolete?"
In the history of warfare, sooner or later, every weapon devised has become obsolete, replaced by something newer, better, meaner. There is no reason to believe the tank won't do the same.

I'm interested in hearing opinions.

Redleg, as an artillery officer, what do you think?
April 12th, 2007  
mmarsh
 
 
I think the role of the tank will change. If Iraq proved anything, it proved that even the best MBT like the Abrams can be destroyed by the simplest of ways, such as strapping 2 155mm shells together, and attaching a detonator.

Then of course there is Anti-tank missiles fired from aircraft/helicopters, from technicals, from infantry. Simple AT-Mines, Artillery, Cannon firing DU ammunition.

So if I were to hazard a guess of what the future lies, I would say with less protected, but faster, more menueverable, more expendable vehicles. I know the Army has tested remotely operated vehicles. There is certainly a future there.
April 12th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
If Iraq proved anything, it proved that even the best MBT like the Abrams can be destroyed by the simplest of ways, such as strapping 2 155mm shells together, and attaching a detonator.
SOURCE please.
May 18th, 2007  
Dean
 
 
In a fairly recent policy paper, Gen. R Hillier, the CDS of the Canadian Armed Forces stated that the Leopard C1 A4s were "millstones around the neck of the Army". He went on to state that the tank was obsolete, and that it should be replaced by lighter vehicles that have the same firepower. (i.e., the Stryker MGS) However, since that time, the Canadian Army has deployed their heavy armour in Afghanistan and found that the Leo C1 is the best weapon system for the job, but it also has serious problems, particularly in the summer. It turns out that the temperature in the fighting compartment can pass 45 degrees celsius, which is too hot for continued operations. As a result, the Canadian Army has ordered 120 Leopard 2A4s and 2A6s to replace the Leo 1s, and has put the entire LAV MGS system on hold. The result of all this? Well, General Hillier admitted that he was as wrong as he could possibly get, and the main battle tank will remain in the Canadian Forces inventory for some time to come. Tanks are just to damn good at what they do. No matter how good the AT systems in use are, disabling a tank is till a relatively difficult thing to do, as Hezbollah found out, and even a damaged tank can be an incredibly dangerous thing to have in front of you.

The tank is here to stay.

Dean.
May 19th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 

On the claim of an Abrams MBT being destroyed by an IED or any other enemy orndance I call b******t.

Desert Storm I
Quote:
Only 23 M1A1s were taken out of service in the Gulf [1] and none of these losses resulted in crew deaths from Iraqi fire. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. There were only 3 tank crew members wounded beyond doubt by enemy action
Quote:
Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but the damage was enough to send the tank to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 knocked out by an Iraqi MBT
Desert Storm II... OIF... et al
Quote:
on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine
Quote:
Abrams crew members were lost when one tank of the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division, and US Marine Corps troops, drove onto a bridge. The bridge failed, dropping the tank into the Euphrates River, where four Marines drowned.
Quote:
one M1A1 was disabled by a recoiless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine.
Quote:
On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED). The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank.
Quote:
On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by a roadside bomb that left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.
Quote:
On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.
Quote:
Some were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in an incident when fuel stowed in an external rack was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. This started a fire that spread to the engine.
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-abrams
May 19th, 2007  
Dean
 
 
Hi again Bulldogg.
Usually I agree with you, but this time, I think you are playing a little fast and loose with the word "disabled". It seems to me that if there is a fire burning in the fighting compartment and that one or more crewmen have been killed as a result of that fire, the tank is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. However, the hull and some other components, which are not flammable, can always be re-used, which gives rise to the wording used. If the tank is hit and burning, and the crew is wounded, killed or has to bail out, the tank is effectively out of action for quite some time. That means killed in my book.

Dean.

Dean.
May 19th, 2007  
bulldogg
 
 
Dean, I don't see where there was a "fire in the fighting compartment". Can you enlighten me as to where you are reading that?
 


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