Will the battle tank become obsolete?

Bacara, following my limited knowledge, the Javelin missile cost less than 200k $ ... Something around 100.000$

And with Tandem Warheads the reactive armor can be bypassed.
And about the active defenses... They have their limits. I dont trust them...

If someone can give us some insights about these active defenses?
 
LeMask said:
Bacara, following my limited knowledge, the Javelin missile cost less than 200k $ ... Something around 100.000$

And with Tandem Warheads the reactive armor can be bypassed.
And about the active defenses... They have their limits. I dont trust them...

If someone can give us some insights about these active defenses?
Click to expand...
No doubt there is already a weapon either in use or on the drawing board to defeat this. e.g a tandem missile with a "target", and warhead following too close for the armour radar to react. It's very little different to the tandem warhead idea.

Active armour relies on doppler radar and that I have no doubt could be easily foiled, maybe even fooled into discharging most or all of the active armour in one go. EW has been doing this type of thing for over 40 years.
 
Last edited:
unmanned tanks what happens when the enemy hacks you system and turns your robot tanks against you? Same with unmanned aircraft?
 
LeMask said:
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...

An interesting story told to me by one of my uncle's who served in North Africa with the Long Range Desert Group.

An anti tank gun was captured from the German Afrika Korps, on closer examination it was found to be a British Anti Aircraft gun (I cant remember if he mentioned if it was a 3.7 or 4.7) fitted to an anti tank mounting. When serial numbers were checked it appears the gun was exported to Russia, who then converted the gun to anti tank role. The gun was captured by the Germans and sent to North Africa. The British had a very good anti tank gun without realising it!
 
No doubt there is already a weapon either in use or on the drawing board to defeat this. e.g a tandem missile with a "target", and warhead following too close for the armour radar to react. It's very little different to the tandem warhead idea.
Click to expand...

The fact is that since armor existed, in any form(including knights) there were weapons made to counter it. There is a swing that leans towards armor somtimes and towards projectiles at other times. It will take time for reactive protection to be defeated by viable/operational weapons, and than someone will make better protection. In any situation, your not sopposed to rely on your armor stopping anti-tank projectiles. The idea is and always will be:
Dont see me-If you see me, dont be able to shoot at me-If you shoot at me, dont be able to hit me-if you hit me, dont penetrate me- and last but not least:if you penetrate me, dont kill me.
 
know this

:avi: Before Operation Iraqi Freedom the Army was planning to phase out the tank all to gether and use lighter vehicles like the Stryker and LAV. After encountering many types of IED's and EFP's the tank wast the only vehicle to survive most attacks. Plus many of the insurgeants are affraid of the Tanks and Bradleys versus the Hmmv's, Strykers and other wheeled vehicles. Now the Army will keep the M1 series Tank and just add upgrades to compensate for the new environments on the battlefield.:bang:
 
SHERMAN said:
Many around the world now say that tanks are irrelevent, a relic of the cold war...In Israel there are rumors that the Merkava project was completely scraped....Do you think the tank is at its end?
Click to expand...
Yes they are rumors, the Israeli military though clings to its tanks like there's no tomorrow and for a good reason.

Untill the military finds an alternative to a mobile bunker with a large boomstick i dont see the tanks going anywhere.
 
Rorke said:
Yes they are rumors, the Israeli military though clings to its tanks like there's no tomorrow and for a good reason.

Untill the military finds an alternative to a mobile bunker with a large boomstick i dont see the tanks going anywhere.
Click to expand...
I think Venezuela with be nexrt to start a war with the US. They biding for Russians to sell them weapons and build a nuclear reactor for them. Then they will wanrt to aquire nuclear missiles.
 
Alexin_Cobra said:
I think Venezuela with be nexrt to start a war with the US. They biding for Russians to sell them weapons and build a nuclear reactor for them. Then they will wanrt to aquire nuclear missiles.
Click to expand...
Actually as far as South America is concerned its far more likely that when US falls from its position as a worlds hegemony Brasil will attempt to dominate the region and thats where all the wars will happen.

Even Chavez is not stupid enough to start a war with US and definitely not a nuke-fest.
 
Why you fear Chavez and Venezuella so much?

The people in Venezuela want Chavez as its leader... They dont like the US domination of the world.

All of this is cool. Chavez did nationalise the oil compagnies to let the people profit from the wealth of their own soil... The US oil compagnies make less benefits, sure. But hey, they owe us anything...

It's their country, their oil... They do whatever they want with it.

I dont understand how you can hate Chavez...
 
Sherman, it's ridiculous...
They have a lot of wealth in these countries... plenty of oil. It's not normal to see poor people in such countries...

They have to tax the oil compagnies to fund schools, hospitals Etc... And provide a healthy life style to their people.
This is how we make powerful countries. By having ressources and using them to build a work force...

Saddam was a tyrant, and he was a good friend of the foreign powers... (still looking at you USA) I dont compare him to Chavez at all...

About president Naser, he just "cristalised" the will of the people. Is it a crime to see a people enjoy the wealth of their countries? Naser was a hero for its people.

And just think about the rich elite in Venezuela, driving luxury cars and enjoying life like if they were kings, while there is people living in houses made from scrap metal... In an oil rich country? this is a shame for all mankind.

Like the Saudis who have their king titles and rubbish protocols... while they have poor arab countries who desperatly need money to build an industry/agriculture...

Of course, a lot of western countries support these things because they are good for our bussiness.

Saddam sold his country's wealth to buy useless weapons to push his people to fight their brothers...
We did the same with Iran...

Same in Venezuela, we use the media to give Chavez a bad name... we even staged a coup against him...

today, It's a crime to put the interests of the people before the interests of the ruling powers... and this is a shame. it's criminal.
 
the problem i was hinting at is that "socialist" tirants tend to use the profits of nationalised companies as their wallets and not to better the people. look at egypt during nassers rule...he used most of the profits from the Suez to build an army which was destroyed and than di it again. Thin k how much he could have done if he used it for better causes. He is a heroe because the egyptian gov pumps the people with his image.

anyway this is off topic completely.
 
SHERMAN said:
the problem i was hinting at is that "socialist" tirants tend to use the profits of nationalised companies as their wallets and not to better the people. look at egypt during nassers rule...he used most of the profits from the Suez to build an army which was destroyed and than di it again. Thin k how much he could have done if he used it for better causes. He is a heroe because the egyptian gov pumps the people with his image.

anyway this is off topic completely.
Click to expand...
Much unlike America building an army when even a fraction of these funds could have been used for the benefit of the american people ?:)
 
the american system in theory at least has checks and balances. more over, there is little to compare american poor people to 3rd world poor people. a poor american lives at 50 times the quality of a poor iraqi.
 
SHERMAN said:
the american system in theory at least has checks and balances. more over, there is little to compare american poor people to 3rd world poor people. a poor american lives at 50 times the quality of a poor iraqi.
Click to expand...
Which poor american, the starving one living in the sewers ?
 
SHERMAN said:
in a nation of 300,000,000 a few houndred thousend are hardly a large amount.
Click to expand...
Well Iraq had approximately 6 thousand homeless because the evil tyrant ran massive housing projects then the democratic US came and everything got better, oh wait no it didnt you ruined the country.

Since subtlety apparently bounces off you let me rephrase it in a more direct manner, US is full of bigots like you who think that whoever makes decisions that are opposed to what you want is a tyrant.

Naser was a hero for his people and did a lot of good for them, Saddam with all his cruelty was the sole reason for stability in Iraq, Chavez took over oil refineries because your corporations were bleeding the country dry.

Make no mistake i live next to Russia and Russia is an uncivilized shithole incapable of normal relations with its neighbours i'd love having US for a neighbour instead but dont call people who oppose US in the best interest of their countries tyrants, angels they're not but what they're doing is good for them and their people, there's two countries where US had it their way, Afganistan and Iraq, you made them both ruined hellholes so its no wonder others want to avoid that fate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top