Will the battle tank become obsolete?
Bacara
Active member
saddam killed over 200000 of his own people through direct orders with nerve gas, i think he should have been removed
Saddam never everrr killed 200 thousand people via gas, you maybe throught about 20 thousand, thats a closer figure, 200 thousand might be the total number of his victims.
That said the country was stable, after US invasion well over half a milion died to this date and the country 'is' in ruin, by removing him you destroyed Iraq ( and stole their resources ).
I'm very very interested by the topic discussed here.
But it's kinda offtopic... So, can we please go back to the tanks becoming obsolete?
and if someone starts a topic about that, please leave a link here...
and Sherman, can you tell us how far we are from the day when sorties with tanks become too dangerous...
My idea is pretty simple. I was thinking about the Iraqui forces and their tanks against the US army. the US army developped very efficient anti tank missiles... and I think about the Javelin system rather than the AT4 and such...
I mean really top of the line hardware to fight tanks...
The day the soldiers will be equiped with such intelligent missiles, with fire and forget capabilities... using tanks against them will be suicide.
And I can add helicopters to the list too.
The day the Mujahideen had the Stinger missile in Afghanistan, the Russian helicopters lost their value in the battlefield... or at least, a big part of their value... they had to change tactics and limit their usefulness in the battlefield...
But what if the Mujahideen had better missiles? like missile capable of targeting a low flying aircraft, or a high altitude target?
The bombers and the helicopters would be completely obsolete.
Why we use tanks? because they are armored and hard to kill.
The day they will be easy to kill... The tanks will be useless.
They may be useful to carry big guns... But why all the heavy armor if the first enemy they meet can send them a missile from 5000yards to blow the whole vehicule...
They will start to use lightly armored trucks to carry guns...
And these days, we have intelligent artillery rounds, or even better... smart artillery missiles. Capable of identifying a tank pretty easily...
I think that today, the tank is arleady obsolete. But we still have lowtech enemies, who dont have the tools to fight the tanks...
It's like if I told you that revolvers are obsolete as weapons of war... But somewhere on this earth, there is still people fighting with bows and arrows... So the revolvers might do the trick against such targets...
But it's kinda offtopic... So, can we please go back to the tanks becoming obsolete?
and if someone starts a topic about that, please leave a link here...
and Sherman, can you tell us how far we are from the day when sorties with tanks become too dangerous...
My idea is pretty simple. I was thinking about the Iraqui forces and their tanks against the US army. the US army developped very efficient anti tank missiles... and I think about the Javelin system rather than the AT4 and such...
I mean really top of the line hardware to fight tanks...
The day the soldiers will be equiped with such intelligent missiles, with fire and forget capabilities... using tanks against them will be suicide.
And I can add helicopters to the list too.
The day the Mujahideen had the Stinger missile in Afghanistan, the Russian helicopters lost their value in the battlefield... or at least, a big part of their value... they had to change tactics and limit their usefulness in the battlefield...
But what if the Mujahideen had better missiles? like missile capable of targeting a low flying aircraft, or a high altitude target?
The bombers and the helicopters would be completely obsolete.
Why we use tanks? because they are armored and hard to kill.
The day they will be easy to kill... The tanks will be useless.
They may be useful to carry big guns... But why all the heavy armor if the first enemy they meet can send them a missile from 5000yards to blow the whole vehicule...
They will start to use lightly armored trucks to carry guns...
And these days, we have intelligent artillery rounds, or even better... smart artillery missiles. Capable of identifying a tank pretty easily...
I think that today, the tank is arleady obsolete. But we still have lowtech enemies, who dont have the tools to fight the tanks...
It's like if I told you that revolvers are obsolete as weapons of war... But somewhere on this earth, there is still people fighting with bows and arrows... So the revolvers might do the trick against such targets...
I dont think using tanks against a high tec enemy is suicide. The point is to give each of your tools the abilety to shine inspite of its deficencies.
Tanks are armored against artilery, small arms, and small anti-armor weapons. They have exellent mobilety. they have superb fire power.
You need to understand that by your claim that tanks are useless because of anti-tank weapons, any weapon is useless. there are exellent Anti-Aircraft missiles. There is a huge ammount of infantry killing weapons.
Your small amored truck is just as vulnreable to ATGMs as a tank is, and much more to small caliber weapons, artilery, mines and general bad stuff.
Tanks are armored against artilery, small arms, and small anti-armor weapons. They have exellent mobilety. they have superb fire power.
You need to understand that by your claim that tanks are useless because of anti-tank weapons, any weapon is useless. there are exellent Anti-Aircraft missiles. There is a huge ammount of infantry killing weapons.
Your small amored truck is just as vulnreable to ATGMs as a tank is, and much more to small caliber weapons, artilery, mines and general bad stuff.
Lunatik
Active member
I think the topic is also kind of related to 'urbanization' of the world. There's a constant influx of people into the cities, from the countryside. Thanks to globalization and commercialization of pretty much all industries (including agriculture) and basic social services, people around the world leave their villages in hopes of a higher standard of living in the cities.
Meaning battles are getting closer and closer to big cities. In the near future I think this will be even more obvious. So I say the question is, will tanks be as effective on the streets and alleys as they are in open battle areas?
I really doubt the current traditional tank design is efficient enough for modern urban warfare. And the transition will force them to adopt new weapons and concepts and evolve into something else. Something that is smaller, faster and more maneuverable with much better sensors, BUT with either less firepower or higher precision weapons that minimize collateral damage.
Meaning battles are getting closer and closer to big cities. In the near future I think this will be even more obvious. So I say the question is, will tanks be as effective on the streets and alleys as they are in open battle areas?
I really doubt the current traditional tank design is efficient enough for modern urban warfare. And the transition will force them to adopt new weapons and concepts and evolve into something else. Something that is smaller, faster and more maneuverable with much better sensors, BUT with either less firepower or higher precision weapons that minimize collateral damage.
First of all the existing tanks despite their weaknesses are great for urban combat even against high tech enemy, the tank is there to provide superior firepower that has capability to operate under heavy fire.
Taking a tank down even with modern missiles is easier said than done while the tank itself is still a very viable mobile bunker, blitzkrieg tactics are no longer possible since unassisted tanks will get mauled by AT infantry but combined arms ground assault still requires a solid core that tanks provide.
Bacara
Active member
their is plenty of counters to ATGM's like chobam, i spelt it wrong, reactive and active armor, all effective against missiles.
And I thought I was open-minded to accept the anti-gravity idea... And now, you want me to accept the laser death ray aswell? in the same scenario?
You sir ask for too much...
I think that the first thing they should make is the active camouflage... Invisible tanks... Now that's a useful thing...
And I saw a tank with insect legs in a video game (Turok)... The tank was able to climb mountains... That was interesting.
But these things wont see the day before centuries...
And Bakara, these defense systems cannot be trusted... And the missiles can be upgraded to deal with these things...
And to answer Sherman, I'm aware that it takes more than a weapon to make a weapon platform obsolete...
Just that if the enemy is equiped with efficient antitank missiles... The best thing would be to send infantry to fight this enemy...
You sir ask for too much...
I think that the first thing they should make is the active camouflage... Invisible tanks... Now that's a useful thing...
And I saw a tank with insect legs in a video game (Turok)... The tank was able to climb mountains... That was interesting.
But these things wont see the day before centuries...
And Bakara, these defense systems cannot be trusted... And the missiles can be upgraded to deal with these things...
And to answer Sherman, I'm aware that it takes more than a weapon to make a weapon platform obsolete...
Just that if the enemy is equiped with efficient antitank missiles... The best thing would be to send infantry to fight this enemy...
Are you 'really' in the military ?Your country leads the way...Ive seen some wierd stuff in lebanon i will not talk about here
No Rorke, he is in fact a six year old who got a moderator position on this forum... As a gift from Santa is my best guess...
And come oooon Sherman, you already said too much...
And I dont think that France would send prototype tanks with active camouflage in a peace keeping force in Lebanon...
They can send the beautiful girls from the Moulin Rouge as an active distraction... But still... I'm not the military type. I dont know what they are doing...
And come oooon Sherman, you already said too much...
And I dont think that France would send prototype tanks with active camouflage in a peace keeping force in Lebanon...
They can send the beautiful girls from the Moulin Rouge as an active distraction... But still... I'm not the military type. I dont know what they are doing...
Actually killing a tank is tricky, first of all forget about RPG-7, whatever you've read here the chances of you actually penetrating or damaging with this are next to none, we use them only if a target gets into the deadzone and we cant shoot it with SPIKE.
Now even a SPIKE which is the latest generation of AT missilies will not cut it unless its 60 degree angle, also the problem if the crew notices you they may pop smoke which makes targetting the vehicle a much bigger deal.
A tank if under fire will typically use various obstacles to obscue the target or if all else fails turn to face you front up which makes penetration even harder, then there's a problem of the tank being in motion which is a big deal trust me.
Tanks are not easy targets and very viable, quite frankly facing them without your own tanks or helis is not recommended.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Guys... as a former infantryman I can tell you that the whole prospect of firing an ATGM at a battle tank (which is NEVER alone and unless commanded by a dumbass is surrounded by infantry) is a nightmarish proposition.
You know what ATGMs are mostly used for?
You know what ATGMs are mostly used for?
You use them to clear buildings ofc, thats not what they're supposed to be used as or good at but you still do.