Will the battle tank become obsolete?

Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...

But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...

How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...

I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.

These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
 
LeMask said:
Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...

But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...

How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...

I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.

These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
Click to expand...

Wow, what we have here is an expert. I guess you should be instructing me and Sherman about how to go about doing our jobs. </sarcasm>


Rorke said:
You use them to clear buildings ofc, thats not what they're supposed to be used as or good at but you still do.
Click to expand...

Exactly right.
 
LeMask said:
Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...
Click to expand...
And luck and proper enviroment and its generally a nightmare.
LeMask said:
But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...
Click to expand...
Yes but Hezbollah has been doing nothing else than stocking up on ATGMs of various shapes and sizes for over a decade, for hundreds upon hundreds of rpgs and rockets shot they managed to destroy or disable about thirty tanks.
LeMask said:
How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...
Click to expand...
They had an urban enviroment and used civilian population and structures as a shield, they also used incredible amounts of ATGM assets and their results were rather miserable.
LeMask said:
I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.
Click to expand...

First of all unless you're still confined to LOS which is rarely more than a mile, second of all your ATGM regardless of how powerfull it is needs to hit at a right angle or it will do squat, third of all the tank can pop smoke if it notices you or survives and since you just revelaed your position the escorting infantry will supress you and then you're seconds from meeting a 120mm round.

Also if the tank is in motion it can just move behind some obstacle, use sprays and laser disruption if its one of the modern ones.

A homing system does not guarantee a hit and a hit does not guarantee a kill in fact between the angle, distance, countermeasours and escorting personnel as well as the heavy armor its an absolute nightmare to take out the tank, it gets even more difficult if you're an unsupported infantry unit.
LeMask said:
These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
Click to expand...
No they're not but still they require a specific situation to be effective, they need to hit the right section of the tank at a right angle all the time while the tank is moving, has countermeasures of its own and is heavily armoured, also because the tank has both the main gun, a couple of mgs and infantry support its also not as simple as just standing up and pushing a button.

You have to find a position where you wont get noticed and shot outright, then you have to fire when the tank presents the targeted part and hope that any of the afformentioned things do not come into play, a combat enviroment is a fluid one and just having or knowing how to use an ATGM is not enough.
 
Yes, to take out a tank is a nightmare if you're infantry and they've got supporting infantry and there's more than one tank, which is pretty much 99% of the time.
 
Trophy ADS

The tank has a few years yet with systems like the Trophy ADS ready for deployment. This system can defeat all current ATGW's including Jav and Kornet.
 
Bacara said:
yes but active armor shoots the missle before it hits, also the missiles cost almost a million dollars!
Click to expand...

No the missiles does not cost a million dollars.

No one has yet been able to pimp up a tank with reactive armor all over.
There are missiles designed to hit the soft spots on the market now.
They can be handled by three people and WILL defeat any MBT.
How do you reckon it will be cost effective even if you managed to kill that Team with your second tank.
Behind the next bend in the road is another Team, then another, then another.

Your Tank force will wither away unless you get a decisive win during the first week of war.
And THAT is truly a thing of the past.

//KJ.
 
anti tank missiles don't fly at you every 5 seconds on the battle field. Tanks, have their own infantry supporting and clearing those teams. We are used to spearhead attacks and support infantry. People thought the tank was obolete in 2003 as well, right until we spearheaded an attack into a capital city with them. Not every infantryman is equipped with the means to kill a tank, while even the most basic tank can kill an infantryman. The arguments for tanks being inneffective are just not supported by history or factual accounts. Tanks can and do win battles.
If I said that during WW2 the Germans had a massive quantity of light, man-portable anti tank weapons that were capable of destroying our tanks I would be correct. If I said that because of this, tanks had no impact on the war, I would be incorrect. If you really think that with a high ATGM threat, we would just keep ramming one tank after another on these hypothetical teams you are talking about, then you have no concept of modern military strategy at all. As a person who has actually been around when tanks are in the fight, let me say this: When the enemy is effectively suppressing your infantry with small arms, tanks and the massive shock effect they bring can totaly change the tone of a firefight. Don't read some article online and think you know it all. What your saying would be like... I dunno, saying that because a lone sniper can kill multiple infantrymen at great distance, that the infantryman is obsolete. You blatantly have no idea what goes on in a firefight.
 
Last edited:
19kilo30K4 said:
anti tank missiles don't fly at you every 5 seconds on the battle field. Tanks, have their own infantry supporting and clearing those teams. We are used to spearhead attacks and support infantry. People thought the tank was obolete in 2003 as well, right until we spearheaded an attack into a capital city with them. Not every infantryman is equipped with the means to kill a tank, while even the most basic tank can kill an infantryman. The arguments for tanks being inneffective are just not supported by history or factual accounts. Tanks can and do win battles.
If I said that during WW2 the Germans had a massive quantity of light, man-portable anti tank weapons that were capable of destroying our tanks I would be correct. If I said that because of this, tanks had no impact on the war, I would be incorrect. If you really think that with a high ATGM threat, we would just keep ramming one tank after another on these hypothetical teams you are talking about, then you have no concept of modern military strategy at all. As a person who has actually been around when tanks are in the fight, let me say this: When the enemy is effectively suppressing your infantry with small arms, tanks and the massive shock effect they bring can totaly change the tone of a firefight. Don't read some article online and think you know it all. What your saying would be like... I dunno, saying that because a lone sniper can kill multiple infantrymen at great distance, that the infantryman is obsolete. You blatantly have no idea what goes on in a firefight.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from what I remember a single javelin missile is something around 80-120 thousand dollars. I dont think they would spend that much money just to give every single soldier the ability to take down a tank :roll:
 
Zastava-Arms said:
Yeah, from what I remember a single javelin missile is something around 80-120 thousand dollars. I dont think they would spend that much money just to give every single soldier the ability to take down a tank :roll:
Click to expand...


Indeed. The launcher is $143,358 and each missile costs $86,014. It is not feasable for every single soldier to carry an item that freakin big when people still need to carry radios, batteries for the launcher, missiles, the launcher itself, machine guns, food, water, armor, rifle ammo, pistols, dismounted mortar systems, GPS, the list goes on. That is the reason why every single soldier is not an AT specialist, or a sniper, or a machine gunner, or a grenadier, or a radio operator, or a medic, or a rifleman...I'm stunned that someone would suggest that a javelin could be fielded to every soldier in an army.... just wow. If all of your soldiers had AT weapons, we would just attack with aviation and infantry. Surface to air missiles cost signifigantly less than attack helicopters, but oddly enough US attack helicopters are flying missions in hostile environments right now...so by the same argument, rotary wing aviation would also be obsolete due to the proliferation of man portable surface to air missiles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a soldier to carry a javelin in case they see a tank, a SAM in case they see a helicopter and a machine gun in case they get attacked by infantry. Just a normal rifleman setup (I happen to be a grenadier currently) is heavy enough as it is. Infantry will never be able to match the maneuverability of armor, unless they are in confined spaces... which is why we don't put armor there. People who do not understand this should not even be posting about the subject.
 
but generally if you expect to be encountering tanks some one near by will have at weaponry...
therefore everyone doesn't need to be carrying a javelin
 
Well, I guess if they had RPG's then a lot more will be able to do something against a tank.

From what I last heard, RPG-7's were a lot cheaper than Javelins.
 
I am not talking about (insert sandbox of choice) where the RPG-7 is still a state of the art AT system.
I am not even talking about vast areas of sand for your M1.s to thunder over..I am talking about some sort of at least semiintelligent advesaries who know how to use their land for tank trapping and so on and forth.

And no, ofcourse there would not be ONLY ATGW Teams, they in turn would have support infantry.
Lets say you toss a few tanks in the mix when you have reached a stalemate.
Should that/thoose tank/s get blown to bits your OWN morale would get shot to sh*t.

So you are a grenadier..You should easely be able to carry about 60 kg,s of gear.
That would mean personal kit and a weapons load out of an M-4 12 extra mags, claymore mine and AT-4 tube.
Cut the AT-4 tube and the mine and four mags and you could carry the lavett of a BILL ATGM.
Hell even our Paras hump them around, would be a rather sad sight that a grenadier not being able to carry one..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wReQuox4f9A

Welcome to modern warfare.
Want a cup of coffee?
 
In my own opinion, I think tanks are on the road to being obsolete at least in urban areas where there may not be enough room to maneuver and where an APC like a Stryker or Bradley may be better suited. However, if we're talking open areas like forests and deserts, I have a feeling that the tank will live on for a very long time.
 
It's a combined arms deal. All components have strengths and limitations. When you need a tank, you want a tank. Nothing says I love you like a 120mm sabot.
 
KJ said:
Welcome to modern warfare.
Want a cup of coffee?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Even if you have a hard time keeping it civil... I enjoyed your argument.

I agree with 19Kilo. Yes, there is weapons that can destroy tanks, and even modern tanks. But to be effective, these weapons need to be used at the right moment, in the right place.

We can take the war in Lebanon between Israel and the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah had missiles capable of destroying/disabling modern tanks. Even the Merkavas who were designed to give maximum protection to the crew.

But can we say that the Hezbollah had wonderful results? Sure, they succeeded in disabling a few tanks. But we still cant say that the tanks are obsolete.

And even the US army cant afford to give a javelin launcher to every soldier... In fact, I think that even giving every soldier a side arm would be too expensive (Berreta handgun or such).
 
LeMask said:
Even if you have a hard time keeping it civil... I enjoyed your argument.

I agree with 19Kilo. Yes, there is weapons that can destroy tanks, and even modern tanks. But to be effective, these weapons need to be used at the right moment, in the right place.

And even the US army cant afford to give a javelin launcher to every soldier... In fact, I think that even giving every soldier a side arm would be too expensive (Berreta handgun or such).
Click to expand...


I'm sorry if I went a little over the top and I mean no real offense. I am, however, glad that I at least presented another side of the argument. You are quite right that not every soldier has a sidearm, or a dismount radio or things of that nature. At a minimum in theater a soldier has a helmet, body armor with plates, at least seven 30 round mags of 5.56mm, an M4 or M16 series weapon, water, eye protection, hearing protection (even though we hardly ever use it, cuz then you can't hear anything), and an IFAK (improved first aid kit). Additionally, I carry an M203A2 on my M4, an M9 pistol, an AN/PRC 148 MBTR radio, an M18 HC smoke grenade, a flashbang, some non leathal 40mm rounds (just in case), some M433 HEDP grenades, and a 40mm white star cluster (for emergency signalling). As you can imagine, running around with this in the desert is quite demanding and it's easy to say that infantry is going to carry all these high speed weapons and still be effective, but it's actually quite difficult. I'm not even infantry, I'm armor, but we've recently suspended use of our tanks in the streets of Iraq... people don't like to see them, so now I'm on foot. If I get a little fired up about this subject, don't take it the wrong way. I've devoted 11 years of my life to America's armor branch and I feel compelled to defend it, because I trully beleive we are an effective and proven fighting force. This is my only intention, so if I come off otherwise, then I appologize and hope that no offense is taken by my spirited argument. The armor branch has been the main driving force behind the Iraq war, much as infantry is leading the way in Afghanistan, and I just can't see us marginalized after we've achieved so much.
 
There is no problem. I personnaly enjoyed these "spirited arguments". Comes from the heart.
I just want to tell you that you dont have to agree on this topic. But at least agree to disagree.

We can say that a lot of weapon systems are obsolete and very effective at the same time.

I dont think that a submarine is useful in the deserts of Iraq. Like a tank isnt effective in the mountains of Afghanistan.

But its still a wonderful weapons platform. The problem is how to actually use it effectively.

And after reading your post, I think that the shock effect of tanks is a double edged weapon. It have a good effect in battle. But this effect can be negative when you want to behave like a peace keeping/occupation (call it as you want) force.

Maybe that the tanks are obsolete in low intensity conflicts/war against terrorism etc...

Maybe they will be replaced by IFVs and infantry with more advanced air support...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top