Who's on top?

Had a look at You Tube and yes some were funny. It led me to some clips of the situation we have been discussing, and one was the first clip I referred to.

Mostly T-72s I think and a hit certainly is catastrophic, and quick!

I still lean to the 'anti' side of the contest.

OC
 
The Tank has been declared to be obsolete since the 1950s and yet they are still here. Sooner or later they will go extinct. The price to develop, build a significant number of them, maintain them, and the constant upgrading will be too high, while the development, production, and upgrading of anti-tank weapons cost a fraction of what the tanks cost. The vehicles for the mechanized/motorized infantry will be developed further. The armies of today want vehicles which are lighter, more mobile, and easier to deploy abroad.
 
"while the development, production, and upgrading of anti-tank weapons cost a fraction of what the tanks cost."


You have touched on one of my pet views, that missiles are a hell of a lot cheaper than ships, tanks, and planes.

I usually call a plane or a ship as not much more then a truck to lug the goodies to the right place at the right time. Take away the defensive weapons and the rest is all that they have to do the task. How many planes on a CVN are there simply to defend the ship? Not to mention the cost of the escorts!

OC
 
The difference is that you can fix a tank, ship or an aircraft and put it back into service but the missile is lost forever.

Not to mention AT missiles and crew training is not all that cheap, I think a Javelin is in the $250k range and an S-400 Anti-Aircraft unit is about $450 million for the launcher and around 100 missiles.
In comparisson a Leopard 2A6 is about $5 million and an F-18 at about $65 million.
 
The equation still stands.

In a navel contest a half dozen 'Harpoons' or whatever can set a CVN on fire with all that fuel and munitions inside that do the rest.

Not a bad return on investment. Same with an RPG or Javelin. $250K stops a $5 or $10 million dollar tank.

It is the age of the missile and drone now.

OC
 
The end of manned fighter/attack planes is approaching. They will be replaced with drones. Drones are cheaper, and getting cheaper when more are produced. Drones also reduce the risk for humans.

It takes quite long time to get a tank crew to be functional. It takes much shorter time to get an anti-tank team to be functional. Anti-tank weapons can stay operational for a long time. The TOW missile is a pretty good example. It has been upgraded a few times and it still operational in the military. Not many vehicles from when the TOW entered service remain in the service.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The end of manned fighter/attack planes is approaching. They will be replaced with drones. Drones are cheaper, and getting cheaper when more are produced. Drones also reduce the risk for humans.

It takes quite long time to get a tank crew to be functional. It takes much shorter time to get an anti-tank team to be functional. Anti-tank weapons can stay operational for a long time. The TOW missile is a pretty good example. It has been upgraded a few times and it still operational in the military. Not many vehicles from when the TOW entered service remain in the service.
Click to expand...

As I recall with the advent of the jet fighter and air to air missile people predicted the end of cannon in aircraft, consequently new generation fighters did not have them, then the F-4 Phantom met the Mig-17 and found that the day of the cannon was not over.

I certainly see drones augmenting a fighter force but not replacing it for a long time yet, the human factor in decision making and reacting to situations tells me pilots will be needed for a long time yet.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Tank has been declared to be obsolete since the 1950s and yet they are still here. Sooner or later they will go extinct. The price to develop, build a significant number of them, maintain them, and the constant upgrading will be too high, while the development, production, and upgrading of anti-tank weapons cost a fraction of what the tanks cost. The vehicles for the mechanized/motorized infantry will be developed further. The armies of today want vehicles which are lighter, more mobile, and easier to deploy abroad.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't write out the tank so quickly. Yes the wars of recent decades have tend to be guerrilla wars or wars against terrorist where heavy armored vehicles aren't always as practical. However operation Iraqi Freedom certainly wasn't and that wasn't that long ago.


Due to the fact that no matter how powerful todays air forces, missiles and rockets become-are there will remain a place for the main battle tank and heavy self propelled artillery. Wars will still have to won on the ground by armies, marines, etc.. Lighter vehicles that are less heavily armored with smaller firing power are much easily destroyed.


Although a bit unrelated they've still trying to but the Warthog to rest. Yet it remains the most effective ground attack aircraft since WW2. It's a matter of balance and what the particular conflict requires at the time.
 
JOC said:
I wouldn't write out the tank so quickly. Yes the wars of recent decades have tend to be guerrilla wars or wars against terrorist where heavy armored vehicles aren't always as practical. However operation Iraqi Freedom certainly wasn't and that wasn't that long ago.


Due to the fact that no matter how powerful todays air forces, missiles and rockets become-are there will remain a place for the main battle tank and heavy self propelled artillery. Wars will still have to won on the ground by armies, marines, etc.. Lighter vehicles that are less heavily armored with smaller firing power are much easily destroyed.


Although a bit unrelated they've still trying to but the Warthog to rest. Yet it remains the most effective ground attack aircraft since WW2. It's a matter of balance and what the particular conflict requires at the time.
Click to expand...

Tanks may survive for a very long time and they are good in the open terrain when they can use their sensors to detect the enemy. They can also be used as some sort of artillery, and provide the infantry with direct fire support. But will we see new tanks when the Abrams, The Challenger, the Leopard, the Leclerc, the Merkava, and the latest Korean tank are old. Is there a limitation in how long tanks can be updated?
 
This is a tricky and good question. The development of a completely new battle tank is a major endeavor. Since the Abrams and some other NATO tanks i.e.: Leopard, Challenger are still superior to what any potential enemies-adversaries have to counter them it could be a while. I would write off the Korean tanks.
 
I think the Korean tank, I think it's called the Black Panther is pretty suitable for Korean purposes. The Russian Armata is new and it might be comparable with modern Western tanks, but it will take some time before it gets to the Russian armor units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top