Will the battle tank become obsolete?

S

SHERMAN

Active member
Is the tank dead?

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?
 
I don't think the tank is dead, there will always be a need for heavy armour and fire power on the battlefield. ​
​
Infantry and air superiority can only do so much. ​
​
And do not forget the fear factor, a large roaring hunk of metal speeding toward you would make you think twice.​
​
Those are my two cents.​
​
 
The tank will stay with us for the foreseeable future. It is all terrain, carries a heavy gun and is well armoured. Yes it can be hit by missiles but the armour is always changing which adds to it's protection. There again during a conflict is there any thing that can't be destroyed. If you were to get rid of the tank what would you replace it with.
 
The tank isn't dead. It's just that it's going to evolve, as it's doing already. I mean the modern MBT of today bears little resemblance to the 1916 Mk IV tank right? Tanks are downsizing due to air portable requirements and modern technology making such downsizing possible. I think we're also going to see more unmanned vehicles on the future battlefield - in time tanks will also be unmanned for many purposes.
 
Imagine how effective the Abrams might be if it didn't have to include space and support for its crew. Manned tanks may be on the way out, but I don't see the armored behemoths exiting the battlefield any time soon.
 
I think the tank needs to have some type of anti-air armament. I do believe that the tank is still very useful. Working with jet fighters and ground troops, it's still a very viable threat to enemy forces. You can't win a fight with just air, you need ground to sweep in and clear out any stragglers.
 
I believe we should using tank for protection, fighting and etc. For example, the troops needs the tank for take the sniper out or something like that.
 
...sorta hard to take and hold ground with air support.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?
 
I think tanks are fearsome weapons in a combined arms attack, but on their own they are highly vulnerable. You need airsuperiority to deploy them, but when you get them on the ground with the infantry they can slug through anything on the ground.
 
Rabs said:
Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?
Click to expand...

That's because it's just anti-tank gun.
 
A Stryker? You mean the underarmored, poorly thought out troop carrier? It's armor can be defeated by a .50 round. Plunking a 105mm gun on the top doesn't make it a replacement for a tank.

I'd say deploying a couple tanks with infantry support are cheaper than replacing a bunch of Strykers. Is the Stryker a POS? While I have heard the argument that it is, I don't necessarily think so. It has issues being an LAV. Lets not make it be a tank, too.
 
Tank isn't going anywhere anytime soon. They have more than proved their worth to the US military not only in the past, but the present, You won't have a need for a tank in say, Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean there aren't times where you do. Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example.

The worst thing a military can do is rid itself of its conventional weapons and equiptment. Nothing can drag down combat effectiveness lower than thinking "we don't need it anymore." As sure as you say that and DX it, you'll need it.

Rabs said:
Agreed, but why do we need big heavy tanks that are expensive and vulnerable, when a stryker does the job a lot better?
Click to expand...

As MovingTarget said, the Stryker is not a tank. It can't do what a tank can do.
 
I dunno, I think the Tank is very vulernable. Even in WWII tanks could be easily destroyed by a varity of methods from aircraft, mines, AT equipped infantry, artillery not to mention other tanks and AT-platforms, and this was BEFORE the advent of the AT-Missile. On top of all this all tanks now have to deal with Helicopters which are ideal tank hunters and specialist tank killers such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II and AH-64. Even Iraq has showed that even a car packed with explosives is capable of disabling all but the most heavily armored of tanks. Thats not even mention all the MANPORTs and Technical mounted systems out there.

I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
I dunno, I think the Tank is very vulernable. Even in WWII tanks could be easily destroyed by a varity of methods from aircraft, mines, AT equipped infantry, artillery not to mention other tanks and AT-platforms, and this was BEFORE the advent of the AT-Missile. On top of all this all tanks now have to deal with Helicopters which are ideal tank hunters and specialist tank killers such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II and AH-64. Even Iraq has showed that even a car packed with explosives is capable of disabling all but the most heavily armored of tanks. Thats not even mention all the MANPORTs and Technical mounted systems out there.

I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...
Click to expand...

You throw out a lot of ideas here, but each one of them introduces a multitude of variables. The most easily identified and most telling variable is, of course, which tank you're talking about. Of the mainstays on the field right now, all are different. They all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Tanks do not have to deal with helicopters and specialized tanks killers. That's the job of their air support. A war machine is a multifaceted tool. One aspect cannot successfully function alone. Tanks won't survive long without infantry support. Infantry won't be nearly as effective without heavy fire support. Air support, cannot take and hold ground. Each requires the other.
 
Does anyone know if they are planning to start mounting Stingers on Abrams or anything? It seems like it would increase their survivability against helicopters by a lot.
 
mmarsh said:
I think the days of the traditional manned tank are limited, but perhaps unmanned where they are smaller, less expensive and frankly more expendable is the key. Just an idea...
Click to expand...

That is precisely where I think the the future of the tank lies.
 
major liability said:
Does anyone know if they are planning to start mounting Stingers on Abrams or anything? It seems like it would increase their survivability against helicopters by a lot.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't usually be necessary. Tanks rarely operate without support so there would usually be some sort of anti-aircraft equipment available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top