Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Death of the Tank
Max    8/31/2002 11:35:53 AM
While quite a bit has been written on the upcoming demise of tanks I still don't see it happening anytime in the near future. Yes there are a great number of proven weapons that can "take out" a tank most of those weapons are not usable by infantry. I don't think any grunt is capable of packing a TOW or Hellfire missle. Other man portable anti-tank weapons are simply too light. As much as Hollywood and the third world loves the RPG it normaly takes 4 or 5 shots to achieve a mobility kill on an old and obsolete tank. A single shot on a modern tank is probably going to burn a little paint and irratate the crew. Even the new Javlin missle doesn't inspire much confidance in me since the only live fire tests I've seen were against a lone fully loaded non-moving tank sitting in the middle of an open field on a bright clear day. Not exactly a true combat test. They should've just painted it to look like a sitting duck. What most people don't understant is that a shaped charge on anti-armor weapons doesn't actually blow a tank up, it can only pop a small hole in the armor in hopes that there is still enough energy to set off the stored fuel, ammo and hydraulic fluid inside. If the shaped charge can't penetrate the armor and set off the chain reaction inside then all hopes lie on killing an exposed crewman whose head is sticking out of a hatch. The tank on the other hand can capture terrain like the infantryman and can provide incredible amounts of firepower. The Original M1 holds over 10,000 rounds of 7.62 ammo and 1,000 rounds of .50 cal and 62 105mm cannon rounds. That's more firepower than in an infantry company and it has significantly more battlefield mobility. Of course it's not invulnerable but it is a huge forcemultiplier that can make the infantry's job much easier by being a huge bullet sponge. While everybody is shooting the tank the infantry can get in close and kill the enemy. Without the tank the grunts are taking all of those shots. The modern battlefield is still in need of the tank and it won't dissapear anytime soon, sorry General Shinseki.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
1B 101tank    RE:Death of the Tank   9/1/2002 1:05:51 PM
You're right about that max
 
Quote    Reply

mpkopriva@yahoo.com    RE:Death of the Tank   9/7/2002 12:29:22 PM
All these points are true, but if you send unsupported tanks up against dug in, well trained infantry with adequate supplies of AT, the tanks will be decimated. The point being that tanks by themselves are easy pickings. The reason armor is effective is becuase it is combined with infantry, artillary, and air. Mike
 
Quote    Reply

Goknub    RE:Death of the Tank   9/9/2002 11:09:14 PM
What is often neglected is the psycological impact of armour. In East Timor they found that the Militia became -scared whenever the M113s turned up (though it helped they were armed with home-made muskets and machets). It takes a lot of courage to stand up to a moving pill-box.
 
Quote    Reply

Haze Grey    RE:Death of the Tank   10/25/2002 5:53:20 AM
I agree that some are too quick to write off the tank as a battlefield resource. Too much stock is place in the ability of the shaped charge warhaead to penetrate the vehicle. Give me a plain old kinetic penetrator any day. The Army is in the process of testing a new system called LOSAT (Line Of Sight Anti-Tank), which is a high velocity missile mounted on a Hummer which uses kinetic energy to kill the target. The advantages of this system are obvious, high mobility and the ability of the system to engage armored targets in just a few seconds.
 
Quote    Reply

Vympel    RE:Death of the Tank   10/25/2002 7:50:41 AM
It also has disadvantages. Placing it on a HMMWV is a stupid idea, it can't traverse (you need to move the entire vehicle if its out of the VERY narrow arc of fire) and there's no chance of guidance if you miss. They should make it smaller; if the stories a true it's overkill anyway.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Death of the Tank   10/27/2002 1:02:31 AM
Comments about holding ground against a determined and skilled foe with tanks alone is questionable and not US Army doctrine. Tanks with infantry support (Bradleys) is the preferred means. A TOW tank killing team consists of a minimum of 3 soldiers to set up a TOW tank trap. That is why the TOW is usually vehically mounted. The Israelis M60 tankers learned the hard way not to go up against Egyptian (Soviet equiped) dug in AT-3 crews without artillary/infantry support. You do not need a direct fire AT weapon to kill or disable an Abrams or Merkeva tank. A heavy mortar (120 mm) or AT land mine will kill or disable the crew due to the blast or shock effect of a direct hit with little physical damage to the Abrams.
 
Quote    Reply

MikeKO    RE:Death of the Tank   11/8/2002 12:09:16 PM
Even after a couple of decades of reading, discussing, and listening to people discussing tanks and their usefulness (or lack thereof) I am still amazed. Tanks in and of themselves are pretty useless beasts. They are hard to maintain, easily dealt with, and far to expensive. However, when combined into an heavy armored brigade with attached infantry, artillery, and air support, the speed and violence of an armored assault is unbelievable. A key element for the armor is toughness. Whatever weapon system is going to replace the "tank" has to be tough, and it has to be able to deal with bad terrain. This does NOT mean that wheeled LAV type vehicles do not have a place, it does mean however that trying to replace "heavy" armour with the light brigade concept will, at some point, cause us extreme pain. Mike
 
Quote    Reply

RF    Tank obsolete - What nonsense!   11/8/2002 2:10:46 PM
I dunno who wrote this, but this utter nonsense! "The World War II T-34 gave way to the T-54, then the T-62, the T-72, the T-80 and the T-90. The United States responded with the M-48, M-60 and M-1." Yeah, right, US "responded" my hairy Butt! US is the foremost guilty party for the both conventional and nuclear arms race! "With Russia dropping out of the arms race when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and no one else willing, or able, to afford a tank to match the M-1, the end of the line has been reached. Well, a few nations could match the M-1 (Israel, Britain and Germany), but none of these were willing to build many of them." US does not need anybody to race, it is perfectly racing Itself with over 400 Billion $ military budget right NOW! And the Russians never gave up, they don't waste money that they still are building tanks and everything...Ever heard of T-94-"Black Eagle" tank? Americans never yet fought Russians on the field, so, it's not decided who could whip whom. It was previously thought that we whipped Russian MIGs in Korea, but now it turns out they whipped us as much as we did them or maybe more than that. Sabres were slaughtered no less than MIGs, and that's assuming the total number of aircrafts involved on all sides... The tank won't disappear so fast, at least not in a general sense. 60 ton beasts like Abrams will surely perish, cause they simply don't pay off. Right now Boeing plans to build cargo planes to deliver M-1s to the battlefields, but even if they do, how the hell will they go over bridges, railroads, regular roads? Russians at least built tanks keeping in mind the capabilities of their railroads and bridges! And we're planning to fight the whole World with M-1s? Americans already retreated from their arrogance by switching to the Russian 7.62x39mm cartridge (SR-47), well, it's not gonna stop their...unless we want to lose the war...
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:Death of the Tank   11/8/2002 3:26:44 PM
We're not yet at the point where the classic MBT is obsolete, but this might well come in the not too far future. Several nations are developing kinetic ATGMs, we're starting to see pretty effective AT submunitions for guided bombs, etc... The point is, barring some revolution in armor technology, in the not-too-far future fitting a tank with enough armor so that it can withstand this increased lethality of AT weapons will make it so heavy that it will be pretty much useless in normal combat conditions. Remember the German Tiger II, Jagdtiger, not to mention Maus? Another analogy would be the demise of the knight in the late XVth/early XVIth century: it proved impossible to carry enough armor to resist bullets, so all of a sudden armor was out. We're certainly not there yet, but the 60-70t state-of-the-art MBT is already heavy enough that its strategic mobility is problematic. So if you want any knid of rapid-response capability, you must either dramatically build up your transport assets or get some stuff that's easier to move about. Better a light vehicle that's where it matters when it matters than a heavy one that's still in transit while the bad guys are making their move. I'm not in the military, but I'm ready to bet anybody in a rifle company would rather have a TOW LAV next to him than an M-1 3000 miles away...
 
Quote    Reply

Maddog    RE:Death of the Tank   11/12/2002 3:17:51 PM
Perhaps we are entering a new phase for the evolution of the MBT, but I don't think they are going to "die" any time soon. There are always advances in ammunition, missiles, etc that threaten to make the MBT obsolete, but so far there has always been an answer for it with more advanced armor. Who knows what type of R&D projects are going on right now... Don "Maddog" Maddox General Editor Warfare HQ link
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy