Are Tanks Obsolete?

[Sayeret]

Are Tanks Obsolete?

I don’t think they are because in the future it will change it’s form to better deal with insurgents and guerrillas.

Explain your position on the issue.

[Operation Ivy]

what else do you want to spearhead an invasion? strykers? p-)

[FallenAngel]

what else do you want to spearhead an invasion? strykers? p-)

If the case of the Canucks, yes apparently ;)

[Operation Ivy]

what else do you want to spearhead an invasion? strykers? p-)

If the case of the Canucks, yes apparently ;) :lol:

[Auzzzie]

Tanks play a vital role in conflict and without their support the infantry would have an even more difficult job. ATGMs do not grow on trees, anyway.

[MEGR]

I do not think tanks are obsolete. I think that like any other element of war, tanks will adapt to the new environments of Modern Warfare.

When dealing with insurgencies and guerilla warfare, it is certainly true that the man on the ground and his ability to balance out the human and combat factor are very important. However, even in this type of war, firepower can be very useful. Tanks provide heavy firepower, protection, and intimidation that is hard to match on the ground.

[Tally Man]

No way I have experinace as a ground pounder and a DAT and you really need to have combined arms on todays battle field.

[MKtexan]

I believe tanks are still very usefull. Since fighting can be in cities against Guerillas, tanks will probably be adapted to deal with these changes in tactics. And not all wars are fought like in Iraq or Chechnya, where Guerilla tactics are used most of the time, the majority of wars in history have been fought where tanks engage tanks and infantry, not insurgents. Insurgetns dont make tanks obsolete, it just means the tank needs to change to meet the threat.

[crazyman]

y'know everyone has always said that tanks were vunerable in urban environments...but it seems that people are re-thinking that one. Fact is that the average guerilla uses 40 year old AT weapons, which are'nt enough to kill a modern MBT. Best they saeem to be able to do is get a mobility kill via 152mm arty shells dug into roads. Our heavy vehicles have been doing great over there (M1's, various versions of the bradley, strykers, even old M113FV's). I doubt the Abrams will be the last tank we build, they'll have use for decades to come, until something truly revolutionary comes around

[jedisponge]

no, we need them just in case another MBT comes along that our more lighter armor can't take care of.

[beNder]

todays tanks can take on tanks, apc's, helos and infantry...very valuble asset on todays battlefield...

[GazB]

If you expect to be able to enforce your will on other people with force then a tank is a very important part of that (though not the first option).

If you feel the need to be able to impose your will on others withou losing any casualties of your own then the only solution is robots... but even then you will probably still need a robotic equivelent of a tank with heavy firepower and protection.


Perhaps the greatest breakthrough for a tank will not be super armour or a super gun but super sensors. At the moment a handfull of mud can stop the most expensive optics from working and spray paint can be just as effective and less likely to be blown off or washed away by anything built into the port to clear obstructions.
Perhaps a future MMW radar based system with near optic performance with sensors that just look like armour panels could offer the sort of 24/7 visibility that could mean the crew might not even need to be in the vehicle to know what is going on. A bit like a video game but with a real gun etc. Instead of a unit commander using radio or video communications he could have his own console that can show him what his tank commanders see. He could be i the same room as all his commanders on a slightly raised position to enable immediate verbal and visual communication with all his commanders and their crew at once.

Some ramifications include the redundant position of loader. On these robot tanks however the fourth "crewman" could be kept for monitoring systems or perhaps even guiding guided projectiles while the gunner engages another target with unguided weapons. When he is not doing any of this he could operate a remote controlled roof mounted machinegun.

The potential is quite exciting... and not of course in any way limited to my above suggestions.

[Kitsune]

People who critizise todays tanks have one point: they are mainly designed to kill other tanks. But its seems that in the near future one has to be more versatile than that.

Interesting is the way the Israelis go: Their Merkava tanks all are designed with characterics that lessen their effectiveness as pure anti-tank fighters: They have a hatch in the rear which is a point of vulnerability in tank vs tnak fights and only comparativly short barrels that lower their range and accuracy. The German Leopard II A6, on the other side, has now got a longer barrel, increasing its tank killing capacity.

But the Merkavas can transport a couple of infantry soldiers and are able to deploy them (because of the hatch). And their shorter barrels make it possible for them to maneuver in tight urban areas, where other MBT could not. To increase their range they use rockets, which are shot through the barrel.
Even more this trend is visible with the "Namera", a super heavy APC based on the Merkava 4 hull.

Something like this might be a typical "future" tank. I would imagine it like this: the hull/body is reminiscent of a MBT of today. Two crewman, room for 8 to 10 soldiers. They are deployed via a hatch in the back, a APC with the armor of an MBT, essentially. On top of it is a small, remote controlled tower, armed with an 3cm gun and an MG as well as a couple of rockets. They may be able to hit ground and air targets alike, making the vehicle very versatile indeed.
GaZB is right: sensor developement is among the most important things of the near future...and this future tank would have lost of it, enabling it to "watch" its surroundings- all around - day and night. Additional anti-personel weapons, mg's or grenade launchers, may be mounted to fight enemy infantery in more direction at once.
This vehicle would still be able to destroy classic MBTs...having a couple of rockets for that purpose. But ist main function is to transport and deploy its Combat-Team of soldiers and to support them with its on-board weaponry. And support means not only to help them against enemy foot soldiers/partisans but to protect them against enemy armor and aerial vehicles as well.

That doesn't mean that the classical MBT is dead. It is highly probable, that a vehicle specialised for killing other armored vehicles still makes sense. So, I would guess, that more modern versions of todays MBTs will still stick around in 50 years.

[oldsoak]

Are tanks obsolete ? Not if you are an infantryman without appropriate fire support.
There will always be tanks as a means of mobile, fast moving fire support able to survive in high threat environments. Whether it will be a heavily armoured crewed weapon like it is now or a smaller, lighter machine with automation and remote control remains to be seen.

[memphiz]

what else do you want to spearhead an invasion? strykers? p-)

If the case of the Canucks, yes apparently ;)
Back that up a notch...
We're not getting rid of our Leopards ;)