Is the tank becoming obsolete?

Discussion in 'Land Forces' started by Bhadra, Aug 29, 2012.

  1. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    It is true that tank is a formidable firepower and shock action on ground but with the advent of Mechanised infantry perticulary with guns like Strykers and Markava the days of typical tanks are over.

    The purpose of Tanks capabilities is meant to take the Infantry to the objective in offensive and help Infantry hold nominated ground. Mechanised infantry with lighter platforms which combine the functions of a tank and secured carriers have outdone the utility of Tanks which are not capable of holding or capturing ground.Mechanised infantry can do both.

    Ground forces revolve around "Ground' and everything else is secondary.
     
    SPIEZ likes this.
  2.  
  3. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    2,236
    Location:
    Odessa
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Light battle platforms do not can will replace tanks not in a defensive not in an offensive, but can them substantially to complement.
     
  4. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Today's warfare would hardly be conventional warfare conducted over a piece of ground.
    The warfare today is far way from home, insurgency, terrorism, urban or built up area warfare, sudden reinforcement, short deployment (lybia), warfare for regime changes, capture of oil fields, economic resources etc.

    It is not going to be massive land battles between NATO and Warsaw pact.

    Tank is heavy, not transportable, not sufficiently mobile, not conducive for joint force operations and hence the days of tank warfare are over.
    What is in is the platform which can combine Infantry and mechanised vehicle. Air transportable, sea transportable and formidable for quick actions.

    Tank as a pill box is gone.
     
  5. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    2,236
    Location:
    Odessa
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    You know Indians, that colonial wars were always. That you transferred - are all modern colonial wars. And even in them Americans without heavy tanks to Iraq did not logged.
     
  6. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Has the Tank become obsolete in modern warfare ?

    The tanks did not do any thing much in Iraq or Afghanistan that is why all Abrahams are in garages.... Strykers are out and running. Only foolish countries like India and Pakistan invest heavily on tanks without ever having fought a tank battle !!
     
  7. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    First I shall keep calling it Abrahams..... two hoots to you.
    Secondly, I had said in the very begining that there is not going to be conventional battles... No tank batles... only Asymetric warfare. In that Tanks have fu** all of a role to play...

    why fight a rat mounting on elephant.....

    Try and understand that.... fighting a war or military operation is a function of cost analysis.... Indian Army in last 65 war has not used tanks to fight such wars even once.... tanks are in garages... fool...
     
  8. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Because those machines were not in Russian hands..... or Abrams would be Abrahams.....
     
    go_tango likes this.
  9. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    2,236
    Location:
    Odessa
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Shame not to know their history ...
    Battle of Asal Uttar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    p2prada and pmaitra like this.
  10. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Indo-Pak wars saw some of the largest tank to tank battles after WW2. Even today, the largest tank battles still happened between India and Pak after WW2.

    Most military personnel will disagree with you when you said tanks are not meant to take and hold ground. Defending a position is holding ground. Invading a territory is taking ground. In the Indo-Pak scenario, the tank is the principle weapon even today. No aircraft can compare to the war potential of the T-90 even today in our theatre.
     
    Akim likes this.
  11. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology


    They would not ! Holding the ground and taking ground is against principles of employment of Armour in classical sense. It may help in organising Area defence or conduct mobile defence.
    1965 tank skirmishes were childish to say the least.
     
  12. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    You keep wanting to fight future wars with weapons and stratgy from the last wars, its not going to work.....Tanks are too expensive and too easy to detroy with modern weapons that are much cheaper. Tanks are battleships on land that can now b targeted from hundreds of miles away....A satillite sees a tank, the location is given to a smart glide bomb, a cruise missile,, air to ground missile hundreds of miles away, or a drone comes buy and fires off a hell fire missile..... or an shell is fired over head the bursts in to cluster bombs that guide down on top of the tanks. The US Navy alone has 11000 missiles all can take out a tank. All present day technology. You saw what happen to tanks in the Iraq war, the US military is tens times more powerful and effective then it was ten years ago. It will be even more so in the future for example F-22 to be the senors for a flight of UAVs carrying AMRAAM. The F-22 lights up the target the UAV fires its AMRAAMs and flies home. This thus expands the F-22's BVR capability. Most US teen fighters have been upgrade to carry as many as 40 small smart bombs that can each take out a tank. .The B-2 could potentially deliver up to 216 SDBs in one load.
    B1s right now are equipped to deliver over 80 smart bombs n target.....
     
  13. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    I agree. In the competition between Tank and the anti tank, the later has emerged victorious. Moreover, where is the space, time and resources to conduct massed armour operations. Where is the battle to win the world going to be conducted. Only in China and Russia or Eastern Europe.

    Damain and yekim only are propagating "monkey models"..... for exports to fools like Pakistani and Indians.
     
  14. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    (B-2 can carry 160 of these puppies.) Boeing Gets First Small Diameter Bomb Order By Jim Wolf Boeing Co. on Friday received the first U.S. Air Force order for a production batch of the Small Diameter Bomb, which exploded into the news this year because of a challenge from Lockheed Martin Corp. . Under an $18.5 million contract announced by the Defense Department, Boeing said it would produce 201 of the winged 250-pound bombs that may be released 60 miles from their targets. The contract also includes 35 carriages to carry the precision 7.5-inch-diameter weapon, first to be mounted on the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle in 2006. Chicago-based Boeing has projected the overall program could be worth as much as $2.7 billion, including development and future orders. Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Maryland Remember this was seven years ago,
     
  15. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Would you mind posting a source or proof of those statements.
     
  16. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    2,236
    Location:
    Odessa
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    Here therefore young Americans until now perish in Afghanistan and Iraq, because for them decide in the White House, what they better fight!!
     
  17. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,770
    Likes Received:
    3,682
    Location:
    India
  18. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    In real life A10s alone destroyed over 800 tanks in the Iraq war have you ever looked at one of those tanks,,,they look like swiss cheese that had a bomb explode. Theres never been a tank made that can stand up to a laser guided bomb or DU shells. http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2500259940102781874tHhyYc

    Take a look at this and tell me how you would like to be in prepared tank positions when this B2 came along..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88IjDi5Jhc

    Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU7cTfdxOkY&feature=related

    Remember this was 2003
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
    SPIEZ likes this.
  19. Akim

    Akim Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Messages:
    5,407
    Likes Received:
    2,236
    Location:
    Odessa
    Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

    I tell you once again, not compare war in Iraq, with the real tactic/pl of modern fight. Tanks go under a protection complexes air DEFENCE. The modern Russian /Ukrainian tanks are able independently to destroy helicopters. ЕRА effectively protects from the shots of А-10 from air. you compare the tactic/pl of proffechional boxer (THE USA) to dystrophic (Iraq).
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2012
  20. Bhadra

    Bhadra Defence Professionals Defence Professionals Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF ARMOUR

    LT.-GENERAL BRUCE C. CLARKE.


    INTRODUCTION

    The last ten years have seen great changes in the art of warfare. Air power has profoundly changed our military concepts, but it has not eliminated the need for ground forces. Rather, it has served to weld more closely together the several armed services into an overall,

    balanced national defence team wherein each service aids and is in turn aided by the others in accomplishing a common mission.

    On the ground, we have seen more open and fluid warfare, faster movements, more dispersion, more elastic defence formations, and the ability to concentrate great power at a particular point, thereby making the penetration a more commonly used manoeuvre. Armour has been responsible for much of this change. We have witnessed the employment of armoured divisions, armoured corps and armoured armies. The new type field army of the American Army is virtually an armoured army. It has approximately 3,500 tanks plus much self-propelled artillery.

    The ability to produce the mechanical means of warfare and to employ those means is an outstanding asset of the United States. We must develop and use this asset to offset the advantage of more manpower possessed by our possible opponents. The use of armour is in furtherance of that concept. It is also in furtherance of our efforts to reduce casualties on the battlefield.

    Armour is the arm of mobility, armour-protected firepower, and decisive shock action. Armour is a vital and regular member in the ground team. Armour brings within reach of the field army commander decisive objectives. It provides on the modern battlefield the means by which the army commander can achieve the ultimate objective - destruction of the enemy's will to fight.

    There are certain basic principles which govern the employment of armour, but they are no more than guides.

    As in the rules of bridge, there is no place in the prin ciples of employment of armour for the words always and never. The successful application of the principles of armoured employment is entirely dependent upon commanders and staffs being flexible in mind, progressive in thought, and liberal in imagination.

    ARMOUR PLAYS THE HISTORIC CAVALRY ROLE

    Armour fulfills the role in modern warfare that Napoleonic cavalry fulfilled in the 19th Century. It combines great mobility with overwhelming firepower. Cavalry of the later 19th Century and the 20th Century relied primarily on mobility. The firepower of armour must not be overlooked in a consideration of its characteristic of mobility.

    For many years armies have sought light, fast-moving units that could upset the time-space factors of the opponents. They were willing to sacrifice some power in order to attain the mobility desired. The cavalry was developed into such a force. With the wide use of the automatic small arms and other effective weapons, and of automotive vehicles, the horse no longer was an effective weapon or an efficient means of transportation on the battlefield. Armour, which combines both high mobility and great firepower has assumed the historic cavalry role in modern war.

    ARMOUR IS A STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL THREAT

    Armour is a strategic and tactical weapon. Not only is the presence of armour locally a threat to any force, but its capabilities of long movements and prompt commitment make the presence of distant armoured units a threat to any operation.

    ARMOUR USES ITS MOBILITY

    Armour has been described as mobile, armour-protected firepower. Armour gains its ends through its ability to move and shoot, but above all, to move. An armoured formation many miles away has the ability to intercede in a battle in from 10 to 20 per cent less time than a formation geared to the foot soldier. Armourmoves in a fighting formation. To its speed of movement, then, must be added its ability to be committed promptly from march formation. Mobility in armour is derived not only from tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and self-propelled artillery, but also from the extensive organization of mobile service support at all echelons from company to division.

    ARMOUR USES ITS FIREPOWER TO CLOSE WITH THE ENEMY

    Armour concentrates its power at the decisive point of action. Armoured formations contain an overwhelming superiority of armour-protected machine guns and cannon. The tank cannon is essentially a weapon used against enemy tanks. It is not artillery. In the application of armour's fire and shock power, artillery and other supporting weapons provide the covering fires which enable the tank machine guns and armoured infantry to close with and destroy the enemy. (The importance or armour in tactical atomic warfare is now widely recognized.)

    ARMOUR IN STRENGTH PRODUCES DECISIVE SHOCK EFFECT

    The shock or psychological effect which comes to troops on the receiving end of a massed armoured assault is terrific. This effect radiates from the point of attack in concentric semicircles as do the waves from a stone dropped in the water near the edge of a millpond. If the attack is in strength, these shock waves reach to the enemy division, corps, and army headquarters. Shock effect gives armour part of its protection and hastens the disintegration of the enemy force attacked. The shock effect of the mass employment of armour varies as the square or cube of the number of tanks used. Attacking with armored strength too small to produce decisive shock effect often results in great losses and inconclusive results.

    ARMOURED FORMATIONS MUST BE FLEXIBLE

    Armoured formations are organized in anticipation of success. It is not given to many to be able to visualize all that can happen during a full day of armoured action.Unforeseen contingencies occur. Situations as to terrain, weather, footing obstacles, and enemy cannot be accurately predicted far into the future. A set formation for all situations is a dangerous over-simplification in armoured tactics. The armoured division is designed to fight primarily in two flexibly-organized combat commands. Each is composed from time to time to perform most advantageously the job at hand. Each is commanded by a senior officer who has a staff adequate for handling operations in fast-moving situations and trained to work under mission-type fragmentary orders.

    ARMOUR IS A THRUSTING WEAPON

    Armour is a weapon which should be thrust quickly through enemy opposition on a relatively narrow front. It is strong as long as it remains in depth. It should not fan out until the opposition has been reduced and powerful enemy counter-reaction is no longer probable.


    U.S. Army Photograph

    AMERICAN POST-WAR ARMOUR

    L-R. ... Heavy Gun Tank T.43, Medium Gun Tanks M.48 and M.47, Light Gun Tank M.41

    ARMOUR SEEKS TO ADVANCE IN COLUMN

    By advancing to combat in a column of tactical commands, armour is enabled to strike with strength, retain maximum flexibility and control, and reach distant objectives.

    Column does not mean that it necessarily moves on a narrow front or on only one road. It may advance on a broad front, but so long as the tactical formations of the division are in column, the commander is ready for any contingency and he can take prompt action without waiting for higher staff reaction and direction. Breaking through and out of an enemy defensive zone in a column of combat commands gives effective power in the break through, and at the same time saves an uncommitted tactical command to handle contingencies and to push on promptly in exploitation.

    Against sporadic and weak resistance the two combat commands, and possibly the third, may advance abreast. Such a formation lacks manoeuvrability, flexibility, and sustained strength. When substantial resistance is met or enemy reaction occurs, the division commander employs his tactical commands in the formation most suited to the fulfilment of the mission and if indicated, resumes the column formation.

    ARMOUR DRIVES DEEP, ASSEMBLES, AND DESTROYS

    An armoured unit commander must observe the principle of the objective. An engineer who wishes to blow down the face of a rock wall bores deep, assembles his charge, and blasts back. He does not place his charge on the face of a wall. Armoured action in similar. What protects armour during this process? The answer is speed, mobility, flexibility, enemy command and staff inertia, and the time and space factors which control the ability to react to such a force. The shock effect of armour reaches even to commanders and staffs and adds to the inertia and the time it takes to react.

    ARMOUR NEEDS AND USES MISSION-TYPE ORDERS

    Armour should be given a mission and the minimum essential restraining and co-ordinating directions. It should be given the ultimate and decisive objective of the next higher commander so it can take prompt advantage of breaks in order to make great gains.

    ARMOURED ACTION CALLS FOR COMBINED-ARMS TEAMWORK IN LOWER ECHELONS

    Armoured formations contain, in intimate association, tank, infantry engineer, and artillery elements. This may, and often does, extend down to the company level, where the tank company may have infantry and engineers as well as the ever-present artillery forward observers. Such a situation on the battalion level is usual. It should not be assumed that the tank unit commander is always in command. Often the armoured infantry unit is the basic force to which tanks and engineers are attached, and artillery closely supports.

    ONCE THE MOMENTUM OF AN ARMOURED ATTACK IS ATTAINED IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN ITS COURSE

    An armoured division has enormous momentum when it gets rolling. To damper this by phase lines, limited objectives, and other factors that require high-level decisions in order to continue to advance, dissipates that momentum often faster than does the enemy. Any restriction on movement may provide the enemy with time to react and will frequently result in loss of the initiative.

    SUCCESSFUL ARMOURED ACTION IS CHARACTERIZED BY DELIBERATE PLANNING FOLLOWED BY VIOLENT EXECUTION

    Armoured action involves large road space, close timing, elaborate supply plans, and extensive plans for maintenance. It involves careful co-ordination and team work with all arms. Artillery, mortar, and air support must be tied in. Communications must be co-ordinated and perfectly established. To do all these requires thorough and deliberate planning.

    Once the planning is done, the execution is the pay-of It must be violent if the mobility, firepower, and shock effect desired are to be attained. Half-hearted execution is fatal to the results expected from armoured action.

    ARMOURED ACTION REQUIRES SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE

    Adequate plans and facilities for supply and maintenance are essential. It takes over 1500 gallons of fuel to move an armoured division a mile. An armoured unit out of fuel is easily destroyed. Firepower means consumption of large quantifies of ammunition. Food is necessary. In the typical armoured action, supply routes may be cut by enemy action for several days. These contingencies must be foreseen and means provided to assure success. The combat command should carry with it the supplies necessary to reach the final objective and hold effectively.

    Tanks and other armoured vehicles require frequent and extensive maintenance. The means are available in the armoured division; the time must be provided if a favourable balance of combat vehicles is to be kept in action against the enemy for sustained operations. The rotation of combat units through the reserve command and the less frequent employment of the reserve com mand as a combat command will provide the necessary time for maintenance.

    ARMOURED DEFENSIVE ACTION IS ELASTIC

    Armour can conduct and has conducted very effective defences. It does this by being elastic, by rolling with the punches, by counter-attacks, and by anticipatory thrusts to upset an enemy attack forming up. It does not establish a brittle defensive line. It disposes itself in considerable depth. While defence has not been the role normally associated with armour, its capabilities on defence in future warfare must not be overlooked.

    ARMOUR AND TACTICAL AIR ARE PARTNERS

    It is literally true that armour and tactical air when working close together form a team with enormous power. This partnership does not happen by chance. It takes close association, careful air-ground training, and an intimate understanding of each other's capabilities, limitations, and methods to attain the desired relationship. Armour is the one that needs the support. It must go far more than halfway, if necessary, to effect the partnership.

    CONCLUSIONS

    The proper application of the principles of the employment of armour will produce outstanding results. They should be considered not as rules, but as guides after carefully estimating the situation. Deliberate planning is needed. Violent execution then pays the dividends. Flexibility of mind, concept, and formations is required of an armoured commander and his staff. He must be willing to take coldly calculated risks. When he holds the cards he must back them up with all his chips, and often he must be willing to put in all his chips when he is not sure that he holds the winning hand.


    Histories, Diaries and other Resources

     
  21. Damian

    Damian Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    Great, show us here a conclusions from WWII and use them to describe today technology, tactics, capabilities.

    I said this many times. Of course everything can be destroyed, but all armies, every enemy, have less means to destroy well armored tank, than APC with "carboard" armor.

    And the trends are obvious, even APC's or IFV's, will become heavier and heavier, in fact many IFV's today allready have the same weight as many MBT's. Same can happen with wheeled APC's, of course wheels have smaller capabilities to hand well more weight.

    And there is of course advance in materials technology. USA and Germany allready are experimenting with nanotechnology applications in armor protection, reducing weight without reducing protection capabilities of vehicle.

    Nanotechnology is very advanced method of manipulating characteristics of used materials, and as far as we know is used only in AFV's, especially in proposals for upgrading tanks, this in fact in many fields make tanks more advanced than any other weapon system.

    Let's take a look at other vehicles components like engines, in fact all the progress in engines technology is thanks to tanks. Small, light, in short compact powerpacks, but with huge poweroutput, were designed for tanks, and these can be considered as really modern technology, contrary to much simpler, primitive even engines of lighter vehicles, that compared to some compact tank engines, are even bigger and much weaker.

    And we should look at history.

    US Army wanted in XXI century to replace all tracked vehicles, also tanks, with one single platform, the light MGV, what happend? Despite the fact that many MGV components were very advanced, the MGV was just too light and too small to be efficently protected. Experience from Iraq and Afghanistan said clearly that nothing can replace a tank.

    What happend? Two people mostly responsible for MGV and whole FCS program, Donald Rumsfeld and General Eric Sinsheki were pushed out of decision circle, and in the end whole FCS program was cancelled, as unrealistic.

    Of course FCS program have some positive results as technology breakthroughs, like possible nanotechnology applications in armor or hybrid engines for tracked vehicles.

    So is tank obsolete? No, definetly no, but just it's evolution is currently in slower phase, when a new breakthrough in tank design will be presented, like for example Russian "Armata" and inducted in to service, then other big countries that are also tank designers, will follow.

    What is important, US Army as I said several times, and as official sources says, is redirecting funds on M1 Abrams deep modernization or it's possible replacement R&D program. This shows that not only Russians, but also the best funded, most technologically advanced armed forces on this planet, also seeks new capabilities for their tank fleet.

    US Army TACOM also opened in Detroit new huge laboratory to develop new ways to propell land vehicles, also tanks, to make them more fuel efficent, less expensive.
     

Share This Page