Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Bhadra]

Problem with supplies is greatly overestimated, and do not take in to consideration new types of vehicles propulsion, be it hybrid or even completely electric. Even Poland is working on hybrid powerpacks for armored figthing vehicles (tracked and wheeled), I do not understand why countries like India can't? USA already have some interesting achievements in this area.

Damain,

Let me see Poland sustaining one week's Tank Army level warfere with her fuel capacities. Poland fuel would have dried up in three days !!

 

[Bhadra]

Mechanised operations particularly in deserts is fully a function of logistics. logistics and logistics ...... Meinstien, Guderian, Mountgommery all said it...

I also say it ... Ha Ha Ha...

 

[Akim]

The rotary revolution, as explained by Gen Ray quoting Richard Simpkin is the new weapon of manoeuvre ...

How does one capture a trench in mountains, jungles and riverine warfare without tanks? How did India capture a country called Bangladesh without using any tanks? European plains do not exist everywhere in the world? European plains are the most ideal tank terrains extended by Russian barren lands and Steppes.

And who ever told you tanks can capture infantry trench ?? Why could tank capture infantry trenches in Yom Kippur war? The primary job of tanks in an assault is to carry the infantry to enemy infantry trenches and degrade their potential and never to capture those trenches! If you do not understand this much, you need to brush up your basics.

The job of the tanks is destruction of enemy mobile forces by mobility, manoeuvre, fire power and shock action all cumulatively called displacement in physical and psychological dimensions. The aim of the mechanised warfare is to defeat enemy mind and render him incapable of facing your forces. Then carry out relentless destruction of enemy forces by advance , contact and pursuits.

You are still at employment of armor in the first world war. Please come out of the trench !

I agree, that in mountains and in the jungles of MBT not needed, but a tank is needed. So, and wrote before, that India, must develop a "mountain tank". Lignt tanks ( modern level of IFV) were actively used in the jungles of Vietnam. But however without "direct" support of forces, an offensive is not possible. Neither helicopters nor high-fidelity weapon will replace caterpillar technique.
P.S. And by the way, borders of India it is one mountains and jungles not only. Thinking is necessary about complex approach.

 

[Ray]

How does one capture a trench in mountains, jungles and riverine warfare without tanks? How did India capture a country called Bangladesh without using any tanks?

You probably have no idea of mountains, jungles and riverine terrain.

Bangladesh was not captured with tanks, even with PT 76.

Heliborne troops don't have to land.

They can slither!

And gunships act as close support where even the arty fails owing to forest cover.

The critical issue of warfare is Dispersion and concentration of force as also Surprise!

Capture of area is the critical issue of who won and who lost.

Infantry does that.

Put the Infantry there with the adequate fire support, provide the 'Base' and then launch with what you want if they can come up.

 

[Bhadra]

I agree, that in mountains and in the jungles of MBT not needed, but a tank is needed. So, and wrote before, that India, must develop a "mountain tank". Lignt tanks ( modern level of IFV) were actively used in the jungles of Vietnam. But however without "direct" support of forces, an offensive is not possible. Neither helicopters nor high-fidelity weapon will replace caterpillar technique.
P.S. And by the way, borders of India it is one mountains and jungles not only. Thinking is necessary about complex approach.

I fully agree with you that tanks must be used wherever the terrain permits including in mountains. But USSR and Americans and Nato forces have seen their effectiveness in Afghanistan! Tanks there become a liability to be protected rather than an asset. I am also in favour of making light and wheeled tanks.

So far India is concerned. out of about 8000 km of borders, only about 400 km of borders and terrain is tank-able which is still larger than many European states. But the shape size and thinking on use of armour needs a change rather than sticking to WWII MBTs.

 

[Ray]

Mechanised operations particularly in deserts is fully a function of logistics. logistics and logistics ...... Meinstien, Guderian, Mountgommery all said it...

I also say it ... Ha Ha Ha...

Depends on the type of desert.

Soft, semi hard and hard.

 

[Bhadra]

Depends on the type of desert.

Soft, semi hard and hard.

Sir,

Deserts is a desert !
If it is hard or semi soft, it is semi desert !
But every where, Mechanised operations are logistics nightmares !
Refer also to the article you posted on Rare area Security. That makes it further complicated !

 

[Damian]

Damain,

Let me see Poland sustaining one week's Tank Army level warfere with her fuel capacities. Poland fuel would have dried up in three days !!

It is a very well known issue, even for Russia or USA. This is why different countries invest a lot in to finding new propullsion ways for land vehicles, the most promising are currently hybrid engines with very high fuel efficency, but there are some ideas to completely resign from combustible fuel, and use electric power, this is not some Sci-Fi, however there are problems that need to be solved as well as technology needs to mature. Actually engine itself is not a problem, problem is rather how to store enough energy through prolonged time, and with use of electronics that need alot of energy. So some technological breakthroughs are needed, although not immposible.

This is same as with armor weight, or overall vehicle weight, there are currently known ways to decrease weight without sacrificing protection, however they need to mature.

But USSR and Americans and Nato forces have seen their effectiveness in Afghanistan! Tanks there become a liability to be protected rather than an asset.

To the contrary. Soviets used weakly protected tanks in Afghanistan, mostly outdated T-54/55 and some T-62's, no more modern vehicles were used there. As for NATO, up to this day NATO did not lost even a single tank in Afghanistan, despite attacks on them, and very agressive use of tanks by NATO forces (USMC M1A1's constantly patrol their responsibility zone).

Say me, do You know anything about use of tanks in Afghanistan? In fact in mountainous region? Of course there are places where tank can't go, neither lighter vehicles can.

I am also in favour of making light and wheeled tanks.

That becomes as expensive as MBT's, and have almost none survivability? Well in that case, I would rather spent my money on MBT's.

 

[Bhadra]

@Damain

MBT have additional problems in crossing the water obstacles.

MBT are not road runners
MBT are bulky for amphibious operations
MBT are difficult to be transported by air...
MBT are difficult to be operated in Built up areas and cities..

MBT are considered very offensive for CI / CT operations..
MBT are fuel gazzlers...

MBT are only good for destroying tanks.....

where in the world Americans or Russians will indulge in tank warfare and what will be the scale...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

They way i see most Nation including US, Armour and Arty so does Gunship are support for infantry, With only infantry ( Combine Firepower& formation ) these combine force single out objective and act all together to archive it, Its all for Infantry only..

Tank is a tool which enhance fighting capability of a Unit consist of other arms, Hence quick capture of the objective on less casualty..

-------------------------

Resources are indeed a issue, But saying if one have 1000 tanks he wont start all 1000 at once but with calculation he will use the resource where its needed..

 

[Damian]

MBT have additional problems in crossing the water obstacles.

Not really, they can go underwater or cross normal road bridges that each day needs to hold a lot of trucks loaded with stuff. Do You know that a brigde marked as 50 tons class, can actually hold much more. I was talking with some guys working with bridges, they say that mostly, such bridge can hold even up to 80 tons.

MBT are not road runners

M1 Abrams with engine governor disabled can go well above 100 km/h, most tanks with engines powerfull enough and enough modern transmission can do that.

MBT are bulky for amphibious operations

Not really.

MBT are difficult to be transported by air...

Not really, all USMC M1A1's that were deployed to Afghanistan were transported there via air.

MBT are difficult to be operated in Built up areas and cities..

Americans successfully used MBT's in cities, as well as Russians during 2nd Chechnya war, when they finally prepared their army for war and used tanks properly.

MBT are considered very offensive for CI / CT operations..

Good, weapon that is also repsected or even feared is effective weapon. Convoy escorted by tanks is less likely to be attacked than convoy not escorted by tanks.

MBT are fuel gazzlers...

Currently some of them are, some are not. And as I said, technology will make MBT's in future one of most fuel efficent vehicles in armed forces... in fact in future fuel gazzler can be called attack helicopter or fighter plane, not a tank.

MBT are only good for destroying tanks.....

Not really. There is big advance in ammunition, from strictly anti armor ammo like APFSDS to multipurpose programmable ammunition.

where in the world Americans or Russians will indulge in tank warfare and what will be the scale...

Everywhere it will be possible. This is why both countries invest in to tanks, this is why even Poland invest in to new tanks projects. And scale will depend on scale of operations, how advanced are our tanks, how advanced is weaponary of our enemy, and many other factors. But no one resonable want to say goodbye to a tank. In USA some were trying, and where they ended?

Think about this.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[313230]

Does anyone have the estimation of fuel consumption of different type of forces using over time or by km cross country and compare to civilian use? I.e heli, fixed wing, tank?

It is a very well known issue, even for Russia or USA. This is why different countries invest a lot in to finding new propullsion ways for land vehicles, the most promising are currently hybrid engines with very high fuel efficency, but there are some ideas to completely resign from combustible fuel, and use electric power, this is not some Sci-Fi, however there are problems that need to be solved as well as technology needs to mature. Actually engine itself is not a problem, problem is rather how to store enough energy through prolonged time, and with use of electronics that need alot of energy. So some technological breakthroughs are needed, although not immposible.

Damian,
For long range travel, which one of the main type of tank battle over large field, hybrid is not superior to diesel and many tanks currently are using high pressure diesel engine. Quite the opposite, hybrid is maybe less efficiency, it is only better when there are many more accelerations and decelerations like urban traffic.

In battlefield conditions, liquid fuel is far more easier to get than electricity, how can you maintain a continuous high voltage grid? I bet there will be technology that has more energy density than liquid fuel, because do you know how low density electricity storage compare to liquid fuel? From wiki:
Energy density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gasoline: 47MJ/kg
Diesel: 45MJ/kg

Lithium battery: 1.8MJ/kg
supercapacitor: 0.1MJ/kg

So at 40% efficiency, diesel engine beats 100% efficiency electric engine easily for fuel consumption.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Does anyone have the estimation of fuel consumption of different type of forces using over time or by km cross country a

We have a saying here, 1liter = 1km..

But Engine are multi-fuel, You can use kerosine and other cheap alternatives too..

 

[Damian]

Well we will see, there are of course alternatives like very modern high tech gas turbine engines. They are more fuel efficent than previous generations (almost close to Diesels), and still are also more fuel efficent.

Perhaps alternative to the more traditional combustible fuel based on oil, can be alcohol. AGT-1500C is said to be capable to run on actually every liquid fuel that can be spread in combustion chamber and burn. IMHO this is truth for all gas turbines and also jet engines.

Recently US Army started to test bio fuels for jet engines, and there is promising sign to use the same fuel also in other types of engines than Gast Turbines/Jet Engines.

So there is plenty of possibilities, the question is what type of vehicle propullsion is the most promising one.

 

[313230]

We have a saying here, 1liter = 1km..

But Engine are multi-fuel, You can use kerosine and other cheap alternatives too..

For what type of vehicle?
On road: Leclerc 550km/1300l, leopard 2 100km/340l with 1200 liters

Fighter like Su 30: 3000 km/12000l

 

[hest]

----------------------

 

[hest]

Well we will see, there are of course alternatives like very modern high tech gas turbine engines. They are more fuel efficent than previous generations (almost close to Diesels), and still are also more fuel efficent.

Perhaps alternative to the more traditional combustible fuel based on oil, can be alcohol. AGT-1500C is said to be capable to run on actually every liquid fuel that can be spread in combustion chamber and burn. IMHO this is truth for all gas turbines and also jet engines.

Recently US Army started to test bio fuels for jet engines, and there is promising sign to use the same fuel also in other types of engines than Gast Turbines/Jet Engines.

So there is plenty of possibilities, the question is what type of vehicle propullsion is the most promising one.

Current diesel engines also are multifuel, howewer in practice this is not very relevant, as situation where diesel will not be available is not very likely, and it would not be of any advantage in costs because it would be less efficient and reliable.

Disadvantage of gas turbines is their significantly higher fuel consumption, so they are being rejected in the mid-long term in favour of diesel.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

For what type of vehicle?
On road: Leclerc 550km/1300l, leopard 2 100km/340l with 1200 litersl

T-72M1 Ajaya ..

 

[niharjhatn]

Everywhere it will be possible. This is why both countries invest in to tanks, this is why even Poland invest in to new tanks projects. And scale will depend on scale of operations, how advanced are our tanks, how advanced is weaponary of our enemy, and many other factors. But no one resonable want to say goodbye to a tank. In USA some were trying, and where they ended?

Think about this.

I honestly don't think so.

Previous wars have always been fought with the tank being the unit with highest lethality in the battlefield. This is now under scrutiny due to tremendous advances and integration between infantry and sea, land and particularly air artillery.

I fail to see the possible advantage of waging a Kursk-like battle when such destruction can be achieved by other means. The overall cost of deploying them in foreign shores (combining all aspects of logistics) doesn't seem to be worth the price.

I'm not saying that big offensives are not a possibility, but will not occur with MBT's alone, rather with close support with APC's etc. where the MBTs are reduced to a (relatively) niche role.

Admittedly, this is all conjecture. I'm no where near as knowledgeable in the technical details as you. I'm not saying tanks are useless, but were I an accountant that added up all the costs and weighed them against the benefits, I daresay we'd be in the negative side of the ledger!

Using the argument that people are investing in it is a poor one... after all, one just has to look at the Americans and their Star Wars program!!