Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[asianobserve]

@Damian is right. The fact that all major militaries are maintaining, developing and modernising their tanks shows that they see it as a relevant weapons system well into the future. And there is no escaping this fact. In all kinds of wars for a combatant to win they have to occupy the vanquished real estate (nobody win wars by air power or sea power alone). Occupying enemy territory means placing foot soldiers there. And whenever there are foot soldiers tanks of all kinds will be indespensable.

In urban combat, as the study of US MArines actions in Iraq have shown tanks are very useful partner of riflemen. Firing HEAT tank projectiles into pillboxes is cheaper than using Javelin or similar systems. And the psychological effect on the enemy of tanks so close to them is another dimension.

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian

You are a Polish guest on the forum hence I would abstain from responding in kind.

However, I enjoyed the rage and frustration of a tank man being told that he actually is engaged with junk... which has lost mobility to other systems, which has lost firepower to other systems and which has even lost protection in the streets of third world so much so that an Infantry soldier is required to protect it !!!

Do not worry, No US or British is going to come to the rescue of Poland. They betrayed Poland earlier in History and there is no incentive for them to save Poland at the cost of a nuclear holocaust. They traded Poland earlier many times in history and they will trade Poland even now. you can not escape the hug of the big Bear.


Leave it at that and come to Tank Technology and I read your post very attentively.

 

[Bhadra]

Elite Mechanized Formations in an Age of Expeditionary Operations

"As recent events in Syria and elsewhere demonstrate, the need for a military ready to respond to contingencies on short notice will not subside in the near future. While the particulars of a given conflict are subject to change and uncertainty, what will not change is the solemn obligation of the military to fight and win the nation's wars. In a future conflict, America may not have the luxury of fighting from afar with missiles and drones, and may be instead required to put "boots on the ground." The Army and the Armor Branch in particular have a critical role to play in preparing for this future."

The premise, the arguments and logic of this 1 Lt are wrong and faulty. He is more obsessed with elite status than reality.

If the US can not have luxury of stand off assaults by drones and missiles, how does he propose to insert and induct the elite armour in the objective area ...

US fleet cover almost the globe and US Navy and marines will the first responders rather than tanks.

Ship the tanks from Fort Knox in three months time and then respond with boots on the ground !!

Or Does he mean keeping Tank regiments afloat all over the world to have boots on the ground ?

How many 60 ton tanks can Galaxy take and at what distance ?
And at what cost ??

 

[Bhadra]

Coalition forces captured Iraqi city only tactical vehicles.

That would give sleepless nights to many armour lovers in the forum ...

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian is right. The fact that all major militaries are maintaining, developing and modernising their tanks shows that they see it as a relevant weapons system well into the future. And there is no escaping this fact. In all kinds of wars for a combatant to win they have to occupy the vanquished real estate (nobody win wars by air power or sea power alone). Occupying enemy territory means placing foot soldiers there. And whenever there are foot soldiers tanks of all kinds will be indespensable.

In urban combat, as the study of US MArines actions in Iraq have shown tanks are very useful partner of riflemen. Firing HEAT tank projectiles into pillboxes is cheaper than using Javelin or similar systems. And the psychological effect on the enemy of tanks so close to them is another dimension.

Do I need to repeat myself again and again :

It doesn't matter, the tanks remains a major engine of war, not because it may or may not be obsolete, but simply because so many are still in service. Like the US Navy's behemothic battleships, we would use tanks because we have them and because our enemies have them too.



Now, we would use them because we have them - same applies to nuclear weapons !!
Scary, is not it !

Why do not we use 25 ponders because we have them?
Why do not we use horses because we have them and our enemies have them ?

War after all is a function of money so I induct Abram tanks into streets of Syria which cost about $5 million per unit, and loose them dime a dozen like sitting ducks..

 

[Bhadra]

How can one ignore what is happening in the world:


AirLand Battle was developed in the 1970s and 1980s to counter a Soviet backed combined arms attack in Europe.
A key component of AirLand Battle was the degradation of rear echelon forces before they could engage allied
forces. This mission was largely assigned to the Air Force and led to unprecedented coordination between the
Army and Air Force.

Major component of this concept was degradation of Armour and Mechanised Forces.

That is all over now and it had been officially admitted that Cold War was over and USA was the victor.

In the new environment USA has graduated to ASB Concept (Air Sea Battle concept)



The ASB Concept is similarly designed to attack-in-depth, but instead of focusing on the land domain from the air, the Concept describes integrated operations across all five domains (air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace) to create advantage. The ASB Concept further differentiates itself from its predecessor in that the ASB Concept also strives to protect rear echelon across the same domains. This defensive aspect of ASB helps the Joint Force reduce risk in the face of increasingly longer range and more precise weapons which could affect
space-based platforms, land forces, airbases, capital ships, and network infrastructure.

The role of US armed Forces has been redefined :

PRIMARY MISSIONS OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES
"¢ Counter Terrorism & Irregular Warfare
"¢ Deter & Defeat Aggression
"¢ Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges
"¢ Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction
"¢ Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space
"¢ Maintain a Safe, Secure, & Effective Nuclear Deterrent
"¢ Defend Homeland & Provide Support to Civil Authorities
"¢ Provide A Stabilizing Presence
"¢ Conduct Stability & Counterinsurgency Operations
"¢ Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief & Other Operations


Do discuss Tanks in this framework and context .

 

[asianobserve]

Do I need to repeat myself again and again :

It doesn't matter, the tanks remains a major engine of war, not because it may or may not be obsolete, but simply because so many are still in service. Like the US Navy's behemothic battleships, we would use tanks because we have them and because our enemies have them too.



Now, we would use them because we have them - same applies to nuclear weapons !!
Scary, is not it !

Why do not we use 25 ponders because we have them?
Why do not we use horses because we have them and our enemies have them ?

War after all is a function of money so I induct Abram tanks into streets of Syria which cost about $5 million per unit, and loose them dime a dozen like sitting ducks..

I don't agree. The Americans have no qualms on retiring weapons platform that have no relevance to them anymore. There are several weapons that they retired early because they didn't see the practicality of maintaining them (Convair bomber, F14). Now they have tried several replacements to the Abrams but has so far came to the realization that the Abrams utility in the current and projected battlefields cannot be matched by these new proposals.

All other major militaries from Russia, China, Israel, UK, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan and India are either developing new tanks or upgrading their existing ones. That they came up with the same conclusion - on the continued relevance of tanks - is very significant. The money spent on maintaining, upgrading and producing new versions of tanks is substantial. Yet militaries (in particular those of democratic countries) around the World who are always on budgetary tug-of-wars would gladly let go of these weapons if they do not see their relevance.

The beauty with tanks is that they are excellent platforms for both conventional and Iraq-like wars. New modular armors mean that tanks can easily be reconfigured for conventional warfare or asymmetric warfare.

 

[Akim]

That would give sleepless nights to many armour lovers in the forum ...

This loss not only when capturing cities, but this video shows that the old concept of armored vehicles vulnerable in the modern realities of war. The Iraqi army and the militants did not have a large number of new antitank hand weapons. Militants in Chechnya they had. Militants in the East of Ukraine have them too.

 

[sgarg]

@Bhadra, don't worry, overspending on military will kill USA.

All these high-sounding strategies are no longer stabilizing the world. People are not getting their basic needs in a large part of the world.

The empire is failing already.

 

[Damian]

Of course Pmaitra as allways being biased, deleted all my posts, not surprising.

Bhadra on the other hand, not only further spread his BS, but starts to attack other nationalities, again not surprising on Indian forum with Indian user.

To be honest I have enough dealing with such stupidity, I get back to civilization to discuss with people that actually know what they are talking about. And Bhadra can spread his BS as much as he want, it does not change anything anyway.
@asianobserve, it was a plreasure to discuss with you many times, and with others, good luck with dealing with these... people. I have more important manners to be done than wasting my time to try share some real knowledge with them, it seams they are completely immune to any knowledge and arguments backed up by facts.

 

[Bhadra]

Of course Pmaitra as allways being biased, deleted all my posts, not surprising.

Bhadra on the other hand, not only further spread his BS, but starts to attack other nationalities, again not surprising on Indian forum with Indian user.

To be honest I have enough dealing with such stupidity, I get back to civilization to discuss with people that actually know what they are talking about. And Bhadra can spread his BS as much as he want, it does not change anything anyway.
@asianobserve, it was a plreasure to discuss with you many times, and with others, good luck with dealing with these... people. I have more important manners to be done than wasting my time to try share some real knowledge with them, it seams they are completely immune to any knowledge and arguments backed up by facts.

@Damin

My reference to Poland was in answer to your assertion that US and British Armour is there in Poland and training with you..

I have not attacked or insulted any nationality.

However, if you feel so my apologies.

 

[asianobserve]

Of course Pmaitra as allways being biased, deleted all my posts, not surprising.

Bhadra on the other hand, not only further spread his BS, but starts to attack other nationalities, again not surprising on Indian forum with Indian user.

To be honest I have enough dealing with such stupidity, I get back to civilization to discuss with people that actually know what they are talking about. And Bhadra can spread his BS as much as he want, it does not change anything anyway.
@asianobserve, it was a plreasure to discuss with you many times, and with others, good luck with dealing with these... people. I have more important manners to be done than wasting my time to try share some real knowledge with them, it seams they are completely immune to any knowledge and arguments backed up by facts.

Your insights into tank warfare and tech are very educational for me (I'm sure to all members here whether or not they agree with you). I hope you keep on coming back to share more of your knowledge.

 

[Bhadra]

Why Tank is being seen inoperable as a Tank ?

It is because of emergence of battle space that seems to characterise :

Congested; In the future, we will be unable to avoid being drawn into operations in the urban and littoral regions where the majority of the World's population live and where political and economic activity is concentrated.

Cluttered; Clutter (which leads to an inability to distinguish individuals, items or events), particularly in congested environments, will provide the opportunity for concealment and will confound most Western sensors

Contested; Adversaries will contest all environments where they seek to deny our freedom of manoeuvre

Connected; Activity, including our own and that of the enemy, will continue to gravitate towards the inter-connected nodes

Constrained; In the complex battlespace of the future, Western legal and societal norms will place continued constraints on the conduct of operations


The five C's neatly describe the likely operating environments that should inform any discussion on the tank. So whilst the likelihood of traditional conflict with peer enemies would seem unlikely, it still remains a possibility and therefore, not to be ignored.

The battle spaces that emerges in Kosovo, Bosnia , Somalia, Mogadishu, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine .. all are charactercterise by those five "C" where tanks are just wrestling like blind gladiators having lost all of their characteristics - mobility, firepower and protection...

It is free for all wrestling !! And very strange that one side has the worlds best tanks and other side has no tanks but only rudimentary IEDs and RPGs but still tanks are being hammered out of shape ... Duh..

Further : The Tank is Dead, Long Live the Tank – Part 3 (Looking into the crystal ball) - Think Defence

 

[Bhadra]

These conditions were reproduced in Southern Iraq



To demonstrate the difficulty of operating in this kind of environment an example from Basrah is almost perfect; a Challenger 2 from C Squadron Royal Scots Dragoon Guards came under intense fire which disabled their sights, backing up it went into a ditch and came to rest at an angle that exposed the under belly armour. Blind and immobile it was a sitting duck until a recovery was executed but they could not have used their main gun because it was a cluttered and constrained environment.

Despite improvements on operations a decade or so earlier, the Iraqi forces in Basrah failed to capitalise on their advantages, instead choosing to engage at distances that made them relatively easy to defeat. Had they made better use of fixed defences in the denser areas around the Old City, dense streets and canals, things might have been very different.

Would a piece of equipment other than a Challenger 2 have fared better?

Should it have been there in the first place?

This kind of difficult environment is likely to be encountered again, regardless of whether we have main battle tanks or not.

The question therefore, is this;

In this kind of difficult environment does the main battle tank have a role?

If it does not then we can drastically reduce their numbers and hold what is left in reserve, ready for the less likely Gulf War open tank battles?

The Tank is Dead, Long Live the Tank – Part 3 (Looking into the crystal ball) - Think Defence

 

[Bhadra]

Obituary for Tank Warfare


Tanks useless against portable LW weapons

"For example, suppose one attacks a tank. [with an LW weapon]
With scalar EM pulse, the personnel die instantly. Total personnel kill is achieved.
All electronic systems of the tank are dudded. Total systems kill is achieved.
The ammunition in the tank explodes. Total kill is achieved.
The fuel explodes. This is another total kill mechanism.
That tank has been killed totally, by a variety of mechanisms, all simultaneously.
That's a k-kill in any analyst's book.
And don't worry about retrieval and repair. That tank is finished permanently.
Even the most modern tank is just as vulnerable as the most obsolete."

 

[sgarg]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

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

Well smart weapons can kill a tank easily specially ones fired from aircrafts. However assume a situation where aircrafts do not have freedom of movement over the battlefield. It can happen with a strong adversary.

If the war develops between main powers, satellites will definitely be targeted. One must not assume military satellites to be immune.

Infantry can fire at a tank but infantry has no protection from direct as well as indirect fire if in the open.

I think there are a number of variables and generalizing does not help.

In India-Pakistan scenario, the number of smart weapons will be small due to high cost. So war is more likely to involve tanks and artillery duels, very much like what is happening in Ukraine today.

 

[Bhadra]

The Tanku

"¢ A tank is the most uncomfortable armored vehicle ever made, then or now. I can tell you for a fact that being in a self-propelled howitzer is not comfortable at all, and working the gun only makes it worse. Personnel carriers are no prize, either. The M113 is not made for comfort, and Russians have told me that the BTR40 and BMP were no price, either.

"¢ A tank is a big target and an inviting target.

"¢ A fellow working an antitank weapon like the TOW missile, given the choice between a tank, self-propelled gun, armored personnel carrier or truck will almost always go for the tanks first. Ditto for attack helicopter crewmen and other tank crews. No, thanks. If I had to do it again, I'd go back to Mechanized Infantry. The tank fascinates me, but not enough to want to man one.


"¢ A tank has to be able to do three things: move, communicate and shoot. If it can move and shoot but not communicate, all you have is a loose cannon. If it can shoot and communicate, but not move, it is just a big pillbox. And if it can move and communicate but not shoot, all you have is a great big portable radio.

Ha Ha Ha "¦
The tanku..

 

[Bhadra]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Well smart weapons can kill a tank easily specially ones fired from aircrafts. However assume a situation where aircrafts do not have freedom of movement over the battlefield. It can happen with a strong adversary.

If the war develops between main powers, satellites will definitely be targeted. One must not assume military satellites to be immune.

Infantry can fire at a tank but infantry has no protection from direct as well as indirect fire if in the open.

I think there are a number of variables and generalizing does not help.

In India-Pakistan scenario, the number of smart weapons will be small due to high cost. So war is more likely to involve tanks and artillery duels, very much like what is happening in Ukraine today.

Totally agreed..

The tankwalas advocating tanks here do not realise the tanks they are showing and bragging about is being used where adversaries are rag tag terrorist, Jihadies, Talibunies, street urchins having no sophistication to fight against the tank. They have no air power at their disposal, no satellites, no attack helicopters, No laser beams, no control over cyber space, no artillery to be directed, no air to be controlled, No well laid out and planned killing grounds.

They are talking about how to win wars in Bosnia, Mogadishu, Kirkuk and Syria, Chechnya or Ukraine !!.

Having destroyed and nullified Iraqi airforce, Iraqi Army, Their command, control and their leadership, their infrastructure and having ensured that there is no chance of a nuclear strike on Washington, they brandish their tanks in empty space in Iraq and then call that as superb tank operation ..

What a joke ?

Can they do the same to Germans, Chinese, Japan, Australia, Pakistan or India .. .. Operation Pakistani Freedom ??

Conclusion : Tank is a good weapon to slaughter unarmed, ill prepared, feudal societies.. Tribal and underdeveloped people and project power.

Even there at considerable cost ..

Still, No Challangers, Abrams or Leopards have been deployed in those areas lest those million dollar machines get exposed..

Tank may not give same desired result against well coordinated and high density anti tank defences.
Can they brag about using the tanks in the same way in Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal etc etc brandishing their tanks against Pakistan Army ??

 

[sgarg]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Can they brag about using the tanks in the same way in Lahore, Multan, Faisalabad, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal etc etc brandishing their tanks against Pakistan Army ??

Indian tanks can and will be used against Pakistan Army. You should not doubt that for a second.
However tanks alone will not destroy Pakistan Army. It will take concerted efforts of airpower, artillery, infantry and tanks.

Tanks are a necessary component of manoeuvre warfare and that has not changed yet.

Advance into Pakistan territory will probably begin with intense shelling and construction of assault bridges. It will be followed with tank assaults supported by covering fire. War in Indian subcontinent will not match American blitzkrieg but do not assume that India cannot succeed.

 

[Bhadra]

Re: Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

Indian tanks can and will be used against Pakistan Army. You should not doubt that for a second.
However tanks alone will not destroy Pakistan Army. It will take concerted efforts of airpower, artillery, infantry and tanks.

Tanks are a necessary component of manoeuvre warfare and that has not changed yet.

Advance into Pakistan territory will probably begin with intense shelling and construction of assault bridges. It will be followed with tank assaults supported by covering fire. War in Indian subcontinent will not match American blitzkrieg but do not assume that India cannot succeed.

You have misunderstood ....

I posed question - can the West or USA or any other proponent of tanks use tanks in a manner being propagated here for the built up areas against an Army that would have air support, superior technology, Arms and Ammunition, well coordinated ant tank defence and designed killing areas.

Fighting in built up area in Iraq or Syria is different and one can use any thing there. Using Tanks in Lahore would not be the same thing.

So do not justify existence of tanks for fighting in built up areas..

And yes, Indian Army tanks will not enter those cities as there are many other ways to capture those if you understand the meaning of manoeuver . Capturing in manoeuver means something else.

Indian Army is not interested in capturing cities by banging their heads. Remember how Dhaka was Captured !!

This what happens when anti tank density is only moderate :