Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Damian]

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.

1) Diesel is not really multi-fuel, not in the same way as gas turbines.
2) Gas Turbines achieved the same reliability as Diesels.
3) Do not compare previous generations of Gas Turbines with current and future generations. LV100-5 today considered as previous generation was still very close to Diesel fuel economy. Gas Turbines are very light and compact engines, for example. LV100-5 had 40% less parts than AGT-1500C, while maintaining the same power level, and we should remember that AGT-1500C on it's own have less parts than any Diesel (common for Gas Turbines). LV100-5 on idle had 50% less fuel comsumption than AGT-1500C, when moving it was approx 30% less comsumption of fuel, so improvement was there.

So Gas Turbines have potential, the problem is not many countries are investing in this, and this is wrong, any alternative for Diesel might be usefull.

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!!

The problem is that people still see a tank byt the 2nd world war example, for people even todays tanks are just slow behemots... which they aren't.

The thing is that people aslo do not understand the advencement in technology, for example armor manufacturing and materials used. I still have some military journals from 1998 AUSA conference where some companys shown new types of lightweight efficent protection, and experiments with armor that can change it's properties when it detects what types of ammunition will hit it. Of course these were only experiments, and nobody knows what happend later, if they were cancelled, or just went dark and secret.

Even without all these high tech breakthroughs, the fact is there, tanks are the most advanced, land armored fighting vehicles, no doubt about that, and tanks are the catalyst for advance of all AFV's in armed forces arsenal.

The question is however when new design solution will be mature enough and avaiable for use.

 

[313230]

T-72M1 Ajaya ..

That is unbelievable high, the leopard 2 consumes 340l for 100km on road, weight about 1.5 times heavier than T72: 3.4/1.5 is about 2.2l/km and it is German engine.

Anyway, thanks for sharing

 

[Akim]

1) Diesel is not really multi-fuel, not in the same way as gas turbines.

The engines of series of "TD" are considered a diesel, but they work on all types of fuel (even on an apple alcohol).

 

[Damian]

The engines of series of "TD" are considered a diesel, but they work on all types of fuel (even on an apple alcohol).

Yes there are such engines, but we must remember that not every type of fuel will be "healthy" for engine.

 

[Bhadra]

That was unopposed shallow river fording..... One will never get unopposed water obstacle to cross which means that the attacker will have to capture far bank, establish a secure bridge head, bridge the obstacle, funnel up and cross the obstacle.....

This simple snorkelling operation will hardly be possible in our context. I think our mechanised forces also keep doing this without any problems.

Moreover, the video shows a simple water obstacle and not a lined or embanked Ditch crossing which is a different ballgame.

 

[Damian]

That was unopposed shallow river fording..... One will never get unopposed water obstacle to cross which means that the attacker will have to capture far bank, establish a secure bridge head, bridge the obstacle, funnel up and cross the obstacle.....

This simple snorkelling operation will hardly be possible in our context. I think our mechanised forces also keep doing this without any problems.

Moreover, the video shows a simple water obstacle and not a lined or embanked Ditch crossing which is a different ballgame.

This is why there are combined forces, artillery and forces on our river bank provide cover and supressive fire, tanks and heavy IFV's go through obstacle and fight from a march.

 

[Akim]

Yes there are such engines, but we must remember that not every type of fuel will be "healthy" for engine.

Such fuel is eventual exception, but war brings in the amendments. Not always alongside tanker.

 

[Bhadra]

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.

Kunal has put up a video on snorkelling and fording by tanks. This can be done at very selected places and after preparation of embankments which means it has to done after capture of far bank and it has a funnelling effect. If this point of crossing is sealed then tanks are sitting ducks across the river. This bunching up will enable one aircraft to destroy them all in one go.

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.

Hmm ... and destroy that thousand million road by its tracks.. In India before going into Pakistan tanks have to travel hundreds of miles before reaching the border. So one needs a Carrier and tower vehicle.

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

so first buy tanks and buy special aircraft to ferry it. So it is buy my aircraft too !

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.

American using tanks in Iraq suffered maximum tank casualties by IED and attacks in cities only and american and Russians only can afford using tanks in cities. The economics of wars suggest if one side lost 15 tanks a day, it is suffering economic burden.

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.

I bet the tanks would need escort and protection rather than providing the same to someone else.

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.

whatever it may be but providing movement to a 40 -60 ton mass will remain fuel guzzler...

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

you mean to say you will use such expensive ammunition to shoot infantry !! To what scale and at what cost ??

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?

India does not have to fight their tank battles with either the US or Russia. Yes we might have to win battles against their systems which they may donate to Pakistan. So far Poland is concerned, the entire country is a tank battle field from all sides. Tank is a matter of survivability for you not for India.

Think about this.

Tank is a system.

First buy my Tank,
Then buy my bridge for that tank
Then my ammunition for that tank
Then buy my trailer for that tank
then buy my ships for that tank for amphibious operations
then buy my aircraft for that tank to be taken away
then buy my SP Guns to support that tank
Then buy my BLT for that tank
Then buy my ARV for that tank
Then buy my trucks for logistics support of that tank..
Then buy my railways system for that tank...

Tank is such a stupid thing....

Then go to the war and loose it.... because tank seller will help your adversary for a price !!


That is the story of a tank which you all propagte quitely.

That is why DRDO is also tricking the IA into buying their Tanks...

Ha Ha Ha....

 

[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..

Kunal has put up a video on snorkelling and fording by tanks. This can be done at very selected places and after preparation of embankments which means it has to done after capture of far bank and it has a funnelling effect. If this point of crossing is sealed then tanks are sitting ducks across the river. This bunching up will enable one aircraft to destroy them all in one go.

This is why there are combined forces, artillery and forces on our river bank provide cover and supressive fire, tanks and heavy IFV's go through obstacle and fight from a march.

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

Tank is a system.

First buy my Tank,
Then buy my bridge for that tank
Then my ammunition for that tank
Then buy my trailer for that tank
then buy my ships for that tank for amphibious operations
then buy my aircraft for that tank to be taken away
then buy my SP Guns to support that tank
Then buy my BLT for that tank
Then buy my ARV for that tank
Then buy my trucks for logistics support of that tank..
Then buy my railways system for that tank...

Tank is such a stupid thing....
Then go to the war and loose it.... because tank seller will help your adversary for a price !!

That is the story of a tank which you all propagte quitely.
That is why DRDO is also tricking the IA into buying their Tanks...
Ha Ha Ha....

Same goes for individual Soldiers..
You Spend money to train him to fight..
You spend money to give him gun..
You spend money to give him bullets..
You spend money to get them trucks, to move..
You spend money on tanks /Arty / air-power for support..

By your logic this is also stupid..

I leave here..

 

[Bhadra]

Same goes for individual Soldiers..
You Spend money to train him to fight..
You spend money to give him gun..
You spend money to give him bullets..
You spend money to get them trucks, to move..
You spend money on tanks /Arty / air-power for support..

By your logic this is also stupid..

I leave here..

Comparative cost of the systems..... nothing stupid about it.
Stupidity lies in not knowing the cost effectiveness of war machines.
That is why world used was "system".. tank is system rather than stand alone machine so while adopting a tank one has to look into hundreds of other things.
DRDO does not do that !

 

[Damian]

Kunal has put up a video on snorkelling and fording by tanks. This can be done at very selected places and after preparation of embankments which means it has to done after capture of far bank and it has a funnelling effect. If this point of crossing is sealed then tanks are sitting ducks across the river. This bunching up will enable one aircraft to destroy them all in one go.

Preparation of enbankaments is not truth. It was done only in sone place in Warsaw Pact countries to speed up eventuall fording operations, but is not nececary.

Hmm ... and destroy that thousand million road by its tracks.. In India before going into Pakistan tanks have to travel hundreds of miles before reaching the border. So one needs a Carrier and tower vehicle.

Americans perfectly used good road systems in Iraq, and didn't destroyed them.

War is something different than peace time, nobody will need care about roads that can be rebuilded when more important things are needed, besides this, to decrease roads wear and tear, tank tracks have rubber pads.

so first buy tanks and buy special aircraft to ferry it. So it is buy my aircraft too !

No, tanks can be transportet aboard standard heavy duty transport aircrafts. Actually currently only C-17 and C-5 can transport all modern AFV's in US Army inventory, even Strykers are way over transport capabilities of C-130, in Europe situation is similiar.

American using tanks in Iraq suffered maximum tank casualties by IED and attacks in cities only and american and Russians only can afford using tanks in cities. The economics of wars suggest if one side lost 15 tanks a day, it is suffering economic burden.

Americans from 2003 to 2008 (this is the most heavy combat period in Iraq) lost 80 tanks from 1,000+ used in the whole operation, and only 20 were completely lost, this is by by 5 years period impressive to sustain such small casualties in equipment. Russians in 2nd Chechnya also lost similiar numbers of tanks, when they finally prepared properly, sent trained troops with high morale and used tanks properly.

I bet the tanks would need escort and protection rather than providing the same to someone else.

To the contrary, as most survivable system, they are the less vurnable to any attacks than any other AFV on the battlefield. This is probably not known history in India, but in Iraq Polish infantry that was defending city hall in one of Iraqi cities, were encircled by Iraqi insurgents, not artillery, neither air support saved them but AMerican tanks, that just driven in supressed and eventually destroyed enemy or forced it to retreat. If not these tanks... I don't even wan't to think what could happend.

whatever it may be but providing movement to a 40 -60 ton mass will remain fuel guzzler...

Why do You think so? Did You done any tests? And may I remind You that trend is to increase protection and thus weight also of vehicles considered as much lighter. Look at current trends for 4x4's, they become larger, heavier better protected, and wheeled APC's? The same trend, of course problem with whels is that they have a limit of protection and weight increase with preservation of high mobility.

you mean to say you will use such expensive ammunition to shoot infantry !! To what scale and at what cost ??

Why do You think it is expensive ammunition? It is simple programmable fuze, and standard HE ammo. The most expensive will be programator aboard tank, rest is cheap.

India does not have to fight their tank battles with either the US or Russia. Yes we might have to win battles against their systems which they may donate to Pakistan. So far Poland is concerned, the entire country is a tank battle field from all sides. Tank is a matter of survivability for you not for India.

So why You promote such hate towards tank? If You wish You can say so in India context, but leave other countries alone in this matter.

Tank is a system.

First buy my Tank,
Then buy my bridge for that tank
Then my ammunition for that tank
Then buy my trailer for that tank
then buy my ships for that tank for amphibious operations
then buy my aircraft for that tank to be taken away
then buy my SP Guns to support that tank
Then buy my BLT for that tank
Then buy my ARV for that tank
Then buy my trucks for logistics support of that tank..
Then buy my railways system for that tank...

Same is nececary for other Armored Fighting Vehicles, You think that APC's do not need ARV's or Artillery Support? Railways to transport them, or brigdes, trucks? So saying:

Tank is such a stupid thing....

Is not responsible, You can say so about every weapon system, why You just don't ask why the hell India need Army?

Then go to the war and loose it.... because tank seller will help your adversary for a price !!


That is the story of a tank which you all propagte quitely.

That is why DRDO is also tricking the IA into buying their Tanks...

Ha Ha Ha....

1) Completely not understandable.
2) Well I prefer reality than stories.
3) Nobody says that India needs to buy tanks from DRDO.
4) "Ha Ha Ha" is simple trolling.

 

[Akim]

Servicemen talk "We do not have roads - there are directions".

 

[Ray]

This is why there are combined forces, artillery and forces on our river bank provide cover and supressive fire, tanks and heavy IFV's go through obstacle and fight from a march.

Not in the Indian context.

We have lined canals with defended embankments, called DCB and Dussi Bunds.

Opposed River Crossing is another kettle of fish!

 

[p2prada]

Opposed River Crossing is another kettle of fish!

Sir, let's not try to complicate things. We have non English speakers here.

 

[Ray]

Sir, let's not try to complicate things. We have non English speakers here.

OK.

Opposed River Crossing is another and totally different issue!

Bund is a High Embankment.

Dussi, I don't know what it would be in English. I think it is a Punjabi word.

 

[p2prada]

Tank is a system.

First buy my Tank,
Then buy my bridge for that tank
Then my ammunition for that tank
Then buy my trailer for that tank
then buy my ships for that tank for amphibious operations
then buy my aircraft for that tank to be taken away
then buy my SP Guns to support that tank
Then buy my BLT for that tank
Then buy my ARV for that tank
Then buy my trucks for logistics support of that tank..
Then buy my railways system for that tank...

Tank is such a stupid thing....

Then go to the war and loose it.... because tank seller will help your adversary for a price !!

War has always been expensive.

It is fun to design a tank, build a tank, buy a tank and ride a tank. No fun in using it. So, let's leave it at that.

War has always been a stupid thing.

 

[Damian]

War has always been expensive.

It is fun to design a tank, build a tank, buy a tank and ride a tank. No fun in using it. So, let's leave it at that.

War has always been a stupid thing.

War allways will be expensive, but vehicles with high survivability like tanks, helps to reduce some of the most expensive losses, losses among own men. This improves morale of not only soldiers, but also rest of nation... good morale is sometimes more needed than good economy... even the best economy won't help if soldiers, people do not wan't to fight and risk if they know that their lifespan on battlefield will be to low, not matters how patriotic they are.

 

[pmaitra]

This has been a very interesting thread, and I must admire Bhadraji for being so true to his convictions.

This thread has taken a philosophical turn, or so it appears to me. Sure, tank is a system, and you need a host of other things, often expensive, for that tank to be effective. Even a super-carrier, without the support ships and aircraft, is as vulnerable as the tank, in their own respective scales. Just like P2P said, war itself is stupid, and one might as well become an ascetic and sit atop the Himalayas.

For those that have a philosophical or esoteric bent of mind, or have one that is recently acquired, might as well be justified in assuming that the tanks has become obsolete. To reflect upon Damian, those that are actually fighting, would rather be in a tank that offers, or appears to offer, better protection. There is also an emotional issue attached to this - that of morale.

 

[Bushra Aziz]

Today, we have one of the world best Armour Divisions with us. We have Para and Amphibian brigades. There is no problem in the airlift of Tanks, Anti tank Guided Missile Systems (ATGMs) and Artillery pieces. We have example of Gulf War before us. It was good work done by the Americans and Pakistanis have also rehearsed well in this art. India might have carried out exercises. I believe that Indian CSD is not workable on ground but it will be dead elephant without tanks. In a nutshell, tank s have become necessary in modern warfare for defence and attack. However, you may plan a warfare without involving tanks.

 

[313230]

Sir, let's not try to complicate things. We have non English speakers here.

Thanks

If every Indian is like you, caring for others with even little things then IMO, India will be on par and compete easily with every country, include the US or China

Regards