Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Bhadra]

Sir ,

Please read my post with detail,because the question you raise had been already answered.


For eg Hafiz saeed,Dawood ibrahim,terrorist training camp can be destroyed by use of missile and air power.But to take back POK,dismantling of Pakistan into various small countries,or complete and proper destruction of Pakistan military might land forces will be needed.

Even UN need tanks to assert its domination.As @sgarg sir had rightly said"the protection of armor and firepower that tank offer is unmatched"

I requested you not to put the subject in India Pakistan context ....

in the four wars we have had .. tanks were never a force to recon with...

To take back POk... forget tanks...

To dismember Pakistan ... again forget tanks.. due to our typical terrain and obstacles ..

I had agreed initially that tanks will live in garages in our context...

 

[sorcerer]

US fights its war away from its home land. Far far away. So tanks are a liability to transport and cumbersome. Just because US is retiring its tank doesnt mean, the rest of the world has to follow suit. US doesnt have borders thats as inflamable as many other nations which share common boundaries.

In my understanding, with shared borders and states like Pakistan, as neighbours, the Tank is a solid foundation for major offensive is still remains a valid and viable option.

Tank may not be an option in PoK or uneven terrains, but it can be a deterrent to prevent the enemy from opening war fronts in other areas, thus escalating and stretching the warfonts, Thus tanks still have strategic and tactical importance in war for many years to come.

 

[sorcerer]

Oh... Just look at what is happening in Pakistan...

Just by using a single platform called Drones, US is all set to achive their aims...

Why go far off..

US does not want to set foot on Pakistan because of quiet a lot of reasons, that include China. Pakistan as a state manufacture terrorists and US foot soldiers on Pakistan will escalate the internal tensions in Pakistan manyfold.

 

[pmaitra]

US fights its war away from its home land. Far far away. So tanks are a liability to transport and cumbersome. Just because US is retiring its tank doesnt mean, the rest of the world has to follow suit. US doesnt have borders thats as inflamable as many other nations which share common boundaries.

In my understanding, with shared borders and states like Pakistan, as neighbours, the Tank is a solid foundation for major offensive is still remains a valid and viable option.

Tank may not be an option in PoK or uneven terrains, but it can be a deterrent to prevent the enemy from opening war fronts in other areas, thus escalating and stretching the warfonts, Thus tanks still have strategic and tactical importance in war for many years to come.

I agree with most of what you said.

I will add that even in uneven terrain, tanks can be useful. We have used Stuart Tanks and AMX tanks in J&K conflicts with Pakistan and PLA, respectively.

 

[sorcerer]

@pmaitra
In the act of war, Its in my understanding that tanks can offer "cover fire" for our transport vehicles, convoys of other sort and foot soldier battalions. Since the war scenario has changed drastically and has become "wired" and net-centric, tanks become a strategic asset rather than sitting ducks like decade old warfares. Tanks will be providing more dependable fortifications in this wired war scenario.

US has a new term something like "Slim. mobile and agile army divisions. THis is because US has long term plans for wars outside and way away from their borders. Slim, agile and mobile method suits their nations interests.So drones and more agile devices 1) help them to be more mobile 2)fight war from the comfort of home 3) US is just another "Method" in the wars overall objective.4) They dont want to put at risk valuable human resources and technology also into the hands of their enemies.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra
In the act of war, Its in my understanding that tanks can offer "cover fire" for our transport vehicles, convoys of other sort and foot soldier battalions. Since the war scenario has changed drastically and has become "wired" and net-centric, tanks become a strategic asset rather than sitting ducks like decade old warfares. Tanks will be providing more dependable fortifications in this wired war scenario.

US has a new term something like "Slim. mobile and agile army divisions. THis is because US has long term plans for wars outside and way away from their borders. Slim, agile and mobile method suits their nations interests.

Tanks will obviously provide cover to mobile AA-batteries, while AA-batteries will provide air cover to tanks. They both, together, will provide cover to transport vehicles, convoys, and foot soldier battalions, like you mentioned.

They both go hand in hand. Tanks have their vulnerabilities in urban warfare, yet, the Syrian Civil War has shown that this vulnerability is often exaggerated.

 

[ghost]

Re: Do Tanks Have a Future?

Tanks are not boots on ground. This much is the basics..... It is Infantry ..

Boots on ground means, the ground forces actually fighting in a war or conflict, rather than troops not engaged or other military action such as air strikes.And armored corps does make a part of it.

But that what happened. It was not the might of Abrahams but that of air which made the Iraqi tanks the birds of the garages and made US Armour to roll over.

Then why did US send its ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan,it could have bombed hell out of them and change their regime and made it carry out its objectives,as per you.

Iraqi army had obsolete anti aircraft weapons,there radar were not advance enough to detect stealth aircraft ,hence were taken out in early portion of war.Let US repeat same with Iran,then we will talk.

Regarding Iraqi tanks they were obsolete,poor training,lack of command and control,lack of air support were the cause of its destruction.
In the spring of 2003, a coalition, led by the United State, invaded Iraq. Its stated aims were to remove Saddam Hussein from power and to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction that allegedly existed in Iraq.

This invasion, which lasted from March 19 to May 1, 2003, and the occupation of Iraq that followed it, made up the Second Gulf War, or the Second Persian Gulf War. (Some people consider this the Third Gulf War, the First Gulf War having been the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.)

In the United States, the Second Gulf War was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

M1A1 Abrams man battle tank in Baghdad during the Occupation of Iraq in the Second Gulf War, November 13, 2003During the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition's primary goal was to destroy Iraq's fighting capability by destroying its headquarters and by eliminating its communications and logistics capabilities.

The First Gulf War had begun with a long bombardment by air.

This time, however, the Coalition set out to paralyze the Iraqi command structure with a sudden attack on both air and land. Coalition forces crossed the Iraqi border within hours of an air attack.

The superiority of coalition tanks could clearly be seen during the 2003 invasion.

As with the First Gulf War, during the Second Gulf War, there was a huge imbalance between the tank capabilities of the Coalition forces and the tank capabilities of the Iraqi forces.

US forces had M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks.

The British had Challenger 2 MBTs.

The Iraqis relied on Soviet T-72Ms, as they had done during the First Gulf War. They had some other old tanks as well, including PT-76s (Soviet) and Type 69s (Chinese).

Destroyed Iraqi Type 69 main battle tank during the Second Gulf War, April 2, 2003During the capture of Basra, British Challenger 2s destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks. This was the largest tank battle that the British had fought in 60 years. One Challenger 2 was able to survive multiple hits from rocket-propelled grenades as well as a MILAN anti-tank missile.

In a battle on the outskirts of Baghdad, American M1A2s destroyed seven T-72s, with the American tanks suffering no losses at all.

What is the value of those countries when USA by using their might can enforce what kind of government they will have and who will be in governance.

If you think US with only airpower can change or remove any popular government of any country,you are naive.

World is not Russia or China. I agree that there have been tremendous development is anti aircraft technology too. Russian systems were available with Iraq. What they did was f ----- all. The anti aircraft technology has not won over the aircraft so far. Afghanistan operations did exhibit the power of Stingers against the careless Russians but where are those Stingers against the US air operations and drones ? Where are those Stingers against the US air operations and Apaches digging holes on Mujahidin

?

Iraqi army condition has been already explained.Now come to Taliban ,they were directly supported,armed and funded by CIA at time of Russian invasion,CIA supplied about 2,000 stingers in the 1980s.Most of them were already used,and about rest Stingers were no longer operational – due to drained batteries, for instance.Now without any major power backing them how do you suppose Taliban to take out planes flying at an height of 25000ft.

Was there any tank battles in Iraq.

Yes there was

Now you live in a Lalla land.

I live in reality,where it is evident that if you do not use tanks in" A" type of war ,it does not mean that you will never need tank in "any" type of war.

I have no objection to that. Infantry elements can not be replaced by any thing .. No robots No tanks and No aircrfts. My argument is that tanks can be replaced by air power

.

Tanks are the ultimate power projection of land forces,cannot be replaced by any.

Look at tanks from the point of view of global dominance and global wars. Can any country having large forces of tanks prevent US or Russian assaults on their land without tanks. I do not think so. Tanks as the day have lost their deterrent value.

If that country has" considerate" air power and "decent" ani aircraft capability ,yes it can.

Ha ha Ha ... where are the UN missions conducted ? Or being conducted ?
Where are the opposing Forces having tanks there ?
where is the air power there with opposing forces ?
When have tanks ever been used in UN missions ?

Ha ha ha.....for area domination...ha ha ha....power projection....ha ha ha......see the photo posted above...ha ha ha........do your research .........ha ha ha..............

They are simply there in a primitive environment to threaten the erring party to use tanks against the AK-47 troting party...

What happened to the best Indian Tanks in Srilanka against LTTE ?

What happened to US tanks in Afghanistan ??

You think that proves utility of tanks in modern combat ??

I think it is other way round.

Nothing happened.

When describing tanks as a platform, do not mix it up with marines, Infantry or SF and do not justify existence of tanks in the name of other ground forces.

I clearly get what you mean,you are saying that you will use your heli gunship,aircraft,and missiles for the task tanks perform.Tanks offer armor protection and firepower and close support to ground forces,they will go into every gali,street,and corner.They will seek and destroy enemy forces which can hide from air power but have to come out as rats from hole when infantry backed with tanks comes at their door.It will be more economical and practical.

Now leave rest of my post ,and answer this and answer in great detail.Why do you think Ukrainian army with "air power" is not being able to get rid of rag tag rebels ,who do not have any air power of their own? Now you will call this a local warfare,then if you are not being able to overcome rag tag rebels with your air power how are you supposed to overcome others in a war?When you are done explaining this answer me why syrian govt air power has failed to destroy rebels,and take over there land?As per you air power is one stop answer to all problems.

Ha ha ha ha ha ....................................................................................................

 

[Bhadra]

US fights its war away from its home land. Far far away. So tanks are a liability to transport and cumbersome. Just because US is retiring its tank doesnt mean, the rest of the world has to follow suit. US doesnt have borders thats as inflamable as many other nations which share common boundaries.

In my understanding, with shared borders and states like Pakistan, as neighbours, the Tank is a solid foundation for major offensive is still remains a valid and viable option.

Tank may not be an option in PoK or uneven terrains, but it can be a deterrent to prevent the enemy from opening war fronts in other areas, thus escalating and stretching the warfonts, Thus tanks still have strategic and tactical importance in war for many years to come.

I agree and have stated same in my arguments time and again.

There are countries which has tankable land borders and those countries have tanks.
But the question is -

Have those tanks proved to be deterrent for other sides not to indulge in hostile activities against each other ?

Has a very strong Armour Force of Israel deterred Hamas from undertaking hostilities against Isreal?

Has the massed armour strength of India deterred Pakistan in undertaking subversive and hostile activities in India specially in J&K and elsewhere ?

Has armour been used the way it is supposed to be used after 1967 Arab Israeli war any where ? (please do not quote Desert Storm which was a one sided war or rather was no war at all).

My point of view is that warfare itself has undergone a radical change. The technology is taking warfare into the third and Fourth waves where the decisive factors will be technologies of third and fourth dimensions - Cyber warfare, IT warfare, Patents, copyrights, air assets and neval assets.

Territory is no longer the aim and objective of global wars.

What is the use of having tanks if India can decide what will happen in Baluchistan and able to influence all activities there ?

Tanks can only deter tanks - that is classical assumption and use of tanks. Tanks can not deter infiltration, drones, economic sabotages, fake currency, drugs, changes in demography, ethnic cleansing, fundamentalism etc.

Tanks can deter conventional war but nothing else.

Is not it a fact that India and Pakistan are engaged in a constant war with each other since 1947 ?

Even nuclear weapons have not stopped Pakistan carrying out Kargil operations.

So let us evaluate tanks as a weapon system in a milieu that will exist in 21st century.

 

[sgarg]

@sorcerer, tank is very viable in POK. Even if infantry moves across the border, an advance column of tanks from the plains route will have to move to encircle PA forces in POK. You cannot capitulate PA in POK without tanks.

Territory is always the aim of war. I have already said the "victory is defined by land gained".

Installing a puppet in foreign land is equal to ruling that land. This is why Shri Rama installed Vibhishan as king in Lanka. Lanka was a non-Arya society and Shri Rama was not allowed to rule Lanka directly as an Arya king.

The same will happen to POK also if India wins this land. It will install a govt favorable to India.

 

[Bhadra]

Now leave rest of my post ,and answer this and answer in great detail.Why do you think Ukrainian army with "air power" is not being able to get rid of rag tag rebels ,who do not have any air power of their own? Now you will call this a local warfare,then if you are not being able to overcome rag tag rebels with your air power how are you supposed to overcome others in a war?When you are done explaining this answer me why syrian govt air power has failed to destroy rebels,and take over there land?As per you air power is one stop answer to all problems.

No sir,

Misunderstanding and polemics is not the aim and intentions.
Air is not the one stop answer and I never said that. I am only comparing air power against tank power. That is it.

So far Syria and ISIS and other irregular wars are concerned, I can pose a counter question -
Why Syria is in such a dire strait in spite of having very large tank force?
Why is Ukraine not able to control their rebels in spite of Ukrainian having very good tank force?

about you other thought - these lack the understanding about application of armour.

Armour is not used for demonstration, area domination, patrolling etc etc. It has a cost and prohibitive cost.
Why should anyone use armour for those purposes when the same can be done very cheap alternatives?

Armour is used in a particular way at a particular place and not for photo ops and propaganda..

Use of armour to kill innocent civilians and destroy villages and cities without any opposition and anti tank environment is a terrorist tactics and tanks have not been made for that. Even after having done that they can not capture and hold the ground.

 

[pmaitra]

No sir,

Misunderstanding and polemics is not the aim and intentions.
Air is not the one stop answer and I never said that. I am only comparing air power against tank power. That is it.

So far Syria and ISIS and other irregular wars are concerned, I can pose a counter question -
Why Syria is in such a dire strait in spite of having very large tank force?
Why is Ukraine not able to control their rebels in spite of Ukrainian having very good tank force?

about you other thought - these lack the understanding about application of armour.

Armour is not used for demonstration, area domination, patrolling etc etc. It has a cost and prohibitive cost.
Why should anyone use armour for those purposes when the same can be done very cheap alternatives?

Armour is used in a particular way at a particular place and not for photo ops and propaganda..

Use of armour to kill innocent civilians and destroy villages and cities without any opposition and anti tank environment is a terrorist tactics and tanks have not been made for that. Even after having done that they can not capture and hold the ground.

Your questions are based on premises that suit your argument. You are deliberately avoiding looking at both sides.

Syria has tanks. So do those Syria is fighting against.
The Kiev Regime has tanks, so do the NovoRussian militia.

Moreover, there are plenty of videos of Syrian tanks engaging and neutralizing their enemies.

Look at both the sides.

What you are doing is called Confirmation Bias.

 

[sgarg]

No sir,

Misunderstanding and polemics is not the aim and intentions.
Air is not the one stop answer and I never said that. I am only comparing air power against tank power. That is it.

So far Syria and ISIS and other irregular wars are concerned, I can pose a counter question -
Why Syria is in such a dire strait in spite of having very large tank force?
Why is Ukraine not able to control their rebels in spite of Ukrainian having very good tank force?

[/I]

Syria is a very complicated situation. A civil war is always very difficult for a regular army. The loyalty of army gets divided between opposing factions.
Arab armies have never been very organized or effective. So let us keep Syria aside.

Let us talk Ukraine. Tanks have been used effectively by both sides in Ukraine war. Tanks operate with artillery. Tanks are also a form of artillery. In Indian context, tanks will move with medium guns, MLRS and SAM launchers.
Tanks are still necessary for manoeuvre warfare.

Other option for maneuver warfare is a helicopter borne force. Possible with hundreds of helicopters carrying special forces. However helicopters are technically complex machines and cost/benefit may be lower in Indian context.

The morality of war and civilian casualties is a separate topic.

 

[sorcerer]

Bhadra
Yes, you are correct in regard to the unconventional warfare and its means,which is the most popular form of warfare in the current world arena and it seems to be so for a looong looong time ahead.
Even unconventional warfare requires close support of regular army at the decisive point of the battle. A certain level of discipline cannot be avoided to succeed in warfare, which cannot be enforced by "actors of " unconventional warfare. So regular army with the classic methods of engagements cannot be ruled out.


Lets not generalize every skirmish and warfare as war for territory. As you are well aware, the intentions of war are different and its not all about gaining territory.

*** Have those tanks proved to be deterrent for other sides not to indulge in hostile activities against each other ?

HOstile activities has many classifications from street fight to clandestine operations. hostile activities dont require tanks but human intel as its core deterrent factor. HOstile activities may lead to a full fledged war and this is where the TANKS come in.
Mostly hostile activities are factors that lead to war.
Tanks cannot prevent economic warfare too... but if economic warfare lead to full fledged war tanks will come into play depending on geography. In my opinion, all those hostile activities are nothing but appetizers for War.

**Has a very strong Armour Force of Israel deterred Hamas from undertaking hostilities against Isreal?
Hamas , they are specialized in guerrilla warfare and their methods of engagements are different. BUT Israeli tanks can create a "state" of war , a kind of escalation to the real dirty war if the hostilities by Hamas goes beyond threshold. When tanks roll, the world listens. Thanks to something called "collective memory"


**Has the massed armour strength of India deterred Pakistan in undertaking subversive and hostile activities in India specially in J&K and elsewhere ?
As I said before, hostile activities are just the beginning of a well planned probable war; hostilities can go on forever, but when the hostile activities reach a certain threshold or saturation point and if the enemy feels that a certain point is weakened may go in for real war coupled with its irregular forces.
In such a time, the tanks will act as a strategic asset for attaining the objectives of war.
Do not miunderstand hostilities as real war. It is kinda like lonnnng foreplay.

*** Has armour been used the way it is supposed to be used after 1967 Arab Israeli war any where ? (please do not quote Desert Storm which was a one sided war or rather was no war at all).
I like your classic assumption of tanks can deter only tanks.
So according to you NATO and a few seasoned war strategists are fools to use tanks as the war required. They could just nuke the whole place and call it a day. In my opinion, the war features something called "adaptability". Here the tools of war , like tanks are used as deemed fit.
Yes Tanks are used even today:Tanks mass as ISIS flag is raised in Syrian town just one mile away | Daily Mail Online
Not in conventional sense of tank doing tank but tank deterring and defending ground.

*** Territory is no longer the aim and objective of global wars.
Not really. Territory where you have your base is of primary importance. Territory rich in resources needed to be protected. Territory gained using articles of war is and was always a bargaining chip to bring peace. YOu must have heard about ISIS gaining territories. NO matter ho
Do understand that Territory plays axial importance in war,still.


*** What is the use of having tanks if India can decide what will happen in Baluchistan and able to influence all activities there ?
Well, political coup via diplomacy is a potshot without posturing or having own grounds not secured. Nations cannot fail on issues relating to 'creation of favourable outcome' outside the border. If a nation chooses to decide whats happening outside its border, it should expect a certain opposition as not all citizen of that land 'understand' you or welcome you. This opposition can lead to skirmishes and later a war. Is this what we are not seeing?
Life is simple, but people are complex. We should be prepared for people. The more prepared we are the more better.

**Tanks can only deter tanks - that is classical assumption and use of tanks. Tanks can not deter infiltration, drones, economic sabotages, fake currency, drugs, changes in demography, ethnic cleansing, fundamentalism etc.
I dont agree to the classic assumption of tanks deter tanks as war has its own dynamics and an able war strategist knows how efficiently use his resources to achieve and gain ground in war. Your view happens when you see tank as a tank and not as an instrument of war.

Tanks cannot deter infiltration and many forms of it.As per the list, its all methods of war in unconventional sense which can lead to real war head on where tanks will be useful.

Tanks can deter conventional war but nothing else.
Tanks deter ISIS and insurgents in afghan. ISIS and insurgents are actors of unconventional warfare. In the data centric warfare tanks play a major role be it conventional or non conventional.

*** Is not it a fact that India and Pakistan are engaged in a constant war with each other since 1947 ?
Yes it is, the reason why its not getting into a full fledged war is beacuse of various reasons politial and otherwise. Mostly political. This doesnt mean that there wont be a conventional warfare with unconventional means and weapons.

*** Even nuclear weapons have not stopped Pakistan carrying out Kargil operations.
Nuke is a threat of escalation with regard to their doctrine and in response to our NO FIRST USE POLICY. Pakistan very well knows this so are its benificiaries.

 

[Ray]

One of the contention is that the helicopter or the 'rotary wing revolution' has made the tank obsolete.

Tank vs rotary wing is an age old debate.

The application depends on the Nature of Threat, Terrain, Climate, the combat environment and so on.

In India, tanks have a long way to go before becoming obsolete.

The need to be on the ground when tactically stationary and not in direct contact with the enemy raise the question of agility, to which vulnerability is closely linked.

It is assumed that the helicopter can fire all its weaponry and also undertake surveillance (except firing its tubed armament and launching [as opposed to guiding]) from a 'rotor down' position by means of a mast head sight.

The vulnerability of both the tank and the Nap of the Earth helicopter is during the movement exposure time and firing exposure time.

While the helicopter can offset it with superior speed and ability to move instantly in any direction relative to its axis, the main difference in vulnerability is that the rotor, being exposed more often (being at the top) and for longer than the tank running gear.

The next issue is the firing exposure time. This is critical.

The tank with its gun on the turret (i.e. high) only exposes its turret in a hull down position.

The helicopter, on the other hand, must come 'hull up' to fire and thus exposing its frontal area far more in comparison to the tank.

There are many more pros and cons that makes the debate very interesting and yet complicated.

 

[Ray]

Don't write off the tank - drones can't do everything
Armoured vehicles are going out of fashion - witness the loss of the Desert Rats' tanks - but they are still very effective weapons of war

In this age of the drone, when the enemy can be engaged by the click of a mouse from an air-conditioned bunker thousands of miles away, it is hardly surprising that the obituaries are being readied for the battlefield tank.

Rather than having to rely on an ironclad behemoth to drive the foe from his entrenched position, today's commanders find that it is far easier – and far less risky – to launch a Hellfire missile to achieve the same objective.

The last time Britain used its formidable array of battle tanks in anger was 10 years ago, when around 120 63-ton Challenger 2s took part in the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Having achieved their goal of securing and holding Basra, Iraq's second largest city, they were soon removed from front-line operations and returned to their bases in Germany and the Salisbury Plain, where the majority were mothballed, as it soon became clear Whitehall had no appetite for similar military adventures.

The Coalition's dislike for conventional weaponry was confirmed by the 40 per cent reduction in the number of tanks it ordered as part of the controversial Strategic Defence and Security Review. It was a direct result of these cuts that the Ministry of Defence this week announced that tank units, such as the legendary Desert Rats, or 7th Armoured Brigade to give it its formal title, will be stripped of their heavy armour role.

Having made good use of tanks to defeat Rommel in North Africa during the Second World War, and more recently during the liberation of Kuwait in the first Gulf war in 1991, the current generation of Desert Rats will find themselves confined to infantry duties when they are deployed to Afghanistan this year.

While senior officers insist that, with more than 170 battle tanks still at their disposal, they retain the ability to deploy the same level of firepower used during both Gulf wars, it seems increasingly as though the glory days of tank warfare are over.

Modern tanks certainly do not engender the terror they inspired when the first British Mark 1 models appeared on the battlefield during the Somme offensive in mid-September 1916. The 36 prototypes, fitted with machine guns or six-pounder cannon, terrified the German infantry to the extent that the British made one of their few dramatic advances of the war, before it was brought to an abrupt halt when the majority of the armoured monsters conked out, or got stuck in the mud.

But the tank had made an impressive impact, and by the end of the First World War nearly 10,000 had been manufactured, since both sides in the conflict hoped the fearsome new weapon might give them the decisive advantage. It was during the Second World War, though, that the tank came into its own, dominating the landscape of battle. A quarter of a million were used in the conflict, though British tanks were often at a disadvantage when pitted against the faster and better protected German Panthers and Tigers. They were also vulnerable to well-directed anti-tank weapons. During the Siege of Tobruk, the Desert Rats lost 113 of their 141 vehicles.

The military obsession with tanks continued well into the Cold War, and at its height Nato commanders had an estimated 30,000 at their disposal. Britain's contribution amounted to some 2,000 tanks which, though they never saw action, made a vital contribution to the technology. The 51-ton Centurion, Britain's first post-war tank, was used to great effect by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War in 1970. Meanwhile, its successor, the 55-ton Chieftain, featured prominently during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, with the Iranians making good use of British tanks bought during the Shah's reign.
While the end of the Cold War prompted many experts to predict the tank's demise, it has refused to bow out gracefully. Russian T-72s spearheaded Moscow's invasion of Georgia in 2008, while Israel regularly deploys Merkavars – loosely based on the Chieftain – during incursions into Gaza and Lebanon.

In our casualty-averse age, the tank is far from an ideal weapon, especially in densely populated areas, where attack helicopters and drones are more effective in targeting the enemy. Even so, there are circumstances – such as if military action were required to remove another rogue dictator – where the armoured, tracked fighting vehicle could be vital. In which case, to paraphrase Mark Twain, we might find reports the tank has no further role to play on the battlefield to have been greatly exaggerated.
Don’t write off the tank - drones can't do everything - Telegraph

 

[santosh10]

here i remember, till 19th century it was a joke that, "there can be a resistance/war without horses", no horse no resistance.....

and the state of horses in wars kicked out by even WW1. but yes, we do have enough reasons to say that tanks would remain in service till the end of this century :ranger:

 

[Bhadra]

here i remember, till 19th century it was a joke that, "there can be a resistance/war without horses", no horse no resistance.....

and the state of horses in wars kicked out by even WW1. but yes, we do have enough reasons to say that tanks would remain in service till the end of this century :ranger:

That is nice one ...
In Indian history, any war would be unthinkable without horses and elephants .. which ultimately proved the cause of their defeat in the absence of solid drilled infantry...

Tanks simply replaced horses and I am contemplating like many others that something will replaces those behemoths of 45 tons and above of expensive steel ..

I was awe struck when I had the first look at Strykers in Hawai with amazing firepower, lightness and their mobility. I thought the American had found the via media.


The question that is not being appreciated here is that :

Tanks and armor have certain characteristics : For example speed, mobility, shock action, fire power etc etc. Well do we have a weapon system at hand in the world which surpasses these qualities and characteristics of tanks? The answer may be yes..

Tank are synonymous with the concept of warfare called " maneuver warfare" though they originated to overcome the static nature of trench warfare.. The sole existence of tanks in second world war and afterwards has been dominated by this doctrine of "maneuver" as expounded by Liddell Hart to Richard Simpkin , taking all cues and help from Tsun Tzu and trying to prove how they can attain the strategy and tactics of Tsun Tzu by employing tanks in maneuver.

The Maneuver warfare has been at the heart of the rational and justification for existence of tanks so far. However, after 1967 Arab Israeli war there has been no maneuvers by tanks but the maneuver warfare had been taken over by helicopters and now the drones.

The novice in the forums are justifying existence of tanks for which were never developed or meant - such as urban warfare.

Stalingrad was the end of use of tanks in Urban environment as was the battle of Krusk the last time when tanks would be used to break in the hard defenses.

Showing tanks being used by the ISIS etc in the terrorist manner betrays ones understanding of the weapon called tank.

 

[Ray]

Maybe it is time for people to read Brig Richard Simpkin's RACE TO THE SWIFT to understand the modern battlefield.

That apart, the Armoured Corps is a manoeuvre arm.

Yes there are fighting encounters with Tanks, but it is generally used, to put it simplistically, to manoeuvre on the principle of Hammer and Anvil.

 

[ghost]

Sir,

Misunderstanding and polemics is not the aim and intentions.
Air is not the one stop answer and I never said that. I am only comparing air power against tank power. That is it.

Why are you comparing apple with oranges?

So far Syria and ISIS and other irregular wars are concerned, I can pose a counter question -
Why Syria is in such a dire strait in spite of having very large tank force?
Why is Ukraine not able to control their rebels in spite of Ukrainian having very good tank force?

War is complex,rest has been answered .

about you other thought - these lack the understanding about application of armour.

Armour is not used for demonstration, area domination, patrolling etc etc. It has a cost and prohibitive cost.
Why should anyone use armour for those purposes when the same can be done very cheap alternatives?

Armour is used in a particular way at a particular place and not for photo ops and propaganda..

Use of armour to kill innocent civilians and destroy villages and cities without any opposition and anti tank environment is a terrorist tactics and tanks have not been made for that. Even after having done that they can not capture and hold the ground.

Let it be clear to you any conflict is not all about the written down doctrine,it also involve adaptability and adjustment as per the ground realities."tanks were not supposed to operate at the height and area of jozilla pass,but they were used,now as per you ye to cheating ho gai"what about military doctrine?You have to make the best possible use of ur resources as per the condition demand.

now please see

The last time Britain used its formidable array of battle tanks in anger was 10 years ago, when around 120 63-ton Challenger 2s took part in the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Having achieved their goal of securing and holding Basra, Iraq's second largest city.
understanding about application of armour-

Egyptian demonstrators demanding the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak wave a banner reading 'LEAVE'.

Soldiers of the Parachute Regiment patrol through the back streets of Pristina.

French U.N. peacekeepers on tanks patrol the area in Tayr Harfa village in south Lebanon.

LOL@TERRORIST as per you.

The purpose of these photos is to depict,that if one is called anti aircraft gun it is not necessary it should be used to only shoot aircraft,it can be used to shoot ground forces and vehicles as per the need arise,similarly tanks are not limited to big maneuvers,they can be used for multiple purpose as per one need.
Now your theory of armor against armor is flawed,if our enemy has armor ,we will fight,if he doesn't have armor,very good we will destroy.

Now tank is a basic element,which has its role in a wide theater of war ,nothing less nothing more.Please do not make it sound as if tank is all about war and war is all about tank.

Is the tank becoming obsolete?No ,it will evolve with time.

Is the tank becoming obsolete for India?No,future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) Requirement for at least 1,000 tanks to replace the T-72M1 a decade from now Will be inducted into the Indian Army around 2025.

I will agree that I failed to convey my points to you,let's agree to disagree.

I would like you to answer this,as I feel that it will clear lot of my doubts and yours.

Situation=Russia has invaded Poland.

Objective=Nato has to replse Russian forces,and have to overthrow Putin and make russian forces to surender.

Condition=Russia has heavy armor while Nato has light armor,No nukes on both side.

Now achieve you goals in broad sense.I want to see how you out maneuver heavy armor,backed by sam.

 

[sorcerer]

Tank is more than a Tank..The Saga will continue...

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof

Heavy does not even begin to describe the U.S. Army's new tank. At 84 tons, the Ground Combat Vehicle prototype weighs more than twice as much as its predecessor, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Bradley is designed to carry a six-man squad (and three-man driving crew) into combat, while the GCV will carry a larger, nine-man squad. Both vehicles will provide covering fire and damage enemy tanks. But the military has built the new GCV to withstand a kind of threat that didn't exist when the Bradley was deployed in the early 1980s: improvised explosive devices.

Part of logic behind the new tank's massive size is that soldiers inside a vehicle are more likely to survive an explosion if there's adequate space for them to wear armor while seated. The extra space also helps distribute pressure from the blast and thus lessens its impact. Another reason the GCV is so huge is that it's required to carry a larger gun than the Bradley does; the new tank will hold a 30mm cannon, probably the 344-pound Mk44 Bushmaster II. Finally, the GCV's extra weight means it will need to be manufactured from the start with a more powerful engine. (By contrast, the Bradley got heavier as the Army added armor to it in Iraq, and its original engine wasn't powerful enough to support the extra weight.)

The Ground Combat Vehicle is pretty much the opposite of the original plan to replace the Bradley. A high-concept proposal called Future Combat Systems aimed to make all U.S. Army vehicles lighter. But during the long ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in which IEDs were the top cause of fatalities), it became clear clear that heavier, not lighter, was the better vehicle design. The U.S. canceled the Future Combat Systems program, and work on the GCV began in 2009. The Pentagon is scheduled to award the first contract to manufacture GCVs in 2019.

The U.S. Army's New 84-Ton Tank Prototype Is Nearly IED-Proof [Updated] | Popular Science