Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Their is huge investment over Armour by all three countries, India alone has 3000 MBTs, That is more than enough for a shock wave and please explain fourth wave technologies ?

Other than that how attack heli can do similar workload of an MBT ?

It does not make sense ..

It does not. I have throughout maintained that the the third wave economies like India, China and Pakistan would continue to use their third wave products due to their inability to transit into shock wave or fourth wave technologies.

Other wise the tasks you highlighted can be effective performed by attack hepters.

I wonder if India would have 200 apaches, 200 drones and one airborne brigade deployed in Leh.

 

[sgarg]

@asianobserver

That way, I can quote the example of battle of Stalingrad where the German air forces reduced the city to rubbles including Russian tanks, artillery and their ships on Volga.
Even the battle for Berlin was air dominated.
But LICO and MOUT under LICO is a different ball game called "operations other than war".

If SAM cover is dense, aircraft may not be able to operate as is happening in Ukraine now.
Tanks are the modern horsemen. Tanks provide mobility, protection, and firepower.
The job of reducing cities to rubble is assigned to rocket launchers now, and atomic weapons if even rocket launchers fail.

The tank becomes easy target only when it is isolated and loses its mobility. Except that, tank remains a potent force.
However tank needs protection from air.

Tank has no place in a congested city. That kind of fighting should be done from air or indirect fire weapons.

 

[Bhadra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Their is huge investment over Armour by all three countries, India alone has 3000 MBTs,

I agree there was huge investment in Tank ! But no lnger !

According to recent RUSI estimates, there are about 108,000 main battle tanks currently in service across the globe. Of these, 10,000 are M1 Abrams belonging to the US Army, USMC, Australia and various 'friendly' Arab nations.

There are about 4,800 Leopard 2s in service with the armies of Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Singapore and Chile. (Holland is presently trying to sell all 400 of its Leopard 2s).

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are trying to buy 1,000 brand new Leopard 2s, which is fine so long as they remain allies.

Japan has 1,000 tanks consisting of Type 74s and Type 90s, plus 200 of the newer Type 10. South Korea has more than 1,000 K1 tanks. Israel can muster around 1,000 Merkavas of various marks.

France has 400 Leclercs and Italy has 200 Arietes. Britain has a mere 250 Challenger 2s (albeit with a further 200 in mothballs). In total, NATO and its allies could mobilise around 18,000 tanks.

That leaves more than 90,000 tanks that could potentially be ranged against us. The vast majority of these are older T-55, T-62, T-64 and T-72 models belonging to Russia, China, North Korea and various Arab states including Iran (which has a mixed fleet of 2,000 tanks including old American M-60s and British Chieftains).

In addition to substantial fleets of older tank models, China has recently deployed its new Type 99, adding to a formidable line-up of Type 96s.

The former-Soviet Union and its satellites have the newer T-80/ T-84 and T-90 at their disposal.

Of the total, it is estimated that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have around 40,000 third-generation battle tanks. Approximately 20,000 are capable of matching the West's best.

It isn't clear how many potential enemy vehicles are fully serviceable, but allowing some adjustment for inaccuracies and unknown factors, the large number of tanks that could potentially be used to attack NATO and its allies cannot be ignored.

Obituary for the Main Battle Tank - or its Future - Think Defence

**************************************************

History seems to suggest that the best means of eliminating a tank is another tank, but the ongoing development of simple to use hand-held systems, as well as increasingly powerful long-range ATGWs may have already shifted the balance.

Dismounted troops operating NLAW and JAVELIN are likely to be highly effective in neutralising large armoured formations. In short, modern anti-tank weapons have become a great tank versus infantry equaliser.


********************************

Because our fleets of Abrams and Challengers have not yet been severely challenged in any conflict, we may have been lulled into a false sense of security. But the reality could be that our tanks have become sitting ducks. So the question I want to answer is not whether tanks still have a role, of course they do; but to explore how they need to evolve to be more effective in both defence and attack roles.

******************************************

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.


Well I am not working on that logic !! But that seems to be the only logic for existence of tanks.

That is more than enough for a shock wave and please explain fourth wave technologies ?

I am not referring to that shock wave but a concept propagated by Alvin Toffler

Wired 1.05: Shock Wave (Anti) Warrior

Other than that how attack heli can do similar workload of an MBT ?

Suffice to say that helicopters are an advancement on the manoeuvre matrix which used to be dominated by mechanised forces earlier.

It does not make sense ..

Read Richard Simpkin 's -"Race to the swift " to make some sense.

Fourth wave technologies

Read "Future Shock" by Alvin and Heidi Toffler

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

This has been their for sometime long, Before ATGM their were RCL, Field Guns, Panzerfust / Bazooka, Nothing has change the dominance of MBT over a field and more investment were carried out over Armour, I disagree with your and author view ..

Further, In the post the advancement of anti-Armour were highlighted but advance in Armour were not but a blind eye ..

The video posted by you are of MBT of flawed design and ill equipped against modern Anti -tank adversaries, I suggest you put same against Abrams in Iraq ..

===============

Please explain how helicopters has better or same capability of an MBT ?, Maneuverability is just one part of the whole picture ..

Please explain the Helicopter and MBT capability side by side in same roles as Armour does and their vulnerability it would be ease for members as well to understand ..

But no lnger !

**************************************************

History seems to suggest that the best means of eliminating a tank is another tank, but the ongoing development of simple to use hand-held systems, as well as increasingly powerful long-range ATGWs may have already shifted the balance.

Dismounted troops operating NLAW and JAVELIN are likely to be highly effective in neutralising large armoured formations. In short, modern anti-tank weapons have become a great tank versus infantry equaliser.


********************************

Because our fleets of Abrams and Challengers have not yet been severely challenged in any conflict, we may have been lulled into a false sense of security. But the reality could be that our tanks have become sitting ducks. So the question I want to answer is not whether tanks still have a role, of course they do; but to explore how they need to evolve to be more effective in both defence and attack roles.

******************************************

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.

Well I am not working on that logic !! But that seems to be the only logic for existence of tanks.


I am not referring to that shock wave but a concept propagated by Alvin Toffler

Wired 1.05: Shock Wave (Anti) Warrior

Read "Future Shock" by Alvin and Heidi Toffler

 

[sgarg]

Tanks are now coming with active protection systems, and hand held weapons may not prove so effective in future. Slow moving missiles can be engaged with another missile or a gun, even if fired from close. Tank probably will remain effective if deployed with other offensive and defensive systems.

The risk to tank remains in a heavily built up area where snipers and air power may be more effective. Soon coming - robotic vehicles that will find the source of fire and fire back.

 

[Bhadra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

This has been their for sometime long, Before ATGM their were RCL, Field Guns, Panzerfust / Bazooka, Nothing has change the dominance of MBT over a field and more investment were carried out over Armour, I disagree with your and author view ..

Further, In the post the advancement of anti-Armour were highlighted but advance in Armour were not but a blind eye ..

The video posted by you are of MBT of flawed design and ill equipped against modern Anti -tank adversaries, I suggest you put same against Abrams in Iraq ..

===============

Please explain how helicopters has better or same capability of an MBT ?, Maneuverability is just one part of the whole picture ..

Please explain the Helicopter and MBT capability side by side in same roles as Armour does and their vulnerability it would be ease for members as well to understand ..

Unlike me you have the right to disagree.

And I agree with that.

I am only presenting a point of view . .. and try to be convincing.

About comparison of helicopter Vs Tanks ... I shall try but you read Richard Simkin and everything would be clear..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I respect it ..

 

[Bhadra]

Heavy Armour has become a Liability

Kind attention @Damian and @asianobserver


# The rigors of the direct-fire fight have increased the liabilities of modern heavy forces.

# The armored and mechanized divisions have lost their early maneuver advantages over foot mobile forces since most armies today possess a mechanized or motorized capability.

# Even the warlords of Somalia, Talibans and ISIS using armed pickup trucks.

# The tank and infantry vehicles have greatly increased in size and weight to accommodate the necessary thick armor and increases in weapon size.

# The weight factor has reduced strategic mobility requiring large numbers of heavy cargo aircraft to move a relatively small armored force. Imagine moving a 60 plus ton tank in an aircraft !!
( only Poland can have them as they do not have to move anywhere. Considering that I appreciate Damian's point of view)

# To compensate, the U.S. and Western Armies has invested in additional heavy division sets of equipment and prepositioned them in expected theaters or on ships near trouble spots. The only other option is to move the force by sea lift which typically takes over a month to arrive in most potential theatres.

# The weight of heavy-armored vehicles also requires them to be transported by heavy duty tractor trailers from the port or storage site to the battle area. This is necessary to reduce the wear on the vehicle drive chain and to prevent the destruction of road networks.

# The weight and limited main gun elevation of the M-l tank reduces its effectiveness in urban, mountainous, and wet terrain, typically found in potential theaters of operation like Korea.

# Heavy-armor often requires extensive engineer assistance to cross natural and man-made obstacles. For example, it took three days of intense bridging effort to effect the
crossing of M-l tanks over the Sava River in Bosnia unopposed!

# Finally, the heavy division, with limited numbers of infantry and helicopters, is not often tasked for operations other than war (OOTW) because of its difficulty in projecting presence beyond the road networks or valleys.

 

[sgarg]

@Bhadra, theoretically your proposition is sound and it has been discussed for several years.

However practical reality is army will think of tanks even today when it has to rush into an uncertain and unpredictable environment.

A tank takes 3 or 4 men and can destroy several hundred even if it dies soon. So the equation remains in favour of tank. Warfare nowadays is about who can kill more.

I think even in city, if combined with other mobile elements, specially helicopters, the tank will hold.

 

[asianobserve]

@Bhadra

Well, MBTs will not be relevant in all battles. But as the recent (apparently unending) wars of the US have shown, even in battle fields like Afghanistan that has no enemy MBTs, Leos and M1s have proven to be valuable assets.

 

[Damian]

@Bhadra, to put it simple, so you will be able to understand that (however I still have doubts, as you are incapable to understand anything...)

You are another, civilian, who don't know shit about military, weapon systems, or how military operates on battlefield.


Furthermore, similiar civilians to you, completely ignore a fact, that different militaries around the globe, purchase new tanks, be it used ones from surplus stocks, or invest money in to R&D programs, to develop new tanks. Examples:

Japan invested in to R&D to develop Type 10 MBT as replacement for older Typ 74 and supplement for Type 90 MBT.

South Korea, invested in to R&D to develop new K2 MBT, as well to modernize K1 to K1E1 standard and K1A1 to K1A2 standard.

China invested money in to R&D for new MBT, called ZTZ-99A2 (although real designation is not known yet). They also develop new larger, heavier and better protected platforms to replace the ones they use currently.

Israel invested a lot of money in to R&D for Merkava Mk4 MBT and also platform based on it like HAPC Namer.

USA invest a lot of money in to countinous modernization and production of the M1 tank, currently new variant is in development, and US Army also have plans to develop new MBT to replace M1 in future, not to mention that they also invest in R&D to improve other platforms, or develop a heavier, better replacement for them. I written that a lot in the past, but you as allways ignored this, however I repeat, because at some point knowledge should break through wall isolating your brain. Lightweight HMMWV will be replace by heavier, better protected JLTV, Strykers are modernized by replacing old, lighter armor FBH hull with new heavier armored DVH hull, M113 will be repalced by larger, heavier, better protected AMPV, M2 IFV will be modernized and in future replaced by new, larger and heavier IFV, M1 is modernized, it's protection improved, and in future it will be replaced by new MBT, and so on.

UK cancelled all ideas to decomission Challenger 2 MBT's, and now their modernization is in R&D phase. Also lightweight CVR(T) platform are being replaced by larger, heavier, better protected FRES-SV platforms.

Germany replaces older Marder IFV's with new, heavier, better protected Puma IFV's, also modernization of Leopard 2 tanks to Leopard 2A7 which is heavier, better protected variant is pending, also many other types of platforms in Heer, is replaced by new, bigger and heavier replacements. There is also discussion in Bundestag to restart production of Leopard 2 tanks, and even to restart program for new Leopard 3 MBT.

France Leclerc MBT modernization program is pending, also older lighter and weaker protected platforms are now replaced or waiting to be replaced by newer, heavier and better protected platforms.

Russia have program "Armata", "Kurganets-25" and "Boomerang" to develop larger, heavier and better protected replacements for all currently used tracked and wheeled combat platforms.

Poland, my own country also have it's own programs for AFV's modernization and procurement, we purchased 250 Leopard 2 tanks and their modernization program will start soon. We also have R&D program for new larger, heavier and better protected IFV to replace BMP-1's. And there is many more.

Turkey, they have their own MBT R&D program Altay, they also developed new heavier, better protected IFV Tulpar as their universal tracked platform which is in R&D phase.

I could probably spend a whole week writing about all these programs. And how many programs to develop new attack helicopters there are? Few only.

There is good reason why there is more tanks than fighter jets or attack helicopters. Tanks are cheap, and in many ways more effective on battlefield than attack helicopters or fighter jets.


In general civilians like Bhadra with 0 knowledge and such matters should be quiet and stop creating their sick ideas that will harm armed forces.

But there is good news, armed forces of all nations, preatty much don't care about opinion of civilians like Bhadra, and invest money on more, heavier, better protected, larger armored fighting vehicles, because this is what they need.

Also one more interesting point, here in Poland we have a program to find replacement for Mi-24 attack helicopters. However because we don't have enough money for all modernization program to be finalized at once, so prioritizing these programs is nececary. And guess what, general consensus is that attack helicopters procurement program should have low priority, why? Because all analisis from modern battlefields show, that attack helicopters, or helicopters in general, have very low combat efficency, and have very low survivability.

 

[Damian]

Can you briefly give the conclusions, as they managed to overcome antitank defense? Apparently they, the Israelis did not read. For fighting in the city need only light armor with an armor against bullets 7,62x51/54. War in the city - it is the war of special forces. Or you can have to wipe the city, as did the Russians.

Yes, they simply used combined arms tactics, their commanders and soldiers used brains, they knew thier strenghts and weaknesses.

This is a difference between strong, well trained, well motivated army, and something completely opposite functioning in other countries.

 

[Akim]

Yes, they simply used combined arms tactics, their commanders and soldiers used brains, they knew thier strenghts and weaknesses.

This is a difference between strong, well trained, well motivated army, and something completely opposite functioning in other countries.

Not idealizing the U.S. army. They had no special military equipment to assault cities. Im just lucky. I remember this video when tanks and IFVs entered the city (then was kill it Ukrainian TV-operator, which took a sniper). They had no resistance.

 

[Akim]

Coalition forces captured Iraqi city only tactical vehicles.

 

[Bhadra]

Tanks are now coming with active protection systems, and hand held weapons may not prove so effective in future. Slow moving missiles can be engaged with another missile or a gun, even if fired from close. Tank probably will remain effective if deployed with other offensive and defensive systems.

The risk to tank remains in a heavily built up area where snipers and air power may be more effective. Soon coming - robotic vehicles that will find the source of fire and fire back.

My Dear Sir,

Even hand held weapons such as Javalins and spikes have started coming with terrible tandem warheads - one to take on reactive armor and second ones to penetratrate deep..

Soon we may find hand held Ram Rods... Ha Ha ha ..

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra, theoretically your proposition is sound and it has been discussed for several years.

However practical reality is army will think of tanks even today when it has to rush into an uncertain and unpredictable environment.

A tank takes 3 or 4 men and can destroy several hundred even if it dies soon. So the equation remains in favour of tank. Warfare nowadays is about who can kill more.

I think even in city, if combined with other mobile elements, specially helicopters, the tank will hold.

Sir,
I did say so in a post earlier:

" 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."


The world is faced with a fate accompli called "Tanks" ..... they can neither swallow it nor throw it .. it is a hot potato in the mouth.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra, to put it simple, so you will be able to understand that (however I still have doubts, as you are incapable to understand anything...)

You are another, civilian, who don't know shit about military, weapon systems, or how military operates on battlefield.


Furthermore, similiar civilians to you, completely ignore a fact, that different militaries around the globe, purchase new tanks, be it used ones from surplus stocks, or invest money in to R&D programs, to develop new tanks. Examples:

Japan invested in to R&D to develop Type 10 MBT as replacement for older Typ 74 and supplement for Type 90 MBT.

South Korea, invested in to R&D to develop new K2 MBT, as well to modernize K1 to K1E1 standard and K1A1 to K1A2 standard.

China invested money in to R&D for new MBT, called ZTZ-99A2 (although real designation is not known yet). They also develop new larger, heavier and better protected platforms to replace the ones they use currently.

Israel invested a lot of money in to R&D for Merkava Mk4 MBT and also platform based on it like HAPC Namer.

USA invest a lot of money in to countinous modernization and production of the M1 tank, currently new variant is in development, and US Army also have plans to develop new MBT to replace M1 in future, not to mention that they also invest in R&D to improve other platforms, or develop a heavier, better replacement for them. I written that a lot in the past, but you as allways ignored this, however I repeat, because at some point knowledge should break through wall isolating your brain. Lightweight HMMWV will be replace by heavier, better protected JLTV, Strykers are modernized by replacing old, lighter armor FBH hull with new heavier armored DVH hull, M113 will be repalced by larger, heavier, better protected AMPV, M2 IFV will be modernized and in future replaced by new, larger and heavier IFV, M1 is modernized, it's protection improved, and in future it will be replaced by new MBT, and so on.

UK cancelled all ideas to decomission Challenger 2 MBT's, and now their modernization is in R&D phase. Also lightweight CVR(T) platform are being replaced by larger, heavier, better protected FRES-SV platforms.

Germany replaces older Marder IFV's with new, heavier, better protected Puma IFV's, also modernization of Leopard 2 tanks to Leopard 2A7 which is heavier, better protected variant is pending, also many other types of platforms in Heer, is replaced by new, bigger and heavier replacements. There is also discussion in Bundestag to restart production of Leopard 2 tanks, and even to restart program for new Leopard 3 MBT.

France Leclerc MBT modernization program is pending, also older lighter and weaker protected platforms are now replaced or waiting to be replaced by newer, heavier and better protected platforms.

Russia have program "Armata", "Kurganets-25" and "Boomerang" to develop larger, heavier and better protected replacements for all currently used tracked and wheeled combat platforms.

Poland, my own country also have it's own programs for AFV's modernization and procurement, we purchased 250 Leopard 2 tanks and their modernization program will start soon. We also have R&D program for new larger, heavier and better protected IFV to replace BMP-1's. And there is many more.

Turkey, they have their own MBT R&D program Altay, they also developed new heavier, better protected IFV Tulpar as their universal tracked platform which is in R&D phase.

I could probably spend a whole week writing about all these programs. And how many programs to develop new attack helicopters there are? Few only.

There is good reason why there is more tanks than fighter jets or attack helicopters. Tanks are cheap, and in many ways more effective on battlefield than attack helicopters or fighter jets.


In general civilians like Bhadra with 0 knowledge and such matters should be quiet and stop creating their sick ideas that will harm armed forces.

But there is good news, armed forces of all nations, preatty much don't care about opinion of civilians like Bhadra, and invest money on more, heavier, better protected, larger armored fighting vehicles, because this is what they need.

Also one more interesting point, here in Poland we have a program to find replacement for Mi-24 attack helicopters. However because we don't have enough money for all modernization program to be finalized at once, so prioritizing these programs is nececary. And guess what, general consensus is that attack helicopters procurement program should have low priority, why? Because all analisis from modern battlefields show, that attack helicopters, or helicopters in general, have very low combat efficency, and have very low survivability.

Sir,

You are a great Tank technologist and I respect you for that.

But do not decry the civilians ( like me) who have made greater contribution to war machines rather than spanner Sergeants !!

The countries and areas you quoted are indeed relevant for tanks but nor for countries like France, UK, Germany, USA, Japan, Austrialia etc who do not visualise to fight on land borders in near future.

Major defence industries in the world are not going to give a damn to a machine called tanks .. they have had enough of that and you may refer to my post here on how BEA is crisis ridden due to their tanks and APCs.

What matter is the military machines and technologies with which super powers are going to dominate the globe .

Who cares what Poland, Korea, Japan , India and Pakistan has .. they will address the wars the way make money ... third wave industries and production based economies producing polluting industrial Junks...

Future war for global power will be fought and won in :

Cyber space
Outer Space
IT technologies
Knowledge based space
Technological innovations
Biotechnologies including Nano technologies
Pharmacology
Health and life sciences
Financial technologies and systems


Third wave / Fourth wave economies will trade knowledge and technologies and make tremendous profits through it as also rule the globe a la Matrix. China, India, Poland other insignifants will produce for the consumption of USA, Japan and West Europe and reamin subservient to the fourth wave economies.

So keep designing your tanks which the tribal shouting " Allaha Ho Akbar" will keep destroying in their cities and streets.

Your tanks are no langer going to tilt the balance of power at global level. .... Hmmm NOT any more !!
Only countries like Poland, India or Pakistan or may be China will keep producing irrelevant machines like Tanks never to be used or used to pollute the globe.

For Israel constant land warfare is a compulsion. Do have a look at their adversaries who are not capable of rising above their rockets, RPGs and AKs and suicide squads. They face existential threats and their position and size suggest that they will continue to work in a space where they can not take advantage of newer weapons such as NBC.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra

Well, MBTs will not be relevant in all battles. But as the recent (apparently unending) wars of the US have shown, even in battle fields like Afghanistan that has no enemy MBTs, Leos and M1s have proven to be valuable assets.

Can you visualise a battle in the plains of Western Europe where 10000 tanks will be facing each other to tilt the balance of power at global level...

Or 10000 Abrahams rolling through South China plains to capture China.

There was a certain visualisation of the battle where the tanks would be the decision makers.. and effect global power.

Not the streets on Basra or Bagdad ..

Basra and Bagdad were under Western and US control earlier also and even after the war...

It does not make any difference to the global affairs ...

The oil cartel determined the prices of crude earlier and even after war they determine the crude and energy prices... tanks or no tanks.

The relevant question is that in order to stabilise the world order to Change the world order, will tanks play the same role as visualised for them earlier.

 

[asianobserve]

Can you visualise a battle in the plains of Western Europe where 10000 tanks will be facing each other to tilt the balance of power at global level...

Or 10000 Abrahams rolling through South China plains to capture China.

There was a certain visualisation of the battle where the tanks would be the decision makers.. and effect global power.

Not the streets on Basra or Bagdad ..

Basra and Bagdad were under Western and US control earlier also and even after the war...

It does not make any difference to the global affairs ...

The oil cartel determined the prices of crude earlier and even after war they determine the crude and energy prices... tanks or no tanks.

The relevant question is that in order to stabilise the world order to Change the world order, will tanks play the same role as visualised for them earlier.

Yes @Bhadra.

 

[Akim]

Can you visualise a battle in the plains of Western Europe where 10000 tanks will be facing each other to tilt the balance of power at global level...

Or 10000 Abrahams rolling through South China plains to capture China.

There was a certain visualisation of the battle where the tanks would be the decision makers.. and effect global power.

Not the streets on Basra or Bagdad ..

Basra and Bagdad were under Western and US control earlier also and even after the war...

It does not make any difference to the global affairs ...

The oil cartel determined the prices of crude earlier and even after war they determine the crude and energy prices... tanks or no tanks.

The relevant question is that in order to stabilise the world order to Change the world order, will tanks play the same role as visualised for them earlier.

Now there is war in Europe. Tank duels almost none