Is the tank becoming obsolete?

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
One such station takes on "it is zero" all steath- technologies.
The Serbian attack on the F-117 was primarily luck. They knew the flight path of the aircraft before hand from informers and they just aimed a lot of missiles and one got lucky.

Out of thousands of aircraft sorties, only two aircraft were shot down. One F-16 and the other F-117.

I got this info from "Gambit" who claims to have listened to the mission tapes from the F-117 pilot before he went down.
 

militarysta

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
wishful thinking
Yes, becouse those F-117 was shoot down no by S-300 or "Kolczuga" but for ordinary old S-125 Newa and old ordinary P-18 radar but whit lower frequency. 3 radars after little tuning and we have reflected radar so strong to "cath" "stelath" 117.

There is no stealth planes. All is relevant.


btw: woud you be so kind and answer for my post about Iraq losses for Air Strikes?
Or You haven't nothing to write about that, becouse you simple haven't idea in this thema?
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
The tank is just to vulnerable and too expensive to be useful in the future.
Another stupid armchair general. Who are You? Another "Sparky" clone who belives that the best AFV is old M113 or other lightly armored or non armored coffin?

So why US Army spends more funds on M1 tanks upgrades and possible replacement program? Why they cancelled Future Combat Systems that were intended to replace also tank? Why nobody seeks alternative for a tank? WHY?! I tell You why, because there is nothing that can replace a tank, nothing, deal with it.

Hey I have idea, maybe You should use a horse as Your next generation super duper AFV? :D

Simple, cheap and reliable! :D

Well it is NOT my idea I read it in another forum which is run by an EXPERT
who answers ALL sorts of queries from irritating kids like me


This expert person wrote in India - Pak context and I quote

Field artillery howitzers are reqd for massed firepower on a sustained basis. For instance, in order to destroy minefields & dug-in infantry positions prior to an armoured assault, at least 150,000 rounds of 120mm, 130mm & 155mm ammunition will have to be fired over a 7-hour period.
I don't understand how stupid someone is to waste ammunition on minefields...

Oh and You actually admitt that You are just irritating kid? Well too bad for this "expert" that is answering to You... I would just slap such kid in a face and prohibit him from using internet... some people just don't deserve to use it.
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,500
Country flag
The Serbian attack on the F-117 was primarily luck. They knew the flight path of the aircraft before hand from informers and they just aimed a lot of missiles and one got lucky.

Out of thousands of aircraft sorties, only two aircraft were shot down. One F-16 and the other F-117.

I got this info from "Gambit" who claims to have listened to the mission tapes from the F-117 pilot before he went down.
F 117 being sub sonic HAD to go down It was inevitable that at least ONE would be shot
sometime or the other

LCA MK 1 would make a GOOD tank buster simply because it is BETTER than Mig 27

And Mig 27 will remain till 2018 at least
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
9,998
Likes
8,500
Country flag
wishful thinking
That is why whether, Americans accused Ukraine in supplying with such options to Iraq in 2002. Arrived to us. Walked on a plant, all investigated and even wanted to get secret technical documentation.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
9,998
Likes
8,500
Country flag
The Serbian attack on the F-117 was primarily luck. They knew the flight path of the aircraft before hand from informers and they just aimed a lot of missiles and one got lucky.

Out of thousands of aircraft sorties, only two aircraft were shot down. One F-16 and the other F-117.

I got this info from "Gambit" who claims to have listened to the mission tapes from the F-117 pilot before he went down.

2 missaile with soviet old SAM SA-6 Gainful
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
But it's impossible situation on battlefield.
And how many ATGMs squad survive SPH fire? Did You ever read about artilery fire? I did. I must to known that-so yes, I know. What if those battery wil placed smoke on battlefield and tanks go trought area? Sorry life is not so simple.
Well, if those are in open, not many. If the ATM squads are entrenched, I am afraid not much effect. Lesser effects if those are to be ICV based.

AT squads besides, what about precision munitions of arty, rockets like Smirch, aircraft, bomblets of missiles, top attack munitions, long range fire and forget missiles, shape charged attacks, kinetic attacks, mines and close range ATM ambushes, grenades and Molotov cocktails, RPG etc etc..

And that terrible thing called IED ........ Dhoooooooooooooooooooom and tank in pieces.

Tank-man's life is hell and coneptually, the tank is in the well....
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Besides this I don't really this hate towards a tank.

What is the reason? Because it is the one of more successfull weapon systems, that despite all these prophecy talk about their end, are still used, still evolve in to more advanced and effective weapons?

Only complete idiot would take such important and effective weapon system from his army use.

Look at some European armies that sold out their tanks, it is clear that such armies do not have any offensive and very limited defensive potential... in fact these armies can be disbanded allready because soon due to budget cuts, they will need to ride on trucks only... bicycles if trucks will be too expensive.

These are facts, there is not alternative for a tank, nor there will be one. I know that some kids like Sci-Fi movies, but no, there won't be any mechs and walking battle machines, it is pure unrealistic fantasy.

However the question is how tank of the future would look like, what technology and designs solutions will be used in it. It is far more fascinating question.

Well, if those are in open, not many. If the ATM squads are entrenched, I am afraid not much effect. Lesser effects if those are to be ICV based.

AT squads besides, what about precision munitions of arty, rockets like Smirch, aircraft, bomblets of missiles, top attack munitions, long range fire and forget missiles, shape charged attacks, kinetic attacks, mines and close range ATM ambushes, grenades and Molotov cocktails, RPG etc etc..

And that terrible thing called IED ........ Dhoooooooooooooooooooom and tank in pieces.

Tank-man's life is hell and coneptually, the tank is in the well....
1) ATGM squads are allways vurnable to artillery strikes, even IFV's used currently by most countries are just too thin armored to be effective on modern battlefield.

2) The same threats are even more dangerous for vehicles lighter armored than tank.

3) IED is dangerous to anything, but.. to destroy a tank with IED, You need huge amount of explosives, it is cheaper and better to make many anti personell and anti light vehicles IED's than one single huge one that You will destroy only one tank... without guarantee that it's crew will also die. I seen alot of tanks damaged or destroyed by IED's, interesting thing was that mostly died one or two crew members, not all crew. In lighter vehicles, sometimes everyone dies after IED.

4) Tank concept is one of the most brliliant weapon system designed ever, also life of tank crews is on higher levels after each technological breakthrough in tanks design.

Besides this, tank crews are real men... not like these sissie fly boys that need a ground maintnance crews to make even smallest repair of their aircrafts... tank crews do most maintnance on their own, and much better knows strong and weak sides of their vehicles. Deal with it! :p
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,500
Country flag
I don't understand how stupid someone is to waste ammunition on minefields...

Oh and You actually admitt that You are just irritating kid? Well too bad for this "expert" that is answering to You... I would just slap such kid in a face and prohibit him from using internet... some people just don't deserve to use it.
What is YOUR problem if somebody answers our queries for free

Why are you jealous :taunt1:

You also start blog of your own instead of just bashing up Arjun tank

let us see what you KNOW :taunt:
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Besides this I don't really this hate towards a tank.

What is the reason? Because it is the one of more successfull weapon systems, that despite all these prophecy talk about their end, are still used, still evolve in to more advanced and effective weapons?

Only complete idiot would take such important and effective weapon system from his army use.

Look at some European armies that sold out their tanks, it is clear that such armies do not have any offensive and very limited defensive potential... in fact these armies can be disbanded allready because soon due to budget cuts, they will need to ride on trucks only... bicycles if trucks will be too expensive.

These are facts, there is not alternative for a tank, nor there will be one. I know that some kids like Sci-Fi movies, but no, there won't be any mechs and walking battle machines, it is pure unrealistic fantasy.

However the question is how tank of the future would look like, what technology and designs solutions will be used in it. It is far more fascinating question.
Tank alone as a platform is out. Combination of Tanks and Infantry is in ! Tank alone is useless and Infantry wihout tanks is vulnerable. It has to be a combat force composed of all arms. Tanks have to be infantry carrying tanks.
 
Last edited:

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
9,998
Likes
8,500
Country flag
Minefields a long ago already not barrier for tanks. UR- 77 drives up, 5 minutes, and tanks can ride.
 

EzioAltaïr

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
257
Likes
74
Tank alone as a platform is out. Combination of Tanks and Infantry is in ! Tank alone is useless and Infantry wihout tanks is vulnerable. It has to be a combat force composed of all arms. Tanks have to be infantry carrying tanks.
But infantry without tanks is vulnerable as well. It's all intertwined, one without the other is vulnerable.
 

Akim

Professional
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
9,998
Likes
8,500
Country flag
Akim, it wasn't old S-125 Neva? Are You sure about SA-6?? As I know it was S-125...
It was a mobile air defense system battery "Cube."
S-125 plane hit the second a week later, but did not hammer together.
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
What is YOUR problem if somebody answers our queries for free

Why are you jealous

You also start blog of your own instead of just bashing up Arjun tank

let us see what you KNOW
I'am far from being jelous, neither I'am a kid like You to make idiot from myself like You done writing this... no go to home to mom, and say that a big bad guy from Poland is not nice to You!

Tank alone as a platform is out. Combination of Tanks and Infantry is in ! Tank alone is useless and Infantry wihout tanks is vulnerable. It has to be a combat force composed of all arms.
Tank is a part of bigger effective system, but tank is most important part of this system.

Tank is a uniqe combination of survivability, mobility and firepower, there is no alternative for a tank, infantry and IFV/APC's are intended to support tank, and use it as a cover for them. Tank draws fire, yes but tank is designed to survive most threats that are expected on the battlefield.

Due to it's specific design, tank also will have still higher survivability, than even IFV or APC that have the same weight, simply because tank have much more efficent use of internal space per it's weight and armor protection, than any other vehicle.

So there is no way to replace a tank, without a tank, ground forces are unable to fully use their potential.

I remember that one man done a simulation of what will happen to his forces when they have tanks, and without them, as a replacement for tanks he used B1 Centauro. What was the effect? Without a tanks, he was or unable to achieve mission goals, or his casualties were too high.

Think about this, a simulation program he used was Steel Beasts Pro PE, program used by several armies around the globe for company-battalion excercises.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,500
Country flag
Armoured thrusts are PRECEDED by Artillery barrages ; Missile strikes and Air attacks

Add to it well armed infantry is needed to move along with the tank to protect it
from RPG and ATGM units

Now the question is HOW should resources be allocated ie
MORE ATGMs or more Tanks
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Armoured thrusts are PRECEDED by Artillery barrages ; Missile strikes and Air attacks
Not allways, and many times artillery, missile and air strikes ends as ineffective waste of resources, vide 1991 ODS, 2003 OIF.

Add to it well armed infantry is needed to move along with the tank to protect it
from RPG and ATGM units
Soon there won't be much need to keep infantry that close. Infantry itself is needed to protect tanks from the sides and rear where their armor is less protective. However advance in lightweight and very efficent dynamic protection, and active protection systems, will give better protection allaround vehicle without increasing it's size and weight.

Now the question is HOW should resources be allocated ie
MORE ATGMs or more Tanks
Tanks are mobile, survivable and can fire at move, ATGM's and their carriers can be mobile, but are not very survivable and in 90-95% incapable to fire on the move. With ATGM's You loss capability to manouvere.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
I'am far from being jelous, neither I'am a kid like You to make idiot from myself like You done writing this... no go to home to mom, and say that a big bad guy from Poland is not nice to You!



Tank is a part of bigger effective system, but tank is most important part of this system.

Tank is a uniqe combination of survivability, mobility and firepower, there is no alternative for a tank, infantry and IFV/APC's are intended to support tank, and use it as a cover for them. Tank draws fire, yes but tank is designed to survive most threats that are expected on the battlefield.

Due to it's specific design, tank also will have still higher survivability, than even IFV or APC that have the same weight, simply because tank have much more efficent use of internal space per it's weight and armor protection, than any other vehicle.

So there is no way to replace a tank, without a tank, ground forces are unable to fully use their potential.

I remember that one man done a simulation of what will happen to his forces when they have tanks, and without them, as a replacement for tanks he used B1 Centauro. What was the effect? Without a tanks, he was or unable to achieve mission goals, or his casualties were too high.

Think about this, a simulation program he used was Steel Beasts Pro PE, program used by several armies around the globe for company-battalion excercises.
Oh My My.... Tank is a moving pill box. It is constricted, it is blind, it is exhausting, it generate tremendous fatigue, dust, noise, disorientation and loss of sense of being, loss of direction and purpose.

Tank is a hell only fit to overcome a trench.
Tank needs a terrain to move on and can be stopped by a simple log.
Tank has Least situational awareness....

Inside a Tank you are already dead !! man... what are you talking

It can not capture ground, it can not hold ground...
It is only a fuel guzzler, expensive and cost prohibitive in today's energy crisis...

Tank is a mass of iron which one takes in enemy territory to donate to them.... for target practice
 
Last edited:

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Oh My My.... Tank is a moving pill box. It is constricted, it is bling, it is exhuasting, it generate tremendious fatigue, dust, noise, disorientataion and loss of sense of being.

Tank is a hell onlt fit to overcome a trench.
Least situational awreness....

Inside a Tank you are alredy dead !!
Oh please, prove more how big idiot You are, I'am amused, I never seen an example of such stupid and useless form of life. :lol:

One more thing, actually we live in XXI century not in 1916 if You didn't know that. And the funny thing there is, actually many of today tanks are very quiet, especially the ones powered with gas turbines, they are quieter than many diesel powered light vehicles.

Many modern tanks are also more comfortable than cars, for example semi-recycling driver position. Also air inside a tank can be cleaner than in other vehicles, thanks to airfiltration systems, there is no much fatigue for a crew wen they are driving a tank. They can only be exhausted when they are doing maintnance, some suepension elements are heavy, but not as much as people as strong as tank crews would not handle this.
 
Last edited:

EzioAltaïr

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
257
Likes
74
Oh My My.... Tank is a moving pill box. It is constricted, it is bling, it is exhuasting, it generate tremendious fatigue, dust, noise, disorientataion and loss of sense of being.

Tank is a hell onlt fit to overcome a trench.
Least situational awreness....

Inside a Tank you are alredy dead !!
Tell that to the tankmen who destroyed Pakistani bunkers in Zojila in 1947. :p

The tank has been, and will remain and integral part of conventional warfare, especially in the deserts of Rajasthan, where infantry are targets with bullseyes painted on their backs.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top