Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Akim]

I have reading your constructive posts and nothing to comment or you may puke out your Vodka.....

@Bhadra/ With you it is useless to communicate through this question. you own neither a theory nor practice pulling up some historical facts from pictures. When amunithion detonates in western tanks, pulls out feed part of turrent. And such cases are. But "modern colonial wars" will not compel the whole world to give up heavy AV. Vice versa, now goes gains in her weight. It is impossible to compare tanks to the battleships. In new time a tank was transformed. He as a frigate at the seaside. Rapid, manoeuvre, possesses a strong armament. Naturally, he is helpless without an infantry, but also an infantry does not can without a tank. A modern fight is co-operation of all births of Forces. And from a rightness and synchronousness, victory depends!

 

[Damian]

Well the fact is that we could seen throuth the past 22 years incredible advance in vehicles armor protection.

Be it advanced explosive reactive armor like Ukrainian Knife and Dublet, a really unique types of ERA.

Be it advanced composite armors, and what is probably more important, attempts to reduce their weight without reducing their effectiveness, of course this will probably be achieved when nanotechnology will mature as such.

There are of course other ways to increase vehicles survivability. The pioneers in that aspect are Americans who were first (and still up to this day they are) to design a tank with completely isolated ammunition compartments.

These developments can be well used to increase armored vehicles survivability on the battlefield. And there are more ways to do that, from active protection system to new ways of camouflage, from multispectral camouflage nets like Barracuda, Berberys, Nagidka and Kontrast, to multispectral camouflage paints.

Photos above show two tanks, one covered with standard camouflage paint, and second with Intermat multispectral camouflage paint that makes it allmost invisible for thermal sights. Simple, reliable, cheap way to camouflage vehicles.

Today air assets rely mostly on thermal sights to detect enemy, but we should remember that thermal sights have limited detection range, and limited identification range that is smaller than detection range.

This means even bigger problems for ATGM's, aircrafts, attack helicopters to efficently attack ground vehicles.

But there is something else.

We should remember that tanks are part of bigger system, so let's imagine that tanks and not only tanks have not only advanced composite armors and ERA, not only active protection systems, but also such camouflage assets, and also air defense.

Such combined ground forces are power that need to be respected, as highly survivable vehicles with firepower and mobility can be very dangerous, both in conventional as well assymetrhic conflicts.

And as to that, technology still goes ahead. In fact ground vehicles allway will be cheaper than for example aircrafts, not only in purchase costs, but also service life costs. It is not visible yet, but for example engines, at least Americans are openly working on very fuel efficent, quiet hybrid engines for wheeled and tracked vehicles. Other mechanical components of tracked vehicles like tanks become more and more durable.

If someone forgets about these developments only to force his ideas, mostly unrealistic, we can be assure that it will end only as a waste of time and money. Our American friends learned this the hard way with Future Combat Systems program, fortunetly for them some positive technology breakthroughs were gained so this program was not so huge waste of money afterall.

Oh and one more thing.

Of course reduction in weight is desirable, but the question is, if we know where is a upper limit of vehicle weight, where is a lower limit of it's weight?

It is really good to have a 20 tons tank? Protection level can be same as in 75 tons heavy vehicle, it is not important, but the question is if such light vehicle can for example handle mine or IED explosion?

I think that the answer is modular scalable armor package.

Ok so now what I mean by this?

Let's say that the weight of our future MBT without armor will be 40 tons, or better 30 tons.

The vehicle design is with crew in hull, and with unmanned armor.

Now the armor protection. It should be based on advanced composite armor made with use of nanotechnology to reduce it's weight but without sacrificing protection.

In my opinion there should be 4 armor levels.

Level 1 (Light) - Armor package designed for assymetrhic conflicts, low density, optimized against shaped charge and EFP threats. Weight increase to 40-45 tons.
Level 2 (Basic) - Armor package designed for assymetrhic and conventional conflicts, front armor optimized against most popular threats, side armor package optimized for shaped charge threats, weight increase to 45-50 tons.
Level 3 (Basic-Heavy) - Armor package designed for full scale conventional warfare, front and side armor enhanced against more dangerous threats, possible use of advanced universal heavy ERA, weight increase 50-55 tons.
Level 4 (Heavy) - Armor package designed for full scale conventional warfare, front and side armor enhanced against most dangerous threats, possible use of advanced universal heavy ERA, weight increase 55-60 tons.

With known advance in armor materials such vehicle configuration is possible. Unmanned turret do not need heavy armor, so 80-90% or more of protection can be concentrated over hull.

Weight reductions can be also obtained by use of more compact engine, and for example hydrogras suspension system.

Hydrogas suspension system have also other advantage, it can also have option for variable controlled height, so installation of additional counter mine/IED belly armor is easier and hull can be placed then much higher increasing belly protection against blasts.

For further protection we can add active protection systems and camouflage assets mentioned above.

Ah and one more thing, such configuration is rather only possible with unmanned turret design.

But can be applied in to variety of vehicles, be it also IFV's, APC's, SPAAG's, SPH's, ARV's, ABV's, so not only MBT can benefit from such design solutions.

My idea is based on:

US Army ASM (Armored Systems Modernization) program and Russians "Armata", "Kurganets" and "Boomerang" unified combat platforms programs.

 

[average american]

The Tank Is Dead, Long Live The Tank
by James Dunnigan
December 31, 2011 ( I will go along with this guy.)

Has it really happened this time? Is the tank on its way out? For several decades the main battle tank has been declared obsolete. Like the battleship, another weapon that depended on big guns and thick armor, the tank was seen as inevitably done in by faster, cheaper, and more numerous weapons that could destroy it. The first modern battleship was launched in 1906, but in less than half a century aircraft and submarines made the battleship obsolete and none were built after 1945. The tank has lasted longer than that. First appearing in combat during World War I (1914-18) the tank became a decisive weapon during World War II (1939-45) and continued to dominate battlefields to the present. That's over 90 years, twice as long as the battleship. But the tank, like the battleship, also became too expensive and too vulnerable to cheaper weapons.
But there's another major factor that kept the tank going for so long, the Cold War arms race. Russia saw the tank as their principal land warfare weapon and produced over 100,000 of them after World War II. Russia introduced a new model every decade from 1945 to the 1990s. The World War II T-34 gave way to the T-54, then the T-62, the T-72, the T-80, and the T-90. The United States responded with the M-48, M-60, and M-1.

As the Arab-Israeli wars, and the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated, the American tanks in the hands of well-trained crews could handily defeat larger numbers of Russian tanks. In addition, the M-1 with its use of high tech sensors, composite armor, and depleted uranium shells, set a new standard for tank design and effectiveness. The high price of the M-1, nearly five million dollars each, eventually proved to be a worthy investment. With Russia dropping out of the arms race when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and no one else willing, or able, to afford a tank to match the M-1, the end of the line has been reached. Well, a few nations could match the M-1 (Israel, Britain, and Germany) but none of these were willing to build many of them, or come up with a radical new design that would keep the tank relevant on the modern battlefield.

The United States ended up with 7,000 M-1s when the Cold War ended. Most of the huge Russian tank force was left parked all over the place, with no cash available to operate or maintain them. Russia was selling off its best tanks for less than a million dollars each but no one thought of these as anything more than targets in a battle with M-1s. The world will still have plenty of tanks for the next few decades, until the last of the 50,000 Cold War surplus Russian tanks rusts into uselessness. Russia recently decided to speed up that process and scrap the last of its Cold War tanks. Russias new tanks are T-90s, an extensive upgrade of the Cold War era T-72. The T-90, on paper, is a match for the M-1 but the T-90 has not been in combat, with anyone, yet.

But why should the tank disappear now? Simply because the main reason for the tank was to provide a weapon that could battle its way past artillery fire and determined infantry (armed with machine-guns and anti-tank weapons). With modern electronics, cheaper precision rockets and bombs can deliver the firepower and flexibility that only tanks could provide in the past. These new weapons are easier to use and maintain than tanks, which have always been complex and difficult to keep going. Just like admirals did the math and decided that submarines and aircraft were cheaper and more effective than battleships, generals the world over will consider their options and go with what they feel will work best. There won't be much choice. With few new tanks being built and cheaper, more effective, weapons available.

There will have to be some battles to make the point. China and India are still building tanks, using technology far behind and a lot cheaper than the M-1. But with smarter and cheaper anti-tank weapons available (missiles, "smart mines", and air delivered robot tank killers like SADARM) it will only take one incident of the "cheap and smart" stuff beating up on a lot of tanks to make the point. Another telling sign is the lack of enthusiasm in America and Russia for designing a replacement for current tanks, at least not a replacement that features the "bigger gun and thicker armor" that has characterized tank development for the past 90 years.

Then again, it may be premature to write off the tank. For a weapon that has been dismissed as obsolete for decades it still survives. True, there are a lot fewer tanks in use now (less than 50,000) than there were at the end of the Cold War (over 100,000). And the new ones being built are not sufficient to replace those that wear out each year. Less affluent nations will still find tanks useful against their own citizens, or equally poor neighbors who also have some tanks. The U.S. and its allies found out that the M-1 and similar Western tanks were very useful against irregulars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The math, however, is unavoidable. Unless a new arms race begins the number of tanks in service will slowly decline year by year. Meanwhile, the number of "smart weapons" grows rapidly. The tank won't completely disappear soon but never again will it be the key weapon for ground warfare.

 

[Damian]

The math, however, is unavoidable. Unless a new arms race begins the number of tanks in service will slowly decline year by year. Meanwhile, the number of "smart weapons" grows rapidly. The tank won't completely disappear soon but never again will it be the key weapon for ground warfare.

Oh don't worry, new arms race might happen anytime in nearest future. As well as sooner we will se decline of UAV's and so called "smart weapons", why?

One person that finished with a degree from electronics and such things (and he is credible source) said that there are allready problems with communication with unmanned platforms or with guided munitions. These are good when there are no air defences and enemy is primitive, but when You face enemy with advanced technology, things start to be nasty.

 

[average american]

We call people that belive drones are not going to be the weapons of the future air wars technology challenged. Some countries made a forture selling the Iraqis devices that would intefer with GPS bombs,, they did not work.

 

[p2prada]

Oh don't worry, new arms race might happen anytime in nearest future. As well as sooner we will se decline of UAV's and so called "smart weapons", why?

One person that finished with a degree from electronics and such things (and he is credible source) said that there are allready problems with communication with unmanned platforms or with guided munitions. These are good when there are no air defences and enemy is primitive, but when You face enemy with advanced technology, things start to be nasty.

The engineer is right. UAVs do not generate enough power to be credible over enemy air space and an easily be countered once detected.

However small sized UAVs will be replaced by UAVs and UCAVs which weigh 10-15 tons. These aircraft will be more survivable and will in essence be at least as capable as a F-16.

 

[Damian]

The engineer is right. UAVs do not generate enough power to be credible over enemy air space and an easily be countered once detected.

However small sized UAVs will be replaced by UAVs and UCAVs which weigh 10-15 tons. These aircraft will be more survivable and will in essence be at least as capable as a F-16.

The question is how much signals can be handled by sat links for many UAV's. I heard that there is limited capability.

And true AI is just as same fantasy as mechs.

 

[asianobserve]

In a way tanks are like aircraft carriers in today's situation, they're big and lumbering targets that can easily be defeated by new anti-aircraft carrier weapons, and they're expensive to maintain. But you might ask, with the growing sophistication of cheaper anti-ship weapons why is it that America continue to induct aircraft carriers? The simple fact is no naval ship right now can match the amount of deployable conventional firepower (through its aircrafts) of an aircraft carrier and its unique ability to bring these assets to practically anywhere in the World. The tank also have unique capabilities that at present no ground asset can deliver: firepower and the ability to withstand punishments that cannot be matched by current land-based mobile assets. I think these unique abilities explain the continued significance of these assets. The future maybe towards robots but I have no doubt that tank-like robot vehicles will continue to exist.

 

[Akim]

In a way tanks are like aircraft carriers in today's situation, they're big and lumbering targets that can easily be defeated by new anti-aircraft carrier weapons, and they're expensive to maintain. But you might ask, with the growing sophistication of cheaper anti-ship weapons why is it that America continue to induct aircraft carriers? The simple fact is no naval ship right now can match the amount of deployable conventional firepower (through its aircrafts) of an aircraft carrier and its unique ability to bring these assets to practically anywhere in the World. The tank also have unique capabilities that at present no ground asset can deliver: firepower and the ability to withstand punishments that cannot be matched by current land-based mobile assets. I think these unique abilities explain the continued significance of these assets. The future maybe towards robots but I have no doubt that tank-like robot vehicles will continue to exist.

Not a single robot will replace a man on a battlefield. If to clash into "Papuan" armies, then yes. And any modern army has the opportunity, kiberatak. In Iran planted with of Update help American UAV

 

[Akim]

We will take a hypothetical collision two fictional countries (Nagoniya and Tranzland). First,equipped by all modern weapon of the CIS and China, second - weapon of production of countries NATO. We put limits only on application of WMD. All other on your taste. Really there is not a place to the tanks in such modern war.

 

[Damian]

The first question is how to achieve breakthrough, and by what means?

Artillery? Not much, if enemy have armored fighting vehicles he can leave hist position for a time of barrage, and then quickly return. I done it many times when using SB simulator, with minimal casualties. Oh and noone guarantee's us that enemy will not have counter battery assets.

Air forces, also not really, tey are vurnable to enemy anti aircraft assets and also we should not underestimate enemy air forces as well.

ATGM's? Not survivable enough, and not mobile enough, and ATGM operators need direct visual contact with enemy in most cases, it will just not work.

Tanks... well this is the best option, both for offensive and deffensive operations, tank is very mobile, and can cross terrain where wheeled vehicles start to be bogged down, so we have not only mobility, we have manouvere. Tank have direct firepower abilities not achievable for any other AFV, and the most important aspect, survivability, tank can withstand a lot of punish, from artillery strikes, to direct hits from ATGM's, RPG's or tank guns, of course it is not indestructible, but there are much less weapons that can destroy a tank, than lighter vehicles.

And we can use another factor, cooperation.

We can use artillery strike to push back enemy from his position for a while, our tanks in the same time can get close to enemy, and use element of surprise, by using their manouvere, even to quickly get on flanks if possible, and i the end destroy enemy.

But tanks can also be usefull in deffense. I think not many people ever seen a mobile defense by use of tanks, such defense is incredibly difficult to be break up.

This is because tanks mobility (also in reverse), survivability, and firepower.

These are of course simplified basics. But belive me, this was discussed several times, one man done even proper simulation in SB with both scenarios where he had tanks, and din't had them. When he presented results to us, he said, that without tanks, You can just give up, because lighter vehicles can't really fight on the modern battlefield. These lighter vehicles are there only to support tanks, as tanks are the main force in the assets You have, rest is only helfull addon.

 

[Rahul92]

Well it's pretty useful in defensive tactics and even pretty useful to scare civilians

 

[Damian]

Well it's pretty useful in defensive tactics and even pretty useful to scare civilians

Read a book

There are several descriptions when tanks were very usefull, one is when insurgents blown up fuel station, and when US Army soldiers tried to help wounded, angry mob started to attack them, so someone send several tanks them, when mob seen tanks, they just peacfully walked away.

Tank is usefull in many different situations, so definetly not obsolete.

 

[average american]

Battleships were usefull in many different situations, but they were definetly obsolete, the USA last battleship the Missouri was retired in 1992, it was obsolete by 1942.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Battleships were usefull in many different situations, but they were definetly obsolete, the USA last battleship the Missouri was retired in 1992, it was obsolete by 1942.

What is meaning of battleship on first place : ?

What role battleship play : ?

What is the meaning of tank on first place : ?

What role Tank play : ?


Do you know before you ask such question so does the author of the article how bring this issue on first place..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Nothing is obsolete it appears in form under new designation, Battleships with big guns are returning and will be dominate the seas again..

 

[average american]

I hope our enemys think like you.

 

[Damian]

Only complete moron will compare battleship with tank.

Tank contrary to popular belife is not huge, slow mammoth, it is very compact, nimble vehicle. Despite it's weight, in hard terrain, heavy, weighting 60 tons tank, have less pressure on ground and is more mobile than any lightly armored wheeled vehicle.

Battleships were huge, and non compact contrary to tanks. Also due to ship size, You can armor it well enough within some weight and size limit. Tanks protection is far more advanced, also due to small, compact size of tank.

I think that most people due to their limited knowledge about tanks, do not even understand what tank is... which is typical habit of ignorant idiots who are unable to educate theirselfs.


Japanese Type 10, it is a very mobile tank, and thanks to new type of transmission, the continuously variable transmission (CVT), it is capable to move at 70 km/h not only forward, but also backward, it's weight in basic configuration is 44 tons, impressive?

I heard about incident where American tank crews, after disabling powerpack governor (it is digital device, that can be disabled for some time using SHAFTS system, or disable it permamently by doing something with powerpack digital control unit), where they, were able to speed up 60 tons heavy M1 Abrams (some of the later, heavier variants), close to 100 km/h. In M1 series engine is governed to 1500HP, but AGT-1500C maximum power is approx 2000HP, however then service life of engine is drastically decreased so for this and several other reasons, it was decided to install engine governor.

Not only that, modern tank can pivot in place (only if it had modern transmission, some tanks, for example Russian ones, can't pivot in one place, they were turn in place but the turn radius will be much bigger than for tanks with pivot in place capability).

There are of course many more examples of high mobility of tanks, and this is in general a myth that they are slow, not very mobile behemots.

In fact in 2003 during invasion of Iraq, American tanks were advancing so quickly, that actually, the lighter vehicles like 4x4's and trucks forming logistic columns, were unable to keep pace with M1's and M2's, and were slowing down the combat units advance.

And what these geniuses tell's us? That we should replace effective, efficent, relatively cheap (compared to aircrafts for example) weapon system, that is uniqe combination of mobility, survivability and firepower, with a lightly armored vehicles, with lower mobility, allmost none survivability, allmost none firepower, and that are vurnable even to small arms fire (most APC's are vurnable against 14,5mm heavy machine guns, and can't be really up-armored because then they reach their weight limit).

So I ask, who are these insane people that wan't us to throw away one of the most successfull weapon systems used by armies today?

Ah, and one more thing, most lightly armored vehicles, can't even handle such simple and light protection like ERA, because ERA explosion can just broke their armor in to pieces. Of course there are attempts to design such ERA, but it will be less efficent than ERA for heavier armored vehicles.

And we have many proofs that we do not have a tank decline, but in fact we have a tank renaissance, where not only tanks are evolving towards more survivable, more mobile, more lethal platforms. Look at SPz Puma IFV, it's weight as much as some older tanks, and is better protected.

Look at the American GCV IFV program, where vehicles is said to be approx 50 tons heavy in basic configuration, and can reach even 60 tons with addon armor.

Look at Namer heavy APC, 60 tons heavy, and armored as well as a tank.

Look at Russia, new heavy platform "Armata" is in development for new MBT and heavy IFV.

And we have plenty of other developments, US Army is working on M1 modernization and possible replacement, Turkey is developing their own new MBT, same goes for South Korea, Japan have new MBT the Type 10, look at Ukrainian T-84M Oplot, a fine tank, very good.

Damn even my country with much smaller budget than most European countries sees a need for new tank, that for logistical ease, will be as much unified on components level, as possible with medium tracked platform that will be a base for family of light and medium tracked vehicles, to replace all currently used, different platforms.

So the real armed forces, contrary to some people fantasy, are not seeing tank as obsolete, and after recent conflicts, sees even more need not only to have tanks, but also to increase protection of other tracked and wheeled platforms, and this increase in protection, means increase in weight.

That's are facts!

 

[Damian]

This is how a future tank will look like. Low silhouette, crew inside hull, in their own isolated compartment, gun installed in unmanned turret/combat module.

You should realize that manned turret weight range from 10 to 25-30 tons, hull itself veights approx 30-35 tons. Now imagine that almost whole weight, also this weight used for armor, is concentrated on hull. We have vehicle with protection levels unseen up to this day, and still within a weight limit.

And weight can be reduced by different means.

From use of advanced materials, nanotechnology, new armor designs, to reduction of size and weight of internal components.

Did anyone even asked how much weight tank diesel engine? Approx 3 tons, and what if we reduce it's size, without reducing it's power output, and we have engine that will weight 1 ton? Or even below? Transmission block also have it's weight.

Even suspension have it's weight, in 1980's research & development group was studying possibility of replacing torsion bars suspension system, with hydrogas suspension system, they noticed weight decrease by 1 ton, and what about now? With more modern, strong but lighter materials?

There are so many solutions allready waiting there to be used, there are so many facts, so many reasons why tank should serve further in to the future, and some many proofs that there is no analog but...

Why the hell some hammerheads, don't accept this, and just try to kill, such successfull and efficent combat system? I think everyone should answer himself, why.

But IMHO, the reason why is because people wanting to "kill" a tank, are just bunch of ignorants, without any knwoledge about armored fighting vehicles, technology used to design and manufacture them, and all of them see a modern tank, still not as it is in reality, but by a prismate of a WWII heavy tanks, slow, huge, and by our today standards, with just silly protection good for today light/medium weight vehicles. Think about that.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Anders as Light tank turret can be used into other platforms catagorised as Medium battle tanks

Heavily Armoured chassis with Anders turret..