Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Damian]

We should have our new MBT in 2018 if there are no delays. The Russian should have their around the same time. Big Army will start replacing the M1A2 until we have 2k to 3k of A3.

Nope. Read official US Army documents. In 2018 modernization of existing M1 tanks to the new configuration currently developed within ECP-1 (Engineering Change Proposal) will be pending. First batch of modernized tanks is said to be ~2000.

Completely new tank development is said to start ~2025-2030, probably depending on when sequestration will over and on geopolitical situation, and I seen some officials speaking that currently sequestration is not needed anymore and should be finished because it harms R&D and procurement programs... well untill Obama won't be kicked from White House I doubt sequestration will over, afterall instead of spending that money on something usefull like armed forces, he preffers to waste that money on completely useless social programs...

We also in the process of upgrading Bradley which is needed. The Bradley is design to scout, protect Abrams from infantry, and air defense.

M2 IFV is currently also modernized within ECP-1 and ECP-2 programs, and there is also a smaller program to improve it's firepower and redesign interior by replacing existing manned turret, with unmanned Kongsberg MCT30 turret with 30mm M813 automatic cannon instead of 25mm M242, it will also give M2 capability to transport 3 crew members and 9 dismounts. Exactly the same turret is tested currently on Stryker to improve it's firepower.

And no, M2 is not a scout, it is IFV - Infantry Fighting Vehicle, such design is intended to transport infantry like APC, but also directly support this infantry in combat, while APC's only carry infantry, during combat infantry fights alone. IFV's also directly and closely cooperates with MBT's.

While indeed there were developed recce and AAD variants of M2, the M3 CFV which is a scout variant, but currently all M3 are going to be rebuilded to M2 standard and will serve as IFV's. While AAD variant, the M6, was decomissioned as it have too low AA capabilities, of course there were more capable AA variants of M2 in development, but were never fielded, which is a pity.

Battle of 73 Easting is the last great tank battle of 20th century. The video below shows how US armor doctrine works. Abrams and Bradley working together. Keep in mind it from the first Gulf War. US armor technology have greatly improved since then. It's a great video highly recommend if you have the time.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1o...documentary_tv

Instead of watching this crap, read books, they are far more precise, and closer to truth.

 

[Ray]

It is all so easy to say that heavy tanks are on the way.

What one forgets is that type of terrain they will have to operate in, to include the ground pressure that terrain can accommodate, river obstacles that requires complimentary bridging and air defence infrastructure and so on.

It is becoming, which army is the best?!

In the Sub continental terms, there will be no heavy tanks. The area of operations do not support such a ground condition nor the adequate military and civil infrastructure support.

 

[Damian]

It is all so easy to say that heavy tanks are on the way.

What one forgets is that type of terrain they will have to operate in, to include the ground pressure that terrain can accommodate, river obstacles that requires complimentary bridging and air defence infrastructure and so on.

It is becoming, which army is the best?!

In the Sub continental terms, there will be no heavy tanks. The area of operations do not support such a ground condition nor the adequate military and civil infrastructure support.

There are no heavy tanks today, there are no medium tanks today, both classes had been replaced by universal main battle tank class.

And the weight is not an issue as proved conflicts across the globe, even if tank weights more than 60 metric tons, it is a myth. For example for a long time in Swedish army there was belief that only lightweight tanks are suitable for their terrain conditions.

How huge was surprise for Swedes when heavy, weighting 60 tons beasts like M1 and Leopard 2 proved to have much greater mobility in difficult Swedish terrain conditions, than their lightweight tanks they used.

But of course weight reduction is desired thing, this is why next generation MBT for US Army, will be smaller, more compact design with smaller internal volume, thus it will be lighter, or it so what it is planned. However make no mistake, US Army said clearly, their new tank and other vehicles will need to be lighter, but there won't be any sacrifice to protection, as armor of new vehicles will be made from new, stronger and lightweight materials, that are currently tested and developed by Army Research Laboratory.

 

[Ray]

There are no heavy tanks today, there are no medium tanks today, both classes had been replaced by universal main battle tank class.

And the weight is not an issue as proved conflicts across the globe, even if tank weights more than 60 metric tons, it is a myth. For example for a long time in Swedish army there was belief that only lightweight tanks are suitable for their terrain conditions.

How huge was surprise for Swedes when heavy, weighting 60 tons beasts like M1 and Leopard 2 proved to have much greater mobility in difficult Swedish terrain conditions, than their lightweight tanks they used.

But of course weight reduction is desired thing, this is why next generation MBT for US Army, will be smaller, more compact design with smaller internal volume, thus it will be lighter, or it so what it is planned. However make no mistake, US Army said clearly, their new tank and other vehicles will need to be lighter, but there won't be any sacrifice to protection, as armor of new vehicles will be made from new, stronger and lightweight materials, that are currently tested and developed by Army Research Laboratory.

I am aware of the fact that there are no classification of tanks any more excepting MBT.

I have mentioned it so in many posts of mine.

It is just that many out here were mentioning 'heavy tank' and so I went along so as to not derail the thread.

Your contention - 'And the weight is not an issue as proved conflicts across the globe is not valid as an universal Gospel and an axiom.

You have not operated in the Indian subcontinent and hence you are not aware of the ground realities.

Heard of large swathes of soft sand or the muddy fields of East Pakistan?

Even PT 76 got bogged down in the 1971 War in the riverine terrain of East Pakistan and there are areas in the deserts of the IB where there are such soft sand that even a truck gets bogged down.

Therefore, weight is a criterion as far as the subcontinent is concerned as I mentioned earlier.

Further, wars can happen in the subcontinent and may not happen in Europe and so, the subcontinent is more contemporary when discussing warfare and its requirements thatn the crystal gazing in Europe.

See this also about US use of tanks in Vietnam

M48 Tank
M48 Tank Because the often soggy Vietnamese terrain limited their range, tanks did not play a major role in Vietnam. They did, however, provide valuable support to American forces in the south, securing contested roadways and engaging enemy troops. The most common U.S. tank was the M48. The diesel-powered M48 carried a 90mm turret-mounted main gun, capable of rotating to fire in any direction, as well as one 7.62mm machine gun and one .50 caliber machine gun. The tank traveled at maximum speeds of about 30 m.p.h. Armor plating on the M48 varied from 76-100mm, with the heaviest armor reserved for the front of the tank's hull.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/weapons.html

Is the tank merely to provide valuable support to American forces in the south, securing contested roadways and engaging enemy troops.?

Is that what the tank is designed for?

 

[jouni]

FiDF have been so happy with our LEO 2A4´s in our arctic demanding terrain, that we just bought 100 2A6´s more from Netherlands.

 

[Bhadra]

xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx. Mod : No name calling

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/FM-100-5_operations.pdf

Field Manual from 1993, June, Armored Warfare in USA exists as Combined Arms Warfare, it was allways that way and it did not changed.

There are also newer field manuals of US Army considering heavy armored forces, combined arms battalions and so on.

FM 3-90.5 4/7/2008 THE COMBINED ARMS BATTALION (INCL C1)
FM 3-90.1 12/9/2002 TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY COMPANY TEAM
Active_FM - Army Doctrine and Training Publications

Evryone can even check current US Army modernization plans and strategies, and also TARDEC strategy for next 30 years.

US Army wants to have heavy armor, thus it modernize existing platforms and work on requirements for new platforms, including new tank.

TARDEC also prepared a strategy and is working on several concepts of new armored fighting vehicles.

Take a note, DARPA concepts will never be fielded by US Army, simply because DARPA is only that, organization to develop concepts and technologies, but the actuall vehicles development is made by TARDEC and choosen private contracotr, and their concepts of AFV's are much more different than that recent fantasy from DARPA.

As for Shinsheki, his dream of a light US Army was long time abandoned, with cancellation of Future Combat Systems program, and also with modernization of Stryker, which was too lightly protected, now is modernized, and transport capabilities inside C-130 were scrapped as requirement.

Also currently US Army have more ABCT's (Armored Brigade Combat Teams) than SBCT's (Stryker Brigade Combat Teams), also ABCT's are currently largest US Army formations below division level.

Brigade combat team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides this we currently see that trend to reduce heavy armor mechanized forces will reverse. Just recently Bundeswehr officials informed politicians in Bundestag that Heer (ground forces) have too little number of tanks and that reductions were ridiculous, to the point of absurd (something me and Militarysta said for long time), and there is chance that Bundeswehre will convience these idiots in Bundestag to restert production of Leopard 2, and there are also rumors that they wish to restart Leopard 3 project.

So now we know that both US Army and Bundeswehr are thinking about next generation Main Battle Tank, and to modernize existing tank fleets.

Exactly, that is what precisely I pointed out. There are Field Manuals on every Arm and Service including Artillery and Infantry etc but when it comes to Armour it has been dumped or clubbed into Combined Arm Team ...

Remember earlier scores of field manuals would exist on Armour itself .. lots of theories and doctrines used to emerge singing the praise of how Armour will destoy everything - mobile warfare, Manoeuvre warfare , Airland battle - just to mention a few..


In fact one of the US author had termed that be a big "Manoeuvre Fraud"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Urii9jBiDSNmye4uPP2lZcw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.c2E

 

[Damian]

Exactly, that is what precisely I pointed out. There are Field Manuals on every Arm and Service including Artillery and Infantry etc but when it comes to Armour it has been dumped or clubbed into Combined Arm Team ...

Remember earlier scores of field manuals would exist on Armour itself .. lots of theories and doctrines used to emerge singing the praise of how Armour will destoy everything - mobile warfare, Manoeuvre warfare , Airland battle - just to mention a few..


In fact one of the US author had termed that be a big "Manoeuvre Fraud"

Redirect Notice

Tanks were allways part of combined arms.

I am not interested in your fantasy, neither in discussion with someone like you. Now go away and stop wasting my time...

 

[Damian]

I am aware of the fact that there are no classification of tanks any more excepting MBT.

I have mentioned it so in many posts of mine.

It is just that many out here were mentioning 'heavy tank' and so I went along so as to not derail the thread.

Your contention - 'And the weight is not an issue as proved conflicts across the globe is not valid as an universal Gospel and an axiom.

You have not operated in the Indian subcontinent and hence you are not aware of the ground realities.

Heard of large swathes of soft sand or the muddy fields of East Pakistan?

Even PT 76 got bogged down in the 1971 War in the riverine terrain of East Pakistan and there are areas in the deserts of the IB where there are such soft sand that even a truck gets bogged down.

Therefore, weight is a criterion as far as the subcontinent is concerned as I mentioned earlier.

Further, wars can happen in the subcontinent and may not happen in Europe and so, the subcontinent is more contemporary when discussing warfare and its requirements thatn the crystal gazing in Europe.

You Indians allways believe that your terrain conditions are unique, they are not, and they are not serious challenge for any kind of modern, well trained and well prepared armed forces with modern equipment.

See this also about US use of tanks in Vietnam
M48 Tank
M48 Tank Because the often soggy Vietnamese terrain limited their range, tanks did not play a major role in Vietnam. They did, however, provide valuable support to American forces in the south, securing contested roadways and engaging enemy troops. The most common U.S. tank was the M48. The diesel-powered M48 carried a 90mm turret-mounted main gun, capable of rotating to fire in any direction, as well as one 7.62mm machine gun and one .50 caliber machine gun. The tank traveled at maximum speeds of about 30 m.p.h. Armor plating on the M48 varied from 76-100mm, with the heaviest armor reserved for the front of the tank's hull.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam...s/weapons.html
Is the tank merely to provide valuable support to American forces in the south, securing contested roadways and engaging enemy troops.?

Is that what the tank is designed for?

Maybe first read some analisis from US Army directly. There were made recently analisis of use of tanks in various different terrain conditions, including jungles and mountains. And in that analisis it was said directly, that problems of using tanks in such conditions is a freaking myth created by bunch of morons (mostly guys from light infantry forces or these annoying flyboys). I even posted this analisis a year or two ago on this forum.

 

[Bhadra]

its effective support vehicle for infantry and i would not want light armored vehicle to replace tank that supports infantry, i donno if u ware infantry but i was and i would not trade tank for any other light vehicle i felt alot safer with tanks around than apcs, and it also has flechet rounds for soft targets and they are not expensive and if country cant cover tank expenses solution is simply dont buy tanks and go get apcs or something cheaper, also if tanks ware obsolete top militarys would not be using them today.

sorry for bad english its not my main language

Personal experiences do count ... your experience was with hails of bullets when tank and other armoured vehicles provided good experience..

My experience was with abundant IEDs which would blow off tanks and APCs into pieces and No soldier was willing to enter those coffins after a few initial blasts...

I have seen that in the initial days in Srilanka ... Ha.. when BMP would be "escorted" by Infantry walking by the sides !!

When BMPs were best used to supply vegetables to the troops !

 

[Bhadra]

Why Tanks Still Exists ?

Must have heard of Alvin and Heidi Tofflers - The wave thoeries and lastly "Wars and Anti Wars" ...

His theories give basic understanding of War. The basic postulation that " Wars are fought the way money is made and vice versa" has lots of merits.

As per their theories the second wave and the third wave economies still exist along with fourth wave. I take it further - since Tank is a third wave weaponry - it would continue to exist in those societies which has not completely jumped over to the Fourth wave or Shock wave economies. Pakistan, India, entire Arab world, Brazil etc would be in transition. Half or more than half of the world still exist in Second or third wave economies and technologies. Those wretched societies and their Armies would keep continuing with their infatuation for tanks.

However, the fourth wave or future shock economies and societies would have abandoned tanks as they have found a better methods of achieving goals which tanks would be employed to. West and USA are progressing towards that.

Quote : 1.05: Shock Wave (Anti) Warrior

The thesis is very simple. The way you make war is the way you make wealth. If you change the way you make wealth, you inevitably change the way you make war. And if you change the way you make war, you ought to be thinking about changing the way you make peace.

War was initiated by the agrarian revolution, or in our terminology "the first wave of change." With the coming of the industrial revolution, particularly the French Revolution and Napoleon, you begin to get mass production, you begin to get mass conscription. You begin to get machine guns for the machine society. With mass production, you get mass destruction - industrialized warfare. And if we are now in the process of transforming the way we create wealth, from the industrial to the informational, or call it whatever you wish, there is a parallel change taking place with warfare, of which the Gulf War gives only the palest, palest little hint. The transition actually started back in the late-1970s, early-1980s, to a new form of warfare based on information superiority. It mirrors the way the economy has become information-dependent.

An important part of this will be what we call "knowledge strategies" - social knowledge strategies, national knowledge strategies, and so on. In military terms there will be attempts to coordinate all the knowledge- intensive activities of the military from education and training to high- precision weaponry to espionage to everything that involves the mind - propaganda - into coherent strategies.

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


Yeah, the conception of time is very important, and it's related to the shifts from agrarianism to industrialism and now to third-wave civilization.

The reason we chose the phrase "third wave" rather than saying "the information age" or "the computer age," or "the space age," or whatever, is that the changes we denominate as third wave are changes in every aspect of the civilization. We thought that by saying "computer age" or "digital age" we'd be focusing on a single parameter. The second thing about waves is, you can have more than one wave of change moving through a society at the same time. And, if you then extend that idea you can find many countries today in which you see multiple waves moving through simultaneously. The primary example is Brazil, where, on the one hand, they're still killing off tribal populations to make room for agriculture. So the agricultural revolution of the first wave is still playing itself out, residually, in Brazil. You also see tremendous traditional smokestack development, and you even see the beginnings of the third wave.

It is not conceivable to me that the revolution we're now going through - which is in my view even deeper, and faster, than the industrial revolution - is going to occur smoothly. It cannot. Therefore there is a high potential for conflict between interests with stakes in the different waves, just as the rising industrial, commercial bourgeoisie came into conflict with the feudal, land-based power.

 

[Bhadra]

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

I am pretty sure that Tank division and others will remain in Garages like the earlier ones. This is the third or fourth technical upgrade of armour Pakistani Army has carried out with T-80UD without ever having used their tanks effectively in any skirmishes ( as all wars between India and Pakistan except 1971 were skirmishes carried out by Pakistan) and this tank division can be destroyed by Indian Apaches in one day.

So far as CSD is concerned it would be carried out with whatever India has with or without tanks. with or without military means. CSD is not only a phenomena of plains. Major CSD will be applied somewhere else so that your tanks remain in garages.

 

[pmaitra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Very good . You expect that vehicle to climb Himalayas !! BMP -2 could not climb hills of Afghanistan perfectly.

BMPs are already deployed in Ladakh.

Source: BR

 

[Bhadra]

War has always been expensive.

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

War has always been a stupid thing.

exactly .... anything that exists or was created does not die so easily and finds a rationale for its existence.
Even to the extent of attributing peace to the existence of tanks.. only existence is good enough for many minds.
That is how many third world militaries and R&D organisations would justify pumping in billions of money into tanks !!

War is basic to human nature and I will continue to cling to my SLR even if someone gives me an energy directed weapon.

That is why it looks stupid .

 

[Bhadra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

BMPs are already deployed in Ladakh.

Source: BR

Even tanks are there, I suppose. But in what numbers ?

The question is - Are the mechanised forces going to be decisive there to force a favourable outcome of a conflict ?

Or those will be only side shows ?

 

[pmaitra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Even tanks are there, I suppose. But in what numbers ?

The question is - Are the mechanised forces going to be decisive there to force a favourable outcome of a conflict ?

Or those will be only side shows ?

I would suppose so as well. I have not seen any picture of T-72 or T-90 in Ladakh.

Tanks can also be useful north of the Gurudongmaar Lake, where the terrain is relatively flat.

The only challenge I see there is the lower density of air. I suppose that can be fixed by using powerful turbochargers.

 

[sgarg]

Personal experiences do count ... your experience was with hails of bullets when tank and other armoured vehicles provided good experience..

My experience was with abundant IEDs which would blow off tanks and APCs into pieces and No soldier was willing to enter those coffins after a few initial blasts...

I have seen that in the initial days in Srilanka ... Ha.. when BMP would be "escorted" by Infantry walking by the sides !!

When BMPs were best used to supply vegetables to the troops !

IPKF and India both were ill prepared when this operation was undertaken.

Infantry has its uses and airpower has its uses. No single weapon is effective in all situations.

When you went into Sri Lanka, India should have used air power but India did not have proper aircrafts.

Also the IPKF mission went completely haywire as it got into active hostilities rather than "peace-keeping". I think IPKF only strengthened the hands of Sri Lanka against Tamils, which was not the original intention.

 

[sgarg]

You cannot use tanks as APCs. A tank is a form of artillery and must be used as artillery.

Despite the IPKF experience, India learned little as India's leadership was incapable of learning. The defence planning did not improve a bit for a long time, and ultimately resulted in Kargil.

The Congressi culture is very dangerous for security of India. The deep corruption present in Congress does not allow for strengthening of the nation.

 

[sgarg]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Even tanks are there, I suppose. But in what numbers ?

The question is - Are the mechanised forces going to be decisive there to force a favourable outcome of a conflict ?

Or those will be only side shows ?

Wheeled APCs make more sense in Ladakh. But India does not have and IA does not buy due to some misconception.

Spacious APCs with compartment for heavy weapons can help in Ladakh to repond quickly.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Infantry cannot win wars with bare-hands , Tanks, APC and Aircraft and big guns of artillery and every other element are essentially supplementing Infantry firepower , I would be much happier if a tank far away taking out a enemy post before enemy start taking on our troops ..

The question is - Are the mechanised forces going to be decisive there to force a favourable outcome of a conflict ?

 

[Bhadra]

IPKF and India both were ill prepared when this operation was undertaken.

Infantry has its uses and airpower has its uses. No single weapon is effective in all situations.

When you went into Sri Lanka, India should have used air power but India did not have proper aircrafts.

Also the IPKF mission went completely haywire as it got into active hostilities rather than "peace-keeping". I think IPKF only strengthened the hands of Sri Lanka against Tamils, which was not the original intention.

I am not advocating for " only infantry Regime"..
What I am trying to say that the terrain and situations in India are such the Infantry will always have predominant role..
Secondly, modernisation of Infantry and other Arms is equally if not greater importance than going gung ho on mechanised warfare.. which has a limited role..

Thirdly, your understanding and knowledge about application of Air Power is limited.. so do not say Indian Air Power in 1988 was not sufficient or capable. Initial Indian Army infantry including SF operation in Jaffna were supported by Srilankan trainers aircrafts such as Cessna and Srilankan artillery only for a very first few days ... whatever was their capabilities.

Also Indian operation going haywire statement lacks complete lack of awareness about how things were bungled up at political level but not at tactical level.

Do you know Army operating without maps and in dark of the situation ??