The Tank and it's future.

As war evolves, we see the increasing use of unconventional tactics, urban warfare, and infantry-focused units. The battles become increasingly smaller, the fighting closer. House by house, block by block, no longer town by town. With this new era of warfare, we must look at the tank. Developed as the destroyer of trenches, the stalemate breaker, it evolved to become the spearhead and symbol of land power we know it as today. However, it's role has not changed. That role being to support the infantry. Now, as we see war becoming closer and the need for support that can navigate the narrow streets, the tank is quickly becoming more of a liability. It's large, bulky size limits it's maneuverability and speed, it becomes a juicy target for rockets. The United States Army has developed and is issueing the Tank Urban Survival Kit, or TUSK, to better suit it to urban warfare. A Leopard 2 variant, the PSO (acronym for Peace Support Operations), is suited with a bulldozer, close range surveillance, and TUSK-like armor, to help in UN missions that are also becoming increasingly urban.

So, Org, what does the future hold for the tank? Will there be any more El Alameins?

The Eastern Front showed how much tanks could and couldn't do. They could use speed and hitting power to destroy organized resistance. They couldn't win Stalingrad.

Tanks have a continued role in warfare so long as they can operate in their 'zone'. Unless your entire nation is a city, tanks can kill people just as effectively as a regular soldier.

Tanks will continue to fight so long as they are useful. You don't see anyone not investing in tanks because they can't operate in urban situations. They are still used and bought because they can operate where infantry can't, like open fields.

The Main Battle Tank won't be going away in a near future. In urban warfare it's not at it's best but urban warfare is also more of a thing for low intensity conflicts.

New hardkill defensive systems are also being developed that most likely will lower the tank's current vulnerability against modern ATGM's.


CBR

just when britain was considering ditching the armoured regiments (and therefore the Challenger 2) we went to war in iraq and discovered the tank is in fact amazing useful in urban combat.

The plans to shelve were shelved.

Until something else can give and take as much a beating as a tank can, it will remain on the battlefield for a long time. Read about the their use by the Danish and Canadians in Afghanistan. They were so useful that Canada, which was contemplating getting rid of armored tracked vehicles all together went ahead and got new Leopard IIs to replace the Leopard Is they were using. Read some accounts of the Iraq invasion when they were used to crush the Iraqi army. Sure irregular warfare takes away a lot of the advantages of the tank but that goes for all regular military forces.

In urban combat a tank is still a tremendous combat multiplier. While it still needs the support of infantry, the support that it gives to the infantry far out weighs its faults.

I would say the relevance of tanks in future warfare is similar to the relevance of surface ships. They will play a continuing role, but they will not be the most important arm.

There have been large tank battles since WWII. The thing we have not seen since WWII is a war where both sides have parity for any length of time. Israel vs Egypt and Syria is an example. US vs Iraq, another. I think the Iraqis lost more tanks due to other tanks than air attack in GWI, possibly also in GWII.

Infantry is the Queen of battle. Artillery is King. Armor is competing with aircraft for the Knave of battle status. Right now aircraft are more important, but that could change with new technology.

The main issue with the tank is not low intensity, urban combat. American armor has proved very effective in Iraq, allowing the US to take the country in record time. It did its job very well, and has been remarkably effective when asked to take on roles that tanks have never been suited for(think Thunder Run). It amazes me that America did not have Stryker assets completely developed before the war, considering the experience in Vietnam. From now on, if America is forced to engage in this type of conflict, the Stryker type of vehicle will be available for urban situations and the tanks will be able to assume their natural role.

The big problem that causes military leadership pause when considering an investment in new armor is the guided missile (not rpgs either :laugh4:). Thanks to the Soviet armor build up during the Cold War, there has been amazing advancement in AT. Any large scale conflict between first world nations would have tanks as nothing more than rolling coffins. An $80 million MBT plus four or five well trained crew can be taken out by a $2 million AT missile mounted on a jet, helicopter, humvee or even a bazooka crew.

Now of course, just as body armor is starting to catch up with the firearm after all these years, you can bet that the US and other major powers are developing anti-AT missile capability to mount on their tanks including better armor, anti-missile missiles, lasers, and all sorts of fun stuff - but as of now, I would not want to be in an Abrams if the US is forced to fight a real power such as Russia or China. (I hope GC doesn't read this forum... :beam:)

When we focus on the weakness of tanks in urban terrain, we are pointing out the yang, and maybe not seeing the yin. Tanks totally dominate open areas. So the weaker party must focus his operations in urban or otherwise restrictive terrain. Space denial is itself a major advantage, even if no combat takes place in that space.

Regarding Stalingrad. Armor played a major role insofar as the Germans crossed the Ukrainian countryside with little difficulty getting too Stalingrad. Russian armor was instrumental in closing the pocket and eventually bagged the German III army.

well unless therer is alternative fuel source discovered, then tanks could be rendered obsolete by reason of them not being able to move. granted Oil will not run out with in the nexy 5 years or anything like that But it will eventually run out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius of the Drake

well unless therer is alternative fuel source discovered, then tanks could be rendered obsolete by reason of them not being able to move. granted Oil will not run out with in the nexy 5 years or anything like that But it will eventually run out.

---

The same could be said about cars, ships, airplanes, plastics and probably a lot of other things.
Personally I'm looking forward to steam-powered airplanes (without DRM).

The third reich invented had an alternative fuel, liquefied coal. Seriously we can make octane or diesel fuel from all sorts of sources, (soybeans, turkey guts, coal, wood...). And we will never squeeze the last drop of oil out of shale. Fuel prices will skyrocket as oil supplies diminish, but we will never exhaust all the oil.

Flying Tanks, that's the ticket.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=374#more-374

One of the beautiful things about tanks is that the engines are designed to have a high tolerance for low quality fuels. From what I understand most Russian tanks could be powered off a kerosene/diesel mix though with worse performance. I know that the M1 Abrams can use almost any type of fuel because it uses a bloody turbine engine.

Just bear in mind that there is a reason why the US maintains a strategic reserve of oil though it will be interesting to see how they plan to power tanks in the future if they decided to go away from oil based fuels.

I think tanks will always be around. Who's going to cover all of the open ground between cities and towns? Effectively engage enemy vehicles and withstand a fair amount of punishment in return. Yes technology is getting better at destroying them from fairly decent distances. Infantry AT weapons are definitely improving but not to mention the tank's armor and defense technology and vision capabilities. The Israelis are working on a type of AT-Round measure that creates a sort of "force field" around the tank and detonates RPG's and the like. In urban combat, tanks can act as mobile building busters while medium and light vehicles like the Bradley and Striker are much better suited to some degree, but no real vehicle is not suited to the intensity of warfare that is urban combat. We saw that example in the battles of Stalingrad, Berlin, in operations against defensive positions in the fluid battles of North Africa, and main offensive operations like Goodwood, Kursk showed how they could flop on their heads against a dug in and determined enemy while the battle of 73 Easting showed how powerful a technological superior and motivated armored force can demolish an enemy force of about near equal size on the battlefield. I haven't really been able to study the Arab-Israeli Wars but from what I do know, the tank played a dominant role and crucial role in the out come of a majority of the wars that took place between both sides.

Obviously I was looking at conventional warfare between two waring nations like what we saw recently in Georgia of sorts. Right now, the main and dominate warfare is one against a group of people who could strike at any moment. This type of warfare negates any advantage a modern day tank may have such as the Abrams, the Challenger, or the Leopard. The way in the war in Iraq has been flowing was that when the fighting was at its peak in '04-'05, tanks were good in demolishing, rather quickly, enemy strongholds and buildings, but as the fighting has subsided, we see light vehicles and IFV's doing most of the heavy lifting while tanks are kind of collecting dust. In Afghanistan, they have a better chance due to most of the fighting taking place in mostly open terrain at decent ranges where a tank's main gun can effectively come into play.

I hope these were easy for you guys to follow. I always feel like I'm all over haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

I haven't really been able to study the Arab-Israeli Wars but from what I do know, the tank played a dominant role and crucial role in the out come of a majority of the wars that took place between both sides.

---

Weren't it mainly Israeli airplanes (from the US) that obliterated hundreds of tanks?

I'd suggest you read up on the the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur war. They're very interesting, especially due to the fact that the two wars are so different from each other.

In the Six-Day War it was the combination of armour and airplanes that brought such a quick victory, not airplanes alone. The Yom Kippur war is a lot more interesting though in regard to the importance of armour in modern combat. Here Egyptian SAM's managed to keep the Israeli Airforce at bay and the new Sagger ATGM's and RPG's used en masse quickly forced the Israelis to reassess the role of armour and the tactics that should be used. Anyway in the Yom Kippur the Israeli Airforce had little direct effect on the battles waged during the war, meaning that the land forces decided the war.

One thing I wish that the US would consider would be to either develop or use a pre-existing light tank such as the Cadillac Stingray. One of the factors that limits tank use in Afghanistan is the load capacity of bridges so I think it would be useful to have a mid/low level tank that can bring the additional direct fire support that's needed and able to go most places that motorized infantry can. Of course the lack of protection makes it a bit more of a liability but perhaps that could be made up for with explosive reactive armor or an active defense system.

I'd prefer this over the Stryker MGS system because I think a wheeled gun system in the rough country of Afghanistan would probably fair worse than a tracked vehicle. Though this is just speculation, I've yet to got to Afghanistan and see the terrain for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Weren't it mainly Israeli airplanes (from the US) that obliterated hundreds of tanks?

---

Okay so maybe dominant was not the right wording, but both wars showed the limitations and capabilites of armor if it were used in the right and wrong hands. As for the airplanes obliterating hundreds of tanks, I'd say yes the Israelies did achieve air supperiority in the Six-Day War over Egypt, but it did not spell the end for the ground war. It was not like WWII where we saw the Allies gain air superiority to the point that the German armor rarely attempted to move during the day least they get pounced upon by roving dive-bomber patrols. Post WII, the Arab-Israeli Wars and the Gulf Wars are excellent examples of modern armies clashing and how conventional wars could be swung by better equipment(or the use of it anyways), moral, etc...

Quote:

---

I'd suggest you read up on the the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur war. They're very interesting, especially due to the fact that the two wars are so different from each other.

In the Six-Day War it was the combination of armour and airplanes that brought such a quick victory, not airplanes alone. The Yom Kippur war is a lot more interesting though in regard to the importance of armour in modern combat. Here Egyptian SAM's managed to keep the Israeli Airforce at bay and the new Sagger ATGM's and RPG's used en masse quickly forced the Israelis to reassess the role of armour and the tactics that should be used. Anyway in the Yom Kippur the Israeli Airforce had little direct effect on the battles waged during the war, meaning that the land forces decided the war.

---

I have a book on the Yom kippur War, but I have so many books to read...I don't think I'll get to it haha(unless I cheat and skip some for that one)...

You also do not want to forget the intense fighting on the Golan Heights. Syrian armored assaults against dug in and outnumbered Isreali infantry and armor managed to hold them off, just barely in many places. It is quite interesting how both Syria and Egypt learned from their first defeats while Isreali laxed inbetween and nearly gave it away had it not been for the tenacity of it's soldiers.

In my opinion, tanks will always be around. You need that extra punch for that offensive you are planning, they can supply it. If you need to stop an enemy advance that has say mostly medium and light vehicles plowing the and dominating the battlefields more than the tank, a small unit of tanks could still have the power to effictively engage them from safe distances while keeping their crews safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

One thing I wish that the US would consider would be to either develop or use a pre-existing light tank such as the Cadillac Stingray. One of the factors that limits tank use in Afghanistan is the load capacity of bridges so I think it would be useful to have a mid/low level tank that can bring the additional direct fire support that's needed and able to go most places that motorized infantry can. Of course the lack of protection makes it a bit more of a liability but perhaps that could be made up for with explosive reactive armor or an active defense system.

I'd prefer this over the Stryker MGS system because I think a wheeled gun system in the rough country of Afghanistan would probably fair worse than a tracked vehicle. Though this is just speculation, I've yet to got to Afghanistan and see the terrain for myself.

---

That is true about the bridges, but wouldn't a light tank have just as much trouble as the Bradley and Stryker?

As for the explosive reactive armor or the active defense system, the Isreali invasion of Lebannon showed how both those systems could protect and fail if the enemy made use of their AT-Weaponry the right way. The Isreali's lost a decent amount of tanks in the fighting.

The Stryker was supposed to fill the shoes until they came up with something better, but so far, I haven't really heard anything from that department in moving towards creating a light tank. If we did, I could see it more designed towards urban warfare than what we are encountering in Afghanistan.

I haven't been to afghanistan myself either, but from following the war there, I'd say that they North and North-Eastern areas of the country seem more suited to Bradley and Humvee type vehicles, while the south is more akin to the use of tank, IFV's, Light tanks, and humvee type vehicles. But that's just speculation like you said...

Heh, my impression came from reading some older aviation books my grandpa had collected so obviously they didn't focus on the role of tanks a lot. :sweatdrop:
The question mark was there for a reason so thanks for the explanation. :bow:

Since you mention small tanks, I wonder what you think about the german Wiesel?
Surely not heavily armoured or armed but small and easily deployable I guess, should be harder to hit during a fight but obviously not well suited for patrols etc since I guess an IED would obliterate it.

Actually, today I think helicopters are the main tankbusters.

They have the ability to hoover out of sight, even lock their missiles out of sight (only a camera and radar sticking up about 1-2 meters above the heli), and then pop up, fire 4 missiles and then get down out of sight again... This all takes about 3-5 seconds depending on the skill of the pilot.

The benefit of helicopters over planes is that they are harder to spot, and conventional AA batteries supporting the tanks are ineffective.

This is still theoretical though, but it is the military doctrine Sweden follows after severe testing. However, not many real battles have showed this, yet, as this theory is based on a figth between equally technological forces.

And, it was a long time ago we saw that.

True helicopters are a good arial form of tank busting. But if the tank are well guarded by AA totting infantry and other various AA vehicles, then helicopters would have some difficulty in being able to effictively engage tanks. Afghanistan, during the Soviet invasion, showed how a small groups armed with AA could make life hard for heli pilots. Also, I was watching a documentary on the training ground used by US forces. The guys acting as the opposition, in an example, showed how not setting up proper security could make your tanks quite useless as they used a Kiowa to peek over a ridge and spy on them. Then again, the first Guld War showed how effective helicopters could be when the enemy's radar and AA capabilities are severly handicapped. I think it just depends on the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Decker

That is true about the bridges, but wouldn't a light tank have just as much trouble as the Bradley and Stryker?

As for the explosive reactive armor or the active defense system, the Isreali invasion of Lebannon showed how both those systems could protect and fail if the enemy made use of their AT-Weaponry the right way. The Isreali's lost a decent amount of tanks in the fighting.

The Stryker was supposed to fill the shoes until they came up with something better, but so far, I haven't really heard anything from that department in moving towards creating a light tank. If we did, I could see it more designed towards urban warfare than what we are encountering in Afghanistan.

I haven't been to afghanistan myself either, but from following the war there, I'd say that they North and North-Eastern areas of the country seem more suited to Bradley and Humvee type vehicles, while the south is more akin to the use of tank, IFV's, Light tanks, and humvee type vehicles. But that's just speculation like you said...

---

Looking for the uses of Bradelys and Strykers I look to the use of armored vehicles by other NATO nations in ISAF, I know that heavy tracked infantry vehicles such as Norwegian CV90s have been able to bring an edge to defeat the enemy. While wheeled vehicles are capable of bring that same edge in firepower I doubt their mobility in rougher terrain. I've seen a fair number of pictures of Canadian LAVs stuck in the mud of Afghanistan during the rainy season (LAVs being the predecessor to the Stryker). In fairness I know that tracked vehicles also get stuck in mud but less often.

The big advantage I see in a light tank is one of mentality. Instead of IFVs which are battlefield taxis and fire support, tanks are dedicated soley to killing the enemy. Additionally the main cannon of a tank has a bit more ability to destroy enemy positions at long range opposed to lighter guns such as the M2's 25mm which lacks the HE blast of a 105 round. Perhaps if the Army were to bring back 90mm and 106mm recoiless rifles and mount them on humvees (in place of TOWs due to lack of enemy armor in current threat environments) then infantry would be able to have organic direct fire support again. Though this would be with a lack of survivability that even a light tank has over wheeled vehicles.

As for the Stryker, I don't think it is a good stop gap. It is a lighter armored vehicle which is good but fails to offer the true airmobility that it was advertised as having as well as lacking an amphibious quality which I personally think all wheeled IFVs should have. Now that they finally have the MGS variant operational I see an edge that the Stryker gives infantry units. Being a tracked vehicle proponent I don't like that the MGS system replaced the M8 because I think that both systems should be in use.

And Husar i have to say I have a special place in my heart for the daring Wiesel. An excellent and deadly though cute concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

The big advantage I see in a light tank is one of mentality. Instead of IFVs which are battlefield taxis and fire support, tanks are dedicated soley to killing the enemy. Additionally the main cannon of a tank has a bit more ability to destroy enemy positions at long range opposed to lighter guns such as the M2's 25mm which lacks the HE blast of a 105 round. Perhaps if the Army were to bring back 90mm and 106mm recoiless rifles and mount them on humvees (in place of TOWs due to lack of enemy armor in current threat environments) then infantry would be able to have organic direct fire support again. Though this would be with a lack of survivability that even a light tank has over wheeled vehicles.

---

I think waht you're looking for is the Ontos. That was a beast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontos It may have basically been an M113 with six recoilless rifles slapped on it in a lot of ways, but the thing scared the pants of the NVA and Viet Cong and could bring tremendous firepower on a target with relatively low weight, and the ability to carry some troops. I'm not saying we need something exactly like the Ontos as six recoilless rifles that need to be loaded from outside the vehicle obviously limits the capabilities of an IFV, but something similar with better close quarters capabilities, like a GMG or light cannon, would be great.

Quote:

---

True helicopters are a good aerial form of tank busting.

---

Helicopters are effective so long as infantry AA can't get a lock on them, mobile AA can't get a lock on them, or if the helicopters are deployed without sufficient air cover. While these can only do so much to prevent helicopters from attacking armored targets, it does limit the occasions where helicopters can be deployed safely. Without control of the air, it's impossible to use helicopters or tank-busting aircraft.

AA is very important. The Egyptians and Syrians had decent AA. Israeli pilots could and did "hotshot" and try to destroy many AFVs per sortie as they could. But, they had to be ordered not to do that because the losses to AA were too high. The primary target for air power was enemy artillery. Today AA is becoming more ubiquitous. The US puts stinger SAMs on Bradleys and other vehicles. AA is becoming more of an organic capability, less dependent on specialized vehicles or installations.

The greatest victory of air power over armor occurred late in GWI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_death

This occurred while an armored division was retreating in column on a road, in the open, in broad daylight.



Armor has another huge advantage/capability that air power lacks. Staying power. Airplanes and helicopters tend to carry missiles for only a few targets, they must quickly return to base to rearm. Armor takes ground, holds it, and fights all comers.

The Tank, will probably go back to the role that it once was, a Infantry support vehicle, I can see Tanks being equiped with AA equipment, as well some AT and Anti-Infantry equipment, the Tanks will probably have to have stronger "top" armour, probably strong as the front, because in Urban combat, there are, quite obviously, buildings with multiple floors, so you can fire down on Tanks, where they have disadvantages (Some tanks will not be able to swing there turrets to aim at the Attackers and those with Manned Machine guns it would be to dangerous for them to pop-out of there)

Just my thaughts :crown:

Many good posts here on this topic.

The modern tank faces an ever growing number of perils. "Intelligent" artillery rounds with EFP, huge and sophisticated IEDs and mines, a wide array of guided rockets fired from the ground by man and machine and delivered by air, powerful kinetic penetrators and possibly an ABC attack. It is a huge strain on logistics because it difficult to deploy and needs huge amount of fuel, with all the cascading effects through the supply system. Still it brings unique qualities to a battlefield and profits heavily from modern technology. Hardkill defense system may shield tanks from a great part of its thread spectrum, better and more integrated sensor allow for greater agility, better situational awerness and combat effectivness. Modern rounds give them a fighting chance against helicopters and better abilites in Urban Combat.

I guess that in the future MBT will be number-wise a smaller part of a modern army, but still one of intrinsic importance.

A couple of decades ago people started predicting that helicopters like the AH Apache would make the tank obsolete. That, at least, was wrong.

I think they'll be around for a long time.

Well, maybe tanks will be replaced by 'armoured suits', or even Mechs/big robots. Kinda depends on how technology evolves. If much better defensive technology is created, then they will once again rule the battlefield, but if offensive tech moves ahead then they may be just big targets, and smaller, more agile, and stealthier substitutes will be used. Or they may just put AIs into them and let them loose, oh dear.

Some of the replies in this thread for some reason remind me of this:

http://xs432.xs.to/xs432/08410/aeria...notcool733.png

Interesting, Mikeus Caesar. When he did he write that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

Many good posts here on this topic.

The modern tank faces an ever growing number of perils. "Intelligent" artillery rounds with EFP, huge and sophisticated IEDs and mines, a wide array of guided rockets fired from the ground by man and machine and delivered by air, powerful kinetic penetrators and possibly an ABC attack. It is a huge strain on logistics because it difficult to deploy and needs huge amount of fuel, with all the cascading effects through the supply system. Still it brings unique qualities to a battlefield and profits heavily from modern technology. Hardkill defense system may shield tanks from a great part of its thread spectrum, better and more integrated sensor allow for greater agility, better situational awerness and combat effectivness. Modern rounds give them a fighting chance against helicopters and better abilites in Urban Combat.

I guess that in the future MBT will be number-wise a smaller part of a modern army, but still one of intrinsic importance.

---

Well put. I think, that like what you said, the tanks will make up a smaller force in most modern military's due to their cost and AT technology improving greatly. Infantry does play a larger role and I could see tanks being used to either support units stuck in a stalemate, or to exploit any breakthroughs in which the reason for them being created in the first place (think WWI). Though, I still think that the tank's effectiveness also depends on the other combat arms as we saw in WWII when the Allies ruled the skies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

Well, maybe tanks will be replaced by 'armoured suits', or even Mechs/big robots. Kinda depends on how technology evolves. If much better defensive technology is created, then they will once again rule the battlefield, but if offensive tech moves ahead then they may be just big targets, and smaller, more agile, and stealthier substitutes will be used. Or they may just put AIs into them and let them loose, oh dear.

---

:laugh4: