The Tank and it's future.

[KarlXII]

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?

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[CBR]

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

[JR-]

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.

[spmetla]

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.

[Mangudai]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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 ). 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... )