The Tank and it's future.

[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... )

[Mangudai]

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.

[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.

[Husar]

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).

[Mangudai]

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.

[Mangudai]

Flying Tanks, that's the ticket.

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

[spmetla]

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.