The Tank and it's future.

[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.

[Decker]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[AggonyDuck]

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.

[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.

[Decker]

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...

[Husar]

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.
The question mark was there for a reason so thanks for the explanation.

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.

[spmetla]

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.

[Decker]

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...

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.