The Tank and it's future.

[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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Marshal Murat]

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.

[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.