The end of the tank?

[Space Commander Travis]

An occupation is a far cry from "war". Shock and awe defeated Iraq. It was the occupation and rebuilding that followed that was messy.

Ah, the G.W. Bush school of thinking there; all those people bombing and shooting Our Boys, it wasn't a War, we'd already declared (bellowed) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, so therefore they were bombing and shooting Our Boys unlawfully, so we don't have to treat them according to the rules of war. (also applies, of course, to 'Stan). A convenient loophole.

[Agent0range]

Ah, the G.W. Bush school of thinking there; all those people bombing and shooting Our Boys, it wasn't a War, we'd already declared (bellowed) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, so therefore they were bombing and shooting Our Boys unlawfully, so we don't have to treat them according to the rules of war. (also applies, of course, to 'Stan). A convenient loophole.

What loophole? I am speaking specifically on "shock and awe" and how it IS NOT practiced in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Eldorado]

Where we gonna keep our tropical fish without tanks, fgs?

[Kaa-Tzik]

*Lengthy defensive verbiage snipped*

Hm, some elements of your post I will ignore. Not that I disparage the maintenance guys of course, for without them we will be back to using muskets and muzzle loading cannon. We also need cooks, or we will starve, and clerks to pay our wages. Anyway, to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, then ground troops have no future as all of them will be made toast by airpower. At best they will simply have an occupation and anti-insurgency role against the few soldiers and civilians that have survived the death from the air. I actually do understand the importance of airpower, I love airpower because it wins battles, but it is not everything and it will not always be available. I think you do not understand the shock value of armored warfare, the ability to smash through an enemies defences and cause them to run. While lighter, faster equipent is also needed, such units do not have the firepower or protection that conventional armored units, tanks and artillery, have. If you give the lighter units the same firepower and protection as the conventional armor, then you still have what are in effect tanks and artillery, so why not keep them. And about Russian equipment, don't forget how disparaging the Nazis were, before they met T-34 and KV-1 and Shturmovik and Katyusha. Though of course I'm sure we do not want to have to prove whose equipment is the best, though you still lag behind in systems like BMPT and TOS-1A and Topol-M and BM-30 and Msta-S and S-400 and SSGN and AK and even the elderly Shilka.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Thanato]

I can give an example of how a Tank is more effective then an Ground Attack Airplane.

There was a compound in the desert of Afghanistan, Kids and Families lived at this Compound. About 700 meters away, there was a Coalition base. Then one day this base came under attack from this compound. A sniper was engaging the base. Not really doing any damage but enough to keep them on there toes. After a week or so of this, not finding the sniper or the weapon and having constant eyes on they decide to act. They know where the sniper is firing from, but not when he will fire. Calling in an air strike is out of the question due to the potential collateral damage of the bomb. So they use other assets, No Infantry our Allied Snipers where available. So they used the Tank. When the sniper fired, the tank saw and returned fire. QRF was dispatched and found a body and a rifle. No one in the compound was hurt except for the sniper.

An example of a tank in modern COIN Warfare.

~Thanato

[aztek]

As long as there is active Air Defence Artillery in an Area the odds of helicopters moving forward is slim.

they will after drones\high altitude bombers are done

[aztek]

I can give an example of how a Tank is more effective then an Ground Attack Airplane.

There was a compound in the desert of Afghanistan, Kids and Families lived at this Compound. About 700 meters away, there was a Coalition base. Then one day this base came under attack from this compound. A sniper was engaging the base. Not really doing any damage but enough to keep them on there toes. After a week or so of this, not finding the sniper or the weapon and having constant eyes on they decide to act. They know where the sniper is firing from, but not when he will fire. Calling in an air strike is out of the question due to the potential collateral damage of the bomb. So they use other assets, No Infantry our Allied Snipers where available. So they used the Tank. When the sniper fired, the tank saw and returned fire. QRF was dispatched and found a body and a rifle. No one in the compound was hurt except for the sniper.

An example of a tank in modern COIN Warfare.

~Thanato

yea, it is the case, but it only shows they only had a tank available at the time, bredly, or stryker could have done the same,

[Thanato]

yea, it is the case, but it only shows they only had a tank available at the time, bredly, or stryker could have done the same,

They had LAVs but decided to use the Tank. to More effectivly remove the threat.

[DecoNoir]

they will after drones\high altitude bombers are done

Well at least until they run out of fuel and ordinance and are forced to turn back to refuel and reload.

[Kaa-Tzik]

they will after drones\high altitude bombers are done

And if the enemy does not have MiG-31 (old but still capable), S-400 and now Tor-M2 which is specifically designed to destroy drones, cruise missiles and other smart and ballistic targets, and all this while firing on the move....

Edited February 6, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[aztek]

And if the enemy does not have MiG-31 (old but still capable), S-400 and now Tor-M2 which is specifically desgined to hit drones, cruise missiles and other smart and ballistic targets.

well, chances are any weapon usa uses has a "couterweapon" for it in russian arsenal. and if instead of drones and bombers we'd use tanks, there would be a coutermesure made for them too. so nothing changes really.

Edited February 6, 2014 by aztek

[aztek]

They had LAVs but decided to use the Tank. to More effectivly remove the threat.

no sht, lol, if you have a tank and LAV of course you'd use tank, but it does not mean lav would not be able to do it, if tank was not available. hell they would not use tank if sniper was available, does that mean sniper is a better weapon than a tank?

[DecoNoir]

no sht, lol, if you have a tank and LAV of course you'd use tank, but it does not mean lav would not be able to do it, if tank was not available. hell they would not use tank if sniper was available, does that mean sniper is a better weapon than a tank?

Depend on how well dug in the enemy combatant is, are civilians close by and thus explosives might pose a concern? Are you willing to risk loosing your sharpshooter if you can't identify exactly what window of what building the combatant is?

The reason we have all of these lovely pieces of tech and weaponry is to allow for flexibility! History has show the more flexible force is the most effective. And think of the psychological impact on the enemy seeing their comrad blown apart by an enemy that would be effectivly unassailable by the small arms they possess, as opposed to a very clean death by a very killable man with a rifle.

[aztek]

idk what you talking about, but that is what counter snipers do, look for enemy snipers, they are not called in only when threat is id and location is know. and in this particular case it was a sniper not a tank that was first choice.

old weapon systems replaced by new, as requiroments and tactic change, we no longer have dreadnoughts ,becouse we no longer need them. we have missile cruisers now, we no longer have guns that shoot 800mm rounds, we have misiles now, we don't dig miles upon miles of trenches, now we move fast instead. same things will happen to tanks, we made other weapnos that relace it, and perform better.

tanks were made for open field against other tanks, that is their primary role. no need to go far, look at ussr-afgan war, 1st chechen war. GW1 hwy 80. they all show how easy to kill tank in the city (most modern conflicts), and how easy aircraft kills them. we moved away from open plains battles, pretty much since korea war.

Edited February 6, 2014 by aztek

[DecoNoir]

idk what you talking about, but that is what counter snipers do, look for enemy snipers, they are not called in only when threat is id and location is know. and in this particular case it was a sniper not a tank that was first choice.

old weapon systems replaced by new, as requiroments and tactic change, we no longer have dreadnoughts ,becouse we no longer need them. we have missile cruisers now, we no longer have guns that shoot 800mm rounds, we have misiles now, we don't dig miles upon miles if trenches, now we move fast instead. same things will happen to tanks, we made other weapnos that relace it, and perform better.

tanks were made for open field against other tanks, that is their primary role. no need to go far, look at ussr-afgan war, 1st chechen war. GW1 hwy 80. they all show how easy to kill tank in the city (most modern conflicts), and how easy aircraft kills them. we moved away from open plains battles, pretty much since korea war.

And what happens when that lovely airpower needs to refuel and refit? MBTs outnumber attack aircraft, and no aircraft can stay airborn indefinitely. Do you think light armor and hand held AT weapons can finish off a push by a well prepared armored division? And I mean modern MBTs with the modern countermeasures developed with the failures of the past taken into account, not the second hand T-72s weilded by most forces we've encountered in our modern conflicts.

Again, I'm not arguing that tanks are an end all be all, in counter insurgancy conflicts they are a bit of over kill. Likewise to suggest that aircraft and laser guided weapons are an end all be all is a bit of a fallacy, especially when history shows that countermeasures can not only be developed, but will likely be cheaper and much easier to field.

I'd also like to point out that while we no longer have battleships, we did bring our WW2 era Iowa class battleships to conflicts like Vietnan, and Desert Storm, not only fielding Tomahawk cruise missiles but also using their 16 inch gun batteries in combat.

[aztek]

well if i was making such statment, "tanks no longer needed" i would totaly understand, but it is the army that says it, do you think, they might just know what they are talking about??

btw we still have AFVs that can have large guns, we still have self propelled artillery that has guns bigger than tanks. we now have slats armour and active armor, we no longer need 12+ inch thick armor. rpg with tandem head can kill pretty much any thick solid armor.

we have many new "toys" that can do jobs better than tanks for less, (abrams guzzles about 5 gal a mile) not that army cares about mpg, but it cares about logistics.

i'm pretty sure that desision was made based on many varuabes, obvious ones and not so much.

[Thanato]

The problem is, and this was a threat we faced in Afghanistan is that, sure against small arms, and RPGs the LAV-III is a great vehicle, she will survive, hell even against IEDs she can survive. but you get her with a recoilless which was a threat in the area and it is lights out.

[DecoNoir]

well if i was making such statment, "tanks no longer needed" i would totaly understand, but it is the army that says it, do you think, they might just know what they are talking about??

btw we still have AFVs that can have large guns, we still have self propelled artillery that has guns bigger than tanks. we now have slats armour and active armor, we no longer need 12+ inch thick armor. rpg with tandem head can kill pretty much any thick solid armor.

we have many new "toys" that can do jobs better than tanks for less, (abrams guzzles about 5 gal a mile) not that army cares about mpg, but it cares about logistics.

i'm pretty sure that desision was made based on many varuabes, obvious ones and not so much.

You bring up developments in armor: You are aware that modern MBTs have these as well? Have you seen all of the counter measures the M1 Abrams fields? This is precisely what I was addressing when talking about a modern, well equipped armored division, as opposed to the second hand T-72s fielded by the Iraqis. Its not just us either. The Russians have the T-90 which sports laser warning systems, and ATGM jamming systems to counter threats from the air! Counter measures! All of these things and they can still do their main job better than any class of tank that has ever come before.

[aztek]

You bring up developments in armor: You are aware that modern MBTs have these as well? Have you seen all of the counter measures the M1 Abrams fields? This is precisely what I was addressing when talking about a modern, well equipped armored division, as opposed to the second hand T-72s fielded by the Iraqis. Its not just us either. The Russians have the T-90 which sports laser warning systems, and ATGM jamming systems to counter threats from the air! Counter measures! All of these things and they can still do their main job better than any class of tank that has ever come before.

tell that to the us army.

as for t90, lol. they will end up just like iraq t72., they still have autoloader magazine on the floor, with caseless rounds, untill they change that they will burn like they did in gw1, no amount of lasers warnings will help them.

but why bother?? half of the world is still buying them just like that

Edited February 6, 2014 by aztek

[aztek]

The problem is, and this was a threat we faced in Afghanistan is that, sure against small arms, and RPGs the LAV-III is a great vehicle, she will survive, hell even against IEDs she can survive. but you get her with a recoilless which was a threat in the area and it is lights out.

and if you get hit with rpg29 lights out for abrams\leo\merc. happened before

still it does not show tanks are irreplecable.

[DecoNoir]

and if you get hit with rpg29 lights out for abrams\leo\merc. happened before

still it does not show tanks are irreplecable.

The German developed the first shaped charge with the WW2 Panzerfaust, the Russians perfected it with the RPG. We developed crematic and reactive armors to counter those threats. I think its safe to armor develooment will continue the trend and said development will be fielded on and MBT, that's what we build weapons systems for: adaptability. Hell we haven't even built a new hull since the early '90s, we've been continually upgrading the existing ones.

[DecoNoir]

tell that to the us army.

as for t90, lol. they will end up just like iraq t72., they still have autoloader magazine on the floor, with caseless rounds, untill they change that they will burn like they did in gw1, no amount of lasers warnings will help them.

but why bother?? half of the world is still buying them just like that

If I've read correctly, via links other than the one in the OP, the debate is not over whether the concept of the MBT is antiquated, but if putting a tempoary halt (until 2017 I believe) will save more money in the long run than just letting it continue.

As for the RPG29, let me ask you this: Did we stop developing aircraft after the radar guided and heat seeking missles were developed? No, we developed counter measures, relatively simple ones at that compared to the systems that guide those missles. Why can't the same be done for MBTs? By the way you present it, the RPG29 will be an end all be all to any ground vehicle! Should we call back the IFVs and LAVs as well? Or even the relativly unarmored Humvees?

And lol? Seriously? Did you come from the Stundie school of debate?

[aquatus1]

Hm, some elements of your post I will ignore. Not that I disparage the maintenance guys of course, for without them we will be back to using muskets and muzzle loading cannon. We also need cooks, or we will starve, and clerks to pay our wages.

I have to agree. It was a constant battle to make sure the pilots handled the planes with enough care to avoid putting an excessive workload on our guys. It helps a lot that the pilots are also required to take division officer duties, so that they gain an understanding of what happens after they do a hard landing, particularly when it happens out at sea.

Anyway, to take your argument to it's logical conclusion, then ground troops have no future as all of them will be made toast by airpower. At best they will simply have an occupation and anti-insurgency role against the few soldiers and civilians that have survived the death from the air.

Eventually, I suppose. I can't see it happening anywhere in the foreseeable future. I suspect it will only happen when technology allows us to unite air power and ground power.

I actually do understand the importance of airpower, I love airpower because it wins battles, but it is not everything and it will not always be available.

Yes, we have never disagreed on that point.

I think you do not understand the shock value of armored warfare, the ability to smash through an enemies defences and cause them to run.

I certainly do. Like I said, I have participated in wargames.

You still have this assumption that I am claiming tanks and artillery are useless. I am not and I never have.

While lighter, faster equipent is also needed, such units do not have the firepower or protection that conventional armored units, tanks and artillery, have. If you give the lighter units the same firepower and protection as the conventional armor, then you still have what are in effect tanks and artillery, so why not keep them.

Because a guy with armament equal to a tank is neither a tank nor artillery. He is cheaper, faster, more flexible, more hideable, and more directly connected to the field. Earlier, you referred to a guy hopping up on a tank and pointing to the targets as "low tech". Well, I would submit that a guy with a tank's armament that can locate and fire on an enemy himself would be even more efficient.

And about Russian equipment, don't forget how disparaging the Nazis were, before they met T-34 and KV-1 and Shturmovik and Katyusha.

Hmm...okay?

You make it sound like I was disparaging Russian equipment.

Though of course I'm sure we do not want to have to prove whose equipment is the best, though you still lag behind in systems like BMPT and TOS-1A and Topol-M and BM-30 and Msta-S and S-400 and SSGN and AK and even the elderly Shilka.

Are you kidding? The heck we don't! We most definitely want to pit our tech against their tech. As do they. We don't want to do it in battle, of course. We want to do it in joint training exercises, like we do now.

After all, even if it is true that we lag behind in those systems, it isn't the tech that wins war. Tech just makes things easier. It is still the soldier that runs the tech that makes things happen, and a soldier who has a strong foundation in fundamental tactics can overcome a soldier with superior tech (not easily, of course, but it can be done).

Edited February 7, 2014 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

I can give an example of how a Tank is more effective then an Ground Attack Airplane.

And it is a good example. However, it is also a bad example.

If the question is whether or not a tank or artillery has a place in the future of warfare, then it has to be said that using a tank to take out a sniper is just plain wasteful. It's a ridiculous amount of overkill. We have counter-sniper technology, such as the Boomerang, that can not only locate a sniper, it can also return fire before the soldiers can even react. That these units did not have this tech is a different question altogether. Of course everyone agrees that the best technology is useless if you don't have it. However, I will submit that it is more likely for a unit to have a Boomerang installed on their LAV than to have a tank lying around. How the tank spotted the sniper when no on else did, and what it fired that was less dangerous that what an LAV would fire, I don't know, I wasn't there, so I will just assume it was a command decision made with all information available to them.

Again, it isn't that tanks are useless. It isn't that artillery is useless. It's just that other technologies can do the job better, cheaper, and safer, than tanks.

Well at least until they run out of fuel and ordinance and are forced to turn back to refuel and reload.

And what happens when that lovely airpower needs to refuel and refit?

I'm not sure you have quite the correct idea of how air cover works. We don't out a bunch of jets all at once, call them back, and send them out again. It is more like a conveyor belt. By the time someone needs to refuel and/or refit, other aircraft are already in place.

Of course, if there is a particular asset that needs to stay in the air indefinitely, for some sort of specific mission, there are ways to do this as well, mid-air refueling being the oldest way among them. However, it is safer to just have other assets take over.

MBTs outnumber attack aircraft, and no aircraft can stay airborn indefinitely. Do you think light armor and hand held AT weapons can finish off a push by a well prepared armored division?

No. That's when you would call in an airstrike.

And I mean modern MBTs with the modern countermeasures developed with the failures of the past taken into account, not the second hand T-72s weilded by most forces we've encountered in our modern conflicts.

Definitely not. This is exactly why we want to make sure we have air superiority prior to sending troops into the field. If the situation is so bad that we don't even know where in an area a well-prepared and armored division is, it would be foolish to send in ground troops.

Again, I'm not arguing that tanks are an end all be all, in counter insurgancy conflicts they are a bit of over kill. Likewise to suggest that aircraft and laser guided weapons are an end all be all is a bit of a fallacy, especially when history shows that countermeasures can not only be developed, but will likely be cheaper and much easier to field.

Agreed. Every strategy has a counter, and every counter-strategy has a counter to it.

However, counters to air warfare require quite a few more resources than counters to tanks. And I will have to disagree that counters to strike crafts such as fighters and helicopters will ever come cheaper than a shovel and an axe.

I'd also like to point out that while we no longer have battleships, we did bring our WW2 era Iowa class battleships to conflicts like Vietnan, and Desert Storm, not only fielding Tomahawk cruise missiles but also using their 16 inch gun batteries in combat.

Decisive air supremacy did not truly begin until the second Gulf War, with the advent of cheap smart missiles.

[Stellar]

A kindergarten class can occupy a territory if there is no resistance... besides, occupying territory has proven as expensive and ineffective in modern warfare.

What about future warfare though?