Do tanks still have a role in todays world ?

[kiwitt]

In the recent history, right up until the 1st Iraq War, I believe they did. However, now it is well into the 21st century and the asymmetric wars we now have is it "the Tank" still relevant.

 

[Dachs]

all ground forces have been made obsolete by nuclear weapons

 

[kiwitt]

Except no one dares use them, except the US on Japan for reasons explained elsewhere.

As to ground forces, even the jeep or hummvee is now the vehicle of choice. I would have thought it would be better to use dedicated armoured vehicles. Lightly armoured humvees seems silly, when you have vehicles like the M-2/-3 Bradley and BMPs etc to use on patrol.

 

[Phrossack]

As long as things like mobility, protection, and firepower matter, there will be tanks or something like them. Asymmetric warfare hasn't totally replaced conventional warfare forever. Imagine if South Korea stopped using tanks.

 

[Joecoolyo]

all ground forces have been made obsolete by nuclear weapons

No dude, that was the gatling gun.

I mean, who would dare attack someone with a gatling gun? It'd be suicidal!

 

[ParkCungHee]

With today's assymetric warfare, tanks have been obsolete since the 16th century.

 

[Tahuti]

With today's assymetric warfare, tanks have been obsolete since the 16th century.

This.

Also - while I'm not a military scientist - I do note that the spoils of war today's battlefield are increasingly mobile (think of computer data or even individual people like Bin Laden), making any form of conventional ground warfare increasingly obsolete. This is in part because because the traditional spoil of war; conquering land isn't as profitable to the conquerer as it used to be: After all, was Iraq a net-gain for the US because Iraq had oil?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As with all weapons, they are mostly useful for beating up on people with worse weapons than yours.

 

[innonimatu]

As with all weapons, they are mostly useful for beating up on people with worse weapons than yours.

Only useful answer so far, it seems to me!

Really on what other circumstances have tanks been useful recently? And I would like to see some serious answers!

Well, I guess that they are useful again infantry in a conventional war between similar adversaries, once that infantry has spent its anti-tank weapons. But haven't portable anti-tank weapons made even that very much obsolete? If said adversaries are equal they'd be bound to have so many of those, because they're cheaper, that throwing tanks against infantry would result in big losses. But in this I'm assuming that the technical weapons race between anti-tank weapons and tank's defenses cannot be won and is now even more tilted towards the first that, say, during that 1973 war, and that modern armies would have large numbers of anti-tank weapons spread through its infantry positions, instead of concentrating them on a front line.

 

[Dachs]

But haven't portable anti-tank weapons made even that very much obsolete? If said adversaries are equal they'd be bound to have so many of those, because they're cheaper, that throwing tanks against infantry would result in big losses.

Actual, non-mocking answer: no. Technical efficiency rarely translates directly into tactical efficiency, let alone operational/grand strategic efficiency. Theoretical AT missile kill ratios - e.g. 1.56 missiles per tank - that make pure anti-tank infantry formations seemingly the obvious cost-effective choice rapidly degrade in combat conditions. More realistic ratios are ten or twenty missile launchers to every tank killed, and that is highly dependent on troop quality; one cannot expect the same kill ratios from conscripts or enthusiastic mujahid volunteers as from professional long-service infantrymen. Furthermore, tanks are not really vulnerable to a whole lot: air bombing, enemy tanks, and, perhaps, anti-tank missiles. But the AT infantry are vulnerable to all that and a bag of chips: mortar bombs, artillery barrages, and worst of all, enemy infantry. Their survivability on the battlefield is much lower than a tank's.

 

[innonimatu]

So, put that way, that makes the best - or most cost-effective - land based anti-tank weapon... still the tank? With the plus that a tank also has many other uses?

Tanks have not yet had their - how shall I put it? - "battleship obsolescence moment" where cheaper superior firepower simply overcomes its defensive capabilities in many likely tactical scenarios? Well, I guess that considering only surface ships battleships might also still reign supreme, their demise was supposedly due to air power?

 

[Dachs]

It wasn't really that battleships were too pricey, but rather that they were insufficiently versatile. An aircraft carrier can fight a naval battle and project a lot of power over a very wide area for a large investment. Battleships, while very good at what they did, simply didn't accomplish enough missions for them to remain relevant.

The type may make a comeback once we figure out how to make it submersible and once we finish working out railgun technology, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[r16]

tank still rule , even the counter insurgency fighting . ı was a 26 day tanker back in the year 2000 , the ranking sergeant who gave us a tour in the end told us how getting a single tank to each outpost immediately solved the security issue in the 1990s . Due to the fact that they could hit a football from 1200 metres , among other things , and there "enemy" options in antitank were so limited . When you watch the TV news you always see the Merkavas around whenever Israelis do something .

 

[Verbose]

tank still rule , even the counter insurgency fighting . ı was a 26 day tanker back in the year 2000 , the ranking sergeant who gave us a tour in the end told us how getting a single tank to each outpost immediately solved the security issue in the 1990s . Due to the fact that they could hit a football from 1200 metres , among other things , and there "enemy" options in antitank were so limited . When you watch the TV news you always see the Merkavas around whenever Israelis do something .

Sure. The question rather seems to be whether you actually need a state-of-the-art MBT for the kinds of missions most tanks seem to get to fill these days?

 

[Cutlass]

It wasn't really that battleships were too pricey, but rather that they were insufficiently versatile. An aircraft carrier can fight a naval battle and project a lot of power over a very wide area for a large investment. Battleships, while very good at what they did, simply didn't accomplish enough missions for them to remain relevant.

The type may make a comeback once we figure out how to make it submersible and once we finish working out railgun technology, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Even those won't revive the battleship. The concept is dead. No foreseeable tech would make it worthwhile.

 

[Domen]

Not in New Zealand for sure. But in Afghanistan - they do play some role.

 

[RedRalph]

Yes, they do, but they will never again be as important as they were during WW2.

Would you still consider them tanks if they were unmanned?

 

[Phrossack]

Even those won't revive the battleship. The concept is dead. No foreseeable tech would make it worthwhile.

IF they can make coilguns with rocket-assisted shells, their range would be pretty considerable (1-200 miles) and they'd be able to maintain that barrage for quite some time (unlike with missiles) with little to no risk of having those shells get shot down (unlike aircraft). Of course, such vessels would be mainly useful only for shelling land targets and would require a lot of protection like a carrier.

 

[Domen]

but they will never again be as important as they were during WW2.

I hope so - this implies that there will not be another conflict on WW2 scale.

 

[W|M]

So, put that way, that makes the best - or most cost-effective - land based anti-tank weapon... still the tank? With the plus that a tank also has many other uses?

There are also anti-tank immobile defenses, such as large concrete blocks placed a few feet apart from each on the ground.