Do tanks still have a role in todays world ?

[Cutlass]

But helicopters are vulnerable to both cheap and easily carried man portable missiles and very vulnerable to fixed wing aircraft. Which we can assume a modern enemy will have.

 

[Flying Pig]

But helicopters are vulnerable to both cheap and easily carried man portable missiles and very vulnerable to fixed wing aircraft. Which we can assume a modern enemy will have.

Yes, so are tanks - if anything, more so, since they can't spot an ambush as easily.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The first bit's not always true. It works provided that one doesn't hinder the other - the classic example being infantry divisions tied down when their armoured comrades ran out of fuel in the days before mechanised infantry.

True, but we buy tanks to reconnaitre (which Apaches do better), to move quickly (which Apaches do better, to provide us with firepower specifically against other tanks (which Apaches do terrifyingly well) and just for their psychological effect, and there are reports of enemy positions in Iraq surrendering at the sight of an Apache. They also completely ignore most terrain, lend themselves naturally to ambushing, and can be flown from a helicopter carrier - as well as being notably more difficult to kill. Obviously it would be very difficult to replace the Royal Armoured Corps with them overnight, but it's increasingly difficult to see a compelling reason not to slowly replace conventional armour with helicopters.

I challenge this view that because two weapon systems have interchangeability of some roles, they are therefore completely interchangeable as weapons. The Apache is not a replacement for the tank and no army in the World is planning to replace its tanks with helicopters.

There is a massive price tag difference between Apaches and tanks, and different crew requirements [note that an Apache needs a ground crew for refuelling and maintenance, as well as some form of elementary air base]. With Apaches retailing at anything up to $100 million a piece, there are severe restrictions on the number of these weapon systems that can be employed by any army.

The Apache needs air protection when travelling to and from its mission area, and if air superiority is lost locally or strategically, the Apache is vulnerable to air strikes on its fields or to intercept from air superiority fighters. Tanks can disperse into light forests or urban areas and have other means of operating when air supriority is lost, whereas helicopters will go down when their air superiority umbrella does.

Also, there has been mechanisation of ground artillery, air defence, infantry, engineering, logistics and C3 in all modern armies. These mechanised ground forces manoeuvre best with supporting armoured fighting vehicles that can remain close to them and form an integrated combined-arms team. Helicopters are not able to remain on-station and dig-in or manoeuvre with these formations the way that tanks can. Especially as helicopters are often held at the corps level and assigned to different missions that may take them away from the division in combat.

Thus, replacing the tank with the Apache would weaken a force considerably. The Apache adds a new dimension to the combined-arms team but it definitely is not designed to replace the tank. Perhaps in an expeditionary force that is acting as an imperial police force, but not in any serious army built for high-intensity modern warfighting.

 

[Murky]

The Apache has many advantages in Afghanistan. It is not vulnerable to IEDs when traveling from place to place. It ignores terrain. Can travel faster than any ground unit. Can carry a lot of firepower. It gives our troops air advantage over a ground based enemy.

 

[bhsup]

Well, OK, not yet, but since we're increasingly seeing rounds that as good as laugh at armour...

Great example below in video. And the funny thing is, they terminated this project and jumped straight to a new project even MORE advanced!


Link to video.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Tanks are effective, as long as they don't run into spearman

 

[Disgustipated]

I can't believe it took 4 pages for that joke to come up. You guys are slipping...

 

[Shaihulud]

It has its roles, but I think as with every weapon system, it depends on what you intend to do with it and the enemies it will face and on the field of battle. Tanks have served the USA well in their occupation of Iraq, as well as the Israeli, so it works to surpress people in the policing sense. It may not work as well when used against an enemy with acess to hi-tech anti-tank weapon or under a contested sky.

 

[Skwink]

I can't believe it took 4 pages for that joke to come up. You guys are slipping...

Actually, it came up on page 2.

Wow, what an odd thread. Of course they aren't. The tanks were obsoleted about ten thousand years ago.

But yeah, it took longer than I expected to come up.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I can't believe it took 4 pages for that joke to come up. You guys are slipping...

Because it's too old and doesn't work any more (didn't even work in Civ4 unless the tank was badly damaged).


But you can destroy modern Armor in a single round with ten archers (or five properly promoted chariot archers) without suffering a single loss.

 

[Patroklos]

As far as helicopters vs. tanks, I will note that the tank is defacto an infinetly more reliable weapon due to simple fact that it isn't flying. More to the point, when it has a mechanical or combat related casualty it doesn't crash.

Ground forces will always be the foundation of any military, with the other bits always geared to assist that foundation.

Also, Flying Pig, though I realize you have an infantry fetish due to your background, there was never an instance in early armored/mechanized warfare where tanks were slowing down infantry. On the contrary tanks predate mechanized infantry by decades and it was always the infantry (on foot or horse drawn) that was the weak link in mobile warfare. In fact, all the way to the assault on Berlin tank divisions routinely had to stop and wait for the infantry to catch up as tanks without infantry support can find themselves vulnerable to dug in infantry.

Which is of course the point. In all the scenarios where anyone is predicting the obsolencense of a particular weapon system they do so by removing a component of the combined arms concept. Its either tanks without infantry, or helicopters without air superiority, or tanks without air defense, or carriers without submarines, etc. etc. etc. The simple fact is we do not design our armies to fight the lowest intensity threat, but the HIGHEST intensity threat. You can down dial the later force if needed, you can updial the first.

 

[berkut]

I found how spearman defeats tanks http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/In...table-military/story?id=11856527#.TvCKoDUV1n4

Tanks can hide better in the terrain and can protect infantry advance in close quarters. While helicopter are good, their role is more like artillery. Most countries have air defense system made to shoot down much harder targets like planes, Serbia for exemple downed a f-117 using a Vietnam era SAM, those missiles can easily rape helicopter forcing then to fly very low, but that way hey become vulnerable not only to MANPADs but also simple RPGs. Today tanks are most heavily armored vehicle, and while you can put a missile into a Humvee, it would still lack the high power sensors, ammunition, and gun stability that a tank has.

 

[Princeps]

Infantry doesn't usually have to wait for tanks, unless these tanks have something stupid like a gas turbine engine. In WW2 infantry just hopped on top of tanks to keep up with them. For some stupid reason western tanks have such huge turrets that this is largely impractical, except with like 7 men. Russian tanks are much infantry friendlier in that regard.

Apaches are very expensive. In fact, its arguable that their role would be very diminished in a real war in which economics come to even greater play. A cheap A10 style low tech aircraft with autoguns will replace Apaches as tank busters, while ground vehicles fill the rest of apache's roles. All of these cost far less.

In general, if a real, prolonged war like WW2 struck, you'd see a lot these stupid and costly "white elepants" like Apache and Abrams (with its stupid engine and other faults) disappear quickly. Another thing that would quickly die out, are these expensive wheeled apcs like the Stryker. Armies would quickly go back to modern m113-style vehicles.

No, the tank is definitely not dead. I'm not sure about the western MBT, since it's starting to diverge too much from the tank's infantry support role into an autistic tank buster.

 

[Tahuti]

Apaches are very expensive. In fact, its arguable that their role would be very diminished in a real war in which economics come to even greater play. A cheap A10 style low tech aircraft with autoguns will replace Apaches as tank busters, while ground vehicles fill the rest of apache's roles. All of these cost far less.

Actually, isn't that the goddamned point of the Apache? To have all these roles available in one package?

 

[Princeps]

Actually, isn't that the goddamned point of the Apache? To have all these roles available in one package?

Not really. The Apache was above all meant to bust ungodly hordes of soviets tanks.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Infantry doesn't usually have to wait for tanks, unless these tanks have something stupid like a gas turbine engine. In WW2 infantry just hopped on top of tanks to keep up with them. For some stupid reason western tanks have such huge turrets that this is largely impractical, except with like 7 men. Russian tanks are much infantry friendlier in that regard.

No, the tank is definitely not dead. I'm not sure about the western MBT, since it's starting to diverge too much from the tank's infantry support role into an autistic tank buster.

Which modern army defines the tank as an infantry support weapon? That kind of thinking was fashionable in the 30's and the early parts of World War Two, but I thought it had long since died away.

Isn't the same true of transporting troops around on the top of tanks? I thought this was regarded as a minor tactical feature, almost an emergency one, rather than a standard procedure. All modern armies have chosen to design and build dedicated infantry fighting vehicles for the infantry transportation role [with occasional exceptions such as the Israeli Merkava tank - although even that transports them in a rear compartment rather than up-top].

 

[Glassfan]

We can take it further up the chain...

Attack helicopters trump tanks, but fighters trump choppers.

If a tank unit is being atritted by helicopters, it will call in air support to make the helo's go away. Then enemy then sends it's fighters in - and an air battle ensues. Then Armor is free again to pursue it's mission objectives. As I said above, the tank cannot be considered alone and of itself, it's part of a combined-arms team. The pointy end of the spear.

 

[Eukaryote]

I would say tanks are obsolete at least for most of the industrialized world. For the most powerful nations, it is no longer profitable or culturally acceptable to engage in warfare simply to plunder. Nowadays, I'd say military should mainly just focus on ensuring security from terrorism, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and the future threats associated with nanotech weapons and robotic weapons.

 

[Glassfan]

I would say tanks are obsolete at least for most of the industrialized world. For the most powerful nations, it is no longer profitable or culturally acceptable to engage in warfare simply to plunder. Nowadays, I'd say military should mainly just focus on ensuring security from terrorism, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and the future threats associated with nanotech weapons and robotic weapons.

Profitable or culturally acceptable? Is that why wars get started?

 

[MobBoss]

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.

The obvious answer is 'yes'. I dont see how anyone could argue otherwise.