Do tanks still have a role in todays world ?

[tycoonist]

Yeah, I'd say so. Tanks still serve a vital part in most team comps - providing safe initiation or a reason to draw focus away from the carries. Sure, the tanky-dps meta isn't as prevalent as it once was, but to say that they don't have a place in todays world would be foolish.

 

[Patroklos]

Infantry doesn't usually have to wait for tanks, unless these tanks have something stupid like a gas turbine engine.

Except in WWII where the vast majority of infantry on all sides moved by foot.

And that gas turbine engine using tank has cleaned the floor with all oponents, including the cream of the crop of contemporary Russian designs.

In WW2 infantry just hopped on top of tanks to keep up with them.

No, this was a Soviet tactic. A tactic largely considered idiotic by the Axis and the rest of allies because it led to exorborant deaths. Tanks are bullent magnets, and while this doesn't bother the tanks due to their armor it does bother soft targets riding them.

This only makes sense if your human capital is so worthless to you that mobility is worth the human toll. Modern nations don't think that makes sense.

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.

The large turret is designed to hold more sensors, a all terrain targeting suspension for the gun, and lots of ammo. This is important if you intend for your tanks to survive longer than an hour of combat, something the Soviets didn't really care about.

Alos, the Soviets have large turrents too, there is nothing about that design that makes them any more suited for infantry support.

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.

Economics are irrelevant once a modern war starts. The production time for an Apache or A10 is in the year range if not years. You fight with what you start with, attrition will dictate the winner once combat is joined in earnesst.

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.

A modern war would again be fought with the current inventories for better or for worse, there will be no significant material reinforcements from production.

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.

The idea of the tank as an infantry support weapon died with France in 1940. Ever since then ever tank whether it be Soviet/US/Russian/German/French/British/Chinese/whomever has been primarily and anti armor weapon. IFVs took over the role you are describing before WWII even ended.

 

[RedRalph]

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.

When were tanks ever used for plunder warfare/

also, Patroklos, I could be wrong but the turrets on Russian tanks nowadays look a fair bit smaller than the one on an Abrams.

 

[Patroklos]

I am sure they very in size, ever design does. But do they vary to such a degree that you would assume the tank was purpose designed for troops to ride on them? Compared to WWII designs all modern tanks have relatively enourmous turrets getting larger each generation.

Thats a T-90, the width of the turret is the width of the tank. It is a bit smaller front to back but not enough to call it an "infantry transport."

Hell, the Soviets introduced the BMP in the sixties, one of the original purpose built and legendary lineages of IFV out there. The idea that post WWII Soviet troops or current Russian ones are supposed to ride their tanks is really groundless.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Although it's a moot point anyway, as desant is still possible on the comfy Abrams turret

Spoiler :

 

[Patroklos]

You can ride anything, the claim was Western tanks are inferior because they are not purpose built with riding in mind (not that current Russian ones are either).

 

[say1988]

When were tanks ever used for plunder warfare/

1939, 1940, 1941. Plunder was an important motivator for German war effort to get resources to keep their failing economy afloat. Of course the production of their tanks (and other war material) was part of the problem with the economy.

No, this was a Soviet tactic. A tactic largely considered idiotic by the Axis and the rest of allies because it led to exorborant deaths. Tanks are bullent magnets, and while this doesn't bother the tanks due to their armor it does bother soft targets riding them.

While incredibly stupid in combat, it does make sense when behind the front just let foot infantry keep up. But your point is entirely correct, designing tanks for such use is stupid. And outside combat they can sit anywhere they feel like like.

I would question how much more concerned the Western Allies were about survivability though. Shermans were definitely expendable (maybe not the original intent, but they quicky became that).

 

[Patroklos]

The Shermans were an inferior tank performance wise to their enemies, however the tactics used most definetly showed a greater regard to their survivability compared to those of the Russians.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but comparing anything with a German tank was stupid, because they were made to crazily high specification that meant that they took longer to produce than a Peter Jackson film, and comparing with Russian ones was pointless because they were made so badly that they could literally just churn out another one whenever one of their tanks got damaged.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes, but comparing anything with a German tank was stupid, because they were made to crazily high specification that meant that they took longer to produce than a Peter Jackson film, and comparing with Russian ones was pointless because they were made so badly that they could literally just churn out another one whenever one of their tanks got damaged.

Actually, weren't Soviet WWII tanks not fairly reliable? From what I've gathered, the most unreliable tanks of WWII were the overromanticized German ones that were prone to technical faults and malfunctions, especially the Tigers, with the Panzer V being a notable exception. That in addition to the incredibly high minimum specifications you've already cited.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Yes, but comparing anything with a German tank was stupid, because they were made to crazily high specification that meant that they took longer to produce than a Peter Jackson film, and comparing with Russian ones was pointless because they were made so badly that they could literally just churn out another one whenever one of their tanks got damaged.

This is completely ahistorical - Soviet tanks, particularly the T-34, were made to very high specifications. The German Panzer V and VI [panther and tiger] were specifically designed to counter Russian tank superiority [and suffered numerous flaws despite that - Guderian's original desire was to directly copy the T-34 but Germany lacked materials such as aluminum to do so]. This resulted in most of the tank fighting on the German side being done by up-gunned Panzer IV's with 75mm's, and medium panzer jaeger tank hunters, such as the StuG III which was mounted on the Panzer III chassis.

And interestingly enough, Stalin even refused to use gifted British tanks on the front line as they were so far below Russian standards.

 

[Princeps]

Except in WWII where the vast majority of infantry on all sides moved by foot.

Well, yes, and the majority of non-rail logistics was handled by horse carriage, but it doesn't mean that motorized vehicles didn't play a crucial part. Tank needed infantry support, the sooner the better, and the best way to guarantee this was to bring desants.

And that gas turbine engine using tank has cleaned the floor with all oponents,

The turbine engine is a bygone design fad.

The turbine engine is expensive. It consumes huge quantities of fuel (the abrams fuel tank is twice the size of a comparable piston engine tank). Although it has less moving parts than a piston engine, it's parts move so incredibly fast that they break much faster, requiring far more maintenance.

Also, it takes about 60 seconds to start up the engine, while a diesel engine is ready immediately. Abrams exhaust gasses are hot enough to grill any unlucky infantry man that walks too close to the exhaust. The turbine engine has a much larger heat signature and it takes much longer to cool, making a gas turbine powered tank harder to hide.

The Abrams m1 engine consumers roughly 1/4 of the annual maintenance budget for all ground combat systems. The rest of the tank consumes another 1/4.

including the cream of the crop of contemporary Russian designs.

T80 used a turbine engine. The T-90 doesn't use a turbine engine.

No, this was a Soviet tactic.

No. Tank desants were a common practice in all armies, German, Soviet and Western allied alike. The Soviets had the best experience of it: they had to cover great distances routinely.

Good pics here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?149940-Infantry-riding-tanks

A tactic largely considered idiotic by the Axis and the rest of allies because it led to exorborant deaths.

Hardly. The infantry would of course dismount in combat, and mount the vehicle for marches.

Tanks are bullent magnets,

While marching, the infantry would not be significantly more vulnerable on top of tanks than walking. And if the infantry is holed up in apcs, it takes time for the to deploy whereas when they're on top of tanks, they can just jump off. They're also quite safe from most effects of land mines when they've got 50 tons of composite armor under them.

The large turret is designed to hold more sensors, a all terrain targeting suspension for the gun, and lots of ammo.

A smaller turret can also do that. Abrams turret, for example, has plenty of wasted space.

This is important if you intend for your tanks to survive longer than an hour of combat, something the Soviets didn't really care about.

False. Soviets didn't intend for all forces to last for mere moments: elite divisions were given vehicles such as t-64 and t-80 which shared the design features.

Alos, the Soviets have large turrents too, there is nothing about that design that makes them any more suited for infantry support.

You can easily have twenty men on top a T-90. You can barely have 8 on top of an Abrams, even though the latter is much larger.

Economics are irrelevant once a modern war starts.

It depends on its nature.

The production time for an Apache or A10 is in the year range if not years.

I believe a cheap simple plane like A10 can be mass produced in much shorter times if the economies of scale are set in motion. I mean its a flying machine-gun. The A10 performs most of what the Apache does, and much better.

A modern war would again be fought with the current inventories for better or for worse, there will be no significant material reinforcements from production.

Why not? The society would regimented into weapons production. Most countries direct only 1-3% of their GDP for military toward defense, yet armies are already quite powerful. Imagine if they invested 60 %?

Now, obviously, there would be a weapons build up before any such war. Production would be massively expanded, bunkered and concealed, as well as present inventories.

The idea of the tank as an infantry support weapon died with France in 1940

I think you take the wrong lessons from history. The French experience though many things; first and foremost that proactive defense in depth is preferable to passive thin super-heavily fortified lines. The French never managed to establish a new line of defense as the Germans moved in deeper.

That said, I never implied that the tank strictly an infantry support vehicle.

. Ever since then ever tank whether it be Soviet/US/Russian/German/French/British/Chinese/whomever has been primarily and anti armor weapon.

This idea that tanks will just move out and go play battleship with enemy tanks is ludicrous. They need infantry.

 

[galdre]

@princeps I was quite happy for that hot exhaust from the Abrams whenever I got to drive behind one in my unheated M578 in the middle of a German winter

 

[Flying Pig]

This idea that tanks will just move out and go play battleship with enemy tanks is ludicrous. They need infantry.

True, but MBTs are still built almost entirely to kill other tanks.

 

[Patroklos]

For the simple fact that if you can't kill other tanks, then you don't get to a chance to steam roll the rear areas.

 

[Tahuti]

True, but MBTs are still built almost entirely to kill other tanks.

What about maneuver? Or do you think that can be seamlessy replaced by helicopters as well?

 

[Flying Pig]

What about maneuver? Or do you think that can be seamlessy replaced by helicopters as well?

Mechanised infantry do that anyway, surely? Unless I've misunderstood exactly what you mean.

For the simple fact that if you can't kill other tanks, then you don't get to a chance to steam roll the rear areas.

The good old insane logic that says that tanks kill infantry and break lines, which makes them dangerous, so we need to make bigger tanks to kill those tanks, and bigger tanks to kill THOSE tanks.. until the tank we end up with isn't actually all that good at killing infantry and breaking lines.

 

[Archbob]

Only useful is they have the City Raider I and City Raider II promotion

 

[Ayn Rand]

Mechanised infantry do that anyway, surely? Unless I've misunderstood exactly what you mean.

Maneuver is a specific concept in military theory, although it does vary from one country/time period to another.

To give you a small example, the [now outdated] NATO basic theory manual FM 100-5 sets down the maneuver concept in the context of the Airland Battle:

Just as similar phases are common to all offensive operations, so similar forms of maneuver are common to all attacks. These forms of maneuver include envelopment, the turning movement, infiltration, penetration, and frontal attack. While frequently used in combination, each attacks the enemy in a different way, and each poses different challenges to the attacking commander.

The US Army divisional structure until recently had around 3 maneuvre brigades which employed a mix of mechanised infantry and tank assets, meaning that mechanised infantry and tanks tended to maneuver together.

The division's combat aviation brigade [where its helicopters would be, along with other aviation assets] are designed to support the maneuver of the ground forces, by carrying out their own specialised missions.


However, this is all changing with the formation of brigade combat teams as net-centric warfare replaces the long-outdated AirLand theory of war. Note that there are no plans to replace the tank with helicopters [Apaches or otherwise], as a few interchangeable tactical roles shouldn't create ambiguity regarding the distinct functions of these two weapon systems.

 

[Flying Pig]

Ah, it's refreshing to know that there are people who voluntarily learn all that stuff I worked so hard to forget! The point being that mechanised infantry probably could do all of that by themselves (since it requires in essence being relatively agile and being able to fight once contact is hit), if they had helicopter cover to provide Excessive Force (the basic function of the tanks) where required. Obviously, they'd need a lot more helicopters than are currently meted out - the one regiment per brigade that we have nowadays simply couldn't be in enough places at once to do that. It's not that they do'nt have distinct roles nowadays, it's whether they need to stay like that.