Do tanks still have a role in todays world ?

[Ayn Rand]

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.

That is an interesting perspective - but I would argue against it as simply increasing the quantity of helicopter forces wouldn't be of assistance in certain kinds of ground operations. This is particularly true if the enemy unit [say, a division] has an intact and sophisticated anti-aircraft brigade.

In any such maneuvre the apaches would first need to fight a separate battle of their own against the enemy air defence assets, adding an additional level of risk and complexity to the firefight which could leave ground forces unsupported while the Apaches fight the anti-aircraft brigade. Note that the Apaches would probably lose such a fight, or at best be impeded and tied down, which would leave the mechanised infantry unsupported at the critical moment [such as a breakthrough operation].

Mechanised infantry alone don't have the organic firepower or survivability to break into some kinds of enemy defensive system and roll through it and out of it. In some circumstances they would therefore be dependant on the Apaches/tanks to fight alongside them. But it would be unwise to feed pure mechanised infantry brigades to an enemy formation on the premise that the Apaches will always be able to keep up. This is not simply a question of adding more numbers of helicopters [bad weather can prevent effective flying, for example]. And modern anti-aircraft systems will really ruin your day - which is one reason why helicopters tend to be given their own missions, in parts of the battle space that have been prepped by intelligence and which are known to not be saturated with air defence.

Obviously, tanks are not limited by such air defences and can strike at them and eliminate them with near impunity.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Couple of problems with that idea.

The first is that helicopters have limited ammo in comparison to a tank. This being the case, they are far more hard pressed to provide the same level of 'excessive force' that a tank can in similar circumstances.

The second is that helicopters are so much more fragile than tanks are. They are far more suited to 'hit and run' type of tactics as opposed to being a continuous fire support platform in a protracted battle.

Armor is an essential part of a combined arms battle and will remain so for some time yet. That being a simple fact means that armor is indeed relevant and will be for quite a long time to come.

 

[r16]

Well, OK, not yet, but since we're increasingly seeing rounds that as good as laugh at armour (there were reports of a something being fired in Afghanistan that went straight through a Challenger 2, taking the driver's legs with it) and they're developing electrically charged armour which will be safe against anything explosive, it's going to be close-run at least before long. Not to mention that helicopters can't be hit by mines, IEDs or nasty surprises like that.

don't know if that has been touched upon already but it is the essential question . Were the West to go in war this afternoon , would it be able to secure air superiority or rather dominance ( as it is always bandied as some kind of birth right) and provide the easy going atmosphere where the Allies choose what at to do at their own choice . If not , helicopters might be hunted down by hostile air of the skies and hunted down by enemy on the ground after insertion by enemy rotorcraft ...

 

[cav scout]

until the tank we end up with isn't actually all that good at killing infantry and breaking lines.

Show me a tank that isn't good at killing infantry.

If I have line of sight on an infantryman at 1100 meters (concealment isn't a problem since we have thermals) and I will put a few rounds of precision 7.62 into him and move on to the next crunchy.

 

[RedRalph]

Couple of problems with that idea.

The first is that helicopters have limited ammo in comparison to a tank. This being the case, they are far more hard pressed to provide the same level of 'excessive force' that a tank can in similar circumstances.

The second is that helicopters are so much more fragile than tanks are. They are far more suited to 'hit and run' type of tactics as opposed to being a continuous fire support platform in a protracted battle.

Armor is an essential part of a combined arms battle and will remain so for some time yet. That being a simple fact means that armor is indeed relevant and will be for quite a long time to come.

I don't even know if they will ever go out altogether. i can imagine some approximation of tanks being common in hundereds of years even.

 

[Flying Pig]

Show me a tank that isn't good at killing infantry.

No, no - they're still very good, but they aren't as brilliant as they perhaps could be if they were made with the 'original purpose' entirely in mind, if nothing else because they have to waste space on armour and armour-peircing ammunition. If they were just designed to kill infantry, they'd have ended up as fast, light things, with HE rounds and lots and lots of machine-guns, quite like our IFVs.

(concealment isn't a problem since we have thermals)

Our kit supposedly reflects infra-red so that you can't see it through thermals, although how good that actually is is debatable.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Link to video.



Tanks will probably be around a while longer. Perhaps not focused on in development of new military equipment though.

 

[cav scout]

Our kit supposedly reflects infra-red so that you can't see it through thermals, although how good that actually is is debatable.

Yeah our uniforms have that same infrared dye. It's designed to work against active infrared sights that work in the near infrared spectrum.

The thermal sights on a modern MBT work differently though and your kit won't offer any concealment value against them.

 

[Flying Pig]

The thermal sights on a modern MBT work differently though and your kit won't offer any concealment value against them.

That does at least give me a modicum of comfort - a few months ago the local armoured regiment was given the Freedom of a town near where my cadets are based, so we sent a few kids down in uniform to help with directing car parking, checking tickets to the event, and generally raising our own profile while lending a hand. As a kind of thank-you they let the kids have a look around their vehicles, and I was slightly worried to hear that those few regular soldiers in their combat dress had shown up on the Scimitar's camera as bright white. I thought the dye must run out in the wash or something!

 

[Patroklos]

That is a problem, soldiers rarely follow the care instructions for those uniforms.

 

[Flying Pig]

That is a problem, soldiers rarely follow the care instructions for those uniforms.

CS95 - the old cut - was actually a real bugbear in that regard because all the things that we loved doing to the stuff before it, like washing, ironing, and ESPECIALLY starching and all those tricks to make your creases sharper, damages it as a field uniform. We weren't supposed to iron creases into it at all, but when it came out we had certain officers deciding that it was to be worn with a tie of all things! That attitude has thankfully been truly stamped on with the new MTP, which is worn down-and-out like the US Marines wear their camoflage - which looks awful, but it's practical, and it's for dyin' in, not for ironing!

 

[Tahuti]

No, no - they're still very good, but they aren't as brilliant as they perhaps could be if they were made with the 'original purpose' entirely in mind, if nothing else because they have to waste space on armour and armour-peircing ammunition. If they were just designed to kill infantry, they'd have ended up as fast, light things, with HE rounds and lots and lots of machine-guns, quite like our IFVs.

So tanks would be handy against IFV's, wouldn't they?

 

[Colonel]

I think beyond the fact that tanks are almost always necessary in the beginning of a modern wars they also provide a major military deterrence to larger wars in conjunction with nuclear weapons as well. For larger regional powers without nuclear weapons they avoid the fear of the US or others using nukes on them but they have to contend with overwhelming land, air, and sea power.