RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Not neccesarily - it could be a hundred times worse than WW2 and be over before the tanks get warmed up.
Do tanks still have a role in todays world ?
- Thread starter kiwitt
- Start date
Not neccesarily - it could be a hundred times worse than WW2 and be over before the tanks get warmed up.
Still wouldn't really be worth it. That is still a far more limited utility than aircraft. And now as more and more aircraft are unmanned, even that objection is going away.
Such a submersible railgun battleship would be perfectly capable of carrying unmanned aircraft, albeit not in the same numbers.
And now you're pushing the costs far beyond the benefits....
Poor cost-benefit is intrinsic to aircraft carriers, so if you're bringing that into the argument...
cav scout
The Continuum
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,630
This.
Also, the old adage of "armor should avoid MOUT" has been largely disproven in Iraq.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,999
there is nothing wrong with tanks in combat as long as the operators keep an eye on wht they are doing . There is indeed a negative image related to using tanks especially in COIN environments since they have so much in power and one must win the hearts through sympathy and not fear ; but all heart winning operations tend to need some brusing capability if the things go for worse .
and of course all the recent wars have been unbalanced from certain aspects . Would say the last time equal forces clashed was the Iran-Iraq thing that ended in 1988 . Yet the armour keeps its place . Consider Syria , tanks in cities are so unwelcome , only because otherwise the prospective oil empire of the gulf would already have liberated zones that would have needed aerial protection .
regarding Iraq and the glorious American armour , well ...
also has some connections to post 13 you know . As far as ı know there was only one single case of a penetration of an Abrams with a "conventional weapon" and not mines . It was finally whittled away with the explanation that it went through the weaker side armour behind the suspension . No big deal . Luckily it stopped our seperatists "plundering the Iraqi armouries" when Americans started to supply them in gusto .
and of course all the recent wars have been unbalanced from certain aspects . Would say the last time equal forces clashed was the Iran-Iraq thing that ended in 1988 . Yet the armour keeps its place . Consider Syria , tanks in cities are so unwelcome , only because otherwise the prospective oil empire of the gulf would already have liberated zones that would have needed aerial protection .
regarding Iraq and the glorious American armour , well ...
also has some connections to post 13 you know . As far as ı know there was only one single case of a penetration of an Abrams with a "conventional weapon" and not mines . It was finally whittled away with the explanation that it went through the weaker side armour behind the suspension . No big deal . Luckily it stopped our seperatists "plundering the Iraqi armouries" when Americans started to supply them in gusto .
Poor cost-benefit is intrinsic to aircraft carriers, so if you're bringing that into the argument...
So instead you want to roll 3 fundamentally incompatible ship types into one behemoth boondoggle? All you'll accomplish is fat profits for the contractors.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Tanks are immeasurably useful, even in assymetric warfare. Tanks are often used as the base station on patrols or at checkpoints. The reason they are not used much in combat with insurgents is that insurgents intentionally avoid them opting to probe for softer targets. But that gives you the very useful advantage of being able to intimidate opponets and dictate where combat WILL NOT take place.
People on this board continue to believe in the false notion that simply because certain equipment is not actively used it must be obsolete or ineffective. This can be the case, but in most cases for modern weapons they are not used because they are so effective. People don't conventionally attack the US just because they love us so much, its because conventionally attacking the US is basically suicide. It is suicide because we have an impressive conventional arsenal. Obviously this reasoning can be taken too far in that direction, but that is no less illogical than some here going to far in the other direction, ie declaring tanks useless.
In the end, as an insurgent, what would you rather fight against in the middle of poppey field. A fully tracked, heavily armored, all terrain M1A2 Abrahms with a 120mm main gun and three machine guns (1 x 50cal and 2 x 7.62mm) or a uparmourd Humvee with a single 50 cal?
The reason tanks are not suitable for assymetrical warfare is that they are too expensive per area of territory controlled in a war where you have to control eveything at once. They are suited more for combat where their expensive but impressive firepower can be concetrated for effect. This happens in assymetric warfare too such as when concentrated forces are identified or where you can identify a primary target of insurgents beforehand.
Also, in regards to state on state warfare the last few we have seen involving Western nations always involve a conflict where we have undisputed air supremacy. That leads to enviroments where the tank is not vulnerable to is own shortcomings, but rather the shortcomings of another portion of the combined arms concept (air defense). If Iraq or Libya were evern to be able to achieve air parity or (more likely) air denial, then their armor would not suffer the fate they did. There are some potential enemies out there that have a far better chance of achieving either of those, at least temporarily.
People on this board continue to believe in the false notion that simply because certain equipment is not actively used it must be obsolete or ineffective. This can be the case, but in most cases for modern weapons they are not used because they are so effective. People don't conventionally attack the US just because they love us so much, its because conventionally attacking the US is basically suicide. It is suicide because we have an impressive conventional arsenal. Obviously this reasoning can be taken too far in that direction, but that is no less illogical than some here going to far in the other direction, ie declaring tanks useless.
In the end, as an insurgent, what would you rather fight against in the middle of poppey field. A fully tracked, heavily armored, all terrain M1A2 Abrahms with a 120mm main gun and three machine guns (1 x 50cal and 2 x 7.62mm) or a uparmourd Humvee with a single 50 cal?
The reason tanks are not suitable for assymetrical warfare is that they are too expensive per area of territory controlled in a war where you have to control eveything at once. They are suited more for combat where their expensive but impressive firepower can be concetrated for effect. This happens in assymetric warfare too such as when concentrated forces are identified or where you can identify a primary target of insurgents beforehand.
Also, in regards to state on state warfare the last few we have seen involving Western nations always involve a conflict where we have undisputed air supremacy. That leads to enviroments where the tank is not vulnerable to is own shortcomings, but rather the shortcomings of another portion of the combined arms concept (air defense). If Iraq or Libya were evern to be able to achieve air parity or (more likely) air denial, then their armor would not suffer the fate they did. There are some potential enemies out there that have a far better chance of achieving either of those, at least temporarily.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
I think the sheer presence of a tank is very good for an occupying force. Ordinary soldiers are flesh and blood and can still be harmed by ordinary tools such as knives or fists. A tank? Forget about it, short of some IED or really good rocket.
Tanks have armor and mobility, and are very sound on their own merits. When combined with such things as artillery and humvees, however, I think they will be at their best.
Tanks just offer a measure of firepower and protection that ordinary soldiers do not have. And given that armor is always being improved, the countermeasures are regularly made obsolete.
Tanks have armor and mobility, and are very sound on their own merits. When combined with such things as artillery and humvees, however, I think they will be at their best.
Tanks just offer a measure of firepower and protection that ordinary soldiers do not have. And given that armor is always being improved, the countermeasures are regularly made obsolete.
...while we're at it, can we have the orbital laser cannons and battle droids?
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Making it submersible is all but impossible, and any UAVs aboard would have to be small and/or few in number. The coil- or railguns, though, should be feasible in a few decades, if not sooner. Not sure if it would be worth it, though.
As Dachs cynically pointed out above, critics of the tank have been predicting it's demise since the beginning of the Cold War. Yet the powers still build and upgrade them.
What's perhaps not well understood is that modern armor is just one part of a modern army. It's the pointy end of the spear, the heavy break-through weapon of a force. An armored unit also includes mechanized infantry vehicles like the Bradley or Warrior that can destroy lighter vehicle threats and anti-tank missile teams, as well as carry troops to secure a bivouac. The unit will have air defence vehicles like the Roland or Gerpard, and forward artillary and air support assets. The tank is the lead vehicle of the combined-arms concept.
A word about asymetrical warfare. A tank is not entirely useful in AW - anymore than in a sea or air battle. But in real ground warfare against an enemy army it is critical. We talk about the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan. But in fact those were insurgencies. The terrorists didn't have tanks or fighters or destroyers like a real country, and had to be engaged by light infantry with air assets. But in a real war, against a nation state, tanks will continue to be usefull for decades to come.
Until somebody starts building giant death robots.
What's perhaps not well understood is that modern armor is just one part of a modern army. It's the pointy end of the spear, the heavy break-through weapon of a force. An armored unit also includes mechanized infantry vehicles like the Bradley or Warrior that can destroy lighter vehicle threats and anti-tank missile teams, as well as carry troops to secure a bivouac. The unit will have air defence vehicles like the Roland or Gerpard, and forward artillary and air support assets. The tank is the lead vehicle of the combined-arms concept.
A word about asymetrical warfare. A tank is not entirely useful in AW - anymore than in a sea or air battle. But in real ground warfare against an enemy army it is critical. We talk about the war in Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan. But in fact those were insurgencies. The terrorists didn't have tanks or fighters or destroyers like a real country, and had to be engaged by light infantry with air assets. But in a real war, against a nation state, tanks will continue to be usefull for decades to come.
Until somebody starts building giant death robots.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,999
regarding aerial defence of tanks , the first time they were shown to be vulnarable to aircraft must be March 1918 by German fighters machine gunning them from above in near vertical dives , that didn't stop Germans building those famous panzers .
yet of course nothing stays still and ı sincerely doubt American led Western opinions on what is useful and what's not in battle stops rather short of having an effect on their actual enemies .
wouldn't you say ?
there is this scenario regarding the tank and the humwee . Must say on who is doing the opposition . Especially the Brits post WW2 were so fond of scout cars instead of armour that was so noisy . Stealth is new , only as a word .
yet of course nothing stays still and ı sincerely doubt American led Western opinions on what is useful and what's not in battle stops rather short of having an effect on their actual enemies .
wouldn't you say ?
there is this scenario regarding the tank and the humwee . Must say on who is doing the opposition . Especially the Brits post WW2 were so fond of scout cars instead of armour that was so noisy . Stealth is new , only as a word .
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
If tanks were not useful enough the US army wouldn't have so many of them, especially considering how ridiculously expensive and increasingly high tech they are.
The reason we are fighting an asymmetric war in Afghanistan/Iraq is because we won the first phase of the ground war and took the territory - something which required armoured formations in the Iraqi case. Also, as Patroklos pointed out, tanks are very valuable even in guerilla warfare. They were used in Fallujah and other battles, and by the Russians in Georgia and Israelis in Gaza, to name a few contemporary examples.
Verbose
Deity
You are being sarcastic, right?
When were US procurement decisions about military hardware last securely tied to matters of actual cost-effectiveness?
strijder20
Wallowing in irony
Wow, what an odd thread. Of course they aren't. The tanks were obsoleted about ten thousand years ago.
Similar threads
- Poll
