Will the battle tank become obsolete?

moving0target said:
You throw out a lot of ideas here, but each one of them introduces a multitude of variables. The most easily identified and most telling variable is, of course, which tank you're talking about. Of the mainstays on the field right now, all are different. They all have different strengths and weaknesses.

Tanks do not have to deal with helicopters and specialized tanks killers. That's the job of their air support. A war machine is a multifaceted tool. One aspect cannot successfully function alone. Tanks won't survive long without infantry support. Infantry won't be nearly as effective without heavy fire support. Air support, cannot take and hold ground. Each requires the other.
Click to expand...


Thats assuming air support is available. The last few conflicts the US has operated against enemies that had little or no air support. But there will come a day that it will have to face a foe with better Air Support and even if the US maintains air superiority, thats no guarentee that a low flying chopper or aircraft will not sneak through. That makes the tank somewhat vulnerable, espically when you consider that the air to surface weapons now have a greater range than the mobile air defences designed to protect the AFV. For example, the FIM-92B Stinger has a range of 4.8 KMs while the Russian AT-16 which is commonly found on the SU-25 Frogfoot and the MIL family of gunships has a range of 8-10 KMs.

Going back to might original idea, future unmanned tanks might trade armor for speed and mobility while keeping its main armament. A good example would be the WWII vet the M24 Chafee. Cheaper, Weaker and less sophisticated than a MBT, but faster and a reasonibly good punch, not to mention expendable.
 
Last edited:
Aircraft arnt much good either if their aiffield is taken by enemy ground units. all units rely on each other in combat.
 
The tank will definitely become more vulnerable by helicopters and missles, but you're always goingto need a heavy combat vehicle. If not for anything ekse than to protect it's large guns.
 
SHERMAN said:
Aircraft arnt much good either if their aiffield is taken by enemy ground units. all units rely on each other in combat.
Click to expand...

In WWII that was certainly true. Nowadays, I dont think thats as much of a threat, for 2 reasons. First of all aircraft have a much longer range, that means the can deploy deep behind friendly lines with little risk from enemy ground forces. And 2nd, helicopter forward bases can be set up and moved easily as they dont require fixed assets like a concrete runway.

Im not saying there is no place for an AFV, obviously tanks provide much needed fire support to infantry. But I do think that given the abundence and lethality of modern AT-weapons the present day manned armored land bemoths will metamorphose into something faster and less valuable.
 
This is out now so I can post this. From what I've heard, it looks doable. There has already been a successful hit on a close fired RPG. It will also be able to track and react to multiple targets.

Raytheon to Develop Hard-Kill Active Protection System for FCS Vehicles Under $70 Million Award

MCKINNEY, Texas, April 25, 2006 /PRNewswire/ --

Raytheon Company (NYSE:RTN) has been awarded a contract worth up to $70 million from BAE Systemsto develop the hard-kill Active Protection System (APS) for Future CombatSystem (FCS) vehicles under a three-phase agreement. The initial phase ispegged at $10 million. The Boeing Company, FCS Lead Systems Integrator, announced theselection of Raytheon as the APS developer earlier this month. APS is a key element in a full-spectrum suite of "hit avoidance"technologies designed to keep FCS manned ground vehicles and their troopssafe from harm. Using FCS's sensors and its common radar, the APS detects,tracks and defeats enemy threats with precision munitions in the blink ofan eye. "This selection will tap Raytheon's sensor, fire control and interceptor expertise to accelerate APS's development and integration with FCS manned ground vehicles and 'spin out' to current force vehicles," said Dennis Muilenburg, FCS program manager and Boeing vice president. "BAE Systems is pleased to have a world-class product developer likeRaytheon on the team to develop this critical element of FCS technology. Weare looking forward to working with Raytheon on the development andintegration of the active protection hard-kill subsystem into the overallvehicle suite of defensive capabilities. Raytheon brings a comprehensivesystems engineering approach and innovative technology options to the APSdevelopment effort," said Sam Cole, FCS Manned Ground Vehicle programmanager for BAE Systems. "APS will shield warfighters and their vehicles from enemy threats,"said Glynn Raymer, vice president of Raytheon Combat Systems. "Using acombination of sensor technologies and precision counter munitions insteadof heavy armor, the new system will also help FCS meet its survivabilityrequirements."
 
Last edited:
No-one walks to battle any more. And as long as you have armored troop carriers, you will have armored troop carrier killers. Their employment will change but they'll be around in some form and fashion for a long time.
 
The missiler will probably be for anti helicopter attacks seeing how the main gun is all you need for just about anything else. I like the Israeli tanks since they have everything in one nice package.
 
The tank will continue to be with us well into the future, although it may change and take new forms. You may say that cavalry is gone from modern warfare, but in a way, tanks are cavalry: heavy, mobile units that support the infantry. Maybe one day the tank will become some different form, but there will always be something to fill that task.

Also, some people mentioned adding AA capability to tanks. That would be rather redundant because armored forces already have specialized AA vehicles (the US Army has a modified Bradley and the USMC a modifed LAV) which travel with armored units and provide AA support. Also, no modern military mission can suceed without air cover, which should take care of any hostile aircraft.

Adding AA to a tank would not only be redundant, but also stretch its capabilities. Now you'll need to make more room for the missile launcher itself, reloads, electronics, and maybe even another crewmember to operate it. It would only decrease the combat effectiveness of the tank.
 
That's all takes are is redundant. The merkava mk 3 had 3 machine gun posts and multiple armored platings to ensure maximal protection. The designers just kept cramming it with whatever a tank could carry and an AA wouldn't be a bad upgrade.
 
The tank will continue to be with us well into the future, although it may change and take new forms. You may say that cavalry is gone from modern warfare, but in a way, tanks are cavalry: heavy, mobile units that support the infantry. Maybe one day the tank will become some different form, but there will always be something to fill that task.

The cavalry primary role is recon, I'd say thats more of the role for the helicopter as the Tank lack mobility and speed and have little in terms of infomation gathering abilities. I'd say the tank is more a throwback to the 'heavy' role of ancient antiquity in terms to its ability to break enemy formations. For example the Greek hoplites or the mediaval knights. which were backly heavy infantry on horseback.
 
The tank will be around for a long time to come. There always needs to be some type of heavy armoured vehical to support the infantry.
 
I bet they'll get lighter since they're big targets as it is and have horrible fuel economy. The usa would especially like smaller tanks since they can transport more overseas, rather than just a handful at time they can send maybe half a dozen or more.

I like the old pre ww2 tanks that weighed 20 tons and fit 2 or 3 people, they remind me of big toys or something.

We ought to develop a light tank that looks like this;
http://www.gearsonline.net/btech/vehicles/btech40.jpg
 
Rabs said:
Isnt that something like what the Israelis are putting the merkeva missilier?
Click to expand...
I haven't read about anything like this system on the Merkava. This is a new concept similar to a Vulcan system on a ship. It is a strike avoidance system using radar, ladar, and highly sophistocated threat sensor suites. All are linked to an extremely fast computer to locate a fired missile, tank round, or RPG and lock on and stop it before it hits the tank/vehicle. No one knows what kind of ordinance will be used for the defense because it's classified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top