Will the battle tank become obsolete?
What is the tank's fate in the future of combat? The tank like all other forms of warfare will evolve to meet the requirements of the battlefield as all other units have. An example of this is how in the beginning days of tanks they were used principally for infantry support roles. Then in World War 2 the tank was used as a spearhead unit and was a chief component of the war. Now a days the tank has, in some ways, gone back to its first role as infantry support. In Iraq and Afganistan tanks along with air support are mainly used to clear out any hotspots that is too dangerous and strong for the infantry to take out. This is the tactic being used in the occupation and policing a country. The verdict? I believe that the tank in the future will be used to spearhead adnances across the battlefield, but return to its old tactic of infantry support after the major fighting has ceased. But let it be known that no matter what form the tank will take shape in the future, heavy or light, it will always have a place in the military.
No,Tank will alive in the future.
ATM is much expensive than gun for long time.
And,developpers learned threat of russian Anti-tank weapons and they will develop new defence weapons.
The rumor,mitsubishi tank designers changed their tank model greately by result of Israel-hezbollah war last summer.
ATM is much expensive than gun for long time.
And,developpers learned threat of russian Anti-tank weapons and they will develop new defence weapons.
The rumor,mitsubishi tank designers changed their tank model greately by result of Israel-hezbollah war last summer.
Or should the title be "When will the battle tank become obsolete?"
In the history of warfare, sooner or later, every weapon devised has become obsolete, replaced by something newer, better, meaner. There is no reason to believe the tank won't do the same.
I'm interested in hearing opinions.
Redleg, as an artillery officer, what do you think?
In the history of warfare, sooner or later, every weapon devised has become obsolete, replaced by something newer, better, meaner. There is no reason to believe the tank won't do the same.
I'm interested in hearing opinions.
Redleg, as an artillery officer, what do you think?
mmarsh
Active member
I think the role of the tank will change. If Iraq proved anything, it proved that even the best MBT like the Abrams can be destroyed by the simplest of ways, such as strapping 2 155mm shells together, and attaching a detonator.
Then of course there is Anti-tank missiles fired from aircraft/helicopters, from technicals, from infantry. Simple AT-Mines, Artillery, Cannon firing DU ammunition.
So if I were to hazard a guess of what the future lies, I would say with less protected, but faster, more menueverable, more expendable vehicles. I know the Army has tested remotely operated vehicles. There is certainly a future there.
Then of course there is Anti-tank missiles fired from aircraft/helicopters, from technicals, from infantry. Simple AT-Mines, Artillery, Cannon firing DU ammunition.
So if I were to hazard a guess of what the future lies, I would say with less protected, but faster, more menueverable, more expendable vehicles. I know the Army has tested remotely operated vehicles. There is certainly a future there.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Dean
Active member
In a fairly recent policy paper, Gen. R Hillier, the CDS of the Canadian Armed Forces stated that the Leopard C1 A4s were "millstones around the neck of the Army". He went on to state that the tank was obsolete, and that it should be replaced by lighter vehicles that have the same firepower. (i.e., the Stryker MGS) However, since that time, the Canadian Army has deployed their heavy armour in Afghanistan and found that the Leo C1 is the best weapon system for the job, but it also has serious problems, particularly in the summer. It turns out that the temperature in the fighting compartment can pass 45 degrees celsius, which is too hot for continued operations. As a result, the Canadian Army has ordered 120 Leopard 2A4s and 2A6s to replace the Leo 1s, and has put the entire LAV MGS system on hold. The result of all this? Well, General Hillier admitted that he was as wrong as he could possibly get, and the main battle tank will remain in the Canadian Forces inventory for some time to come. Tanks are just to damn good at what they do. No matter how good the AT systems in use are, disabling a tank is till a relatively difficult thing to do, as Hezbollah found out, and even a damaged tank can be an incredibly dangerous thing to have in front of you.
The tank is here to stay.
Dean.
The tank is here to stay.
Dean.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
On the claim of an Abrams MBT being destroyed by an IED or any other enemy orndance I call b******t.
Desert Storm I
Desert Storm II... OIF... et al
Desert Storm I
Desert Storm II... OIF... et al
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-abrams
Dean
Active member
Hi again Bulldogg.
Usually I agree with you, but this time, I think you are playing a little fast and loose with the word "disabled". It seems to me that if there is a fire burning in the fighting compartment and that one or more crewmen have been killed as a result of that fire, the tank is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. However, the hull and some other components, which are not flammable, can always be re-used, which gives rise to the wording used. If the tank is hit and burning, and the crew is wounded, killed or has to bail out, the tank is effectively out of action for quite some time. That means killed in my book.
Dean.
Dean.
Usually I agree with you, but this time, I think you are playing a little fast and loose with the word "disabled". It seems to me that if there is a fire burning in the fighting compartment and that one or more crewmen have been killed as a result of that fire, the tank is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed. However, the hull and some other components, which are not flammable, can always be re-used, which gives rise to the wording used. If the tank is hit and burning, and the crew is wounded, killed or has to bail out, the tank is effectively out of action for quite some time. That means killed in my book.
Dean.
Dean.
I would like to see a source for this as well please.
A direct hit of a 155mm shell may disable a tank, but just detonating one or two sounds a bit unlikely to me (unless you're very (un)lucky)...
mmarsh
Active member
As requested by REDLEG and BULLDOGG. 3 Sources provided.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.pbase.com/bander/image/61666698
This is Jon's tank after it hit an IED in the summer of 2005. He was not in the tank at the time, and his crew got out safely. They had hit other mines without serious damage, especially in 2003-2004 when they were in Anbar Province. The insurgents started to "daisy-chain" artillery shells together and that's what purportedly destroyed this Abrams. The fuel cell was ruptured and the tank was incinerated. I gave Jon a Canon 510 before he left for this second tour and he had a buddy snap this shot.
And another Link from another incident...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/10/85616.shtml
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A roadside bomb destroyed a U.S. battle tank patrolling southwestern Baghdad on Monday, killing two American soldiers and wounding four others, the military said.
The blast destroyed the Abrams tank, the military said, suggesting that the bomb was enormous. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles in the U.S. arsenal.
VIDEO OF ABRAMS BEING DISABLED/DESTROYED by IED (cannot tell for sure, but you can see big chunks of debris flying off so the damage was likely extensive).
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e3_1176013329
Last edited:
jequirity
Active member
I seem to recall some threads on tanknet (I think) debating whether a tank can be classified as "destroyed" or not as some people think that as long as the tank can be repaired it cannot be classed as destroyed, whereas others say destroyed can be understood as being unavailable for a few months.
Either way, theres always gonna be arguments on what counts on being destroyed etc, probably best to be more specific about the damage done to a tank, how long it takes to repair, whether it has to be repaired in another theatre etc.
Main thing is that the crewmen in the buggered abrams got out safely
(link to tanknet thread)
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18894
Either way, theres always gonna be arguments on what counts on being destroyed etc, probably best to be more specific about the damage done to a tank, how long it takes to repair, whether it has to be repaired in another theatre etc.
Main thing is that the crewmen in the buggered abrams got out safely
(link to tanknet thread)
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18894
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Thanks MMarsh and fair comment from you Jequirity. On this subject, ie "destroyed" tanks, I usually defer to the DoD. I was in a heavy maintenance battalion so I've spent more than a few hours up close and personal with this beast. I would like to ferret out how many arty shells they daisy chained to take this baby out.
Dean
Active member
Bulldogg quoted:
On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by a roadside bomb that left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.
Perhaps I am wrong, but the only way for the crewman to be dead and the tank burning is if the armour had been breached. Now, there is a possibility that the fuel tank was burning and that the crewman was killed by the concussive effects of the IED, but either way, the tank was burning and out of action.
You also quoted:
On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.
Again, if the two men were tank crewmen, (as is implied) then the only real possibility that I can see for 2 dead crewmen is that the armour was breached. In addition, due to the fact that three of the four crewmen are stationed in the fighting compartment, logic seems to dictate that the IED breached the fighting compartment, killing the two men inside. The other was probably saved by the anti-spall liner.
Again, dead crew, breached tank, it is also out of action for the time being.
The M-1 is a good tank. But keep in mind that no tank is invincible, and no tank can stand up to an enemy that has access to semi sophisticated weapons and a bit too much time. The Israelis found that out long before the Lebanon war when a Merkava ran over three heavy antitank mines that had been stacked one on top of the other. It killed 3 of the 4 crewmen and gutted the tank, as well as flipping it right over. Many people consider it the best protected tank in the world. But it, as well as the M-1, the Leo 2 or other tank can be defeated. Both the Iraqis and Hezbollah have proven that.
Dean.
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
I should clarify myself. My point was merely to state that arty shells were being jury rigged to destroy tanks, I did not actually mean to comment on the specific amount of explosives needed to do so. On that point, I readily concede that your are much more knowledgeable than I, so I wont even try to dispute you.
The reason I said "2" was because I had read a description of the typical type of IAD they were finding in Iraq consisted of arty shells (often 2x155mm shells bound with duct tape and a simple detonator) and that these type of contraptions had resulted in the destruction/disabling of several Abrams.
Whether specifically two shells were used in the destruction of the Abrams I cannot say for sure. I defer that to the experts, although the fact that the terrorists are daisy chaining explosives would imply that more that 2 explosive devices are being used.
Last edited:
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Thank you for clarifying your line of reasoning Dean.
Here is the more probable scenario...
Armour was not breached, they weren't buttoned up.
The driver and the commander have the option to be exposed for greater field of vision, essential in an urban environment. This also exposes their head and upper torso to blasts and small arms fire.
KJ
Active member
Another important fact..
In Bosnia our peacekeepers found that when hit by an AT missile, such as the (AT3 Sagger) and the RSV burned through, the only thing that saved the troops and crew was that they were "buttoned up" as the RSV had somewhere to go and leave the inside of the vehicle.
This would also be aplicable to the Stryker and the Bradly I would imagine.
The Abrams might be built to take a direct hit by a sagger?
As stated by BD before though, the better vantage point up top is very important in urban inviroments and is SOP, atleast in our Armour units.
In Bosnia our peacekeepers found that when hit by an AT missile, such as the (AT3 Sagger) and the RSV burned through, the only thing that saved the troops and crew was that they were "buttoned up" as the RSV had somewhere to go and leave the inside of the vehicle.
This would also be aplicable to the Stryker and the Bradly I would imagine.
The Abrams might be built to take a direct hit by a sagger?
As stated by BD before though, the better vantage point up top is very important in urban inviroments and is SOP, atleast in our Armour units.