decline of tanks?

It's strange how the military have not yet understood the message of how obsolete tanks are. The anti-tank guided missile has come into stage in significant numbers in 34 years ago in 1973, and still the military haven't learnt the lesson. Instead they have been wasting the taxpayer's money with pieces of junk like the M-1, Challenger I&II, Leclerc, Leopard II, Merkava I-II-III-IV, T-80, T-72 both in several incremental modernisations, T-90, Arjun. Worse, all of the before have had several upgrades and modernizations in power train, armour modular packages, fire control systems, missile detection and active defense, etc. Yes, they certainly are taking long in seeing the light because new tanks are selling like hot cakes.

[/sarcasm]

 

Za, the tanks you mention are all heavy main battle tanks, which are almost not vulnerable to small rockets/missiles like RPGs.

Only more sophisticated and powerfull weapon systems, like wire guided antitank missiles for example (or, by the way, the missiles that are now mounted on these very tanks) are able to deal serious damage to them, but this kind of weapons are not widespread in 3rd world armies or guerillas, and they require advanced training.

That's the reason why I think MBT are still usefull weapons (see my example about the very few M1 losses in the Gulf), contrary to small/medium/old tanks, or light AFV which can be disabled by "basic" rocket launchers and therefore are very vulnerable.

 

Choccy, you have to consider that the tanks above are invulnerable or are hoped to be in the ront aspect, which is where the thick plate is. They are not nearly so on the side and rear aspects. That's why the US lost a number of the mighty M-1s in Iraq recently where they were being operated in less than optimal tactical conditions, and lost to weaker types of projectiles which certaily would scratch the paint on the front aspect only, but were quite effective on the sides.

 

Only coward bolshevik gangsters shoot tanks in the back !

Anyway, do you know the type of weapon they used and if the M1 were really disabled (crew killed or at least weapon system K.O.) ?

Last summer I also heard Israelis lost some Markeva to Hezbollah militians, I wonder what weapons were used.

 

There's some talk of them having used some of the latest Russian man-portable AT gear like the AT14 Komet, these newer systems seem to be penetrating over a metre of armour at very long ranges these days? (I don't think the merkava is carrying the very latest versions of armour plate yet either... but don't quote me on this )
When I last looked into it (during the conflict) it appeared that the majority of the Israeli losses were not of the most up to date Merkavas but largely of secondary (still heavily armoured nonetheless) 'b' and engineer vehicles? I'm sure better info has come to light since though.
Whatever, it was still a nasty bloody nose for an Israel who's doctrine is to be more powerful militarily than all it's neigbouring states combined.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

I would say that the rules of WWII still apply.

1. Do not use armour in confined areas such as cities or forests.
2. Use them to attack with speed and distance.
3. Use them when air superiority is acheived.

I am sure there are others but the rules still apply. Tanks came in handy during the opening stages of the invasion of Iraq but now, tanks are vulnerable within the confines of the city and can easily be brewed up with a molotov cocktail. So I would say it would depend on the type of warfare.

 

Consider also that insurgants are using some pretty advanced ideas, special shaped charges which are remotely fired and are caable of putting a slug through the engine block of an up armoured Warrior.

On the other hand I have just been looking at the armour losses in Iraq and Afganistan in 2003, the UK lost 1 Challenger and 2 Scimitars (all of which were shot by US forces).

 

And insurgents/ NVA /partisons or anyone else who wants to live and play another day.

The Viet Cong could hide in their tunnels when a big Patton tank rumbled through the jungle, maybe pop out and try a score then run back to their rice paddies like nothing happened.

 

thanks for answers

I would add to PzJgr rules : use combined tanks + infantry (the latter being for example efficient at clearing concealed enemy AT soldiers).

I didn't know Russia ever exported Komet, I thought only "good old" Spigots and Spandrels were for sale.
But i checked and it appears some have been sold to Syria...now it's easy to figure how some of them can have ended in Hezbollah's hands.

 

I think the evolutions in tank warfare made in the 20th century by people like Guderian and Patton are being forgotten. The tank is returning to it's original purpose as an infantry support weapon. I suppose this is due to the change in either the way wars are fought (and where they are fought) these days OR we are becoming obsessed with technolgical upgrades when all you really need is a good sturdy vehicle with a cannon and a machine gun (as well as a few other odds and ends ). Every time we lose a vehicle thats a couple million US dollars down the drain. Tanks are becoming individual armies rather than parts of tank units. Using them like they are being used now in Iraq defeats their purpose. Perhaps they are obsolete in the present situation over there but, there are definitely still situations today fit for the emplyment of tanks.

 

But are they really aplicable? If anything the lessons of Guderian et al are not appropriate to the kind of conflict being fought, that said, it's worth remember that training doctrines (at least in the UK) are stuck in the cold war anyhow so the tactics used in conventional warfare will remain on the sylabus for the forseeable future.

Like armour that is impervious to almost anything (latest chobham, god bless it) or fantastic targetting systems? I'd say they were natural progressions, after all, if you want a sturdy vehicle with a cannon and an MG why not just take out a Sherman or T34?

I disagree, the use of armour in Iraq and Afganistan may not fit in with the doctrine of 50 years ago, however they are useful and are serving their purpose well. Ultimately the role of the tank can never be anything but support of the infantry (tanks without infantry are dead) but they provide protection, massive additional firepower, observation platforms (with their NV systems) and so on. They aren't defeating their purpose, they have just found a new one.

 

Anyone knows why we didn't use poison gas in WW2? (Don't tell me Hitler considered it Jewish)

 

I believe Hitler chose not to employ gas (in combat) due to his experiences with it during WWI. As for the US not using it I am not sure. It was illegal under the Geneva Convention but I think it may have been a "we will use it if they use it" type of deal but that is only speculation.

Which is why I think there needs to be a line drawn between tanks, and vehicles made for urban combat. The designers need to go back to the drawing boards and come up with a vehicle suited for that situation. New tanks like the Abrams are really still designed along the same lines that tanks were back in WWII. These tanks were made for fighting in an open environment operating with other tanks, often engaging opposing tanks. That really doesn't happen anymore. I think the whole idea of "the tank" needs to be reconsidered and modified drastically to suit modern situations; mostly in urban environments.

 

The tank is not obsolete. Nor are doctrines. The co-operation of infantry and armour have existed since 1916.

What is the problem of using tanks in war? Urban settings? Would you as president of the US decide that we wait until the invader comes to New York City before we fight him because it will be more costly for the attacker?

Most fighting takes place away from important installations. After all the army is guarding these. In the initial phase 'conventional combat' takes place. A good commander will always find a way of using his AFV with little risk of destruction. In other phases such as urban fighting the tank is less useful.

The referance to Iraq is difficult because there is no 'conventional' war going on. A civil war with insurgents trying to win over the masses to oust the foreigners is hardly conventional in any way. In such a setting the police becomes a more important factor than the soldier. Looking at the troubles in Northern Ireland where the most professionly trained and organised terrorists to walk the earth learned us one thing. They must be treated for what they are: criminals. Infiltrate them and find the spider at the centre of the net. Take the spider and you take the rest. The paras were not a welcome part of the city picture, and hardly fit for the task. (can anyone say Bloody Sunday?)

The first thing we learn before going on Blue helmet operations is how to defuse situations. That means loose the Ray Bans and the helmet. Learn a few phrases of the local lingo. Learn about local taboos and treat people with respect. I know like most that the Norwegians on missions has had lady luck on their lap for the last 50 odd years, but there has been a focus on the previously mentioned actions. I choose to think that it has helped us.

As for Guderian what new did he bring to the table? Nowt. It was demonstrated on Sailsbury plain in 1929. However the politicians in Britain were not occupied with Army re-arment. Herr Hitler was, and using armoured formations fitted nicely with his ideas of Blitzkrieg. Not an original thought since the Prussians had thought of it a good 120 years earlier. (vernichtungsgedanke/kesselslacht)

The issue of Armour is the issue of infantry or the issue of Air power. Every twenty years we re-invent the Powder as we say in Norwegian. Only to learn that we have already thought of this before.

Armour, like any other part of an Army, needs to be applied where it should be applied to be effective. And yes I could do with a T-34 or a Sherman in the right cicumstances.

 

Most modern wars are not conventional and I think Irak is a correct reference because most conflicts nowadays involve guerilla-type warfare, with irregular units, ambushes etc etc

 

No my lad. The campaign's INITIAL phase (as I mentioned) was conventional. As for what is going on now.. It's been a while since Mr Bush stood on the carrier and proclaimed that the war was over.

Same on the Balkans. The war was war. The aftermath is different.

 

OK, I just meant that this INITIAL phase, at least if you are refering to the more or less 3 weeks long starter until Bagdad fell, was not really representative of the overall Iraq war (relative lenght, casualties, cost), and therefore not representative of most modern wars.

Anyway, as I said above I believe MBT are still usefull to some extent in non-conventional wars, even if they are not as unvulnerable as I thought at first.

 

Decided to bump this thread to add this article, rather than start a brand new one.,
"The US Army has revealed plans to replace tanks with small, 'off road' vehicles covered in smart armour.
Military bosses says the current tanks are hindering soldier's ability to get into battle.
They say the future is a small vehicle called the GXV-T.
Darpa hopes the new vehicle will:
Reduce vehicle size and weight by 50 percent
Reduce onboard crew needed to operate vehicle by 50 percent
Increase vehicle speed by 100 percent
Access 95 percent of terrain
Reduce signatures that enable adversaries to detect and engage vehicles
'For the past 100 years of mechanized warfare, protection for ground-based armored fighting vehicles and their occupants has boiled down almost exclusively to a simple equation: More armor equals more protection,' Darpa said.
'Weapons' ability to penetrate armor, however, has advanced faster than armor's ability to withstand penetration.

'As a result, achieving even incremental improvements in crew survivability has required significant increases in vehicle mass and cost.
'The trend of increasingly heavy, less mobile and more expensive combat platforms has limited Soldiers' and Marines' ability to rapidly deploy and maneuver in theater and accomplish their missions in varied and evolving threat environments.'
The Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program, dubbed 'X-planes for tanks', is designed to develop a range of new vehicles.



[SIZE=1.2em]'GXV-T's goal is not just to improve or replace one particular vehicle - it's about breaking the 'more armor' paradigm and revolutionizing protection for all armored fighting vehicles,' said Kevin Massey, DARPA program manager. [/SIZE]



'Inspired by how X-plane programs have improved aircraft capabilities over the past 60 years, we plan to pursue groundbreaking fundamental research and development to help make future armored fighting vehicles significantly more mobile, effective, safe and affordable.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2729325/The-future-tanks-US-military-reveals-small-road-vehicles-smart-armour-set-replace-bulky-vehicles.html#ixzz3At7io8x7

 

During the closing stages of ww2 i found myself in an armoured unit chasing the enemy Northward out of Italy.

My unit, the 4th QOH, employed all types of armour to achieve it's goal but the most effective were the Kangaroos, the infantry carrying hybrids that were able to bring troops right up to the point of contact with the enemy.

During the war many different types of armoured vehicles were designed and then used to solve particular problems and I've no doubt at all that the same would occur in any similar situation today.

Ron