The role of the tank today ?

i'm suspicious of the weisel's claims to beable to carry 6 troopers. i swear, they'd have to sit on each other's laps.

i'd like a modern BMD (Soviet). And with hand-rails so they can carry troopers externally.

i guess this is where the stryker comes in. anyone knows if the stryker can be airdropped?

 

Airborne tanks - we're back to the Tetrach!
WW2 kinda proved that tanks with tinfoil armour are dead tanks.

Nowadays, with the bountiful abundance of hand-held AT missile systems, this holds true more than ever before.

Sheridan RIP, Stryker...

 

Carry troops externally?! With the firepower troops today have to face? I think not. :-?

 

No no, not for assault purposes. But to quickly transport a battalion from point A to point B. Even a 30 mile short drive is going to tire the troops out before they can get to their blocking or staging point.

 

Isn't the Wiesel 2 bigger for troop transport?

 

I saw a photo of it with the back doors open and troopers sat side by side. Boy was it cozy in there. It looked like they got 6 into an area designed for 4. I suspect all gears less their rifle was store exterior. It's amazing how small that thing is. Reminds me of a Volk Bug.

 

This might be true but at 2-3 tons its the lightest armored weapons carriers you can get ...which is ideal for a light infantry troops deployment. Some BMD for main squad transport might not be a bad idea . It might be that Wiesel 2 is a 1/2 squad carrier, like the SPW-250?

 

Wow, that's a Humvee weight. Especially compared to a clean Stryker at 19 tons that carries 9+2.

 

Aren't you talking about the BMP not the BMD? But anyways, I've been in the troop compartment of a BMP, and it's not cozy. It's cramped especially with your combat gear. Also the BMP won't protect you from 20mm armor peircing rounds. Same with other tanks like the M-113, once a 20 round enters the compartmed it bouces back and forth inside of the compartment until the soldiers are ripped to shreds.

 

Well the thinking is the effectiveness of airborn/airmobile forces. THey have airsupport but lack any kind of organic mobility to say nothing of armored mobility. Its true that no such light APC is going to offer the needed protection, but thats not the issue with these AFVs. It has been shown in the past that arty generates most causlties in non urban battlfields and even the smallest amount of armor screens out this threat. Secondly mobile groups are always much more survivable than legmobile groups.

 

Back to the original question. Tanks will always be a valuable asset to the infantry. Sure it is vulnerable to aerial attacks and even hand-held AT weapons, however it provides badly needed fire support for foot soldiers, as well as protection against enemy armors. If I am a rifleman, I prefer to have a tank on my side when I am advancing against enemy positions.

Even though people claimed that tanks are "useless" weapons since WWII, it has continued to prove itself in the middle east conflicts, as well as in the last 2 gulf wars.

No matter how dominating the Air Force or the navies are, it 's still up to the foot soldiers to physically wrestle territories away from your enemy, and for that, a tank is indispensable.

 

True, the tank isn't useless, but its role in a modern conventional battlefield is far less pivotal than it was 50 years ago. Its IMO somewhat like the way heavy knights disappeared from the 16th century battlefield. It is far easier and more practical to create a weapon that can penetrate a certain amount of armour than it is to create a piece of armour that can withstand the said weapon, not to mention the fact that the bigger the platform, the more armour required. Do remember that for the amount of time and money it takes to construct a tank, it is possible to equip a group of foot soldiers with far superior firepower, though the tank will retain its advantage in range, mobility and protection from anti-personnel weaponry. It will nonetheless remain highly vulnerable to anti-tank devices, which have become far more effective than their World War 2 counterparts despite a notable increase in the quality of tank armour.

If the tank is to survive, then it will have to retain its advantage in range. The shoulder-mounted anti-tank missile is capable of knocking out a tank from a consdierable range at a fraction of the former's cost. ECM countermeasures will have to be introduced sooner or later in order to combat the threat posed by the anti-tank missile. How effectively ECM can do its job will probably determine the fate of the tank, although the chances of it returning to its former glory are fairly slim to say the least.

The future of the conventional battlefield lies in the air. The tank will remain important, but they are no longer battle-winning machines by themselves.

 

I don't think they ever were, however I broadly agree with what your saying but I would make an adjustment.

The current generation of MTBs were designed to fight WW3 it seems likely that the next generation of MTBs will be smaller, lighter and more portable. Thus better suited to the future battlefields. There almost definately will be at least one more generation of battle tank so given how long equipment stays in service we can't expect to see the back of the tank before oh... 2050 at the very earliest, assuming something doesn't come along and render all tanks obsolete.

 

I agree with Ebar overall. But I don't think that missiles will automatically doom them on the battlefield unless the level of training of most of those trying to engage them with missiles improves dramatically. A trained soldier has a much better chance of scoring a first round hit than, say, an Iraqi or Palestinian terrorist.

 

While I admit that a tank is terribly vulnerable on the battlefield, the same can be said for most weapons.
Imagine a 30-million dollar F-22 being taken out at low altitude by shoulder mount missiles or a battler of 40mm guns, or an Apache being knocked out by a single 30mm cannon, heck even a lucky hit from the silk worm anti-ship missile can probably do serious damage to an aircraft carrier.
I agree that the future AFV should be lighter for quick deployment (air-lifted) and highly versatile to be re-equiped to fight in any environment.

 

Good points. It just remains to be seen if these requirements are ever recognized or acted upon.