What? if anything, will ever make the tank obsolete?

The bombers have to get through first, all the chinese need is a load of anti aircraft defences and they won't.

 

Boy, did we ever get off topic!

 

Boy, we sure did.

 

I don't agree on the tank not being obsolete because no one has yet to fully implement a full scale "air assault". The concept is quite sound.

True, it requires complete air superiority and nuetralization of Air defence systems. Your point?

Successful tank combat requires nuetralization of the enemy's ATG capabilities. Same issue, different players.

Given proper execution (boy that's a biggie), the true air assault will completely nuetralize enemy combat forces of any type and size. The only way to stop it is by a successful air defense system of planes and AD systems.

It still remains the old chess game; simply using different pieces.

With rapid deployment air assault forces you can defend larger areas, attack larger areas in less time, with less men, effectively.

Just because it has not been fully incorporated does not mean it's wrong.

I fully believe the only reason you still see MBT's is because of the old battleship mentality, just like in WW1.

Time will prove it one way or another.

:smok:

 

The problem associated with aerial assaults and smaller forces is that it becomes more difficult to hold onto the ground you have conquered afterwards.

 

That's where I agree with Patton.

"The only thing we are holding on to is the enemy".

It is very difficult to conquer and occupy a country. The smart general conquers, he does not occupy.

Eliminate the enemy's ability to wage war major against you and get out.

Something the Bush administration does not seem to realize!

Oops! I said it; and I'm a Republican!

:smok:

 

But then you leave a country that is incredibly embittered against you.
Remember Germany after WW1?

 

They will be bitter whether you are there or not. Also, I forgot.

You also make the loser pay for your expense to fight the war.

:smok:

 

Greg - you are describing exactly what was done to Germany after WW1. And look what happened.

Compare that to how we treated Germany & Japan after WW2, and how 'bitter' they are...

 

What you must do, according to the much loathed Nicollò Machiavelli, when you conquer a nation, is either you move in to live there or you enclose the nation in colonies of your own people.

When you move there, people will be closer to their new ruler and therefore either more afraid of him or more in awe of him. Either way, you will be close to any trouble that might arise and thus you can act to control it very quickly.

When you enclose it in colonies, you will have removed people of the defeated nation, who will spread across the land telling everybody of how they have been treated, instilling fear. At the same time you make it much harder for them to call upon neighbouring countries for help, because htey'd have to cross your own lands.

 

That's what the Babylonians did when they took Jerusalem; they removed the population to Babylon. Persia conquered Babylon several years later and allowed the Israelites to return and rebuild the city.

 

The reason why Germany became the land of of poor angry people after World War 2 has more to do with Versailles. You either fight a war or occupy a country - you don't do both simultaneously. You destroy the central nervous system of the enemy and reduce the conventional warfare capability of the enemy, then you move in and occupy. Treat the people nice and you won't encounter too much trouble. Remember that hardcore radicals always constitute a small proportion of the populace - the majority are likely to cause trouble only if they have reason to.

 

Yup. And the choice to allow a 100,000 man army wasn't very bright either. When the Germans started rearming they had a nice core of 100,000 NCOs and officers ready for action!

 

It always returns to Bread & Circuses, doesn't it...

It is interesting that revolts by peasants in Medieval Europe have always coincided with periods of economic prosperity. Suddenly, instead of spending every second of their life scratching for a living, they have surplas cash. They can climb socially. They can afford luxuries. They can become landowners, even employers. Then the nobility (and the richer merchants) step in, and ensure that laws are passed to inhibit the peasant's accumulation of wealth. Having tasted the good life, no peasant wants to go back to scrabbling in the mud. So they revolt.

Actually, most of these revolts tended to include far more 'lower middle class' (merchants, craftsmen, etc) than actual peasants. Generally as they had more to gain & more to lose. Actual peasants tended to burn tax records & land ownership documents, kill the tax collector, then nick as much stuff as they could from his lands and the lands of the local gentry before going home happy.

The moral of my rather sidetracked story?
If people's life is constant, be it constant struggle for survival, or constantly 'comfortable', they are happy. If you disturb that constancy, they will not like it.

Funny things, people.

 

Its the ruling class that doesn't like change, not the people. A democratic system is designed specifically to prevent oppression from taking place.

 

But then why do oppressed people rarely rise up?

Sometimes it is because they are very firmly kept down by a very 'muscular' regime.
Most often it is because if they have a roof over their head and a reasonably full belly then they would rather cling to that than risk losing it.

The masses do prefer change - but rarely if ever initiate it.

 

Ruling class don't mind change just as long as they remain the ruling class.

Why do you think Britain has until very very recently had a second branch of government (the House of Lords) where entry was decided by sound knowledge of the old boys network or the ability to inbreed successfully (the hereditary peers).

It's when the peasant scum start thinking that they should have some say in the running of the show that the problems start.

 

There is one factor that might make the tank disappear from the battlefield, at least in large numbers: Cost. Given how expensive tanks are, and how likely it is that the price tag will continue to increase, that factor alone may well end the reign of the tank.

 

Except that we are now seeing a return to lighter, cheaper tanks (mostly for the export markets to 'poorer' countries).
There will possibly be a division like the F-15 / F-16 - one very capable but expensive, one smaller, with not quite the ability, and far cheaper.

 

A definite possibility. Some years ago, I saw a documentary which told how some armies were turning to armored cars rather than tanks. Same firepower, good armor, but much cheaper than any tank. That might also be an option.