Are MBT's becoming obsolete?

[red oct 2]

military technology seems to be focusing more on light vehicles and shoulder fired rocket technology and less on heavy armor. after all MBT's are heavy and cost a lot to transport, cost a lot to maintain and fuel, cost even more when you loose one, and costs a bit to send in a crew to retrieve the wreckage and now w/ current technology are far from indestructable. even attack choppers might be going out of style in favor of small pilotless drones.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/l/blobjectiveforc.htm

Quote[/b] ]The General Dynamics Eagle Enterprise concept for the OFW system of systems includes a Robotic Armored Assault System (RAAS) that may carry three weapon systems, including crew-served weapons, mortars and anti-armor munitions.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/

[EiZei 0]

I would not say that they are obsolete in general but rich nations need lighter firepower because all their wars seem to be fought abroad.

[stevevcb 3]

Replacing conventional MBTs with lightweight systems is all well and good until the enemy have old-fashioned tanks. I can understand why various countries would think swapping sixty-ton beasts for lightly-armoured, air-portable things, as pretty much every war since the Gulf War has been resolved with air power and mechanised infantry due to the situation: unconventional enemy forces, air superiority etc. etc. Thing is, you don't know what's around the corner. For all we know, China might casually take a liking to her neighbours. Korea might finally go off. Try taking on a mass of T72 copiess in an oversized Tonka toy with a 25mm gun on the roof, especially when your air cover's preoccupied with not getting blown out of the sky by a competent enemy air force and air-defence system.

Besides, tanks are just sexy

[hellfish6 7]

I think OIF proved that tanks haven't met their match yet. They're still vitally important and they're still highly effective. Hell, they're even useful in cities.

[red oct 2]

Replacing conventional MBTs with lightweight systems is all well and good until the enemy have old-fashioned tanks. I can understand why various countries would think swapping sixty-ton beasts for lightly-armoured, air-portable things, as pretty much every war since the Gulf War has been resolved with air power and mechanised infantry due to the situation: unconventional enemy forces, air superiority etc. etc. Thing is, you don't know what's around the corner. For all we know, China might casually take a liking to her neighbours. Korea might finally go off. Try taking on a mass of T72 copiess in an oversized Tonka toy with a 25mm gun on the roof, especially when your air cover's preoccupied with not getting blown out of the sky by a competent enemy air force and air-defence system.

Besides, tanks are just sexy

well what makes you think meeting a army of chinese tanks w/ your own would be a good idea? keep in mind they have a ground force of around 2 million. so you really might wana reconsider a different stradegy unless you wana have a large casualties. and whos to say a wheeled vehicle can't carry something larger than a 25mm gun? mount a large gun on it and you'll have something thats cheaper than a tank, faster than a tank, hits as hard as a tank, and doesn't cost as much as maintaining it. infact why even bother w/ a cannon at all? stick a bunch of long range rockets on it. even a soldier w/ a Javelin would be a tanks worst nightmare.

[Apollo 0]

The IDF for one is quite fond of constantly upgrading the armor of their mobile forces.

I figure that the role of armor on a tank is depending on the amount of manpower a country can waste in war.For a country like china due to their manpower mass produced MBT's with lighter armor but more mobilety and firepower (and maybe also fewer oil consumption) would be better to support fit their needs ,while a small and relative low poppulated but rich country like Isreal who often opperate in their backyard in dense regions a tank more geared towards protection of manpower seems logical.

Yet then again for a country like for ex Australia ,having a hughe country to protect with few manpower ,theyr forces would probably more geared towards ligt IFV's easily transported in time of need.

Coices of equipment for an army depend on various geostrategical factor's ,the region youre in ,the friends you have the quality of youre foe's.

Though i must say ,i have seen much more footage from the chechen war where some infantry packed APC or AFV was blown apart than acutally seeing Chechens killing T80's ,in fact i think that withought those MBT's Russia would have gotten a severely harder job in the 2nd Chechen war.

[ran 0]

Try taking on a mass of T72 copiess in an oversized Tonka toy with a 25mm gun on the roof

anyone ?

[Apollo 0]

Yes Ran ,but that's more of a recon vehicle ,i bet such a thing would probably be able to conquer half of Africa on it's own ,but i would still prefer a Merkhava above that while driving trough as IDF tanker trough Rammalah.  

I read about that vehicle though forgot it's name ,but if i'm correct it was 120MM cannon and about 90Kph top speed?

but clasified as recon vehicle AFAIK.

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]Yes Ran ,but that's more of a recon vehicle ,i bet such a thing would probably be able to conquer half of Africa on it's own ,but i would still prefer a Merkhava above that while driving trough as IDF tanker trough Rammalah.

I read about that vehicle though forgot it's name ,but if i'm correct it was 120MM cannon and about 90Kph top speed?

but clasified as recon vehicle AFAIK.

yeah but still destroy a tank right? and if you loose it, than it would be a lot less costly than loosing a MBT right? though you may have a point w/ Isreal's Merkhava, you could do the job w/ a Bradley

[ran 0]

Yes Ran ,but that's more of a recon vehicle ,i bet such a thing would probably be able to conquer half of Africa on it's own ,but i would still prefer a Merkhava above that while driving trough as IDF tanker trough Rammalah.

I read about that vehicle though forgot it's name ,but if i'm correct it was 120MM cannon and about 90Kph top speed?

but clasified as recon vehicle AFAIK.

105, the Italian centauro on the other hand can be fielded with a 120mm gun.

They're all classified as recon vehicles due to their thin skin but their armor weakness are compensed by their speed, mobility, armament and fire control systems. The AMX 10 RC is used as a tank in the french light cavalry regiments.

They were first designed with the soviet threat in mind.

[hellfish6 7]

Well the Army's Future Combat System is designed to fight the enemy from outside the 1000m kill range of most weapon system. It does this with a lot of recon/intel capabilities integrated (1-2 drones/UAVs per vehicle, lots of laser and MMW guided weapons, etc.) And the diret fire systems are supposed to be effective out to about 5000m with new gun technology (and they can probably hit beyond visual range as well, with drones and a few artillery ballistics calculations). Either way, the FCS main battle tank is still supposed to be less than 25 tons.

[red oct 2]

Well the Army's Future Combat System is designed to fight the enemy from outside the 1000m kill range of most weapon system. It does this with a lot of recon/intel capabilities integrated (1-2 drones/UAVs per vehicle, lots of laser and MMW guided weapons, etc.) And the diret fire systems are supposed to be effective out to about 5000m with new gun technology (and they can probably hit beyond visual range as well, with drones and a few artillery ballistics calculations). Either way, the FCS main battle tank is still supposed to be less than 25 tons.

what exactly is the FCS main battle tank? is that something we are working on?

edit:

i think i found it

[DKM Jaguar 0]

well what makes you think meeting a army of chinese tanks w/ your own would be a good idea? keep in mind they have a ground force of around 2 million. so you really might wana reconsider a different stradegy unless you wana have a large casualties. and whos to say a wheeled vehicle can't carry something larger than a 25mm gun? mount a large gun on it and you'll have something thats cheaper than a tank, faster than a tank, hits as hard as a tank, and doesn't cost as much as maintaining it. infact why even bother w/ a cannon at all? stick a bunch of long range rockets on it. even a soldier w/ a Javelin would be a tanks worst nightmare.

In the same way, a heavily armoured tank which is superior to your enemy's will also last a lot longer in the field, and take away the superiority an enemy force with tanks would have over one with vehicles armed lightly and with armour so thin you could push a pencil through it if you try hard enough.

You talk about tanks as though they're made of glass.

Besides, those recon vehicles may be "fast" but they're not THAT fast, a good gunner could hit one traveling in a striaght line as they could a stationary one, I bet, and theyre also pretty heavy for the size of engines they have in them, not to mention the disadvantage of a wheeled vehicle. Tanks can be used for a variety of roles, not just against other tanks. I'd rather be in a 60 ton chobam-armoured Challenger 2 in a urban warfare situation where at least it stands some chance of surviving an RPG hit, than any other vehicle. Mind you, I'd like a C2 anyway.

I think for at least some time they'll be needed.. but then I'm starting to sound like some arm-chair wannabe expert.

And you can forget those games and "experts" who say all future war will feature walking weapons platforms! Why the hell would you have so much money put into weapons, radar, sensors (sci fi shit) and then think "I know, let's put it on the most unstable base you can think of, other than a single pin for it to rest on..

Eventually those wheeled vehicles like you show above will be adopted by everyone, so then country A will

start up-armouring hteirs so they can defeat country B's, who will uparmour theres becuase they can only go so fast anyway, and eventually it will spiral until they're all as heavy, slow, and armoured as tanks, which will then lead the designers to find a solution to hte problem of increasing weight while not adding more tyres, so they'll turn to tracks... then what will you have? A tank.

[hellfish6 7]

China may have an army of 2 million, but remember - they're surrounded by people that hate them. Vietnam, Russia, India, etc. Any one of those countries may take advantage of a distracted China. So while they do have a massive army, there is no way they can bring it to bear without making themselves seriously vulnerable along their borders (or even internally!).

[red oct 2]

China may have an army of 2 million, but remember - they're surrounded by people that hate them. Vietnam, Russia, India, etc. Any one of those countries may take advantage of a distracted China. So while they do have a massive army, there is no way they can bring it to bear without making themselves seriously vulnerable along their borders (or even internally!).

Really? i could understand Japan, South Korea, and Tiawan, but i thought they were under reasonably good terms w/ their other neighbors at least w/ Russia.

[Billabong81 0]

China may have an army of 2 million, but remember - they're surrounded by people that hate them. Vietnam, Russia, India, etc. Any one of those countries may take advantage of a distracted China. So while they do have a massive army, there is no way they can bring it to bear without making themselves seriously vulnerable along their borders (or even internally!).

Really? i could understand Japan, South Korea, and Tiawan, but i thought they were under reasonably good terms w/ their other neighbors at least w/ Russia.

Same! That kinda shocked me...Thats what you get for being a commie .

[hellfish6 7]

China fought a war with Vietnam in '79 and had a small border war going throughout the '80s too. They absolutely hate each other.

India and China fought a war as well ('74?) over the Himalayas. China is considered India's #1 threat (not Pakistan!) and a big reason for the expansion and modernization of their military.

Russia and China have fought a lot of small battles along the Amur River border and have threated to boil over into full scale war several times. Now Russia is supplying China with arms, but there's still a lot of hostility between the two.

[tankieboy 0]

well what makes you think meeting a army of chinese tanks w/ your own would be a good idea? keep in mind they have a ground force of around 2 million. so you really might wana reconsider a different stradegy unless you wana have a large casualties. and whos to say a wheeled vehicle can't carry something larger than a 25mm gun? mount a large gun on it and you'll have something thats cheaper than a tank, faster than a tank, hits as hard as a tank, and doesn't cost as much as maintaining it. infact why even bother w/ a cannon at all? stick a bunch of long range rockets on it. even a soldier w/ a Javelin would be a tanks worst nightmare.

In the same way, a heavily armoured tank which is superior to your enemy's will also last a lot longer in the field, and take away the superiority an enemy force with tanks would have over one with vehicles armed lightly and with armour so thin you could push a pencil through it if you try hard enough.

You talk about tanks as though they're made of glass.

Besides, those recon vehicles may be "fast" but they're not THAT fast, a good gunner could hit one traveling in a striaght line as they could a stationary one, I bet, and theyre also pretty heavy for the size of engines they have in them, not to mention the disadvantage of a wheeled vehicle. Tanks can be used for a variety of roles, not just against other tanks. I'd rather be in a 60 ton chobam-armoured Challenger 2 in a urban warfare situation where at least it stands some chance of surviving an RPG hit, than any other vehicle. Mind you, I'd like a C2 anyway.

I think for at least some time they'll be needed.. but then I'm starting to sound like some arm-chair wannabe expert.

And you can forget those games and "experts" who say all future war will feature walking weapons platforms! Why the hell would you have so much money put into weapons, radar, sensors (sci fi shit) and then think "I know, let's put it on the most unstable base you can think of, other than a single pin for it to rest on..

Eventually those wheeled vehicles like you show above will be adopted by everyone, so then country A will

start up-armouring hteirs so they can defeat country B's, who will uparmour theres becuase they can only go so fast anyway, and eventually it will spiral until they're all as heavy, slow, and armoured as tanks, which will then lead the designers to find a solution to hte problem of increasing weight while not adding more tyres, so they'll turn to tracks... then what will you have? A tank.

This the best and true post so far.

Btw hitting a mover even without computer control isn't that hard.

MBT = Evolution. Why try and remake the wheel? Should we ditch gunpowder for swords?

[Pathy 0]

Listen to Huey. He KNOWS

[Acecombat 0]

Hell, they're even useful in cities.

Are you sure about that Hellfish?

Remember if the resistance is a determined and professional one , those tanks are walking caskets then , it isnt too hard too co-ordinate a 3-4 RPG hit ina city block with plenty of places to hide. Using tanks in a city is foolish imo until unless the opposition is weak and you have capable inf sweeping the area side by side with the tank even then its tough.

[Ares1978 0]

Hell, they're even useful in cities.

Are you sure about that Hellfish?

Remember if the resistance is a determined and professional one , those tanks are walking caskets then , it isnt too hard too co-ordinate a 3-4 RPG hit ina city block with plenty of places to hide. Using tanks in a city is foolish imo until unless the opposition is weak and you have capable inf sweeping the area side by side with the tank even then its tough.

Marching tanks up and down the streets without proper infantry support is just plain stupid. Marching infantry into a city without armored support is not much better, either.

[hellfish6 7]

The Americans seems to be doing a great job of it in Iraq. How many M-1s have been lost to enemy fire since day 1 of the invasion? My guess is less than 20. And of those, how many were actually taken out by insurgents with AT weapons (not 1-ton IEDs?) That's in almost 2 years of fighting, most of it in sprawling urban areas (Fallujah, Baghdad).

[ran 0]

(not 1-ton IEDs?)

or which haven't been lost due to major flaws and lacks in armored FIBUA skills and organisation ...

How many of them have been lost due to all the shit put atop by the crew, catching on fire at the first spark and lighting up the engine ?

[tankieboy 0]

Or "buddy hick" dropping some blue-on-blue SABOT up yer rear?

[hellfish6 7]

Bah. Defeatists!