Are MBT's becoming obsolete?

[ran 0]

Bah. Defeatists!

Don't spam

But you have to admit that the good sense would make you leave all the needless shit in the camp on on the back of the logistics trucks. You don't need 2 weeks of supplies on the turret neck of your toy.

IIRC there were a lot less blue on blue accidents involving armored vehicles this time than in GW1 especially due to more efficient IR panels and better Night Vision equipment.

[Tovarish 0]

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.

Russia and China went sour after the death of Stalin. Mao took offence to Kruschev's de-Stalination of the USSR, and things got pretty hostile. I've seen a few Soviet propaganda shorts about the Chinese threat, mostly involving the border skirmishes Hellfish mentioned. My mother also told me when she was young she was very prejudiced against Chinese because of this, which only changed when she went to Cuba where there were a lot of Chinese as well as Russians.

[DKM Jaguar 0]

I think a lot of the M1's lost were becuase the crews were too busy putting music through their intercoms so couldn't hear each other talking

But really... why do that? Sure, it's ok to play music during OFP.. but that's real life for god's sake.

But I think everyone would agree that a tank such as the M1 stands a far better chance in the ubran situations than, say a Bushmaster Hummer (we're talking about developing wepaonsystem I guess here, as MBTs are not obsolete yet). The hummer is almost as wide as an M1 and not a huge amount lower, so to a frontal attack are just as vulnerable as an M1 to being hit, but after 2 RPG hits which one is going to be still recognisable? Both would have 4-men crews, so the same number of lives lost..plus a vehicle with wheels doesn't fare as well even where small arms are concerned, run flat tires are only of use when they are attached to the vehicle, an RPG strike could probably knock a good-sized tire off the axel..

A tank can also be disabled but I would expect steel tracks last a lot longer in those environments.

The problem with tanks is that they're heavy, and in a narrow street (notice how so far the only type of fighting that has been identified as one a tank struggles in, is urban) they block them when knocked out. But the chances of a tank sufering a total-kill not just an M-kill are less, so at least from that position the tank can form a kind of pillbox and defend itself to some degree, while a less armoured vehicle would not hold out as long, making recovery of that vehicle a lot harder, as the vehicles sent to move it out of the way/recover it would also come under fire.

Maybe I went on a bit long with this, but my point is, there's no perfect fighting method for urban warfare. You need a fast, highly mobile, heavily armed (as in 120mm HE shells) force that can also be armoured enough to take concetrated fire and as we all know from tank design: Fire power, mobility and protection are all compromises in any design, there is no single design which encompases all three completely, and the same would be for any vehicle.

But really, what do I know.. I have no experience of this stuff I'm pleased to say, my hat goes off to anyone who has.

[ozanzac 0]

MBT's aren't obsolete yet.......however, a mass armoured confrontation, seems ever more unlikely to ever occur. Air power has well and truly taken over the 'Tank killing' roll, and enemy armoured forces are more likely to be obliterated by air power before coming into contact with opposition armour.

Their role seems to be made redundant, however, in an urban area, with proper infantry support, they are still the force to be reckoned with…as air power isn’t able to get as down and dirty as a tank.

My 2 cents.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

there's no perfect fighting method for urban warfare.

Well, if an urban area offers too much resistance, I think the best option is still to put it out of the fight completely... either with a B/C strike or with HE rockets... If those fail, ah, well, what are those tactical nukes doing in storage anyway? (Yeah, I like my cities FLAT!)

Seriously thinking about it, with the new tank designs having even heavier guns (next-gen MBTs are planned to take 140mm to 150mm+ guns if I'm not mistaken), seems they can do some serious damage to city buildings in their own rights... Should give potential RPGers something to think about...

[Ares1978 0]

BUZZARD @ Feb. 27 2005,04:20)]Well, if an urban area offers too much resistance, I think the best option is still to put it out of the fight completely... either with a B/C strike or with HE rockets... If those fail, ah, well, what are those tactical nukes doing in storage anyway?    (Yeah, I like my cities FLAT!)  

Sure, as long as it's not one of your own cities.

[Acecombat 0]

Hellfish only reason why there havent been much RPG kills in Iraq was , because they dont have the type of RPG's needed to take down a ABrams quickly and mostly because these insurgents are amatuers most of them atleast , they are only capable of yelling "allah akbar' at the top of their voice rather then fighting properly

Whats the russian MBT casualty rate in chechnya btw? Anyone got any info on that? I have a feeling maybe those guys have been more lucky in this aspect? Plus maybe also look up on MBT kills (if there were good MBTS then) during 1979-89 soviet afghan clash.

[tankieboy 0]

I used to rig music through my intercom...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

MBT's are definitely not obsolete. Take Greece and Turkey for example. Each of our air forces have well over 300 aircraft, many of them dedicated bombers like A7s, F4s, and lots of high-tech 3rd gen aircraft poised to enter service soon (f-16 block52, perhaps even block 60), as well as orders for 4th generation aircraft (Greece for Rafale (most likely), Turkey for JSF) and huge amounts of Mavericks, increased spending on JDAMs etc.

Despite this frightening airpower, both countries are also investing heavily into MBTs. Greece recently ordered 170-180 Leo 2A6s, with Germany offering to upgrade our current Leo 1 to higher standards...and throwing a few hundred Leo 2 A4 in as sort of a gift. There's also a good 1000 M48/M60 in our tank arsenal...Turkey has more old tanks and less modern tanks, but still...we're talking about tank forces here that are immensely huge...and our border with Turkey (at least the one where land forces are relevant) is just a few dozen kilometres...

So you have two modern NATO armies, with two scaringly strong airforces, and enough MBT's to bring down cities just by rumbling past them.

So in cases where conventional warfare is a distinct possibility, MBTs are very important, despite huge airforces (one thing to note is that we have 2 squadrons of A-64s, with a third Longbow squadron on order and our other two squadrons being updated to Longbow standards...whilst Turkey hasn't got an effective helicopter tank buster, apart from a handful of Cobras.)

Countries like Germany are less needy in terms of tanks, but even when they aren't that vital, you shouldn't get rid of them all, as they are very good at what they do and can not be replaced by other weapons systems easily. Someone mentioned 3-4 RPG hits take out a tank...ermm...no? Modern missiles like Milan or Javelin might...but the kind of armies that tanks face these days, rarely have developed missiles that could seriously hurt modern MBTs, just look at Iraq. 20 tanks in 2 years of constant urban warfare is quite good

[Warden 0]

MBTs will for a while anyways still have a usefullness, but with the emergence of modern Airpower they are no longer the glory boys they once where this has been shown since WW2 a Military with total air uperiority can destroy enemy MBTs before they even get a whiff of other armoured units.

The days of Soviet style mass armoured assaults are long gone with tanks bieng used (after action anyway) as mobile bunkers for Urban combat, the most action my Uncle saw in GW1 was parking his tank in a minefield (British armour)

The debate on the new Lightwieght armour sytems is going to be much more heated now that the US is sending the first Stryker units to Iraq this year, and with the losses the M1 has been taking in Iraq the survivability of these vehicles is being called closely watched.

[stevevcb 3]

Air power is all well and good, but you can't take positions with an F16.

Conventional tanks are not obsolete, and won't be for many years. People were saying in the 80s that tanks would be phased out of most armies by the turn of the century, but they're still here. Sure, air power is great, but what do you do when:

- you don't have air superiority?

- the weather bad enough to warrant grounding aircraft?

Tanks will operate in, rain, hail, snow and blow. They are cheaper than helicopter gunships and strike jets in every way that matters: training four tankies takes less time and less money than training one fighter pilot. 120mm APFSDS will kill a tank just as well as your all-singing, all-dancing surface-to-air missile, and comes at a fraction of the cost. Tanks can run on pretty much anything that'll burn, aircraft need expensive aviation fuel. A tank can be maintained for the most part by its own crew, whereas aircraft need specially-trained personnel to maintain and repair them. A tank can stay in the field indefinately as long as it can be refuelled and re-armed, whereas aircraft have to return to their bases at some point. If a tank develops a fault or is damaged beyond operation, it grinds to a halt but can be retrieved and repairs. If a jet develops a fault or is damanged beyond operation, it could well fall out of the sky, and all the mechanics in the world won't get a flying again if it's nose-dived and crashed from 10,000ft. If one or more of a tank crew is killed or incapacitated, it can still function to some degree. If the pilot of a single-seat aircraft gets killed or incapacitated, he's not got three other blokes to take over from him.

Aircraft can't do everything, just the same as tanks can't do everything. That's why both are needed. Saying that MBTs are obsolete because aircraft can destroy armour as well is like saying that rifles are obsolete because machine guns fire faster.

[Pathy 0]

Hes one smart (k)Cooky

Good post mate, its the truth.

[MontyVCB 0]

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).

that maybe true hellfish, but the russians tried a similar tactic in  chechnya and they paid for it dearly, granted a few RPG's won't do much to a M1A2 or a Challenger 2 MBT, but if you are in an urban area where the enemy has a Milan AT(or something along those lines), without infantry support you are buggered  

[Acecombat 0]

@Ronin:

Quote[/b] ]Someone mentioned 3-4 RPG hits take out a tank...ermm...no? Modern missiles like Milan or Javelin might.

What about the RPG-16d? The one we have in OFP which came with E & S marines pack isnt it powerful enough? . A tank isnt indestructible its got it weak points too , get the tracks or something underneath it and it can disable the tank. Inside citys its easy to do if your competent enough.

Heck even PEOPLE can blow up tanks , ever heard about the Indo-Pak war of 65? When India attacked pakistan and there they had one of the biggest tanks battle after WW2 , i heard pakistani soldiers strapped mines on themselves and laid themselves under indian tanks just to take them out

[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).

that maybe true hellfish, but the russians tried a similar tactic in chechnya and they paid for it dearly, granted a few RPG's won't do much to a M1A2 or a Challenger 2 MBT, but if you are in an urban area where the enemy has a Milan AT(or something along those lines), without infantry support you are buggered

You're right - but I'm sure if that was a possibility, the US would be using different tactics.

What I'm saying is that tanks are useful and even in urban environments. Does that mean that they're always useful in all urban environments? No.... there are foes that could seriously screw up a tank in a city. But it's not happening right now.

[Badassdom 0]

its strang how little heavy at weapons their are(or are being used in Iraq), you should think that saddams army should have used plenty ?

[crashdome 3]

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

[ig]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/fcs-sys.gif[/img]

Oooooo.... is this like Command & Conquer 7   

[Baphomet 0]

I was always thinking that eventually more advanced and portable anti tank weapons systems would be produced to effectively replace the necessity to use tanks in an antitank role.

Still, some good points have been made about the usefulness and versatility of a rugged all weather combat vehicle such as a tank.

[Ares1978 0]

its strang how little heavy at weapons their are(or are being used in Iraq), you should think that saddams army should have used plenty ?

Most of them were probably taken out years ago.

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]Armor Becomes Master of the Urban Battlefield

by James Dunnigan

March 2, 2005

Based on recent Israeli experience in Palestinian towns, and American experience in Iraq, the world’s armies are rethinking long held ideas about how to use armored vehicles in urban areas. There have been several surprises in this Israeli and American experience. First of all, it's understood that tanks can effectively work in urban areas, and armored vehicles of all sorts are an asset there. The conventional wisdom was that armor was too vulnerable in cities, and that infantry alone was able to clear out enemy resistance.

It’s true that armored vehicles are, in theory, more vulnerable amongst all those buildings. But if the vehicles are built to defeat, or resist most of the enemy close range weapons, and the entire team of infantry and tanks are well trained for city fighting, then the tanks turn out to be a major asset. This is the key to making armor work in urban areas; preparation. The Israelis analyzed the complexities of urban warfare and concluded that armor, lots of armor, could give them major advantages. Speed was possible with armored vehicles, as was keeping your troops protected from a lot of the enemy fire. Specialized armored vehicles, like giant, armored bulldozers, allowed you to literally go through buildings and quickly clear roadblocks. Armored vehicles carry a lot of firepower. Even the armor piercing shells from the tanks main gun can be useful in street fighting.

The other key element was information. Having lots of helicopters and UAVs overhead, equipped with vidcams, that were streaming the video to the combat commanders below. That degree of information, augmented by electronic eavesdropping and lots of patrols, gives the attacking armored force an information advantage. Speed, and information, is what makes armor work in urban areas. That, and the willingness to innovate. For example, Israeli tankers noted that when tanks were off by themselves, they had a blind spot in the back when they were in alleys or narrow streets. So the rear door of their Merkava (which leads to a compartment holding either ammo, or a few infantrymen) was modified so that a sniper could operate a rifle out the back door. This covered the rear. It was also noted that the key to survival in urban area was alertness. You had to be able to spot booby traps, roadside bombs and snipers quickly. This was where the infantry really earned their way. Extra eyes and ears were very valuable.

The eyes and ears are still valuable, but increasingly they are electronic and carried (and powered) by the armored vehicles. Two such systems have already been used in Iraq. There’s the PDCue countersniper system, that uses sensors to instantly provide the direction, elevation, distance, caliber, miss distance; and GPS coordinates of the sniper. This is information is shown on a visual display, that is overlaid on standard military electronic maps. This eliminates the problem of “where did that come from.†But systems like PDCue are expensive, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, snipers are not a widespread problem (the bad guys are rarely good shots.) But PDCue has been in development for over a decade, and will eventually get cheap and accurate enough to be a standard piece of vehicle equipment. That has already happened with thermal imagers, which are very useful in urban warfare at night or when there’s a lot of fog or smoke about.

Video cameras (vidcams) have also become cheap and effective, and are part of remote controlled gun systems found on Stryker vehicles. Some troops have improvised their own vehicle based security camera systems, allowing one guy inside an armored vehicle to keep an eye on several different directions at once. You can also use night vision vidcams, making it much more dangerous to try and sneak up on an armored vehicle at night.

Armored vehicles can also carry lots of the new combat robots being used in Iraq. These robots began years a go as remotely controlled vehicles for bomb squads. But now they are as small as a suitcase, carry more powerful cameras and batteries, and can be thrown through a window. Clearing a building is a lot safer if you have more electronic eyes watching the proceedings, and robots you can send in first.

The new Israeli and American tactics take advantage of new technology, but build off successful American urban warfare tactics that go back to World War II. While armored vehicles are still vulnerable in cities, they carry firepower (especially new tank shells designed for street fighting) that can more quickly deal with anyone hiding in a building. All that new technology is heavy and bulky, and you can get it into place a lot faster using armored vehicles, that the backs of infantrymen.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005321.asp

[Leveler 0]

Just look at Iraq, if MBT are properly designed and operated they take very low casualties. I would like to know how they will fare agaist lasers that fry the optics and blind the crew.

[Ares1978 0]

I would like to know how they will fare agaist lasers that fry the optics and blind the crew.

Fine, once they get protection for the optics and the crew.

Lasers are impractical as weapons anyway.

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]Armor Becomes Master of the Urban Battlefield

by James Dunnigan

March 2, 2005

Based on recent Israeli experience in Palestinian towns, and American experience in Iraq, the world’s armies are rethinking long held ideas about how to use armored vehicles in urban areas. There have been several surprises in this Israeli and American experience. First of all, it's understood that tanks can effectively work in urban areas, and armored vehicles of all sorts are an asset there. The conventional wisdom was that armor was too vulnerable in cities, and that infantry alone was able to clear out enemy resistance.

It’s true that armored vehicles are, in theory, more vulnerable amongst all those buildings. But if the vehicles are built to defeat, or resist most of the enemy close range weapons, and the entire team of infantry and tanks are well trained for city fighting, then the tanks turn out to be a major asset. This is the key to making armor work in urban areas; preparation. The Israelis analyzed the complexities of urban warfare and concluded that armor, lots of armor, could give them major advantages. Speed was possible with armored vehicles, as was keeping your troops protected from a lot of the enemy fire. Specialized armored vehicles, like giant, armored bulldozers, allowed you to literally go through buildings and quickly clear roadblocks. Armored vehicles carry a lot of firepower. Even the armor piercing shells from the tanks main gun can be useful in street fighting.

The other key element was information. Having lots of helicopters and UAVs overhead, equipped with vidcams, that were streaming the video to the combat commanders below. That degree of information, augmented by electronic eavesdropping and lots of patrols, gives the attacking armored force an information advantage. Speed, and information, is what makes armor work in urban areas. That, and the willingness to innovate. For example, Israeli tankers noted that when tanks were off by themselves, they had a blind spot in the back when they were in alleys or narrow streets. So the rear door of their Merkava (which leads to a compartment holding either ammo, or a few infantrymen) was modified so that a sniper could operate a rifle out the back door. This covered the rear. It was also noted that the key to survival in urban area was alertness. You had to be able to spot booby traps, roadside bombs and snipers quickly. This was where the infantry really earned their way. Extra eyes and ears were very valuable.

The eyes and ears are still valuable, but increasingly they are electronic and carried (and powered) by the armored vehicles. Two such systems have already been used in Iraq. There’s the PDCue countersniper system, that uses sensors to instantly provide the direction, elevation, distance, caliber, miss distance; and GPS coordinates of the sniper. This is information is shown on a visual display, that is overlaid on standard military electronic maps. This eliminates the problem of “where did that come from.†But systems like PDCue are expensive, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, snipers are not a widespread problem (the bad guys are rarely good shots.) But PDCue has been in development for over a decade, and will eventually get cheap and accurate enough to be a standard piece of vehicle equipment. That has already happened with thermal imagers, which are very useful in urban warfare at night or when there’s a lot of fog or smoke about.

Video cameras (vidcams) have also become cheap and effective, and are part of remote controlled gun systems found on Stryker vehicles. Some troops have improvised their own vehicle based security camera systems, allowing one guy inside an armored vehicle to keep an eye on several different directions at once. You can also use night vision vidcams, making it much more dangerous to try and sneak up on an armored vehicle at night.

Armored vehicles can also carry lots of the new combat robots being used in Iraq. These robots began years a go as remotely controlled vehicles for bomb squads. But now they are as small as a suitcase, carry more powerful cameras and batteries, and can be thrown through a window. Clearing a building is a lot safer if you have more electronic eyes watching the proceedings, and robots you can send in first.

The new Israeli and American tactics take advantage of new technology, but build off successful American urban warfare tactics that go back to World War II. While armored vehicles are still vulnerable in cities, they carry firepower (especially new tank shells designed for street fighting) that can more quickly deal with anyone hiding in a building. All that new technology is heavy and bulky, and you can get it into place a lot faster using armored vehicles, that the backs of infantrymen.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005321.asp

pretty interesting. i wonder if Britian, the U.S., and Isreal will ever put their engineers to work together to design a new tank.

[hellfish6 7]

It's certainly possible.

I'm somewhat of the opinion that tanks could be more of a heavy-weapons platform than they are now. Maybe a new class of tanks? One that isn't specifically for tank-killing, much like the M-1 series is, but rather an all-around platform.

Take the unmanned turret off the Stryker MGS, for example, slap it onto a Bradley hull and throw two LOSAT hypervelocity missiles and a another two Stinger launchers onto the turret (think wings). Maybe a .50cal or 7.62mm coax as well.

While it wouldn't be a tank in the traditional sense, it would be an effective infantry fire support weapon - still more than capable of dealing with anything up to T-72G tanks with the main gun alone, but also equipped with the full suite of 105mm ammunition, including HE, HESH (HE-P), HEAT, Cannister, etc. Then you've got the LOSAT to deal with the T-80s and other hypermodern tanks, Stingers for any air threat, and an MG for close protection.

Or better yet, have the rocket "wings" be modular, so you could swap the two LOSATs with a 25mm autocannon or FAE rockets or mine dispensers... whatever.

[Ares1978 0]

The Bradley's hull is a fat and juicy target and very easy to hit even for a WWII tank, not to mention that it can be penetrated from any direction with a medium caliber weapon. Why not use a low-profile hull like the M1 tank's?

Forget the LOSAT and the stingers, use ADATS. And a 20mm coax.