Tanks !

Good points are always worth repeating – especially here!!:p:diablo:

No Charlie !

Can’t let you get away with that ! It’s the last para. in both comments. Good try.

The first part of my reply was in response to this comment:

“Any one who thinks there will never be another major war where deaths are in hundred per day is living in a world of hope that will probably come crashing down some day.”

Change in medication? Some of you lot need spectacles!!:rolleyes::diablo:

Charlie

That is what RpR has just written.

I keep telling Charlie to change his medication. 😉

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Charlie

That is what RpR has just written.

Since a large part of the western world no longer has the resources for such a war it is an academic point anyway. Apart frolm the nuclear option, which it also has, China could run amok by the sheer force of numbers.

“Do you think that Main Battle Tanks are now obsolete in modern warfare ( as we know it )??”

That was the OP’s question. So it begs the question in what type of warfare? Modern warfare as we know it probably does not involve large numbers of ground forces supporting tanks and armoured vehicles. These days only a few countries have the troops to mount such a war anyway.

Such an attitude is what brings about attitudes such as –no guns on fighters–U.K. White Paper–etc., not to mention U.S. soldiers in Iraq with vehicles that can be shot to pieces by rifle caliber weapons.

Any one who thinks there will never be another major war where deaths are in hundred per day is living in a world of hope that will probably come crashing down some day.

China is most likely the country that could push too many buttons and China could lose a thousand soldiers a day for a long time and still have an Army larger than any opponent.

Regarding IEDs and Tanks. Well, a Land Rover, Jackal, Warrior, Bradley and what have you wouldn’t be any better off if they set one off…

Tanks still have a place on the battlefield, its just that there are more ways to take out targets than there was, maybe more expensive ways to take out another Tank(?), and not always the best options. There’ll be, well there was, situations where the Tank was the prefered option to take out other armoured units. Air assets do have their problems too, poor weather, availability issues etc.

IED’s and tanks don’t mix…

Would you rather have walked up that road?

To be fair, I doubt many of these M1 tanks were destroyed by IED; the United States just came up against the problem everybody has when they have to actually enter an enemy city (in tanks or anything else)…

…and the question that really needs to be asked is why were the tanks sent in at all?

Could it be that it was too dangerous for helicopters; and that the drones and fighter aircraft couldn’t get the job done? 😉

If you’re a Tanker & the other side has Apache helicopters, it’s time for a career change…

The Brits didn’t lose any Challenger tanks to enemy fire in the Gulf, how many Abrams did the yanks lose?

IED’s and tanks don’t mix

I suppose they make good mobile pill boxes or roadblocks.

Why would a tank, designed for the modern battlefield, be any more vulnerable to EMP than a drone or a fighter aircraft?

In fact, by virtue of the fact that tanks have far more ability to absorb weight in their design, and are far less dependent on electronics, tanks are likely to be far easier to protect from EMP aren’t they?

I don’t think tanks are obsolete, far from it. Tanks play a part in combined arms tactics. They are mobile, fast, heavily armored, high tech and pack considerable punch. In fact there is even a tank that converts to a hydrofoil for waterborne operations. It’s not inconceivably they could be fitted with AA missiles. Have countermeasures, ECM devices. Cloaking or Stealth?
In modern combined arms warfare the tank would be deployed with drones, anti-tank helo’s, aircraft, troops and all the other assets required.
To say that tanks are obsolete because of air power, or drones, or soldiers with at rockets is forgetting the combined arms doctrine.
Also don’t forget that the enemy has to change tactics, and deploy assets to meet an armored threat. That means they
influence the battlefield.

It’s O.K. to have all the techie things on a Tank as you stated, but it would only take a “Clean” Nuke to cause an E.M.P. to knock all the electrics etc out.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

With the possible exception of Vietnam, yes. And my answer to your question would be, yes. Now. But who’s to say where the world will be in another 50/100 years? Nevertheless it seems inevitable that conflict will be become more “automated” due to technological developments.

MAD by supersonic drone probably!!

Maybe the question should be “do we think modern warfare” or “world war” is obsolete?
The wars we have been fighting over the past 30 years are relatively minor skirmishes compared to WW2.

“Do you think that Main Battle Tanks are now obsolete in modern warfare ( as we know it )??”

That was the OP’s question. So it begs the question in what type of warfare? Modern warfare as we know it probably does not involve large numbers of ground forces supporting tanks and armoured vehicles. These days only a few countries have the troops to mount such a war anyway.

I don’t think tanks are obsolete, far from it. Tanks play a part in combined arms tactics. They are mobile, fast, heavily armored, high tech and pack considerable punch. In fact there is even a tank that converts to a hydrofoil for waterborne operations. It’s not inconceivably they could be fitted with AA missiles. Have countermeasures, ECM devices. Cloaking or Stealth?
In modern combined arms warfare the tank would be deployed with drones, anti-tank helo’s, aircraft, troops and all the other assets required.
To say that tanks are obsolete because of air power, or drones, or soldiers with at rockets is forgetting the combined arms doctrine.
Also don’t forget that the enemy has to change tactics, and deploy assets to meet an armored threat. That means they
influence the battlefield.

Just a thought, I bet the M.O.D. will develop a “Think Tank”, problem solved.:diablo:

Jim.
Lincoln .7

Re 9
RpR

All other things equal – secure bases, fuel, spares, ammunition – there is just one thing that matters on any land battlefield, whether open plain, wooded or forested or hilly and mountainous. Control of the air.

Whether it be manned or drone aircraft or both, they hold the battlefield success key. Think the Battle of Normandy. Men and supplies could not move during daylight hours. If they moved by night, they moved slowly and uncertainly. Now, movement by night can be detected and technology will deal with it.

Missile equipped drones are comparitively cheap. They do not require large, extensive airfields plus all the attendant backup necessary for the operation of manned aircraft. For the enemy, drones, small and fast moving present a very tiny target. Drones can be used and no doubt will be used in large numbers to swamp the battlefield. Drone destruction is likely to be excessive, that is why plenty will be needed.

Bovington, will one day, need to expand massivly to hold all the redundant Tanks, no longer needed.

Presumably the RAF doesn’t need any fighter aircraft, armed with air-to-air missiles, anymore either…

…because the RAF hasn’t shot an enemy aircraft down with one since…..er…..well, ever? 😉

The problem with the hypothesis that tanks are obsolete is that it very much depends on what kind of ‘war’ the United Kingdom, or whoever, is fighting. In Afghanistan against the Taliban, who have no armour, no artillery and no aircraft, tanks are superfluous…

…and the ‘war’ has been ‘won’ in only ten years with all those drones and total air-supremacy hasn’t it! :rolleyes:

In the first and second Gulf Wars, even with total air-supremacy the casualties on the Allied side would have been much greater if large numbers of armoured vehicles, including Main Battle Tanks, hadn’t been available.

In the future the British Army is going to be smaller, a lot smaller, and infantry (manpower) is very, very expensive. Also the public is unlikely to have much tolerance of casualties in any future war.

Modern ground-forces are increasingly going to be mechanised (move in vehicles), those vehicles are going to come under fire, and unarmoured vehicles will lead to increased casualties (as was found in Iraq and Afghanistan). The ‘tank’ is probably going to evolve somewhat but then what makes a tank a tank? Armour? Tracks? A big gun?

All other things being equal; the armoured vehicle that carries the most powerful, longest-ranged weapon and the heaviest (most effective) armour is going to come-off better in any armour-to-armour clash. Lightly armoured, or soft-skinned (unarmoured), vehicles aren’t going to do any better (and probably a lot worse) against aircraft, helicopters, drones, missiles or anything else you care to mention…

…but I suppose the infantry could walk forward, carrying all their kit, against these threats? :diablo: