The future of the tank ...

There's a lot of interesting literature which revolves around the future of the main battle tank.  Those that I particularly love collecting deal with the future of gun technology, armor technology, et cetera.  For example, current projects include the maturation of electrothermal-chemical technologies which will allow guns to fire with at least 18MJ at the muzzle behind the penetrator.  Furthermore, there's always a keen interest in the progression of the so called future main battle tank [FMBT] programs, including the T-95 [who some believe will be the first 'next-generation' tank to be released].  However, is it proper to continue over this path of improving the ability for a tank to kill another tank when it seems that tanks are no longer the main threat?

Take for example the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Iraqi T-55s and T-72s were massacred through a combination of the supremacy of our M1A2s and Challenger 2s and battlefield control and reconaissance, as well as very able close air support.  However, there's very little doubt that the majority of the damage was done by a superior American ability to conduct reconaissane and close air support - in fact, with it American tanks could knock out enemies at over distance of two to three kilometers!  In that way the conventional war lasted a relatively short period of time.  Since then it has become apparent that our enemies are not T-72s but RPG-7s and perhaps even the vaunted RPG-29.  In this late invasion of Lebanon, July-August 2006, the Merkava's reputation was tarnished not by Syrian T-72s, but my Hezbollah's anti-tank missiles and rocket propelled grenades.

So, I guess the idea of this thread is to create some kind of argument that deals with the future of the tank.  Do you think that we should continue on the path of upgrading current tank technologies assuming that their next enemies will be other tanks, or should we adopt another policy that attempts to upgrade tank technology that takes into consideration developing battlefield trends?

True enough, assuming that the United States goes into a truly conventional war against an equal opponent, which seems unlikely.  The only opponents that can put up equal resistance to us in the air would be who?  China, Russia and Europe?  I don't think war is very impending between the United States and those three countries/regions.  Perhaps it's more important to look into the obvious threat, which are the states of the Middle East and Africa, who don't have the air power to challenge the United States, even if they say they do. 

I know that General Shinseki, Chief of General Staff, envisioned a future armoured force that weighed under 40t and was able to be airlifted anywhere in the world for a quick reaction.  However, there then rises the question of what happens when one of the supposed future MBTs suddenly comes up against the hordes of older T-72s and the newer T-90s which have been sold to a wide scale to markets in Iran, Algeria and India? 

I guess it's a much more complicated question than one thinks! 

-Jon

Originally posted by Cryptic Tank on Tank is still the best way to fight a well trained and led armoured force.  The devasting victory in Gulf War I was due in part to perfect conditions for the USA.

True enough, however, were those kills attributed to combined arms and greater cooperation between armoured spearheads, close air support and battlefield control and intelligence units in the air and on the ground, or just to tanks? 

In a future war, even agaisnt a developing nation, the USA might not have perfect conditions.  The most lethal weapon of a developing nation is not "Weapon X", but rather a professional military that can make the most of the weapons they have.  If used professionaly, even older weapons can perform well against a high technology opponent.  The Serbians showed that intelligent coutermenasures can defeat high tech reconnasiance.  In the ned, the only weapon that can rapidly defeat an intelligent, motivated older armoured force is a motivated, intelligent high tech armmoured force.

I agree with you on most of the points, however, is that latter part true?  "The only thing that can defeat a motivated older armoured force is a motivated high tech armoured force." Is that true?  Or is it more accurate to say that the way to defeat a motivated older armoured force - let's say Iran's or North Korea's [both of which are not that old] - is through the use of better combined arms?  Combining close air support, reconaissance and smart, reactive armoured spearheads. 

Light Armoured Brigade - Strikers, up gunned strikers and future 40 tom light tank.  This Brigade goes to places where there is 100% air dominance and little if any armoured threat.    Heavy Armoured Brigade - up armoured  M1A3s, Bradleys etc. goes to places where the armoured threat is real and air supereority not quite 100%.

Yes, that sounds like a much better option, and something I was going to suggest, as well.  I guess the questioning of the light armoured brigade only, like envisioned by Shenseki, was that our most obvious enemies at this point in time are equipped, or are being equipped, by almost late generation Russian armour, the T-90.  Even if the T-90 is qualitively inferior to Western latest generation armour what would be the odds of a light tank engaging a Russian medium weight tank?  Even assuming breakthroughs in armour technology allow for what is currently science fiction - electromagnetic armour, for example! 

The light armoured brigade is based on the idea that its vehicles will never come up to face enemy armoured formations, because the friendly air force will have destroyed them. And in cases of some individual tanks remaining, the IFV has the capability to destroy it with AT missiles.

AFAIK, not exactly.  IIRC, the idea is to arm a very low weight tank with a very powerful maingun using electromagnetic technology, or in the interim electrothermal-chemical technology; the idea is having a smaller calibre, lower weight gun with similar perforation due to the enhanced energy at the muzzle.  Supposedly, the tank is supposed to be able to survive impacts by a series of protective factors which all revolve around 'not being found', and if found using advance passive armours and better hard-kill active systems.  Unfortunately, these advantage technologies have a tendency not to work, so I'm a proponent of keeping a mid-weight to heavy tank [between 50mtn and 65mtn, mind you]. 

So, what happens between two armies of which neither has control of the air? I take as an examble my country Greece. Greece has an equal airforce with Turkey. In fact the doctrine of the Greek air force is to isolate the battlefield. That means zero air support. So, in order for the land army to advance two means are used. Tanks and helicopters, supported by artillery and infantry.

I think the idea of the light armoured brigade in this example would simply be to ease the velocity that a mechanised brigade could be deployed to a threatened sector, or to seal a gap that is about to be exploited by the enemy.  AFAIK, the idea of the FMBT, like I said before, is to provide superiority over older MBT designs while being lighter, easier to transport, and all the while more powerful.  I don't know if that's possible or not, or if that's in the near future, or not.

Helicopters seem to become the most important factor, because they are excellent tank killers and hard to be killed by a tank.

Hee, the Merkava IV has shot down a helicopter before, and there are several ammunition programs that are working on missiles that can both engage helicopters and tanks.


~~~~

FYI, I'm just arguing to stir up conversation.  I do this sometimes.   You will probably find that most of the time I really have no point and argue every way possible.  I do it for the sake of getting threads going. 

Originally posted by Cryptic Lets say that a well trained and disciplined armoured  force from a developing country goes into the defensive against a U.S. counter attack... Recon and close support will not defeat this enemy in a reasonable amount of time.  Instead, large numbers of  U.S. heavy tanks will have to be used in direct, tank on tank fighting.   That is why MBTS are still very important.

Eek, I think that would be disastrous. Even massed armoured attacks require some sort of tactical reconaissance of what they're going to encounter, or else you're going to be engaged by a hodge podge of infantry with recoiless anti-tank rifles [especially the vaunted RPG series], heavier anti-tank guns [probably vintage], et cetera.  Although, I can see what you're getting at.

And I agree!  But for the sake of argument I'm going to continue arguing around it.   Would a heavy tank be best for this role, or woud a lighter, 'more advance', light tank be best?    For example, a tank like that envisioned for the future combat force - a light tank with superior firepower, and lighter, but superior armour; either through superior passive armours that are lighter, or superior active armours. 

Do you even think that something of this nature would be reliable enough to supercede the need for 60mtn tanks?

Originally posted by xristar I take as an examble my country Greece. Greece has an equal airforce with Turkey. In fact the doctrine of the Greek air force is to isolate the battlefield.

people use Iraq as a example of how tanks are outdated, (it seems that may be true if your dont have the aircover that the enemy has ), but after the US took Iraq it seem all they wanted more of, is armour.  It seems (with no suprise) the soldiers prefered to travel with/in up armoured M1's/bradley vehicles over the hummers and trucks.

the MBT going anywhwere soon (aussies bought around 60 M1's this year)

though i quite like the idea of a mix of  light/medium and heavy armoured units


Edited by Leonidas - 12-Sep-2006 at 08:01

Originally posted by Leonidas people use Iraq as a example of how tanks are outdated, (it seems that may be true if your dont have the aircover that the enemy has ), but after the US took Iraq it seem all they wanted more of, is armour.  It seems (with no suprise) the soldiers prefered to travel with/in up armoured M1's/bradley vehicles over the hummers and trucks.

Hell yes I would prefer to be in a M1A2 more so than a humvee!  AFAIK, they want to replace the M1114, and IIRC, they're thinking about the new M1117 Guardian, despite it's utter hugeness.  At least, as a reconaissance platform.  There was a good article in the last issue of Armor Magazine on the M1114 replacement. 

In any case, I think Iraq brought up the theme of reducing weight so that units could deploy faster in the case of sudden war, such as the invasion of 2003, while having enough armour protection through the use of lighter armour to survive RPGs ATGMs, et cetera, as well as, it seems, incoming tank munitions.  I don't know how soon in the future that is, but meh, it's all interesting to read about.  Apparently they just tested electromagnetic armour on a bradley, and it stopped three RPG rounds.

A cold war era joke that I once read (I can't remember where) springs to mind upon reading all of these comments regarding air power and land forces.  Here's how it goes: two Soviet army generals meet in a cafe in Paris.  One turns to the other and says: "remind me please, who won the air war?"  In the end, there are only two ways to conquer.  Either you can put lots of boots on the ground in the enemy's territory, or you can turn the enemy's entire country into a glass parking lot with nukes.  No one has ever really tried the second option, and I hope that they never will.  This means that in order to conquer, you must use infantry.  Infantry are the only ones capable of truly occupying territory.  Aircraft can destroy very well, but must leave a position very shortly after attacking it, lest they be themselves destroyed.  Tanks are the same way, they cannot really be used defensively.  A tank sitting in place is simply asking for death.  In short: tanks and aircraft can clear ground, but infantry must be used to hold it.  Everything else exists to support the infantry in that goal, at least, as long as your goal is holding ground.

Tanks were originally designed to deal with infantry without exposing those inside to pesky bullets.  They are still relatively good at this.  They carry machine guns and such that can do significant damage.  However, like the submarine (originally designed to deal with ships) they became focused on killing similar units.  Just as a submarine is primarily concerned with killing other subs, a tank's primary concern is killing other tanks.  Therefore, in my mind, the future of the tank is clear: with the firepower of your average infantryman increasing as it is, eventually, a man with a gun will be able to do the job of a tank.  When infantry, which is better suited for ground warfare by its nature (a tank cannot sneak, nor can it's crew be as aware of its environment due to the surrounding metal), ceases to need tanks to kill off other tanks, the MBT will go the way of the knight on horseback. 

The knight is actually a perfect historical example for what I'm talking about.  He was a well armored, faster moving (at least faster than infantry) infantry killer who eventually came to the point where he really only found a match in another knight.  I remember reading an article in Military Heritage which spoke of a French King (possibly a mere general) who was unhorsed in the midst of enemy infantry, but due to his armor, suffered only superficial wounds before his rescue (ironically enough by a member of the other side).  However, eventually, the knight was made obsolete by advances in infantry technology.  With the advent of the pikes, longbows, crossbows, and early guns, the knights were no longer useful.  The infantry was both more resistant to them (thanks to pikes) and could do the knights' job of killing other armored men on horseback better.  So, they dissapeared off of the European battle field.  In my opinion, that is what will eventually happen to the tank.  However, at this point, a tank is still better at its job than an infantryman.  I think that barring some unforseen military developement in infantry technology, the tank still has a long life in front of it, either as an MBT or as a lighter version. 

Originally posted by J.M.Finegold Originally posted by bagelofdoom Tanks are the same way, they cannot really be used defensively.  A tank sitting in place is simply asking for death.  In short: tanks and aircraft can clear ground, but infantry must be used to hold it. Although I agree with your general picture, tanks have been used successfuly on the defensive various times.

I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't be used defensively.  As long as they are moving, whether backwards of forward, they are afforded some measure of proitection.  What I meant to say was that a tank cannot really hold specific ground in the same way infantry can.  It is true, a tank can be dug in, but as soon as the enemy figures out where it is, (assuming that they have artillery) its a dead tank.  Also, in terms of occupying a country like Iraq, the tanks are not really that useful except as support for the infantry on the ground.  They can't hunt down insurgents, and from what I remember hearing, the M1A2 was rather vulnerable to IEDs due to weak bottom armor. 

Does Foreign Affairs publish their articles online?  I would like to read that article.