Tanks A Thing Of The Past?

[Holman]

Drones are countered by any kind of AA on the field.

I think that the "Electronic Warfare" option will also impact the use of drones.

What counts as AA? Just dedicated AA units (ZSU's, etc) or any vehicle with a roof-mounted MG?

Are man-portable AA missiles in the game?

[db_zero]

Until the technology is available to make UAVs completely autonomous, the need to have operators controlling them using the Tactical Control System or something similar, will IMO limit the mass use of UAVs in the combat role. Even thirty drones would require thirty operators, a large telemetry network and support. I dont think we are at that stage just yet.

Examine the debacle of the Apache Helicopter attack near Karbala, Iraq in 2003. At the time the Apache was billed as a killer of armor, it too carried Hellfire missles, but unlike a drone was obviously a manned system. 30 Apaches of the 11th Regiment of the 3rdID went enmass looking for the Medina Division. Iraqis using cell phones to signal the course of the choppers, and infantry men on building roofs put bullet holes in practically every Apache involved in the attack, turning on lights to confuse NV systems. (The US left the power grid intact so as not to punish Iraqi civilians). The attack was called off and the Apaches returned to base.

Now while technology is very sexy, and UAVs seem to be the answer to everything, they are still controlled by humans, who are prone to making mistakes. The tank still has a place on the modern battlefield, and IMO a drone is no more dangerous than an Attack helicopter.

All very true but....

During the 1980 Lebanon conflict the Syrians used a few of their Western attack choppers armed with western made HOT ATGMs and caused panic amongst Israeli tank crews.

I think the mere presence or the threat of drones, especially attack drones could easily act as an inhibiting factor to an army. It would force a commander to consider deploying ADA units and for a force like the US or other Western forces operating far from home or nearby bases is not a trivial matter.

[db_zero]

I see a future drone expansion pack in BFs future. Complete with new and expanded drones, mobile drone units, drone command centers and expanded anti drone unit including lasers and ecm.

[Holman]

I imagine the future of drone design, at least for anti-tank purposes, is to move away from the drone as remote-control aircraft and towards the drone as loitering guided missile. Drones designed as shaped-charge kamikazes could be smaller and cheaper than drones designed to haul missiles and then return to base.

[db_zero]

I imagine the future of drone design, at least for anti-tank purposes, is to move away from the drone as remote-control aircraft and towards the drone as loitering guided missile. Drones designed as shaped-charge kamikazes could be smaller and cheaper than drones designed to haul missiles and then return to base.

During the 80s when Reagans Star Wars was the talk of the town, one scientist mentioned dropping "smart rocks" onto tanks. Anything moving at supersonic speed from the sky would cause havoc to a tank. A concept way ahead of its time but perhaps no more.

A space vechicle in orbit could easily cover an area and drop all sorts of nasties onto opposing sides. I know there exists a treaty that bans nuclear weapons from being put into orbit, but that doesn't cover conventional weapons to my knowledge.

Makes me wonder what the Air Force is up to with its new hypersonic unmanned jet.

[dan/california]

There is a real possibility that the game is going err... emphasize the development failure of the Sgt. York system. Though as I understand it the Russian equivalent is in service with the Ukrainians. It may become a popular quick battle choice, if a gamey one.

I will all but guarantee you that both sides are going to make preserving AA assets for AA purposes something close to a religion. Some people will convert now and some after being scourged a time or two.

Does anyone know if Longbow Apaches get credit for the ability to shoot from what amounts to the Helicopter equivalent of hull down? Also, can observers designate for them remotely? If it can just hang back sort of safely and expend even 8 hellfires that will be a little harsh on the other side. For that matter does Arena work against hellfires?

[MikeyD]

I seem to recall York had a tactical deficiency from the get-go because the (then) Soviet helicopter-fired missiles already outranged it. Like boxing with someone with longer arms.

The primary disadvantage of tanks these days is unless the war lasts for awhile you're stuck with the stockpile you've got. Attrition will kill you. If the war drags on you can start scrounging for replacements (beg, borrow or steal). I recall Canada was pulling Leopards I from 'monument duty' to refurbish and send to Afghanistan. Ukraine, last I heard, was refurbishing old tanks at a rate of 40 a week. If things go badly in this (fictional) war the US may be compelled to dip into its surplus stocks of old M1A1s. And if a Russian cruise missile happens to find the logistics ship transporting those tanks across the Atlantic we'd be sunk.

[antaress73]

hypervelocity missiles will make tanks a liability. Also, in a high AA threat environment, drones are a liability. They are good for crushing terrorists in undefended countries but in a war against an adversary with modern and numoerous AA capabilities... I wouldnt bet on them being dominant. That's more a problem for the US than Russia btw.. our drones would be hard pressed to survive in the extreme high threat environment of the russian FEBA but their drones would have an easier (though still dangerous) day

[A Canadian Cat]

I recall Canada was pulling Leopards I from 'monument duty' to refurbish and send to Afghanistan.

Hee, hee I could not find a reference to that but the CF was planning to just drop tanks and switch to a wheeled vehicle with a big gun on it.

Part way through the Afghanistan mission they decided they wanted tanks there but while they found the Leopard 1s were great at their job they were too hot for the crews to work in so they went looking for an upgrade. And as @MikeyD mentions building new tanks from scratch while you have a war going on is a bit dicey:

Accordingly, the Canadian government approached 6 allied nations regarding surplus main battle tank sales, and received proposals from 3 of them. It then went ahead and made 2 purchases, plus another 2 follow-on buys.

...

Canada’s 1st step was a lease, in order to get modern, air-conditioned tanks to the front lines immediately. Germany won that order, and 20 German Leopard 2A6M mine-protected tanks were delivered by the summer of 2007 to replace existing Leopard 1A5/C2 tanks in Afghanistan. The new tanks’ electric turret systems produce less heat than the C2s did, and air conditioning was added to the new German tanks in theater. This was a relief to Canadian tank crews, who had needed protective suites in the 140F/ 60C interiors of their Leopard 1A5 tanks.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

[A Canadian Cat]

I've also been reading articles that have pretty much called the tank a relic from the past and are saying the drone and man portable AT systems renders tanks obsolete. Its also being argued that warfare is moving to an asymmetric model where lighter, faster deployable forces is the future of warfare and the tank has no place in that sort of environment.

Well I was just reading that the CF was planning to stop using tanks and switch to a lighter wheeled vehicle with a big gun for direct fire support but they changed their minds:

Simply put, tanks save lives, providing soldiers with a high level of protection. In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s use of lethal and readily available anti-armour weapons, such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), is a clear threat. Canada’s Leopard 1 tanks have provided close direct fire support and mitigated the threat of IEDs, as well as landmines. The tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=renewing-the-canadian-forces-tank-capability/hnps1tz9

[MikeyD]

Talk about asymmetric warfare, one gets the impression that ISU-152 in CMRT makes people squeamish. It doesn't fit in with the romantic 'knights in combat' nature of tank duels. Its role is an asymmetric one, it's designed to blow up infantry. I recall complaints early in the Iraq war that the 'tank duel' focus of Abrams was limiting its combat utility. No smoke shells, a cannon too big to use in close proximity to your infantry, only one coax mg and (at the time) a hmg that you had to expose yourself to man. (stop snickering, I didn't mean it like that ). Subsequently Abrams has grown more utilitarian.

[db_zero]

I always thought if the Army would take the lower hull of an Abrams and use it as the basis for mounting the GAU30 used on the A-10 you would have a winning weapon. It would demolish any light vechicle/APC, be pretty effective against a MBT-could mount a ATGM or crew could use Javelins.

Structures and infantry would be shredded by the GAU-30 and you could haul a good load of ammo. You could also mount some high tech mechanically operated .50 cal sniper system for precision use.

[db_zero]

One thing tanks are still very good for is use on unruly civilians rioting and protesting. Of course there are political considerations and you'll probably want to cut off all internet access, twitter feeds and jam cell phones before sending them in.

In many parts of the world this is still a viable option for strong arm rulers.

[antaress73]

they have a psychological effect... crushing people into pulp under their tracks.. sometimes not with an immediate lethal effect... food for thoughts

[vincere]

they have a psychological effect... crushing people into pulp under their tracks.. sometimes not with an immediate lethal effect... food for thoughts

They for sure can have a huge psychological effect. I reckon the race of protection and anti-tank missile will continue.

With the revolution of new materials from ground-breaking science armour can get a whole lot stronger per kg.

I think the South African's had a fair sized tank battle in Angola.

[Michael Emrys]

...armored fighting vehicles are shaped the way they are because of surface to volume ratios. The way to get the most armor around the most usable volume is a cube more or less.

Actually it's a sphere.

Michael

[sburke]

Actually it's a sphere.

Michael

Which is why cans are round. One of my favorite moments in calculus was seeing the marketing logic for the strange volumes in a Campbell's soup can.

[Michael Emrys]

Which is why cans are round.

Cans aren't spherical, they are cylindrical...tubes enclosed at either end. But bubbles are spherical because that is the most economical way to enclose a volume of air.

Michael

[c3k]

Yes, tanks are near the end of usefulness on the battlefield.

See, as soon as something else can transport a fighting team, unfatigued, with night vision which would shame 18th century astronomers, artillery beyond 19th century understanding, machineguns beyond early 20th century imagination, and protection unequaled in the 21st century, then, sure, they'll be gone.

Let's see a soldier carry a weapon system like a modern tank's. 120/125mm, about 40 rounds of ammo, guaranteed kill out to ~3km. Javelin? One round. Let's see him carry that javelin through a mortar impact zone at 30mph over a distance of 20 klicks. Oh yeah.

Tanks were made obsolete by field artillery and anti-tank guns. Until the armor got sloped and the horsepower increased.

Tanks were made obsolete by ATGMs. Until spaced armor and era were developed.

Tanks were made obsolete by newer ATGMs. Until APS were developed.

Give me 1,500 horsepower and 60-70 tons of engineering margin and I will give you something more survivable than an infantryman...every time.

[sburke]

Cans aren't spherical, they are cylindrical...tubes enclosed at either end. But bubbles are spherical because that is the most economical way to enclose a volume of air.

Michael

duh, I was referring to it's round shape versus a cube. Spheres of soup wouldn't exactly work too well.

[MikeyD]

Great shape for making water balloons, though.

[Stagler]

I think the tank itself, may be obsolete. As in, the main battle tank designed to fight other tanks. The armoured vehicle however no. We are seeing increasing numbers of IFVs with increased firepower and survivability almost to rival MBTs - most current IFVs can kill an MBT and transport soldiers. A multi-role vehicle that can do both may take the place of the MBT.

[vincere]

Tech news make it seem that Exo-skeletons are not far off now.

These initially be able to give the infantry vastly more mobility and firepower with broadly the same mobility of feet.

2nd and 3rd generations will likely up-armour.

That said- tanks will evolve too; but may look very different

[YankeeDog]

True exo-skeletons for maneuver infantry are still a ways off. Problem is not so much the mechanical engineering of the exo itself, but power source. Until someone invents a compact, lightweight power source that can power an exo for at least a full day of maneuver and combat without recharging, exos aren't going to be much use to the forward rifleman. No point in putting on an exo that gives you the ability to carry an additional 25 kg, if the exo + battery weighs 30kg...

There are some intermediate "wearable tech" solutions that aren't exos as such, but do have the potential to increase the effective strength and endurance of infantry on foot to a degree. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting various "intelligent" body suits that monitor things like body temp, blood sugar, hydration, etc.; information that can be used to optimize solider performance, especially in difficult environmental conditions. Not a game-changer, but the potential gains from this type of system can be greater than you might at first think.

Where we'll see true exos first is off the line of contact in service and support roles. Here, the need for a strong (and therefore large and heavy) power source is less of a liability. For example, the U.S. Army is experimenting with an exo that allows a single soldier to manipulate 155mm shells (weighing nearly 50 kg) with ease. This could dramatically reduce the size of gun crews. Other applications to e.g., ordnance handling, vehicle maintenance and repair, etc. are pretty obvious.

Imagine, for example, a tank recovery crew equipped with exos attached by cable to the engine of their recovery vehicle for power. With the exos they might have multiple times the strength of an ordinary human, enabling them to accomplish tasks such as recovering a bogged tank or repairing a damaged track much faster than would otherwise be possible.

[nik mond]

I think the tank itself, may be obsolete. As in, the main battle tank designed to fight other tanks. The armoured vehicle however no. We are seeing increasing numbers of IFVs with increased firepower and survivability almost to rival MBTs - most current IFVs can kill an MBT and transport soldiers. A multi-role vehicle that can do both may take the place of the MBT.

There is a parallel in that statement to what has happened to battleships. Frigates, destroyers, are still around, lighter Missile cruisers have taken over from the battleships. The age of the dreadnought tank may give way to a lighter faster ATGM platform.