Tanks A Thing Of The Past?

[dan/california]

Coz here it's all history grogs and small arms fetishists...

Go read this thread

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432

or head over to the Stealbeasts forum for some tank love.

Those are the well adjusted ones. You can have 200 post discussion of Uniform insignia when Steve isn't throwing bones fast enough. Like Now. Yes, that is a hint.....

[Lethaface]

Bit of a non discussion, comparing apples to oranges imo. I think it's obvious no one wants to engage a single panther with a single sherman on exactly equal terms. Losing 4.000 tanks and crew sounds like a butchery to me, even if the enemy lost more. And I would be demoralized as a tanker if I had regularly faced enemy tanks with superior protection and firepower losing many comrades in the process, even if 'we' won the war.

This doesn't say a thing about performance of amored units on the battlefield, you can perform very good with average kit and still feel demoralized about not having the best kit.

[Apocal]

Losing 4.000 tanks and crew sounds like a butchery to me, even if the enemy lost more. And I would be demoralized as a tanker if I had regularly faced enemy tanks with superior protection and firepower losing many comrades in the process, even if 'we' won the war.

The average American tank battalion got through its entire wartime service with ~50 dead. Total killed in the American armor branch were utterly incomparable (~2000) to that of American infantry (~150,000). The tank (and tank destroyer, for that matter) battalions' actual casualty rates were on-par with the field artillery, when adjusted for combat-time. They had relatively little to complain about riding into battle behind a few inches of steel; the "deathtrap" during WW2 was a field jacket and boots, not the Sherman.

(source: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-2.html#duty)

If tankers were feeling demoralized, it was because they were fighting a war and wars are unpleasant for everyone involved to one degree or another; not because American armor was actually beaten up on the battlefield as a routine thing or they were losing men by the handful.

This doesn't say a thing about performance of amored units on the battlefield, you can perform very good with average kit and still feel demoralized about not having the best kit.

But MikeyD was arguing they were actually beaten and ended the war a spent force. I notice he's gone out of his way to not actually substantiate his initial statement with, well, anything at all.

[MikeyD]

But MikeyD was arguing they were actually beaten and ended the war a spent force.

If you're going to put words into my mouth please don't go quite so far down the rabbit hole.

[Apocal]

If you're going to put words into my mouth please don't go quite so far down the rabbit hole.

OK.

Let us recall in WWII the US tank force was positively butchered on the battlefield, though we won the war the US tank command came out of the war thoroughly demoralized.

This is a thing MikeyD wrote. Will he support it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The American operated in a relatively weak sector. The British/Canadians pinned down the stronger German sector while the American forces task was to break through a weaker sector and move forward fast-something for which the Sherman was well suited for.

It would be more accurate to say that the US Army operated in areas dominated by bocage, poorly suited to armored warfare. The Germans therefore made the common sense decision to concentrate their armor in the more open terrain to the east, which was where the British were for the most part.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Guys please be careful when discussing the AAR outside of the threads... there is some intelligence that could be valuable to Scott in the above. I don't think there will be much harm done, but just be careful in the future.

It might breach your "operational security" Or you could start posting disinformation for deception purposes!

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think the problem tanks have these days isn't from the drone, it's from a weapon system that has already been around for about 20 years or so. The Javelin. Not the Javelin by itself though, a whole ilk of modern ATGMs are becoming so common and powerful that infantry are beginning to subdue the tank's role in battlefield dominance.

Yeah the argument has been made before that ATGMs failed to kill the battlefield's last remaining big-gun. That was long before modern ATGMs were so ubiquitous though. All through the age of the Tank Army it was difficult to design anti-tank weapons that were both common and powerful. You usually had to compromise. Now you don't.

Any infantry squad can now wield the firepower necessary to stop or at least suppress, armor. This is a total reversal of a battlefield food-chain that has been the norm since 1916. Developments in armor are now being made in reaction to anti-tank weapon systems. It was totally the other way around right up until around 1993. The initiative in the tank's development has been lost and this brings its whole role into question in my mind. Much like the battleship right before it went extinct, a tank's only role anymore seems to be a big gun carrier. Is that really enough? Much cheaper vehicles can be and have already been designed to do that job.

The situation bears a parallel with the arrival of the musket in Europe. A weapon that drove the mounted Knight to extinction.

Supposing someone invented an ATGM like Javelin, still easily infantry portable but capable of firing large volumes of Anti tank missiles (either individual missiles or a pod that releases multiple missiles in the air. These could be used en masse to overwhelm the oint defences of whole tank formations and mount lethal top atacks on the top armour.

I can see something like that being too difficult/expensive to counter and thus killing off hetank, at least as we know it. The future tank replacemnt mightbe light and high speed, relying on that and, hi tech defence systems stealth technology instead of heavy armour fr protection. And who kows, by that time it might be possible to employ lasers or similar beam weapons on the battlefield. This tank "replacemebnt" might still be like a tank in functional terms but may ve able to operate in theair as well as on the ground or very close to grundd level. I can see something like this eventually replacing the tank.

However, I do't see this happeing in the near future. Perhaps during the next extended great power conflict It could well be decades away at least.

[Apocal]

Supposing someone invented an ATGM like Javelin, still easily infantry portable but capable of firing large volumes of Anti tank missiles (either individual missiles or a pod that releases multiple missiles in the air. These could be used en masse to overwhelm the oint defences of whole tank formations and mount lethal top atacks on the top armour.

I can see something like that being too difficult/expensive to counter and thus killing off hetank, at least as we know it.

Drop artillery on them? DPICM rounds cost about a tenth of what a high-end ATGM does and don't have to expose the firing battery to reply while suppressing dismounted forces through a large (think 3km x 3km) area.

[Bastables]

After the war these battles were analyzed to death. The Pentagon even digitized the battle. Some including those who took part said that was probably the last time you'll see an armored battle of that size.

Drones played a role back then, but not nearly a big a role as today. Computers were still in the DOS world and if you had a 486 processor you were on the cutting edge and $2000+ poorer.

Still tanks are not going away. Just like cavalry stuck around long after Agincourt.

Yeah they (armoured Cav) stuck around and did thing's like Patay, Formigny and again the finishing move by Breton Heavy cav at Castillon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon

The fact that a member of Elizabeth II family is not also the standing Duchess/Duke of Normandy should indicate that longbow's were not a foolproof answer to armoured French cav.

[JonS]

Maybe you could put a PBEM turn in the saddle bag of one of those heavy cavalrymen, and send it over.

[Bastables]

Maybe you could put a PBEM turn in the saddle bag of one of those heavy cavalrymen, and send it over.

What I thought I was waiting on you

Resend your turn mate I've probably lost the email by now

[Baneman]

What ! I thought I was waiting on you

...

HA ! The catchphrase of CM since CMBO

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Drop artillery on them? DPICM rounds cost about a tenth of what a high-end ATGM does and don't have to expose the firing battery to reply while suppressing dismounted forces through a large (think 3km x 3km) area.

Certainly you could do that. Or something very similar could be dne with UAVs which, already are being equipped with ATGMs. And, unlike artillery, UAVs have the technology to enable the controller to see the target themselves. Artillery still requires someone or something too observe the target.

[Apocal]

Certainly you could do that. Or something very similar could be dne with UAVs which, already are being equipped with ATGMs. And, unlike artillery, UAVs have the technology to enable the controller to see the target themselves. Artillery still requires someone or something too observe the target.

The problems are that dismounted troops excel at being stealthy, a UAV's perspective on the battlefield is similar to looking through a soda straw and ATGMs don't really have suppressive effects over a large area, which is what you need when dealing with a low-density, low-signature target like dug-in troops. ATGMs certainly work once those defenses are "up" and engaging, but that involves presenting some kind of "bait." Also, as a practical matter, field artillery is one the major users of UAVs. I think they are up to something like a platoon per field artillery fires battalion in the US Army now, with rumblings about adding a full UAV battery?

[Bastables]

HA ! The catchphrase of CM since CMBO

Or accusation usually false . . .

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The problems are that dismounted troops excel at being stealthy, a UAV's perspective on the battlefield is similar to looking through a soda straw and ATGMs don't really have suppressive effects over a large area, which is what you need when dealing with a low-density, low-signature target like dug-in troops. ATGMs certainly work once those defenses are "up" and engaging, but that involves presenting some kind of "bait." Also, as a practical matter, field artillery is one the major users of UAVs. I think they are up to something like a platoon per field artillery fires battalion in the US Army now, with rumblings about adding a full UAV battery?

Here we are talkinng about tanks as a target. Field artillery is but one means of delivery. Infantry amd UAVs are another means. UAVs are of course relatively cheap and disposable which means you can send them into more dangrous environmennts. Another advantage UAVs have is their small size. And there is no reason why they could not be employed en masse.

[Michael Emrys]

And there is no reason why they [uAVs] could not be employed en masse.

Well, unless they are autonomous, the number of available controllers and their comms links would be a limiting factor.

Michael

[BlackAlpha]

Supposing someone invented an ATGM like Javelin, still easily infantry portable but capable of firing large volumes of Anti tank missiles (either individual missiles or a pod that releases multiple missiles in the air.

I can see something like that being too difficult/expensive to counter and thus killing off hetank,

However, I do't see this happeing in the near future. Perhaps during the next extended great power conflict It could well be decades away at least.

There are physical limitations. You need an X amount of explosives to be able to defeat the armor. This means the missiles need to be of a certain size. That's why something like a Javelin is so large. You try to create a MIRV version of a Javelin and you make it impossible for an infantry man to carry it.

Something different now. Something that I don't see people discuss is strategies and tactics. The tank has survived all this time and is still doing so well because it can fulfill certain strategies and tactics very well that no other vehicle can. What else are you going to use to maneuver quickly while still being able to deliver a lot of firepower and sustain a lot of incoming fire?

[Apocal]

Here we are talkinng about tanks as a target.

I was responding to your claim that swarm-ATGM equipped iinfantry were not able to be countered. They are, as long as field artillery or other firepower assets are available, because the men carrying the things remain vulnerable.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I was responding to your claim that swarm-ATGM equipped iinfantry were not able to be countered. They are, as long as field artillery or other firepower assets are available, because the men carrying the things remain vulnerable.

Artillery of course is also vulnerable to air, counter battery and quite possiblt to UAVs as well.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There are physical limitations. You need an X amount of explosives to be able to defeat the armor. This means the missiles need to be of a certain size. That's why something like a Javelin is so large. You try to create a MIRV version of a Javelin and you make it impossible for an infantry man to carry it.

Something different now. Something that I don't see people discuss is strategies and tactics. The tank has survived all this time and is still doing so well because it can fulfill certain strategies and tactics very well that no other vehicle can. What else are you going to use to maneuver quickly while still being able to deliver a lot of firepower and sustain a lot of incoming fire?

Yes. The technology to do this is either not yet available or in its infancyBut in a few decades time things will likely have changed. This new laser weapon the US navy is testing is a demonstration of how echnologies can change.

For infantry you would have to have small, high powered and "intelligent" projectiles for a weapon of this sort to work. Like Javelin the weapo would have to be able to attack the top armour or perhaps even the underside of tghe tank if they can be made small enough to do it. The technology probably doesn't even exist beyonsd the conceptual stage yet, but, if someone figures out a way to do it the tank may well be in real trouble. However, we may not see weapons like this until perhaps 2025 and 2050.

Speaking of lasers they may have anti tank applications in the future as well

For now I think the tank is reasonably safe but it is possible to look ahead ans forsee how its reign on the battlefeld might come to an end. As for what might replacre it, perhaps the tank might evolve into some form of high speed hybrid of land vehicle and high speed air vehicle. Maybe something evolving from technology similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey

[BlackAlpha]

but, if someone figures out a way to do it the tank may well be in real trouble.

Speaking of lasers they may have anti tank applications in the future as well

Yes, I agree. HOWEVER. We are now talking about fiction, speculating about what may or may not happen. We can then also speculate in favor of the tank. We could say, for instance, that APS systems will evolve into a perfect system that can take out any number of missiles fired at it. Or if we go into the sci-fi territory of lasers being used against tanks, which would require a tremendously advanced power source, then we can argue that same sort of technology can be used to create a power shield around the tank that can block all incoming projectiles, making the tank completely invulnerable.

More realistically, something that is actually based on what is currently happening in real life, we could argue that in the future infantry won't be used for front line fighting anymore because people hate to die. They'll use humanoid robots instead. And in that world, the tank will still exist because you'll still need a highly mobile, heavily armored vehicle that is armed to the teeth. Even if the heavy tanks die off due to their protection being unable to keep up with the anti tank weapons, the lighter tanks will continue to exist (similar to what happened during the cold war at some point) because a tank is just very convenient and can do things that nothing else can.

[Apocal]

Artillery of course is also vulnerable to air, counter battery and quite possiblt to UAVs as well.

Yeah, which is an altogether different flavor: the side that wins the firepower fight can roll the side without fires on their side absurdly hard and lopsidedly, better infantry weapons or not.

Speaking of lasers they may have anti tank applications in the future as well

For man-portable AT? I doubt it. Lasers have massive power requirements; for any given weight, HEAT out-penetrates them by an order of magnitude since the power supply for a realistic battlefield laser is massive and battery technology can't keep up. Additionally, there are heating concerns that ships deal with by pumping gallons of water through the thing and land-based systems carrying portable refrigeration systems along with them. Then dust, smoke, humidity, etc. all serve to degrade laser performance. Finally, it is still a strictly line-of-sight weapon, something they are trying to get away from since a tank can pretty much kill anything it sees on the ground battlefield.

[dan/california]

The laser will be mounted ON a tank. probably along with a ~30mm auto canon and some SAMs. This will be an integral part of every tank company, or even platoon. Its job will be to sweep the sky absolutely clean below 10,000 ft before it starts on every thing else. Drones are now a big enough threat to justify real countermeasures, and a laser can kill them all day long without running out of ammo.