Are tanks still necessary?

[Hairy Pie]

Having played around with CMSF for a while now it got me wondering about the purpose and effectiveness of the modern MBT?

From my understanding the main purpose of a tank is to kill other tanks, but the ATGM's modelled in the game do a pretty good job of stopping pretty much anything (at least anything under my control).

On the offensive side a Stryker or other equivalent vehicle packed with a squad armed with Javelin's carries a considerable punch anyway, and if the tank has to be escorted into built-up terrain by troops what's the point? Why not just send in the troops?

On the defense half a dozen well placed ATGM teams can cause havoc against a platoon of armored vehicles (in some of the games I've played I've been hit multiple times by long ranged ATGM's that the rest of my troops just couldn't spot. I'd use arty and educated guesses to try and surpress them!)

How much does a modern ATGM system cost compared to a MBT? A fraction I'll bet, and same for the crew training.

[Ryujin]

The purpose of tanks isn't always to kill tanks. Soviet tanks I think were mostly meant to kill softer targets, with tank killing as a secondary role. As for western tanks, probably one of their best abilities is killing multiple tanks fast. Very, very fast. They're mostly fulda-gap inspired.

No set up time, more ammo, shorter flight time, and faster reloads than ATGMs while being much harder to kill and much faster makes tanks a bit better on the offensive.

Tanks for most part rule open ground on the offensive if employed properly and can be key in urban warfare, like anything else it's best used as part of combined arms. Infantry kill/supress the ATGM/AT teams and the tanks kill everything else with all the firepower they carry. It's all about how you use the tank. The amount of armor lowers the number of threats you need to kill/suppress to employ your tank.

In open ground you should be finding hull down positions and popping up and down (if you don't stick your head up long enough to be hit, your tank becomes very hard to kill. You need to maximize the effectiveness of the tanks mobility and firepower vs pretty much anything, the armor is there as a backup, as with anything in modern warfare it's better to not be hit in the first place.

(speaking mostly of western tanks vs Russian ATGMs, the Syrians have nothing to effectively defend against the javelin except for employing local numerical superiority).

As always, its easier to kill something than protect it. Things seem to be now shifting towards active defenses as a missiles get more advanced, shooting them out of the air and stuff.

Sorry if that's a bit of a disjointed rant

[MikeyD]

Tanks work best when extreme intimidation is necessary. I recall one Stryker Brigade infantryman boasting "When the MGS turret starts to rotate all hostile fire stops". Of course the same is true when light infantry is confronted by a rusty T54's turret rotating in your direction too. If tactical combat is a game of 'king of the hill' having something heavily armored, heavily armed and very menacing sitting on that hill make the game much more difficult.

[Splinty]

Keep in mind armor never fights by itself, combined arms is the way most conventional armys fight. If tanks start being hit by ATGMs, they call for artillery and air support, while the infantry manuevers themselves into a position to attack the ATGM crews etc...

[hcrof]

It also has to be said that battles in CMSF are deliberately very tough on the attacker so tanks are harder to use as they were designed to be used. Also, as Ryujin said, ATGMs are vulnerable to artillery and are slow. In a fast moving battle they are either not where you need them or heavily suppressed by artillery fire.

Imagine you are the Syrians with 4 Kornet ATGMs and a battalion of infantry. In CMSF you could probably stop the US forces and inflict heavy casualties. In the real world you would come under fire from MLRS systems, aircraft, artillery and then when all your troops are all dead or cowering in their foxholes a Battalion of Abrams sweeps through and mops up. Any AT weapons remaining would not be able to stop them!

Tanks are also useful in the defence as a mobile reserve. Now that you have US forces breaking through your lines you need to plug that gap fast. To do this you will need tanks of your own to meet them in a meeting engagement. (or at the very least BRDM-ATs to quickly move into an ambush!).

[snake_eye]

Tanks US doctrine clearly indicated that tank were not to be used in urban area. Yet in the last Iraq war, they stormed Baghdad in the well known and written THUNDER RUN. Since US doctrine about the use of tanks and tracks has been revised.

More recently Danish Leopard were used in support of Brits troops in Hemland. Put a tank on an elevation and you can cover a wide area in overwatch to bring MG and gun supports when needed. Yet, they can sustain damage from IED and or mine with the driver killed and other crew chocked or injured,as it happened.

Tanks have a long way to go. Not convinced ? Look at the Israelis. They don't give up besides the high losses they had from ATGM. They just revised their tactical use.

Cheers

[LuckyDog]

I would say that yes they are necessary – the current increase in lethality of AT weapons is just another swing in the balance of power between armour and anti tank weapons. The next step will probably be mounting the anti-rpg systems on tanks and the pendulum will swing back.

Right now, tanks may not be master of the battlefield, but try going up against tanks with just infantry. I find it pretty hard unless I have a number of javelin equipped units. I also lose tactical manoeuvrability when I don't have tanks and that probably makes me more vulnerable to arty strikes.

As far as the cost goes - it's much more expensive to a western country to lose a person than a tank. I read somewhere that an Abrams or a Chally cost between 4-7 million (US), but they may well keep the crew of 4 alive, perhaps uninjured though several AT strikes. Factor in the cost of medivac , medical care, rehab and public opinion, and it’s looking like a reasonable option!

[Ryujin]

Also the full advantage of maneuverability isn't really shown in the small CMSF maps (only a few km to a side). In say a battalion level battle Steel Beasts Pro, you can really see the advantage of maneuverability and using the terrain to flank and maneuver around static defenders (you can maneuver around whole companies of infantry) while calling down artillery (like the ever deadly ICM and FASCAM, which really should be in CMSF, though it would make battles vs BLUFOR even more one sided ). The smaller maps make it much, much easier to set up ATGM ambushes and know where the enemy will come from. Where as the few times I've played as a OPFOR commander, using the ATGMs was pretty tricky in SB Pro, you really had to figure out where the enemy would be and what they were going to do (though on the flip side, your ATGMs were really hard to find in the vast maps).

[Secondbrooks]

Also the full advantage of maneuverability isn't really shown in the small CMSF maps (only a few km to a side). In say a battalion level battle Steel Beasts Pro, you can really see the advantage of maneuverability and using the terrain to flank and maneuver around static defenders (you can maneuver around whole companies of infantry) while calling down artillery (like the ever deadly ICM and FASCAM, which really should be in CMSF, though it would make battles vs BLUFOR even more one sided ). The smaller maps make it much, much easier to set up ATGM ambushes and know where the enemy will come from. Where as the few times I've played as a OPFOR commander, using the ATGMs was pretty tricky in SB Pro, you really had to figure out where the enemy would be and what they were going to do (though on the flip side, your ATGMs were really hard to find in the vast maps).

Which in CMSF creates such a problem that there isn't enough ways to set up ATGMs into positions where they could gain flank shots. Reason why old AT-4s and such are even less useful than they would be in reality, if we talk just about ability to kill armor in hit (not saying anything about their reliability to get to target!). Sure getting ATGMs into such positions would create more tactical problems for user... Like if they can be set to flanks, then attacker can outflank them. I really don't know how SB Pro handles ATGMs and AT in general, but i guess changeable positions and such aren't well supported so ATGMs might seem to be more inflexible than they are. And planning proper AT-defenses is major work, i think universally at battalion level there usually is already one officer dedicated into getting AT-defenses sorted out. If that fails (officer laxes his job or hasn't been dedicated to AT at all) AT-defenses suffers major decrease in performance. Or sumthink.

I'm single player so i really have just distant feeling on how damned hard it would be for me to face fully supplied Stryker unit which actually would use it's Javelins. Marines with their few Javs are enough problematic! Guess i would need battalion of arty for one Styker company and plenty of time to do recon! Plus tons of nails to nail that company into it's positions while my arty gets it's shells into target area. Would hate to see my complex firemission plan to hit target area just after opponent has emptied it

hcrof:

Imagine you are the Syrians with 4 Kornet ATGMs and a battalion of infantry. In CMSF you could probably stop the US forces and inflict heavy casualties. In the real world you would come under fire from MLRS systems, aircraft, artillery and then when all your troops are all dead or cowering in their foxholes a Battalion of Abrams sweeps through and mops up. Any AT weapons remaining would not be able to stop them!

I don't agree totaly altought your are right ultimately. Because while in reality such indirect and air support aren't on commanders finger tips all the time but it requires lots of organizing at worst, lets say that unit is spearheading into enemy's rear areas already. So Syrian battalion and it's ATGMs actually did manage to halt US. If only briefly (to be squashed later on). In CMSF player usually (or atleast me) doesn't give a damn and just rushes forward ignoring hard enemy resistance he faces... Not that player would have much options because of usual campaign and mission structure: there's no change to wait for few hours or so. I think this shows better in CMx1 where operations could last for days and sometimes it was just better to wait reinforcements before starting anything major, like all-out offense.

[hcrof]

True enough Secondbrooks, the attacker in CMSF is a lot less casualty adverse than a real world commander and just a single ATGM can cause hours of delay in an attacking force. I think what I was trying to say is that a determined attack will always get through any single position and the tank is the ideal weapon to do this with.

When you have defence in depth, minefields and engineering works, counterbattery fire, electronic warfare, mobile reserves and a competent air defence network then the situation gets harder. The attack is still likely to break through initially but only then does the true worth of the defence begin to show. Can you set up the flanking shots? Is your mobile reserve able to respond in force and on time? Can you bog down the attack and close the gap in the line? Most importantly, can you coordinate everything and respond fast enough? Again though, the tank is the attackers biggest asset here. It can be fast enough to outmanoeuvre the defenders reserve, it is tough enough to shrug off anything but a determined AT defence and carries a huge amount of firepower that can sweep aside resistance as it tears a hole in the enemies rear.

[Michael Emrys]

From my understanding the main purpose of a tank is to kill other tanks...

Noooo, the main purpose of the tank is to rapidly bring serious direct firepower to bear on points of resistance when attacking. The tank also proved useful in defense, again using its mobility to concentrate firepower wherever the enemy threatened to break through the lines. Tank vs. tank combat developed later as a sideline albeit a pretty inevitable one.

Michael

[Sakai007]

Tanks were originally designed to kill strong points in an enemy's line and punch through those same said lines for friendly forces to flood through and attack the enemy from his side and rear flanks or to get into the enemy's rear area and disrupt communications, logistics, and command and control. This was the idea when they were created in WWI. This is the role they still held in WWII. A great example of this philosophy is the M4 Sherman. It's 75mm gun was not designed to kill other tanks, it was to kill infantry and destroy machine gun nests. In fact, the tank maintained this role all through the war. The Germans built Stug assault guns and JagdPanzer IV tank destroyers with the destruction of enemy tanks in mind. Blitzkreig warfare was built on the concept of using tanks to punch through a defensive line to make a hole for mechanized infantry to pour through and consolidate on the tanks break through. All the while leg infantry would encircle and destroy the units left behind by the armored advance. In Korea they were employed in a similar role. In Vietnam, tanks were once again called on mainly to fight infantry. The shock and awe factor that a tank brings to the battlefield can not be underestimated. During the cold war, thinking changed along with the times. The Soviets were of the mindset of fighting an offensive war, overrunning NATO forces and blitzing to the coast. Their tanks were designed according to this doctrine, being in a more conventional role to start. NATO realized that they couldn't match the hordes of armor the Soviets would send, so they focused on killing as many tanks as quickly as they could with their superior technology. Systems such as the Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger were designed to kill Soviet tanks as quickly as possible. As were systems such as the AH-64 Apache with the AGM-114 Hellfire missile and the A-10 Thunderbolt II and its Avenger 30mm cannon and the AGM-65 Maverick. This, along with very accurate and fast responding artillery were the back bone of NATO's defense of Europe. The Soviets, seeing that their numerical edge was being whittled down by NATO technology designed highly effective ATGM systems that could be mounted on almost anything. From being mounted on BRDMs, above the BMPs main gun, and fired out of the main gun of their main battle tanks. These weapons were to give Warsaw Pact forces a first shot capability over their NATO counterparts to destroy the superior but less numerous NATO MBTs. Then the cold war ended and the bubble burst. The Gulf War showed how devastating modern NATO MBTs were against WP equipment, but I don't personally feel that it was an accurate portrayal, considering most of the Iraqi tanks were not of the newest model and were export models at that. Their crews were not trained to a Soviet standard, having only fought against similarly equipped and trained enemy's or insurgent type scenarios. Then, in 2003, war again came to the middle east. The ground war was not as short and more costly, but had the same result. But as a result the evolution of the tank came full circle, as they were once again called on the intimidate the enemy and blast well entrenched infantry (insurgents) from their positions. As I see it, not only are MBTs not past their prime, but will continue to be a crucial part of any military force that wishes to take the fight to their enemy.

Even in CMSF this is visible. My favorite tool for getting a pesky MG crew to leave the safety of their fortified building is with the main gun of an M1A2 Abrams. It is a real morale killer to have an entire building brought down around you. I only wish that CMSF modeled the large brown stains that appear in the trousers of anyone who has the barrel of an MBT's main gun pointed at them in anger!

[Paper Tiger]

I only wish that CMSF modeled the large brown stains that appear in the trousers of anyone who has the barrel of an MBT's main gun pointed at them in anger!

You could probably mod that in

[DaveDash]

Which in CMSF creates such a problem that there isn't enough ways to set up ATGMs into positions where they could gain flank shots. Reason why old AT-4s and such are even less useful than they would be in reality, if we talk just about ability to kill armor in hit (not saying anything about their reliability to get to target!). Sure getting ATGMs into such positions would create more tactical problems for user... Like if they can be set to flanks, then attacker can outflank them. I really don't know how SB Pro handles ATGMs and AT in general, but i guess changeable positions and such aren't well supported so ATGMs might seem to be more inflexible than they are. And planning proper AT-defenses is major work, i think universally at battalion level there usually is already one officer dedicated into getting AT-defenses sorted out. If that fails (officer laxes his job or hasn't been dedicated to AT at all) AT-defenses suffers major decrease in performance. Or sumthink.

I'm single player so i really have just distant feeling on how damned hard it would be for me to face fully supplied Stryker unit which actually would use it's Javelins. Marines with their few Javs are enough problematic! Guess i would need battalion of arty for one Styker company and plenty of time to do recon! Plus tons of nails to nail that company into it's positions while my arty gets it's shells into target area. Would hate to see my complex firemission plan to hit target area just after opponent has emptied it

I have played quite a few scenarios where ATGM's are put in places to get flanking shots in CMSF, and you CAN'T outflank them.

Having played a lot of Blue vs Blue, Javelins really do create a tactical problem for your tanks. You really do have to use your tanks tactically (shoot and scoot) or just be prepared to take losses (which you would expect in any Blue vs Blue scenario).

Defensively, all the Javelins in the world won't help if you don't have LOS to keyholed tanks. Offensively, well, good luck.

On Topic:

The role of the tank has been put into question time and time again, but after OIF especially I cannot see their role being diminished in the near future. Tanks were instrumental in OIF and many real life AAR's said they were the weapon system the Iraqi's feared the most. Cavalry has been around for thousands of years and has been the dominant force of the battlefield on more than one occassion, and it will continue to be around in ever evolving forms.

[Hairy Pie]

Okay, I'm sold - the tank stays!

I read somewhere that Isreali tanks carry an infantryman, is that correct? If so are they part of the tanks crew or independent, are they carried routinely or just when the situation requires it? What situation....scouts?

Oh, and if this was modelled in CMSF what would YOU use them for?

[Damian90]

I read somewhere that Isreali tanks carry an infantryman, is that correct? If so are they part of the tanks crew or independent, are they carried routinely or just when the situation requires it? What situation....scouts?

It is BS and misunderstanding of Merkava series design.

The rear compartment is ammo magazine, there is about 80% ammo for main gun. If You wan't to carry infantry there, You need to remove 80% of main gun ammo.

So You can carry infantry there, but this guys were not have any seats (they sit on hull floor).

So as I said, Merkava tanks rear compartment is for ammo storage or evacuation of other crews from desiabled friendly tanks, or for med evac, so called tankbulance variants or sometimes for infantry carring but this is only a positive side effect of choosen design.

As for tanks are nececary.

Well Yes! They are, and for all of You some good news. First the Ground Combat Vehicle program of US.Army for their new Infantry Fighting Vehicle, it will be very well protected vehicle, still we need to wait for first prototypes. One of them will be Americanized, bigger version of German SPz Puma, other will be some domestic designs, some of officials consider even Israeli Namer.

But what is more important, something moving for new generation of US MBT that will replace in future M1 Abrams series. I've heard that on this year AUSA conference, discussion have been interesting, still no details though.

So no, tanks and other heavy armored vehicles are not dead, well situation is completely different, there is need for more and more armor, and not only on tracked vehicles, but also wheeled ones are good if they got more armor protection.

There are such program like M-ATV or upgrading Strykers by adding more armor.

In fact, after 90's stagnation, we can be whitnesses of the start of heavy armor renaissance. :-)

And that whole BS about end of tanks etc. because of attack choppers, ATGM's, etc. is just BS, there is no substitute for tanks, there is no platform so agile, well armored, universal etc. for direct fire support that can replace tank.