Do you think that tanks are becoming obsolete?

2015-06-15T21:03:14-04:00

With fewer tanks being procured, and Armored Cavalry being organize around the Stryker (and dropping Armor from the title) do you think that the tank is an endangered species?

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 15 at 2015 9:16 PM

2015-06-15T21:16:51-04:00

Not as a deterrence for larger, conventional forces, i.e. Russia.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 15 at 2015 9:57 PM

2015-06-15T21:57:27-04:00

NO...Being a Grunt, I can tell you that a tank can give you a real edge. I do tink that they need to develop a replacement for the M551 Sheridan that can be dropped by parachute to give the 82d Airborne organic armored fire support.

As long as there is a Fruitloop named Kim in North Korea, as long as the Russians and Chinese have tanks...we will need tanks...and tankers...

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Jun 15 at 2015 10:57 PM

2015-06-15T22:57:04-04:00

The best weapon to use against a tank is a much better tank.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 15 at 2015 10:58 PM

2015-06-15T22:58:12-04:00

Never! I declare shenanigans. I love heavy metal.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 15 at 2015 11:01 PM

2015-06-15T23:01:13-04:00

Sir, it depends on the angle of logic. Russia claims over 20,000 "main" battle tanks in their inventory, but if I'm not mistaken I think they count everything from T-55's on up. The US claims around 5,800....the difference being that we're counting new, in service tanks. Yes, ours are outnumbered by almost 4:1, but if memory serves, ours have a survivability rate of something like 7-8:1 don't they? If I have those numbers correct, that would give us an adjusted advantage of around 2:1.

One of the things I remember from the first gulf war was in the days prior, poring over and memorizing recognition cards and the specs of each piece of soviet equipment....many of which had larger guns and longer (published) max ranges than our comparable equipment...what we learned from actual experience was that a 4,000 meter gun doesn't mean much to a guy that can only see 800 meters...that and their Armor was vastly overrated. We learned from experience that a 25mm AP round would penetrate a T-62, which we never thought possible.

Just tossing out some extraneous factors to consider. To answer the question, NO, I don't think tanks are obsolete.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jun 15 at 2015 11:08 PM

2015-06-15T23:08:52-04:00

You don't need tanks, right up until you do. We have to maintain the capability, materiel, training, and R and D. Everyone thought tanks were obsolete after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war when Egypt fielded Sagger3s. Not so much. Evident in the 73 Yom Kippur War, 1991 ODS, and 2003 OIF initial combat operations. Nothing demands respect like a 72 ton M1A2, in the tight terrain, against the right enemy. Lop-sided victories are the best kind, if we are the winners. We get nothing out of a fair fight.

It is all about the right mix of forces for the threats and to deter threats.

Response by MAJ Danny Clark made Jun 15 at 2015 11:48 PM

2015-06-15T23:48:12-04:00

I've got to agree with the main sentiment in the room. While I ended my career as a logistician, I started as a Field Artillery officer. Did my share of FIST duties with both mech infantry and armor. Nothing more intimidating than seeing a company of tanks rolling towards you. Makes God fearing men out of anyone.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 16 at 2015 12:06 AM

2015-06-16T00:06:19-04:00

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 16 at 2015 12:21 AM

2015-06-16T00:21:04-04:00

Yes... actually it depends... For what have done of late... yes... But, as CPT James Mirando stated, we need tanks for several reasons. I enjoyed knowing tanks and brads were close by, as well as Strykers (if we needed them) in Baghdad, but I also know Tanks were not designed for Urban operations...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 12:42 AM

2015-06-16T00:42:46-04:00

Tanks are obsolete, until one side abandons them-- then, for the side that kept them, they become super-weapons.

We'll always need tanks, but I also think we limit ourselves with the notion of the one Main Battle Tank. We should be more willing to explore things like light tanks and/or assault guns, especially for Airborne forces. Things that are smaller, faster, cheaper... maybe not as tough as a tank but could sure help infantry advance in an assault where a full dedicated tank isn't needed.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 16 at 2015 12:45 AM

2015-06-16T00:45:10-04:00

With the trend towards a lighter, more easily transportable weapons system I do worry about the future of tanks in our arsenal. I have heard/read too many people say that we are not going to face armor on a scale that require us to have a substantial armor force of our own and that we need to get away from having a "Cold War" mentality. While I agree that we will probably not witness the "Red Hordes" pouring through the Fulda Gap, our two biggest probable adversaries, Russia and China, both have very formidable numbers of tanks that do not need to be overlooked. The Stryker MGS is a "nice" little stop gap, similar to what the Sheridan ended up being with the 82nd, but is not meant to nor is it designed to go toe to toe with a heavy tank. I look at what is going on with Russia and the blatant manner in which it seized the Crimea and is "supporting" Ukrainian Separatists in their supposed desire to cede from the Ukraine and the fact that without us, NATO would probably acquiesce to Russia's demands to prevent any inkling of WWIII, and know for a fact that we do still need tanks. We should never have withdrawn them from Germany as now we are scrambling to replace what used to be there and are searching for areas in Eastern Europe to Pre-position equipment in order to try and deter Russia from further aggression in Europe.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jun 16 at 2015 12:56 AM

2015-06-16T00:56:57-04:00

In the matter of seconds an M-1 can do more damage than a weapons company could do in an hour. This easiest way to neutralize the bad guy hiding in an adobe hut is to eliminate the adobe hut. The average grunt would prefer suppressive fire from the 120-mm smoothbore over ...well ... just about anything (air-borne platforms excluded). They bring confidence to the ground-pounders and fear to the bad-guys: By presence alone, they are a "force multiplier" to the ground combat element(s).

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 16 at 2015 1:23 AM

2015-06-16T01:23:39-04:00

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 4:40 AM

2015-06-16T04:40:51-04:00

When I was with my Combined Anti-Armor Platoon we used to joke that the best way to beat a tank was with a tank, not HMMWVs with TOWs and JAVs. It is dangerous to shed capability just because it is an ill fit in the current operating environment. There are timeless forms of combat power the military most maintain to be prepared for future conflict. I know I feel better knowing we have tanks.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 16 at 2015 9:14 PM

2015-06-16T21:14:10-04:00

No because we will eventually fight a conventional army, and that means the heaviest armor and most lethal main gun up front followed by the rest of the division or corps. Some units' missions is to defeat the enemy, the tankers mission is to destroy the enemy.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-06-19T11:24:47-04:00

Never

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 19 at 2015 11:25 AM

2015-06-19T11:25:40-04:00

As long as there is flat land, tanks will rule the battle field.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 19 at 2015 11:34 AM

2015-06-19T11:34:35-04:00

I pretty sure that a M109 is not a "Tank", but this is what happened to the one that was near my sleeping position ...

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 19 at 2015 11:40 AM

2015-06-19T11:40:35-04:00

Hell no, think of a Tank like a sniper rifle with super human vision. It can find the bad guy(s) in all kinds of conditions and kill just about any bunker. I think Sadam's sons were held up in some super bunker that required hell fire to take out but other than that tanks always win the fight.

If any thing we need a light tank that is air drop capable to support the Airborne

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 12:28 PM

2015-06-19T12:28:54-04:00

Nope, not at all. There is something about 70 tons of tracked, sovereign US territory rolling around. Tanks are still a must even though the last 15 years has every conventional unit trying to ditch traditional doctrine and become COIN experts. Nothing can reinforce a hasty position or fill gaps on a FLOT of any size like an Armor column can.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 19 at 2015 1:23 PM

2015-06-19T13:23:40-04:00

With the type of wars we have been fighting in, a lot of our military technology may not be necessary (but at times sure gets the job done efficiently).

Tanks are not obsolete and can deflect RPG fire from our current threats while returning fire. They can also level a building filled with targets. Still mission essential.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 1:24 PM

2015-06-24T13:24:46-04:00

I think this can go either way. If someone that does not know what they are doing, and honestly BELIEVES that the piece of crap MGS can actually replace the Abrams there may be an issue there. Being an 12 year Armor guy, having only had to endure the MGS for 3 years, but at the same time I had to endure the MGS for 3 years.
It is NOT capable of fighting Armor in an extended fight. I missed my tank EVERY gunnery, I missed smoothly going from one target for my Gunner to shoot to the next. The MGS is simply inferior.
Whomever is making the call NEEDS to understand that the Stryker platform is not designed for Armor fights. There is STILL Armor out there and they are bad guys.
We will never be totally gone. If they DO lose their minds and mothball (hypothesis) Armor it would not be long before they had to get put back into the game. Someone as tactically and technically smart as Putin will be SO FAST to jump on us for it.
Armor will never be gone, maybe smaller again for a while, but in the end we are indespinsable.

Response by SPC Edward Scott made Jun 24 at 2015 1:43 PM

2015-06-24T13:43:26-04:00

That's crazy talk.. so while everyone else has tanks we have death trap strikers.. give me a break

Response by SPC Ben Cedeno made Jun 24 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-06-24T13:59:45-04:00

ITS SACRILEGE NOT TO HAVE TANKS!!!! I'm a Tanker & WILL ALWAYS BE ONE, what needs to happen is to Put an American President in office with some Balls & stop selling our Tanks to these other nations & putting them on the same level with us.

Response by SPC Robert Steffen made Jun 24 at 2015 3:09 PM

2015-06-24T15:09:02-04:00

Tanks are not becoming obsolete. The cold war mindset for tanks is becoming obsolete.
The Abrams is Obsolete. The Leopard is Obsolete. The Challenger is Obsolete. The T72/90 is obsolete.
They were designed for open field warfare in Fulda Gap. Not Baghdad suburbs.

What we need is the versatility that our tanks in WW2 afforded us. What we need is something closer to a BMP 3. MG mounts that can be operated by infantry riding outside the tank from an open protected position like on the WW2 LVT1 series vehicle, where they could lend their eyes to the tank crew under armor, using their MGs to suppress enemy fire and isolate target points for other weapons systems. "Follow my tracer" worked a hell of a lot better for us in Iraq than FBCB2 ever did, and whatever replaced FBCB2 will still not work as well as "follow my tracer."

With combat becoming more and more urbanized, we're not going to need 70 tons of armor. We're going to need superior visibility and detection ability. See first, Shoot first.

A return to the M728 Combat Engineering Vehicle would also be a good call. Again, this is about urban environment. Tank Dozer kits would be smart, in that light as well.

Survivability has been the norm for the past 30 years. That's no longer the case with close in urban combat. We need to focus on see first capabilities at close range.

We also need a leaner, more fuel economical power plant than the AGT 1500.

There are a lot of things wrong with the military. The biggest one is that we are slaves to the computer. We need to get the computer off the battlefield, and let our troops handle the fighting.

I apologize for my somewhat disjointed thoughts, but I hope that the reasoning can be seen.

Thank you for your time.

Response by SPC Daniel O'Neil made Jun 24 at 2015 3:43 PM

2015-06-24T15:43:48-04:00

Absolutely not. There are still large spans of land between civilized center and civilized settlement. There are areas of penetration that need that ferocity that only the tank can bring. With the creation of new weapons occurring at an alarming rate, tanks are all the more needed on the modern battlefield.

Response by SGT Ryan Harris made Jun 24 at 2015 4:19 PM

2015-06-24T16:19:38-04:00

i would hope nobody out there is crazy/stupid enough to believe that tanks are obsolete or need to be scaled back. when I was in Iraq we went thru a mine field with the sweeper out front (a little scary when one of the chains set off a mine but very useful). if the army doesn't want the M1 ABRAMS I will take them and put them to good use.

Response by LTC Colin Hanzlik made Jun 25 at 2015 1:02 AM

2015-06-25T01:02:53-04:00

As in most of our history, we train for the last war we were in: sad! The National Training Center was an awesome training ground for heavy, mounted maneuver, but now is littered with "villages" and the OPFOR are now just called "role players". When we have to use tanks again, it will be a hard lesson and steep learning curve for this next generation of Cavalrymen and Tankers! Tanks will always be relevant, just as infantrymen and scouts on the ground will always be critical. As LTC Mackay aptly stated, they've been deemed as obsolete due to anti-tank missiles (ground and air launched alike), but there is nothing like a BCT with the right armor/infantry ratio to seize and hold terrain.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-06-25T02:32:05-04:00

Regardless of political conflicts that continue to occur around the globe, big Army mind set is still stuck on COIN Ops. How can they not, imagine how much money has been spent on the Stryker concept. Do to that fact I believe my fellow Tankers and I are being placed on the back burner. Not necessarily to forever disappear, but to slowly fade without too much attention being illuminated to the rest of the Force. My first two units went from being Armor to Stryker (3rd ACR and 1st BDE, 1st AD).

Response by SGT Timothy Price made Jun 25 at 2015 3:24 AM

2015-06-25T03:24:15-04:00

I think that the way Armored Cav is being organized that we are in danger of being phased out and in my humble opinion it would be a grave mistake, we should adapt yes but getting rid of Armor is like getting rid of the guard dog because you put up a fence, when someone gets inside the fence then what? lets not forget that once the air battle is done it is the men on the ground that need to secure the A O without Tanks there to devastate the infantry and armor our infantry would have way too much to deal with.

Response by SSG Patrick Hayes made Jun 25 at 2015 7:44 AM

2015-06-25T07:44:40-04:00

The Russians don't think so nor the Chinese

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2015 10:25 AM

2015-06-25T10:25:06-04:00

I don't think so. The members of the Army had this debate after the Cold war and Desert Storm and the Armored Corps survived that discussion or the utility of the tank in combined arms operations. the discussion also occurred after the Six Day War in 1967 also due to the profiferation of ATGMs and that "light" with thier ATGMs would dominate the battlefield and the tank was just a target for a lightfighter to kill. We as a service do this on a regular basis based on a limited sense of history, e.g. cherry picking. With that said I think it is good that the Army is changing its force mix between light (infantry), Stryker, and armored BCTs to meet the threat that currently we as a nation face. So no tanks will be required, as well as IFVs, Stryker vehicles, and light forces. There is still a need for moble armored protection until ather countries like Russia, China, Iran and many others get rid of their armored forces and stop modernizing their equipment to defeat the Abrams/Bradly Combined Arms Battalion and the Armored Brigade Combat Team.

Response by SSG Randall Speck made Jun 25 at 2015 1:31 PM

2015-06-25T13:31:05-04:00

11 yrs a tanker here. Heavy Armor is a must have on the battle field. Putting the striker up against, let's say, current Russian tanks, will just get good soldiers eliminated. If they wanted to have light armor on the battlefield, why didn't they just re-field the M551 Sheridan? If we go back to pre Desert Storm thinking, the feeling then was less armor will be needed in the future. Then we suddenly have Desert Storm, followed by Iraqi Freedom. The thinking is wrong, just as the elimination of the A-10 was wrong! Armor is needed, at least as a deterrent to war. OH! And move the Armor back to Ft. Knox where it belongs!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 25 at 2015 1:40 PM

2015-06-25T13:40:50-04:00

In a conventional war, we want the heaviest armor and most lethal guns in the front.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2016 10:59 PM

2016-02-13T22:59:07-05:00

This is what happens when we give tanks away. they go to Hezbollah in IRAQ!