5
5
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Tanks
Tanks
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 33
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
LTC Jason Mackay
The best weapon is a system , centered around a top of the line tank, manned by proficient tankers, backed by vehicles with AT systems, over watched by planes and helicopters that also kill tanks.
(3)
(0)
0
0
0
This is what happens when we give tanks away. they go to Hezbollah in IRAQ!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SSG William Zopff III
Only Politically to the Democrats. They will truely be obsolete when all wars and any possibility of war is cast aside as unnecessary. They are really a tool that must be in our shead. Most tool users have several hammers, a small tack hammer, a lumber grade hammer, 3 pound ball-peen hammer, and finally a 5 pound sledge hammer; a tool for every occasion. You can't effectively own property without a 5 pound sledge, cause you will evenually need one. Same applies to the weight of our armour.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
As long as there is flat land, tanks will rule the battle field.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google