5
5
0
Responses: 33
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.
It is all about the right mix of forces for the threats and to deter threats.
(13)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
War IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR. You Kick the crap outta the bad guys, come home and make babies and get jobs....But get the first part RIGHT...Kick the crap outta them.
(1)
(0)
SPC Clifton Peacock
There will always be room on the battlefield for a MBT. The only way I would justify replacing the Abrams is if we develop a meaner solution to fill its role. Don't see that happening anytime soon, granted the current political climate.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
Sir, they will not be obsolete while we give them away. We did not give a terms of use agreement like I did in Civil Affairs deployment to where we tell the government who will use the vehicle. We should have done so with the Iraqi Government. Now we give them away to supposed allies who give them to hezzbollah. I just did a posting on this on RP. I know its old news but I did not know about this until I talked to a friend who looked this up on defense news daily. http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/terrorism/hezbollah-brigades-in-ramadi/ [login to see] 001
During the battle of Ramadi Hezbollah Brigades deployed an M1 Abrams tank and fired rockets on ISIS targets.
(0)
(0)
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...
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...
(10)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
When the XM8 died, Airborne Armor died with it....hate to say it. I was there when 11ACR inherited the last of the M551 Armored Airdroppable AmphibiousReconnaissance (not doing any of these well) vehicles from the 82d. Nightmare.
(0)
(0)
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.
(6)
(0)
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
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!
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next


Tanks

