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
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The Abrams is Obsolete. The Leopard is Obsolete. The Challenger is Obsolete. The T72/90 is obsolete.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.
The Abrams is Obsolete. The Leopard is Obsolete. The Challenger is Obsolete. The T72/90 is obsolete.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.
(1)
(0)
SPC George Adkins
Isn't that pretty much what the Bradley is supposed to do (except without a main gun)?
(0)
(0)
SPC Robert Steffen
Well, George, As I understand it... (and if someone has a better clarification, please speak up)
the Bradley is an infantry fighting [Support] vehicle, which makes it a tactical weapons platform. Its meant to deliver infantry into the area, and provide local area fire support. Bradleys are almost always best used in a defensive mindset.
The Tank, on the other hand, is a strategic vehicle that commonly operates at the small unit level. It consists of superior mobility, and firepower, supported by superior communication to localize an overwhelming strike to force the enemy to divide his forces. This is the traditional and genericized role of cavalry, which can be modernized into the concept of force reconnaissance. As such, tanks are best used with an offensive mindset.
As far as I can tell... The Stryker is based on the horribly flawed concept that Leslie McNair first cooked up in WW2: that tanks were to a weapon of exploitation, only to be used when the battle had been forced by traditional infantry and artillery forces in a pitched battle, and the enemy was in a general retreat. This is neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring as any kind of operation doctrine.
the Bradley is an infantry fighting [Support] vehicle, which makes it a tactical weapons platform. Its meant to deliver infantry into the area, and provide local area fire support. Bradleys are almost always best used in a defensive mindset.
The Tank, on the other hand, is a strategic vehicle that commonly operates at the small unit level. It consists of superior mobility, and firepower, supported by superior communication to localize an overwhelming strike to force the enemy to divide his forces. This is the traditional and genericized role of cavalry, which can be modernized into the concept of force reconnaissance. As such, tanks are best used with an offensive mindset.
As far as I can tell... The Stryker is based on the horribly flawed concept that Leslie McNair first cooked up in WW2: that tanks were to a weapon of exploitation, only to be used when the battle had been forced by traditional infantry and artillery forces in a pitched battle, and the enemy was in a general retreat. This is neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring as any kind of operation doctrine.
(0)
(0)
SSG Randall Speck
If the T-90 or now the T-14 is being fielded against us, you better have Armor to counter it. I wouldn't want to see the outcome of the US going into Iraqi Freedom fielding the Striker in stead of the M1's. That would just be insane.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
That's crazy talk.. so while everyone else has tanks we have death trap strikers.. give me a break
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
If any thing we need a light tank that is air drop capable to support the Airborne
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I pretty sure that a M109 is not a "Tank", but this is what happened to the one that was near my sleeping position ...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google