decline of tanks?

I suppose you mean a 'guided' missile. Yes, but then you guided missile crew can easily be destroyed by a few rifle bullets costing only some cents. Per your reasoning then the era of the guided missile is over.

 

I suppose you mean a 'guided' missile. Yes, but then you guided missile crew can easily be destroyed by a few rifle bullets costing only some cents. Per your reasoning then the era of the guided missile is over. </font>[/QUOTE]yes, but it is much easier to protect a guided missile crew against a rifleman than to protect a tank against a guided missile.

 

This is nonsense. An AT missile gunner has a skin as thick as my own, which can be pierced with grievous effect by ANY kind of light or anti-infantry weapon, from a pistol up to a 203mm shell. Or does your mythical gunner have Superman Skin made of Chobham armour, or depleted uranium, layered ceramics, explosive reactive armour or whatever?

Or are you going to hide your AT gunner in your moonbase? Or are you in your moonbase already?

 

I'll top your rifleman in the arms race and sneak up behind him and hit him with a brick.. Much cheaper than bullets.
Tell you what, let's give the ground guided missile user some sort of protection, maybe a bit of mobility too, something that can quickly take heavy weapons where others can't go..

Hang on a minute! That shape looks oddly familiar? Didn't we used to call them 'Tanks'??


(With apologies to Ironcross for the sarcasm, sorry mate. )
Cheers,
Adam

 

I think there will always be a tank or some variation of a tank on a battlefield.

 

Especially so if you add a guided missile on top!

 

Looks more like a mobile bunker.

Is that a Bundeswehr vehicle? I think I see the Iron Cross on the side.

 

can someone tell me what are the ranges of a guided missile and a rifle.

 

Well, a TOW missile for instance will reach 3750m, and a current assault rifle will be accurate up to 300m.

But if you're thinking what I'm thinking you're thinking (jeez, did I write that? ) may I remind you that a battlefield is quite a vicious environment full of nasty things looking for ways to kill your guided missile crew other than rifles, such like mortars (for instance 81mm with 6000m range) and artillery (for instance the M109 with 30km range).

Anyway, things with greater range than Von Poop's brick.

 

You're right, that's a Jagdpanzer Jaguar.

It used to be something like this but in the early 80's the gun was removed and replaced by something more effective.

 

Is the Israel tank Merkava type the best today?? Opinions? At least something is done to improve the crew´s chances to survive.

The Merkava is the innovative Israeli design of Major General Israel Tal. The primary design criteria was crew survivability. Every part of the overalldesign is expected to contribute to helping the crew survive. The engine is inthe front to provide protection to the crew. There is a special protectiveumbrella for the tank commander to enable protection from indirect fire with thehatches open. Special "spaced armor" is in use along with protectedfuel and ammo compartments.

http://www.voodoo.cz/merkava/index3.html

The Mk 4 being the latest version (?)

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

 

It's not the prettiest tank in the world.

I am surprised no one had developed a remote controled style tank as they are doing with aircraft these days. Guide the tank with GPS and with no crew it would be alot lower to the ground. The only problem would be a way to reload the big gun.

 

I find the most Bizarre thing about the Merkava is that the fuel actually performs as an integral part of the turret armour It makes sense when it's role in impact absorbtion is explained but a rather revolutionary idea nonetheless.
Cheers,
Adam

 

You're right, that's a Jagdpanzer Jaguar.

It used to be something like this but in the early 80's the gun was removed and replaced by something more effective. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought so. The older version looks just like a Jagdpanther.

 

decline of tanks same as decline of trenches

 

Every statement needs an explanation, otherwise we will become stuck to vacuous, shallow opinions with nothing to support them.

I say 'decline of tanks same as decline of the blunderbuss'. Big deal. Now what do I need to add to turn this into an intelligent argument?

 

Blunderbuss?...Cool, not that I'd light one of those off.
Grandpa used to tell of duck hunting during the depression and how they used a "Punt" gun.
Just a foot long piece of seamless steel pipe (6" diameter) welded to a base-plate (foot square)(steel), about a pound of black powder, (fuse up the side of the inside)(like a Dixie-Cannon) wadding....then dump in nuts/bolts, rocks, nails, broken glass (whatever), more wadding.
Row out to the middle of a lake, blow yer duck call "liberally" , and when the sky is full of them little "Orange sauce" buddies, lean away and light that sucker off.
He said it would "rain" Ducks !
The only problem is... the (Warden)(Ranger) could hear them things from 2 states away , and knew exactly what was going on !
They had to pick them up fast and get outta there.
When you gotta feed yer family, sometimes it requires special means.

I think tanks make for good crowd control, like horses, swords, teargas. I think that will always be necessary, and perhaps enable all these things to be with us for a while to come, even if they are no longer on the front line (as much).

 

I had never heard of a Weapon of Mass Duck Destruction before

 

I'd say tank vulnerability has increased because of the widespread of anti tank missles that can be used and carried by one half-trained soldier, or even small missiles launchers that can be mounted on a car.

This pushes the old or medium tanks out, as we saw in the last medium scale battle opposing Chad and Lybia : old craps of tanks were hopelessely out maneuvered and out fire-rated (rate of fire I mean) by 4x4 cars mounting small ATG's.

Now, every small irregular army can access small and medium anti tank rocket launchers, and I believe medium tanks are now deathtraps if their armor can't stand small missiles/rockets.

This leaves the big boys with modern armor or at least updated design, which are not vulnerable to small individual rocket launchers (RPG for example).

Of course, missile crews are vulnerable, but they can hide in more places and much faster than a tank, fire and flee before being shot at, and they also are less expansive to replace than a tank and its crew (not even speaking about drones that are now effective at carry missiles).

That's the reason why I think Von Poop is right mentoning we are in a "big is beautifull" thrend.

On the other hand, big fat main battle tanks are really hard to kill except you have very powerfull weapons at disposal (I don't take mines / explosives into consideration, as it is passive weapons), which isn't the case of most guerillas or third wolrd armies : look at the very small number of killed M-1 during both gulf wars.

 

The way warfare is going at the mo tanks are pretty useful. As a dragoon told me last year, 'nothing discouraged the iraqi police from changing sides like a Chally 2.'