decline of tanks?

The tank was declared obsolete because of guided missiles in the 1960s, and because of the attack helicopter in the 1970s.
What do you think will replace tank?
Or can tank overcome those problems?

 

Well, that was about half a century ago and tanks still abound in militaries around the world. The proof is in the oak cask, or something like that....

 

The 'obsolescencne' theory relies on the belief that potential opponents have plenty of guided missiles/attack helicopters etc. As long as there are men with rifles, the tank will have its' place.

 

If the tank has had its day, then the process of phasing the tank out has been very slow there has been no real evidence that this has been happening. I don't think the tank has had its day, I am sure it will be around for many years to come.

 

And of course the scientists are making new methods to electronically disguise tanks as well, I´d think?!

 

The first time I heard this argument was on occasion of the Yom Kippur war, back in 1973. Since then tanks have gone from strength to strength, and at the moment there are more models being produced or about to as ever there were. Also we see a large demand for Peace Dividend tanks, such as plenty of Leopard IIs changing hands plus T-72s in umpteen variations. It looks very much like "The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated"

Besides, what the 'ell has this got to do with WWII to be in WWII General?

 

Along with aircraft, tanks played in integral role in the Gulf War in '91.

 

But not a terribly efficient weapon, especially where the location and "political persuasion" of the inhabitants of the house are unknown.

Collatarel Damage is very expensive.

 

Politically ( naturally ) it seems for Bush that the less US soldier losses the better so civilians will pay the price because of the guerilla warfare. "Shoot first ask questions later"...
I think Bush should find a decent way to get out of Iraqi as soon as possible because I think he cannot stop the civil war from happening. Maybe delay by keeping the troops in but cannot stop it. Remember the old saying about keeping the wolf by the ears...

 

Talking to a serving Engineer he notes that tanks are getting heavier and heavier again. Challenger2 and Leopard2 with their extra Armour come in at around 70 tons and the Bridging they're now looking at can handle the 90 tons and upward mark.(maybe 188 tons of Maus might not look so daft in the future)
Swings and roundabouts.
The endless evolution of ways to kill each other and defensive countermeasures means (I think) that the Tank is here to stay. If you're going to take ground then you've also got to hold it.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

The heavier the tanks get the more expensive and hard it is to make. In case of war, one must mass produce those heavy tanks and it will drain the resource of that country dramatically. I think the tank is already an outdated weapon in the late information age warfare. Personally, I think warfare will be fought over the control of space, with electronic weapons, and robotic army.
If one controls space, there are a lot of things they could do with the advanced technology to defeat their enemy, such as poison the atmosphere. The age of mechanic weapon is the past in my opinion, by using advanced electronic technology; they can easily paralyze weapons such as tank. I also think robotic army is the feature, they would not depend on a lot of supplies, the weather would hardly be an issue, and they are capable of doing a lot of tasks man could not do.
That’s my opinion; please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I just think that if anyone is trying to hold on to some outdated weapon or concept; they will have the same fate as the French in the WWII.

 

Yes, but that is hardly the fault of the tank, is it? That happens if you use whatever weapon you choose in the same context. IIRC correctly, this Fallujah battle was preceded by a long period where civilians were warned to leave the area, and those who remained were those who opted to stay or those that were co-opted as human shields.

 

That's why there is right now a glut of very good 2nd hand tanks on the market running at very low prices, like Leo IIs and T-72s in their several flavours.

If you argue that tanks will be unaffordable, I wonder what you mean by this Space Wars business. So this is going to be affordable? To whom? Pakistan? India? Iran? Poland? Sweden? And could you specify what you mean by this paralying weapon? what is this, the Death Ray?

Do you mean something like this?



And the French were not beaten because they clung to outmoded weapons, it was due to something else.

 

Warfare is hardly going the way of space. While we are see the digitalisation of space and cyperspace in the military, only a few powers can afford this and this is mostly the US with some developments in Europe, notably the UK and France.

Actually the recent trend in warfare has been for more assymetric operations such as we are currently seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this respect the tank probably does not have much use. It is interesting to not that the British Army have taken note of this and since the end of the Cold War British tank strength has gone done by over half. This has been because of a realisation in the changing nature of modern warfare. However, the army has keep hold of them and arguebly the best MBT currently in service because they realise that if a conventional war is to break out they will be needed. For example, most political analyst have predicted that Russian is going the way of fascism and that is 20 years time will be resurgent and so we may never now. Also we have potential threats from more conventional armies such as China and North Korea so I think the tank still has its role it is just hidden at the moment because of the current nature of warfare.

Ross

 

I am talking about if anyone want global domination and total war, they are not going to care that much about the cost as long as the weapons helps them to win the war.
In the case of tank, it takes a lot of money to research and produce, but your opponent can destroy it with a guild missile which cost a lot less. Just like in Iraq, it is cheap to make a road side bomb and use it to destroy a Hummer which cost a lot more. About buying tanks, that is only useful to maintain military balance in a region. It is useless when there is a total war.
Now we use spacecrafts mainly to spy on others, that us what we used aircraft for about a century ago, if a base on the moon is built, it will be very cheap to launch a rocket due to its weak gravitational field. It is also easy to destroy aircrafts from above.
About robotic army, I mean the killing machine of steel, without mercy and grace, more deadly than any army ever walked the face of this planet, man is weak because of our emotions, when Hitler gives the "Nero Order" to destroy Germany completely, and his officers did not carry it out because of their emotion. But such thing will not happen if a robotic army is made, ready to kill all living being. This is no Star Wars or any of that crap you see on T.V.
I never said the French were beaten because they clung to outmoded weapons, I said if anyone is trying to hold on to some outdated weapon or concept; they will have the same FATE as the French in the WWII.
Again, feel free to correct me.

 

It would help if you could read some history books and magizanes and not get so much information from video games and computer games.
A base on the moon is alittle far off the mark for technology of today.

 

Today, yes.
Tomorrow, no.

 

On your point about Total War, that is unlikely to happen again. The period historians' call the Age of Total War was an anathema. It was arguebly born out of an alliance system which we are unlikely to see again, many people see the First and Second World Wars and one single conflict with a twenty year truce. Also weapons development, notably atomic weapons, preclude such a style of warfare where we see total mobilisation of the state. Currently, the trend is to a style of limited wars fought for purely politcal means as seen in the 18th century. The so - called War on Terror and its associated campaigns are being fought for purely politcal means and are a means to an end. They fully represent Clauswitz's dictum of war being a continuation of politcal by other means.

We are unlikely to see 'moon stations' for quite a while. We do not even have a viable space station yet never mind the ability to plant a base on the moon. As to your robot army, again unlikely. Most development in the digitalisation of the battlefield have related to communication and UAV's, but even these are still linkedto a human controller with emotions. As to land warfare what we are likely to see are more advance hand held weaponary for the infantry but again still linked to the human.

Ross