Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The role of the tank today ?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Steiner phpbb3, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    When they get here they will find that all the land has been given to the Native Canadians, there is no more gold here so go away. :D

    Do you know why there are Indian land claims on the moon?

    Answer: The Indian hasn't been there yet!

    When I was told this by my friend, who is a native Indian my jaw dropped in complete shock, to his great enjoyment. I asked him how he could get away with a joke like that and he said I'm an Indian you pay taxes to give to me.
    Nice thing to say Joe.
     
  2. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    There is a joke here that Manibtoba will be sooner or later bought by some Natives for a bottle of Screech Owl and half a carton of Sago's.
     
  3. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    :D 8)
     
  4. tankerwanabe

    tankerwanabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    i think the tanks is still going to be around for a long time, because it's still one of the most difficult beast to kill. infangry aren't mobile enough. air power is great but not every airforce will be a pushover like iraq. chopppers are deadly but they have to land eventually. that leaves a tank, when in not in open terrain can be a real pain to find not to mention killing (kosovo).
     
  5. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    Future tanks

    This is an important point but the writer doesn't seem to have followed it through. The current generation of tanks were designed to fight WW3. These tanks were shaped by the expected theatre and opponent. If we start to design our future tank today we are not subject to all the same presures. The kind of massed armoured assault imagined for WW3 look less and less likely. On the other hand somethings haven't changed since 1916. The machine gun hasn't gone away, the average infantryman still isn't bulletproof and the tank can still bring direct support and staying power to the battlefield in ways that I don't believe other units can match. Future wars look likely to be smaller scale and wider spaced where the ability to bring AFV's to theatre quickly becomes more important. The next generation of tank is likely to be smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient than those currently in service.
     
  6. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Actually, when I think of power, I think of aircraft carriers. :wink:
     
  7. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Re: Future tanks

    Good points, Ebar. Tanks can really help keep your infantry casualties down, if they are used properly. There is no doubt that their role will change, as will their design and doctrines. It is, however, far too soon to condemn them to the scrap heap. Helicopters, BTW, are hideously vulnerable to ground fire. Even dedicated attack helos can't be heavily armored everywhere.
     
  8. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    Well i'm more of a ground guy :)
     
  9. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, to each his own. :)
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    To those of you who are enamoured with the Stryker concept, I will say this:

    M551 Sheridan
     
  11. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    The Sheridan? I've heard more bad stuff than good on that tank. Big gun though! :D
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly - it was a small, fast, lightly armoured tank with a big gun.
    And you have heard more bad than good. :smok:

    However, much of the bad was due to its unusual main weapon - a smoothbore gun capable of firing missiles...
     
  13. PanzerProfile

    PanzerProfile New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,474
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Doesn't that make the rockets flip and spin like ...? I mean: rockets are invented for being ballistic or at least stable. I think that by using a smoothbore barrel you only fundo that effect.
     
  14. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    The missile worked like it was supposed too, it was just complicated to load and use. 152mm missiles is pretty big...

    That wasn't the only problem with the Sheridan. It had light armor that couldn't even take a blast from a small mine in the belly.
     
  15. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    Both the tank and the helicopter have, and will continue to have in the forseeable future, a place on the battlefield. As long as there are fixed positions requiring ground assault by infantry, the tank will exist as a support weapon.

    For grand tactical assault, the helicopter is unmatched. Mobile air assault formations consiting of attack and transport helicopters, supported by planes lends a whole new meaning to the word "Blitzkrieg".

    Still, ground troops must follow and here come the tanks and AFV's.

    My two cents worth.

    :smok:
     
  16. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, undoubtally the helicopter has taken over the job of the tank. The future I see for the tank is something more of a bodyguard role, protecting the APC's and infantry, while the helicopter is the one that will be used to slice deep gashes in the enemy defenses and formations.
     
  17. Paul Lakowski

    Paul Lakowski New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    There is a problem here. HElos need airsuperiorty to function effectively and are really vulnerable to even small arms fire. OIF demostrated this, with entire Apache battalions being neutralised by a bunch of blocks with AK47 RPGs and cell phones. For weapon to be critical it has to function well with minimal support for extended periods of time. Tanks units can do this helos can't.

    Helos use obsene amounts of fuel and are not good for operational maneuver since they become hostages the further they go. Any use would resemble 'operation market garden'.

    In ODS 101st Airmobile was good with its brigade assaults, but the real killing power of that thrust was the Armored division and brigade backed up by Apaches, A-10 and ARty.

    AHelos are best employed as armored scouts attached to Cavalry brigades.
     
  18. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Good point, Paul. :)
     
  19. tankerwanabe

    tankerwanabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The problem with airmobile is that they're sort of airborn. I see them used for establishing blocking positions rather than a frontal push especially against a heavy division.

    Abuse it and there's going to be a logistic problem. And once on the ground, they become grunts with really short legs.
     
  20. Paul Lakowski

    Paul Lakowski New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Exactly, I like the german idea of "airmechanized" with the Wiesel weapons carrier as this atleast gives the leg mobile troops some organic mobility. I still think a BMD type plateform makes best sence. If the enemy space has many petrol/gas stations then these can extend the useful ness of such a airmobile unit, but it still has to remain defensive due to the slow and delicate nature of air resupply.
     

Share This Page