The Tank is dead
 

We have been hearing that the tank is dead for many years now...

ATGM, AT Helos, etc have killed the Tank as a threat.

So you have a very well trained Platoon or Company, say USMC or British Army, and you are attacked by 50-100 enemy Tanks, with armoured infantry support. Do you really think that even a well trained Company will win?

Well it might, maybe, Perhaps, given a good position, and time to improve it, and assorted armoured and air support.

But it also might not, it might kill around 50% of the enemy Tanks and then those Tanks might break through. That Company position might be passed and surrounded.

It is a shock thing. The Tank is dead? Really? Think about it...

Re: The Tank is dead
 

A military arm is not supposed to operate on its own.

There are too many variables to take into account:

-When deploying tanks with a high chance of encountering mighty enemy Attack Helos or Standoff AGM tank busters, they should be supported by equally mighty anti-air measures.

-Tanks, when blitzing, should be supported by voluminous artillery support, at least when cracking the initial defensive positions. After that it may roam around freely in the backyard area (unless enemy employs defense in depth).

-When attacking dense terrain, tanks should be accompanied by infantry to clear out possible AT locations or ambush. The tank, in return, will provide quick & heavy fire to the advancing infantry.


Those who think that tanks are now mighty enough, that they can withstand ATGM fire quite well (despite obscure & very rare sources pointing to that, not to mention the many variables involved in a chaotic battlefield), failed to understand that for every action there will always be a reaction. A tank gets better, and so will the Anti-tank measures.

We should not think tanks are mighty enough now that we can forget about Combined Arms principle, and do an attack pell-mell Yom Kippur style.

Generally, tanks are still useful of course. It is the 'tough type' of ground force, the soft one is the leg infantry. Each one complementing & helping each other.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Generally agree with the post above.

It is about combined arms.

The Tank is far from dead.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

This is the type of question that will get a respondent an ear full of lemonade.
You postulate a platoon/company defeating an armored battalion/short brigade with little other defining attributes? Why not throw in a Death Ray from the planet Mongo?

The concept of the 'land battleship' is what died. The swagger of a tanker on a Saturday night is still going strong.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264578.pdf

Re: The Tank is dead
 

The tank maybe dead on terms of it's changing role given MOUT combat that we seem to witness increasingly since the first Gulf War.

But it's role in combined arms doctrine, while undergoing change (what does not change) is secure on the battlefield.

The underlying issue as I understand this thread is what is the changing role of amor given maneuver, reconnaissance, and security operations in a combined arms context, the Air Land Battle.

I wonder what they're teaching at Fort Benning, the US premier armor school today. I

=====

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Classes on how to warm up your coffee with a laser rangefinder. How to wear a CVC helmet without messing up your hair style. Lectures on "Tank-Tops, appropriate turret wear or Tank Park Trash?" and "Bogey or Bogie?, the little wheels that mean so much."
:D

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Well as jp10 pointed out this is a mismatch, an infantry company against one or two tank battalions. Were it company vs company though, about a dozen tanks and platoon of infantry vs maybe 150 grunts, the tankers might run into problems if the ground-pounders were dug-in. But if they catch the leggies out in the open it would most likely be a slaughter.

No, the tank ain't dead, but it isn't a panacea for every land combat situation either.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

If the tank is by itself, it's just a target. If the tank is with support units, it's a serious threat.

troopie

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Re: The Tank is dead
 

This was posted in the past but it's still a "fun" read......I especially like the 5 gal gas can in front of the claymore....nasty

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Frankly I'm not sure that one would work on a modern MBT. The claymore is useless, and even if all 5 gal of gas hit the tank I doubt a fire on the outside would do much good.

Now pour your gas into the engine compartment and you'll probably at least immobilize it as the insulation is burnt off the wiring and it shorts out. But standing on the rear deck of a tank holding a 5 gal gas can doesn't sound to healthy to me unless you've stripped it of infantry support.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

I was thinking more of those pesky support infantry that you need to deal with before the tank. The only thing that combination going off near a tank would do would make everyone inside it...glad they were inside it........

Re: The Tank is dead
 

But there is a crew in that MBT and vehicle crews do not like anything burning on the vehicle. The firemore will remove supporting troops, restrict vision by causing fire/smoke to surrounding terrain. It is best to disrupt C3 and close a route, causing the vehicles to detour into your planned kill zone.

You don't have to get on the deck, open can, drop in grenade, throw it on the deck. Works best as a two man team unless you tape the spoon with one strip of duct tape to make a delayed release.

The book is cute but the best secret tricks do not translate into Winsp game play.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

In case I was not clear I believe the tank is very far from dead and was trying to make that point.

Below is a very interesting link from the recent UK Royal United Services Institute conference (one of many interesting talks from this conference) I direct readers to the second speaker from 22 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIg3LkAYNKM

He is talking about current war in Ukraine and Russian forces.

Lots of tanks, lots and lots of powerful artillery, very effective area air denial via SAMS, etc, trenches, and a lot of electronic warfare/jamming too.

The Russians have always been an Artillery army, it was their best arm even as far back as the Napoleonic era. In munitions terms whereas the West has gone increasingly precision, the Russians have gone for mass effect.

The Area air denial -if it works against the latest Western aircraft- really would be a game changer, since I strongly suspect Western forces will suffer more from the loss of air support than Russian style forces would, especially in the face of a very powerful enemy artillery.

From a British Army point of view I would say the lesson would be don't, under almost any circumstances, be fighting Russia in Eastern Europe, as a single Armoured Division (and that is the most UK is going to be able to generate for the foreseeable future) however well equipped and trained, is pretty much useless for that type of warfare in that type of theatre. Although, of course, it might be very useful indeed, elsewhere.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

One further point on my last post. The gentleman speaking in the video, a former Royal Marine, suggested that area air denial could lead to even Western troops getting as little as 20% of expected air support or less.

The F35 (initially supposed to be an affordable multi-role aircraft) has a flyway cost that is never likely to be much less than US $100-120 million per single aircraft, depending on it being an 'A', 'B' or 'C'. Add to that the cost of often very expensive Western Precision guided munitions and, of course, an expensively trained pilot.

F35 has, mainly frontal arc, stealth technology (if it carries no external weapons, that means it cannot, even when based relatively close to the enemy, as in on a Carrier, carry a great deal).

Now I ask people to consider, in terms of simple common sense, what level of losses would be acceptable with this, very expensive, aircraft. Or, to put it another way, how good does an area air denial SAM system need to be before using F35, and losing some, becomes a game not worth the candle?

Lets say, for the sake of argument, a F35, loaded with smart weapons and an experienced pilot is worth $150 million (strictly just in money terms). Is an objective worth, perhaps, losing one? Three, five or even ten of them? Is that likely to include supporting an infantry company? Me, I have my doubts.

Doubts made stronger by hearing Crab (sorry RAF) officers talking about going 'down town' in F35 ( as a mere trog I always thought that term had very little to do with doing CAS, but a great deal to do with the old RAF 'independent air force' story).
Just some thoughts.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Given the expectations from Gulf-I it appears 25% losses in the initial strike to suppress opposition air defenses was considered high, but acceptable. After that initial strike I'd guess no more then 10%.

With the stealth, stand-off weapons, and smaller numbers of aircraft currently in use I'd suspect maybe half those numbers.

So in theory 5-10 days after the initial strike air losses could equal about 50% of the starting aircraft. At that point I'd suspect only high value missions would be undertaken so ground support for anything but a major attack/defense would be essentially nonexistent. Of course this assumes opposition air defense has not been eliminated or suppressed to the point of being noneffective.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Interesting thoughts. I doubt too much will change v Third world and non State forces (at least until they can get their hands on more modern Chinese and Russian kit in the form of area SAMS, etc).

But I am sure you are about right if facing the likes of a major Chinese or Russian force.

In terms of UK forces the British Army really lacks any kind of area air defence right now (Rapier is getting very long in the tooth and lacks range), although RN Type 45 Destroyers could probably provide some in littoral operations.

On a more directly related to this thread point the British Army also lacks any kind of ATGM under armour at the moment, and that is something they surely do need to fix for the proposed mobile 'Strike' brigades to make much sense.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

I think the "West" assumes air superiority so area air defense systems aren't a real priority. And to be honest since that has always been the case since about 1942 I can see why. One could argue if that would have been true had there been a NATO vs Warsaw Pact war, but since it never happened we'll never know.

I do think that the US in particular tends to neglects local air defense as well. Stingers are all well and fine but there are never enough of them around to deal with more then 4-6 (if that many) aircraft/helos.

The only ATGM under armor the USMC has ever had is the LAV-AT (we'll discount the "armored" HUMMWVs), and that's more of a side effect of wanting ATGM's that could keep up with the LAV units. Since the advent of the ATGM equipped Attack Helicopter the USMC has tended to rely on them as it's primary anti-armor system. One could argue if that's a good idea or not, but again, up until this point it has worked just fine.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Agree with everything you say. Two things I have heard current British Army types most wanting (besides a pay raise) is some sort of area SAM and some sort of ATGM under armour to support Warrior, etc.

For myself, I worry a bit that the whole light armoured, 8x8 APC thing has become very overblown. Light armour is useful if you are fighting a second or third rate enemy, - ie, South Africa v Cuba and Angola 1987-88- especially if you can move it, in useful numbers, quickly by air. Other than that, training etc being roughly equal, it is worse, in most respects, than having heavier armour.

So given they could put a low velocity 90mm gun on a Scorpion/Scimitar CVR(T) 'light tank' export varient, why not put the excellent 40mm gun from Ajax and Warrior 2000 on something like Scimitar Mk2 rather than a big heavy Ajax that is next to non air portable?

What I suspect is it was about 'force protection', especially from IED's that ends up giving one a over large and heavy Ajax that is neither fish nor fowl and does not deliver a whole lot that Warrior 2000 does not provide, beyond the ability for it to be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (ie, the Cavalry and the Royal Tank Regiment)...

Re: The Tank is dead
 

It really comes down to - "Are they APCs or IFVs?"

If you try to make every vehicle an IFV of course you're going to have mass and firepower issues. The only time the USMC had an IFV was late WW II/Korea with the amphibious "tanks" made out of LVT3s and 4s, and even those didn't carry troops they only operated in close support of them.

With the current world situation of "low intensity" conflicts vs guerilla type forces IEDs have become the major casualty inflictor and thus the "need" for transports that are less vulnerable to them. But that of course means more mass and since it's now capable of withstanding mines and small arms it needs a weapon capable of taking out it's equal.

I totally agree a 40mm AGL or 25-30mm chaingun is more then adaquite to the task, I've never really seen the need for a 50/75/90mm weapon in the first place. Too small to deal with real tanks, larger then needed to deal with APC/IFVs.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

The British Army has ended up with a lot of kit, in the form of light protected APC's purchased especially for Afghan, that it cannot yet afford to replace, although how useful they will be outside a COIN campaign is highly debatable.

The British Army also wants an 8X8 APC , after all every other army (US,Germany, France, Israel, etc) has them. The funny thing is I recall a time when nobody was all that impressed with the Russian BTR 60 series, that seems to have a very close resemblance to an 8x8 APC...

on the 90mm gun: 90mm SADF Elands (Based on a French Panhard) etc, did pretty well against, generally poorly handled, Angolan/Cuban T54/55-T62's 1970's-late 80's, although I am sure that would not be the case with more modern Russian tanks. Hence an ATGM under armour might be a good idea, especially if you cannot be certain of heaps of good anti tank helicopters overhead most of the time.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Isn't the answer to ATGM under armour for the UK already available with the export warrior / desert warrior with its TOWs?

Or is the thought that the Exactor (NLOS Spike) can provide the facility to the fast moving mobile troops?

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Fortunately the USMC didn't go too crazy with acquiring MRAP type vehicles, and most of those they did acquire were probably turned over to the US Army ... they always like to collect special purpose toys.

I'm something of a fan of 8X8 APCs, their mobility is nearly as good at a tracked vehicle and they require a lot less maintenance on, and have a longer service life, with regard to their suspension system. They're also generally lighter, again due to wheels vs tracks.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

And what of the US Stryker AFV. It carries 9 troops, a crew of two, excellent maintenance records (better than the tracked Bradley).

Perfect speed and mobility for MOUT operations.

It comes in a variety of packages to complete a mission: an essential battle taxi, gun vehicle, ATGM, reconnaissance vehicles, mortar, engineer, and a C3 wagon.

No one vehicle does it all as the BMP and series.

And with the wire cage bolt on it take survive an single shaped RPG.

Plus it plays great in winspmbt.

The thing about MRAP, we make a modification and the enemy makes stronger IED's. The cycle continues.

Plus, these groups in Syria and Iraq change allegiance on a dime (or a quarter or a dollar). Point being, you give a group TOWs and next month a splinter group is using those ATGMs against us. The MRAP is short gapped.

=====

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Rah!

Tom

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Unlike civilians we need to keep in mind the MRAP is an armored truck not an APC/IFV.

It's good at what it was designed for ... patrolling roads and villages dealing with lightly armed guerillas. It was never designed, nor intended to be a front-line APC.

It's useful for getting troops near the battle, just like the truck it is.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Oshkosh won the bid to replace the Humvee and produce Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) about a year ago. The whole of Northeast Wisconsin was thrilled. It's a huge contract.

So, whatever the intended mission was for the Humvee, the MRAP (Oshkosh Corp) took that over and now extends that mission considerably with the JLTV.

Now the extension to the MRAP is a hybrid if you will that can transport, protect, and fight bad guys in cities, towns, villages, and the country side. That's the big contract Oshkosh won to produce the next vehicle that as the names implies does more than transport troops to the battle (the battle is everywhere in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.)

Oh, and the idea of A/B armor kits continues on the JLTV. So, as the idea goes, as armor protection improves, Oshkosh makes a difference bolt on A/B to counter the improvement of mines and other threats. You don't have to design a new vehicle just slap on the improved armor kit.

Anyway, should be a real hoot.

=====

Re: The Tank is dead
 

By way of an update...Have been long tracking and posting on this from the start. Getting here sooner than some of you might realize in fact for the sake of argument 1 Oct. 2016 for the USA, for the CORPS they'll start getting theirs in 2018.
http://www.janes.com/article/63662/j...n-in-september

Others in my files...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_ar...ctures_te.html
http://asc.army.mil/web/tag/jtlv/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rotests-05147/
https://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/?utm...FdcVgQodQecEKA
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...r-leaders.html

Also if you read the last ref. from military.com you'll have noticed how fast the weapons issue was addressed from the more recent JANE's ref. at the top. We're talking ref. dates here to be clear. Remember as well that the JTLV is only considered to be an interim vehicle for both services.

I hear you...Most others on the topic I believe I put into the MRAP Thread already over the years.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Well we currently have the Oshkosh M-ATV which has been in service since March 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_M-ATV
Looks like the JLTV is just a finalized production version of that.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Desert Warrior mounts a different turret with a 25mm gun. The British Army is upgrading to Warrior 2000 with a good 40mm gun, granted if it was affordable and could be fitted on Warrior 2000 Tow might well be the answer.

Extractor/NLOS Spike seems to be treated as a Royal Artillery asset in the British Army.

I remain rather dubious about 8x8 APC's for the British Army unless they use them to replace almost all the assorted short term, urgent buy, stuff that they purchased for Afghan, much of which is worn out and almost all of which is less than useful for anything else.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

If anyone finds length and width comparisons for the M-ATV vs the JLTV point me to them, I've not been able to find what I need

Re: The Tank is dead
 

I'm not sure, but as the military and political foot print on the ground in Syria and Iraq has dramatically changed, I do not see British infantry involved at all beyond a few special ops.

What I would like to see, if this Brexit move does not alter the fundamental relationship between the Brits and the Americans vis-a-vis NATO is that Britain takes on the leadership of the fundamental defense of Europe, then her new found strategic obligations will drive what she needs to field. 8x8's won't fare as well in Europe against Russian heavy mechanized brigades as say opposed to lightly armed Taliban fighters.

If she committed to NATO leadership, then I see, in my reading, she must field heavy mechanized combat teams too.

8x8's need a lot of supporting firepower to bring independent brigades to battle. Especially, if she transports two fire teams per vehicle there's not enough cubic feet to put added ammo loads to support auto canons and missiles.

Tanks, heavy tanks are needed.

One solution, since she does not have to air lift heavy mechanized formations (placing the brigades forward in Eastern Europe), is to adopt the Israeli solution, turning to hulls of ready to retire tanks for heavy IFV's conversions.

Now, that should make an interesting scenario.

=====

Re: The Tank is dead
 

I agree. In a large conventional war, we won't witness the death of the tank, but the death of light armor (something that was evident in Ukraine as well). Stryker brigades and equivalent formations will have a hard time surviving on a battlefield like this.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Like other Western nations UK has Special Forces operating in the Middle East, rather than infantry, as well as air forces.

UK plays a major role in NATO, although for my money I hope that does not involve confronting Russia in Eastern Europe, that can only lead to a hiding to nothing, certainly East and north of Poland.

Post Brexit, and with the new Carriers available from about 2019, I hope that UK returns to its traditional mainly maritime stance, on defence. The Royal Navy will become even more important for a nation that wants to be a global trader.

UK can live with a 70-80,000 man regular Army so long as the Royal Navy is strengthened and the Royal Marine Brigade kept at full strength. If I had my way, other than for occasional NATO exercises, none of the British Army would be actually based in mainland Europe, beyond the Crown bases on Cyprus and perhaps Gib.

To my way of thinking a UK that has a para/air portable brigade group, a Royal Marine brigade group, some sort of light armoured brigade group and an Armoured Division, plus Special Forces, has about as much military as it is likely to need.

I am much more concerned with a Royal Navy that has only 19 major surface escorts (needs to be at least 25) and seven nuc attack subs (needs to be at least 8 and preferably 10).

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Btw, I also think there is a strong case for UK expanding the excellent Gurkha Rifles to a full brigade.

Re: The Tank is dead
 

British Army admits Russia can outgun British troops (no great surprise to me, I have to say) Much of the video relates to NATO in general, for example "No NATO nation, bar the US, can get a division" -presumably an Armoured Div- "out the door in much less than six months"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aCorCNjwRY

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Any update on JLTV in the next patch?

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Yes for the USMC at least. As to US Army and foreign use, for the most part there are orders for and plans to but little difinative so there may be some delay till solid info is available. After all LOTS of plans and intentions never lead to actual delivery and WinSPMBT tries very hard to deal with "what is" rather then "what could be".

Re: The Tank is dead
 

"Nearly four years after the Army settled on Oshkosh to produce a next-generation replacement for the troubled Humvee, a few lucky soldiers from the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division are finally going to get their paws on the much-hyped Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

On Monday, the Raider Brigaide's official Twitter account posted photos of flatbed trucks hauling the new JLTV rolling up at Fort Stewart in Georgia."

Fort Stewart, BTW is a great place. Down the road from the ATL, makes for a nice drive on a Friday evening, with "Get the Led Out" rock show on the radio! And, you ain't gotta report back until Monday 08:00.

Check out the brigade's twitter account here: https://twitter.com/1ABCT_3ID/status...374209/photo/1
<br>

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Source: Task & Purpose

Re: The Tank is dead
 

Reminds me of the phrase "give a 19 year old a tank and he'll wreck it on the one tree in the middle of the field" :D

Steve