Is the Main Battle Tank Obsolete?

i think you have a point about it being a gas guzzler but I think that there will always have to be a main battle tank to support troops and engage other tanks. But what we should do is force the Middle East to lower their oil prices by a lot. They have a monopoly and the prices will still rise.

just my 2 cents...

Wiliam,

Oil prices are driven by market supply and demand forces, not the whim of the Middle Eastern producers. We have high oil prices now because of increasing demand from China and Asia for oil but there's correspondingly less oil being produced to meet that demand...mostly because the current exporters are producing at or near capacity already. It's not in their longterm interest to see high oil prices as that actually reduced consumption and their profit/revenue flows.

Anyhow, back to the topic of the future of the MBT...I do think we are a pivotal moment in terms of where technology and strategic needs play a role. The MBT is taking on a lot of the characteristics that battleships had at the start of WWII. They are expensive, highly visible expressions of force/might, but really only useful if the other guy also has expensive highly visible expressions of force/might for them to go up against and defeat.

I think there is still a place for the Abrams in the TO&E of the modern army but it's role is diminishing as more and more conflicts become localized or asymmetrical as opposed to the mass battles on the plains of Central Europe that were once envisaged. Smally unit mobility and survivability are coming more to the forefront and the role of the MBT by contrast is being reduced to the background.

I'd say that the Abrams and MBT still has a role to play. They are virtually impenatrable to anything that's out there. I'd prefer something smaller and more mobile that still packs a punch and doesn't give up its armor defences. Probably a tall order. Since we control the air, that makes our MBT's pretty darn tough to defeat.

YEAH, you dont see any more Battle Kursks.

As long as you have citys,forests and bunkers you will always have a need for an MBT. Its sort of liken to a shotgun and are needed in urban warfare.The role of any MBT was not tank to tank but to clear the way of any obesticles that the infintry might incounter. This was and still is its main mission.I have to agree that they should be light and faster.This will happen in a few years with what the British are trying to devolpe and I think that they will do it.As soon as the British do devolpe there eletric-magnetic field for the tank you will see some radical changes in tank devolpiments.You can't always get what you want in desturction from the air or with missells.So for as right now the MBT'S are need and provide an important funcition.Digger

Well here's a link to an article of almost the same topic:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/4lastmbt.pdf

I think there will be a place for the Tank in many more battles to come. How else can you get a very large and protected gun to travel with the infantry. I know someone out there is yelling "SP arty," but arty is only effective at stand off ranges. Airpower can only be at so many places at one time (Wingy Things and Choppers aren't very cheap either). I know there's all kinds of anti-tank stuff out there, but the cheap stuff (bad-guy-terrorist cheap) seems unreliable. I'll be willing to bet that the US line of MBT's doesn't end with the Abrams.

My two / one hundredths of a dollar,
Chris

I think MBT are ok when they meet eachother on the battlefield, however most fights thesedays are close quarter combat, and in the "narrow" streets of a city, an MBT may look impressive is in reality useless and even an easy target for that one guys with his RGP.

What I meant to say was that they have no competion for the market.

I've listened to this argument for decades and the answer is still the same. The tank is an essential part of the battle field. The problem I found as a tanker was that infantrymen don't understand what a tank can do. As a grunt I was constantly pissed off at the other squad leaders who didn't appreciate a tank's capabilities. A squad of infantry can sit a 'klick' away from a target and call in support fire from a tank 800 (or more) meters behind them! A tank is a beautiful battlefield weapon, especially when an M1 gunner can watch a crunchie at night walk around two kilometers away totally unaware that he is under the guns of an M1.
What the US needs to develop again is an effective light tank (right now the 'Humvee' is listed as a 'light tank' on Cavalry MTO&E's... if I'm not mistaken, which I may be if updates have occured since I last looked at a Cav MTO&E), I can tell you I'd rather be in an M5A1 Stuart than some #($%**$& Humvee. For some reason, tracks demand respect that wheels don't get and solid armor is much more impressive than 'bulletproofing'.
Let's give infantry a choice.... hmmm. Wanna take an objective with the help of a company of tanks with five high velocity 120mm cannon, ten 7.62 and five .50 cal. machine guns, or wanna go it alone? I think most infantrymen who've worked with tanks enjoy the cover they provide as well as the attention they draw away from the guys in danger on the ground. ... of course, there ARE times you want to be all alone without a hint of any support...
My point, we need tanks. We've had a lot of smaller battles around the globe, but there's no guarantee that they'll stay small, in which case we'll need all the firepower we can get: from infantry squads to tanks to artillery to sea and air support.
My opinion.

Ron.

Interesting topic. From what I've seen and read in recent months, the MBT is very much alive and well. I think the Army may be a bit premature in declaring the MBT an ideal weapon for urban warfare, but our doctrine has shifted sharply after the experience of OIF. Tanks were traditionally thought of as sitting ducks in urban environments. Our guys in OIF proved that they arent and can operate quite effectively.

Dwight, interesting article. I think the author may be falling into the same trap that the Navy and Air Force did in the 1960s with their fighter design. "It doesn't need a gun, it has missiles!" While missiles sure do have the advantage in range, they also are much more likely to be faulty. A gun doesn't have that drawback. Now a healthy combination of both... that's something to think about.

I personally think we need to get some hovertanks....

Well said Ron, I completely agree with you.

What is a klick?

You can't hold or take ground with an airplane or missle... also, the ability of being able to flank the enemies ground units and bring to bear massive fire power on their rear is still vital in todays standards of war. Kicking them in the pants while holding them by the nose is still one of the best strategies devised and still in use today... Granted we could have parachuted a bunch of our guys into Baghdad, but nothing speaks power like the MBT and I don't believe we could have taken Baghdad as successfully as we had if not for the MBT..

That would be one kilometer

Oh well that sort of obvious, silly me.

There is a new round on its way to M-1 crews for use in close quarter contact it's a 120mm beehive and will allow for direct fire inclose combat conditions with our troops. There is also talk on an hatch riser similar to the old M-60 that would house up to a 40mm grenade launcher and a possible mini-gun for the loader. Ammo supply to the mini-gun would need reconsideration to munitions storage but I believe it will improve the ability to not only survive but control the bad guys. I support my local main battle tank.

A minigun on a Abrams wow talk about packin a punch!

I wouldnt want to be some militiaman w/ a AK-47 in front of that thing!

Did anyone else happen to catch that article about the "unknown" projectile that penetrated the flank of an Army M1 in Iraq not too long after the war was over? I read it in Marine Times (I'm a SSgt USMC) that "something" penetrated around where the armor skirt attaches, grazed the back of either the gunner or loader's (I can't remember) seat, and splattered against the far bulkhead. Did they ever find out what happened there? Just curious, I'd hate to think some third party was testing anti-armor weapons at our expense.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poniatowski I've listened to this argument for decades and the answer is still the same. The tank is an essential part of the battle field. The problem I found as a tanker was that infantrymen don't understand what a tank can do. As a grunt I was constantly pissed off at the other squad leaders who didn't appreciate a tank's capabilities. A squad of infantry can sit a 'klick' away from a target and call in support fire from a tank 800 (or more) meters behind them! A tank is a beautiful battlefield weapon, especially when an M1 gunner can watch a crunchie at night walk around two kilometers away totally unaware that he is under the guns of an M1.

Ron,

While I tend to agree with your sentiment, and definately concur that we need a good light tank, I think the problem is the nature of the modern battlefield, which limits a tanks capabilities. What good does it do me, as a grunt, to have a tank that can engage targets two clicks out when I am in an urban fight with the badguys only a few hundred (if I am lucky) meters away? The other problem is that in operations such as those in Iraq, just seeing a 'target' from two clicks doesn't mean you can kill it. Have to make sure it is a legitimate target, which requires getting much closer. The very nature of the modern battlefield, as evidenced in Iraq, tends to negate the primary advantages that a tank provides.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Yamafreak72 Did anyone else happen to catch that article about the "unknown" projectile that penetrated the flank of an Army M1 in Iraq not too long after the war was over? I read it in Marine Times (I'm a SSgt USMC) that "something" penetrated around where the armor skirt attaches, grazed the back of either the gunner or loader's (I can't remember) seat, and splattered against the far bulkhead. Did they ever find out what happened there? Just curious, I'd hate to think some third party was testing anti-armor weapons at our expense.

Hey Yamafreak,

I'm a SSgt in the Corps as well. Just returned from Staff Acacdemy with a tanker and that very topic came up. Seems like there is debate about weather it was an RPG round that just happened to get lucky by passing right between the turret and the hull or weather it was a round fired by another M1. Seems to me that if it had been an M1 shot, the damage would have been a lot worse. Still, from what my tanker buddy told me, I'm not sure that anyone knows for sure.

SEMPER FI, man.

I tend to think that MBTs will stay around for a while to come. The analogy made to battleships at the end WWII may be valid. However, if it is a valid comparison, the tactical siutation for MBTs today is not entirely similar to that faced by battleships at the end of WWII.

Opponents
At the start of WWII, we needed battlewagons to defend against the other guy's battlewagons, but after WWII, there were no more battleships to fight. Our potential iron curtain opponents weren't deploying them, so our own need for the diminished.

On the other hand, currently many of our likely opponents have very competant MBTs, so we need to have a counter. Presumably a Bradley equipped with an anti-tank missle has a good chance against an enemy MBT provided that they get the jump on the enemy, but I don't think that anyone really wants to make that matchup part of the Bradley's bread-and-butter operations.

Targets
At the end of WWII, battleships no longer had much in the way of likely targets. Naturally, there were no battleships to sqaure off against, and principle ship to ship fleet action would be handled by carrier borne aircraft and submarines. The only real targets left for battleships would be shore facilities, primarily as part of pre-invasion preparation. The navy figured they could handle those tasks with aircraft, so battleships were retired because they were a very expensive luxury to handle a fairly limited role.

On the other hand, MBTs still have lots of battle field targets. Enemy MBTs, APC.s, pill boxes, strong points etc. Admittedly, any of these items can be taken out by a missile, but missiles are usually fairly expensive compared artillary rounds. Considering the number of such targets that need to be eliminated in a ground offensive, it probably adds up to make the tank not seem as expensive.

All in all, I think the Abrams has a place in the arsenal for a long time to come. With the changing nature of warfare, i.e. no more Kursks. possibly the next generation of MBT may well have its designed capabilites adjusted to account for the more likely scenarios of the future.

Hi, I really had to wade into this one....

I love tanks as much as the next guy but one point that no one has mentioned yet has to do with the changing role of CAS. It used to be that you needed something like a big can opener on an A-10 or something from an Apache or other missile platform to get the accuracy you needed to take out solitary hard targets. Now CAS is a guy at 35 or 40,000 with a laser guided bomb and he can put that baby just about where you want it. You can buy a lot of bombs for the price of an M1. As an ex-airforce guy (we loved tanks) I can't help but think that a lot of the reasons we use to justify tanks are being filled from the air where one guy sits in relative safety and provides ground support. I am familiar with the old adage that only infantry can hold ground but if there is no enemy left after a thorough pasting........

One other thought is that several people have compared MBT's to Battleships. I think you might be better off looking at them as Roman Cataphracts or heavy armoured cavalry (in the horse sense, not as we use the term now). History is replete with examples of the value of a heavily armed (and armoured), highly mobile force on the battlefield. I won't even bother to list the first 100 or so examples that come to mind, but the psychological value of seeing something that large, moving that fast, with that much force (whether it be a cataphract, or an MBT) coming towards you to kill you, cannot be underestimated. Again, history is full of accounts written by the guys on the receiving end of these advances and they rarely sound "calm, cool and collected".

Our view of history is pretty short. We have had tanks for only about 100 years or so but before that, the same role was served by horses, elephants, chariots, and what ever could be armed, armoured, and made to move. My guess is that the MBT will stick around for quite awhile. I believe we will always need something to accomplish the specific task given to armour. We can keep making the armour better and make the armament better, but the next big change will come will need to be some way to make them much more mobile. They are already a heck of a lot faster than their brethren of 50 years ago, but we coming close to maximizing the weight/horsepower ratio and still maintain the armour effectiveness. So we either have to provide the same armour protection with less weight, or provide a lot more mobility (eg horsepower or the like) and keep the same weight. Science fiction does the former with "sheilds" and the latter with "hover tanks" but I think we are aways away from either of these two in practical terms.

Anyways, just come thoughts from an ex Canadian Airforce Officer and former Armoured Recce trooper.

ciao

they've been asking that question since 1918. there is not a weapon system in this world or in our arsenal that can't be overcome by a clever adversary. every time one of our tanks hits the street, it's a shock to our enemies, but they find a way to knock them out. there will come a day when the m1 isn't needed, but until then, let's keep it on the frontlines.

well i skipped reading the rest of the posts so my first reply would be valid i guess, or so i think.
but i would have to say they are, they are hudge heavy and well when they roll around in iraq it terrifies the locals that everything shakes and rattles around when they pass by, so it's an intimidation factor as well as a mobile fortress on tracks. If they know they can't destroy it they either run from it or hunker down lower in their holes in the ground and wait for a softer target then the rest of us get to play!

Hmm, I was just wondering about this myself the other day. I was watching a documentary regarding the Third Reich, and generally thinking about battles, we do not seem to see any major engagements anymore. There is most definitely a need for these types of vehicles still, but that need is apparent less and less. Imagine in the future, if projects like the Commanche are actually placed into production, I can see the MBT becoming a liability rather than an advantage.

How many of you guys have been hunkerd down in a fox hole, and a platoon of M1's roll through your position? I have and even though it was an exercise and I knew that they were on our side it still scared the crap out of me. The earth shakes, its loud, its dusty and so very imposing. The MBT brings not only massive amounts of fire power it also brings a psychologicaly crippling affect with it. I cant imagine them shooting at me while they were rolling through us. I would have wet my BDU's!!!

As for the round and the M1, common thought around here is that it was an RPG round. There are a few places that it is vunerable. I wont go into detail cause I dont know who all is reading this forum.

As for the light armored attack vehicle, I thought that the striker was the answer for that. Perhaps I am wrong on this.

The few scattered reports that I've seen about the Stryker have been less than stellar. Apparently it's too vulnerable to RPGs and other light AT weapons.

Check this out;
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

Checkout this link (I hope it works)......a good article on tanks, their role and such.........seach NY Times for "Fighting the Old-Fashioned Way in Najaf" if the link isn't good.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29bere.html