Is the Main Battle Tank Obsolete?

QUOTE: Originally posted by ddayomaha Well said Ron, I completely agree with you. What is a klick?

A klick, or I suppose in English we'd call it a 'Click' is a kilometer.

Ron

The MBT will never be obsolete! It may metamorphosize into some other tracked vehicle, but the MBT in the battlefield is as essential as water in a canteen. The big gun provides support against built up bunkers, emplacements, buildings and other tanks, but the small weapons (ie: machine guns) are also essential for close support in urban areas and against enemy infantry. You must remember that the tank is man's blending of speed, protection and hard hitting power in one vehicle. Since its inception the sound of a heavy tank approaching the frontlines always instilled fear in an enemy. Today without hearing it, the tank can take you out at 2 "klicks" distance but it can support the infantry in close quarter city fighting with its precise gunnery and awesome firepower. The MBT will be around for a long time.

TigerII

MBT obsolete? I don't think so. The current expereince in Iraq shows that an enemy loaded with RPGs in an urban environment is going to need a heavily armored adversary. Bradleys and even Strykers are vulnerable. Fuggedabout Humvees.

Special situations call for variants on proven forms. Look at all the guises the Sherman took on in WWII. Look at 'Hobo's Funnies' in the WWII Brit Army.

Maybe what will be developed will be a specialist urban warfare MBT- something like an Abrams or Merkava with a shorter gun to be more manuverable in tighter older cities, and firing a flechette beehive round
( with more reliability than the old Sheridan ). With some auxiliary weapons like 40 MM mortar or that new intelligent 23mm 'machinegun' weapon system we are developing, such an MBT would be the E ticket to ride in urban battle or possibly close-up infantry support elsewhere.

Ultimate answer is to ask the Israelis if they have any plans to give up on Merkavas. 'Nuff said.

As I said before the MBT is like a shot gun and is need in urban warfare.It is hard enought for troops to get in the citys without being shoot at.The tank is what clears the way for a solider to get in the citys and lessen his chance of being killed.I do agree that there are weapons that get do the job of a tank but the problem is getting it there with soliders in hand to do it.It takes one good sniper to hold up a whole company troops with state of the art weapons but a tank can take out a whole company of snipers.This is a solded way to protect troops and get them inside of the citys with less loss of life.
As for comparing the battleship to a tank,that would be a wrong comparison.This is due to what Billy Mitchell showed the world with one airplane and for the cost to run 1battleship in a year,you can run 4 aircraft carrriers for 1 year.So at the time of Pearl Harbour the battleship was obsellite.Digger

Diggeraone, That's right! Also, according to the IDF, another indespensible piece of urban warfare equipment is the armored Cat D-8 (I think it's the D-8), which can use it's high ground clearance to get up to an objective and its blade to nudge down walls and such. This way, the people inside of a 'target' building can bug out if need be. That way, the infantry can identify threats and civilians.

Bismark9 has some good points about lazer guided bombs and such also, but since we rule the air (so far), I don't think our troops worry too much about other air forces.

I was amazed by the capabilities of the M1 after being in M60's. It's quite a weapon system, as far above the M60 MBT as the Paladin is above the M109A5.

Ron

In the famous words of Patton, "as long as we got brave sonsuvbitches that drive these machines we will always have need for a tank."