Faster pace of modernizing tanks

kovona said:

The tank is DEAD. That is my personal opinion.

Ground Force-wised, China should be concentrating on improving and building it's IFVs instead. IFVs are more mobile and versatile than tanks, and I think that modern combat call for these traits. Just look at the gulf war, the majority of kills were attributed to the TOW-armed Bradleys, not the M1 tanks.

Click to expand...

There are tankers in this forum that would strongly disagree with you. And I would side with them. Tank killing isn't just the primary reason for tanks. It is a general purpose machine, and its one of the best things around when dealing with fortified positions. When things get tough, the tanks get going.

From what I can tell, the role of taking out fortifications has gone to air power and self propelled artillery. For general purpose, the IFV is much better option, especially when it's carrying infantry units with AT or AA weapons. While I don't argue that the tank is a versatile tool in itself, I believe that development wise it's at a dead end. Next generation IFVs should the main priority of the PLA.

IFV isn't as tough as a tank. From the start of organized warfare, there has always been a basic fundamental role for a well armed and armored chariot or cavalry, and throughout history, different platforms would inherit and take over that role. The tank is the latest version of this. I'm not particularly sure if the IFV is ready for this.

Speaking of IFVs and Tanks, what's the point of infantry tanks like the Ukranian T-84 with a compartment for infantry in the back?

Far as I can tell, it just increases the weight of the tank while asking it to perform too many jobs.

There is also points in history when mobility was favored over armor, as when heavy knights were replaced with lighter cuirassier and dragoons after the 1600s. I believe that present situation is the same, where the tank is due to be replaced by lighter and more versatile IFVs.

IFVs such as the M2 Bradley are pretty hardy themselves, some are even able to take multiply hits from RPG-7s. The array of weaponry carry by modern IFVs also makes it more versatile than the common tank. While of course no purpose-built IFV can match the protection of the tank system, both of these systems are equally vulnerable to today's ground attack aircraft and anti-tank weapons. On the basis of fuel economy and utility, I will much rather arm my army with IFVs rather than MBTs.

If it could not take hits from RPG-7, a weapon made decades before the M2's design, then it would be quite inadequate, no?

kovona said:

There is also points in history when mobility was favored over armor, as when heavy knights were replaced with lighter cuirassier and dragoons after the 1600s. I believe that present situation is the same, where the tank is due to be replaced by lighter and more versatile IFVs.

Click to expand...

That process has actually reversed due to combat experience. Canada for example was about to replace the Leopard 1 tank fleet with the Styker MGS in 2003, and that process was actually initiated with the slow retirement of the Leopard fleet. That was halted due to the need for a heavily armoured direct fire weapon system.

What is being discovered through combat experience is that IFV's complement MBT's; they do not in any way replace them, or should replace them.

RedMercury said:

If it could not take hits from RPG-7, a weapon made decades before the M2's design, then it would be quite inadequate, no?

Click to expand...

All weapons systems are a series of engineering, cost, schedule and priorities compromises. Tanks like the Leopard and M-1 were designed for high speed tank to tank warfare in the open plains of central Germany. Encountering a foot soldier with an RPG in this sort of engagement was not an issue, the infantry of both armies would be behind the armor. Armoring on these was optimized for this sort of warfare.
It has not been all that difficult to remedy the M-1's vulnerabilities to urban warfare. There is something called TUSK for Tank Urban Survival Kit that puts reactive armor on the skirts, protecting the vulnerable flanks from an RPG, and cage armor over the rear of the tank body and around the rear of the turret. There is a clear bullet proof ( says here in fine print ) shield for the tank commander ( shades of the Popemobile I say ) if he really wants to trust that, but the reactive and cage armor will give the tank good performance in urban fighting. Of course the lesson of Grozney and Lebanon is not to use a tank in town without good infantry support.

I think that the tank will remain relevant in smaller numbers, with heavier armour and possibly active defensive systems. No other weapon can match the smashing power of the tank. Look at the US "Thunder Run" into Baghdad in 2003. A column of M1A2s cut a swathe through waves of Iraqi infantry armed with RPGs, recoiless rilfes, IEDs and car bombs. This was in a heavily built up area, the freeways into the heart of Baghdad. It was predicted that to do the same thing with infantry would have taken weeks and hundreds of deaths. Instead it was done in 48 hours with just 4 or 5 or less KIA. The lesson here is that the tank will no longer fill the same role that they did in the Cold War. It will no longer be the backbone of the offensive. Rather tanks will act as the tip of the spear, concentrated into a mailed fist at the point were the enemy's resistance is greatest or where a breakthrough must happen. So lesser numbers of heavier, more survivable tanks will act much as they were originally (like in WWII) intended to, but in smaller numbers, and in a more limited geographic scope in any given operation.

I also can see the tank reprising its WWI role of mobile pillbox. Heavier tanks can help infantry blast a path through urban areas as we have seen in Iraq.

Thanks for the lecture, but I knew everything you wrote. Sheesh.