Future of the Tank on the Modern Battlefield

advantage of LAVs are their speed and ability to carry different weapons. they can carry mortors, turrets, anti-tank missiles, AA guns, etc. though lack of heavy armour, they make up for speed.

Well have you guys thought about unmanned fully robotic tanks? yeah sounds like crap but the US has plans to work on such vehicles. And I meen tanks without a human pilot, without any remote control. they can think for themselves. such tanks require camaras to tell their location, and ability to tell friends from foe. to tell you the truth, this technology won't be completed until the 2030s or 40s. these would turn warfare into a video game but this technology won't be here for a while.

this new american tank wich is in develoment for FCS could be unmanned IMO
i mean have you seen it on discovery channel? just wow...

but we also have some nice toys

Some picture about the Canadian Army transformation and massive introduction of LAV

This project is called Army of Future

Coyote Recon Vehicule, equiped with thermal and daylight camera, radar and SADLS


Future Armoured Vehicle System (FAVS), it's the LAV-III with new advanced sensor (radar and thermal camera linked to the vehicule commander's helmet, new battle management system, target acquiring and display system, new defensive system)


LAV-TUA (Tow Under Armor) A LAV Chassis based TOW Carrier


LAV-MGS (Mobile Gun System, the famous Stryker) A LAV Chassis with a automated turret and a 105mm L7 Rifled Gun


A LAV-III based 105mm SPA, still in study...


MMEV or Multiple-Mission Effect Vehicle, based on the ADAT design, it's a Air Defence and Anti-Tank LAV


Engineer LAV, equiped with a dozer blade/SMCD (Surface Munitions Clearing Device), the safe-lane marking system, and a hydraulic power take-off for the auger and other tools


LAV-CP (Command Post) With additional Map Table and communicatio equipment + a tent shelter which can be erected to the rear and encloses the open ramp to extend usable work space

see, this is my point. you can equip LAVs with a variaty of equipment and weapons. nice pictures. I wouldnt call these tanks though. they are more in the field of APCs. tanks are heavy armoured vehicles. weapons with only one job, destroy. LAVs have all sorts of jobs and carry troops too.

Can I ask a serious question ?

Why are tanks so heavy ?

armour weigths alot

It's a combination of multiple thing.

1- A Heavy and Big Chassis

2- Power weaponry, a 105mm or a 120mm gun weight more than a light 25mm Chain Gun

3- Armor, a tank is heavily armored

4- Engine and sufficient fuel

5- Control, mechanic, suspenstion, all the driving system are more complicated with tracks than with wheel, so it's heavier.

6- Big turret

FreeAsia2000 said:

Can I ask a serious question ?

Why are tanks so heavy ?

Click to expand...

That is quite simple. Tanks must be heavy because of their armour, equipment, engine, etc. many things. the armour must be heavy if you dont want your tank blown to bits. plus the turret and barrel all add to weight. others include engine, amunition, battery, and all other junk you find aboard a tank. the fastest MBT is about 45 mph. all the weight causes alot of drag

My thoughts:

Tanks are mainly heavy because of the armor they carry. An m1a2 Abram mbt weights 75 tons with a 120mm main cannon, the thunderbolt armored gun system (an offshoot of the xm8 system) has that same 120mm cannon but weights 20-26 tons depending on the armor level (26 tons being the highest and anti rpg).

Also Totoro not sure where your getting your info from but last I checked (I am not trying to be rude, I could be wrong) the merkava weights some 60 tons about the same as all other western designs, eastern designs, ie Russian Chinese and Japanese weight about 50 tons, while the m1 abrams weights some 75 tons for some unknown reason and thus it earns the title of heaviest tank on the planet, ignoring Germanys ww2 super tanks (maus).

MBT are the modern day equivalent to both heavy infantry and heavy cavalry. They are the front line fighters designed to take the best the enemy can throw at it and hold the line (heavy infantry), while still possessing the speed and firepower to break through the enemy lines and crush their support units artillery, c3 centers, supply trucks, airfields…(heavy cavalry).

Migleader consider this if you can take out a tank with one shot, the most heavily armored land vehicle in the world why can’t you take out all the ones less armored? A tank has 30-40 rounds of ammo (or 60ish for the merkava) assuming you’re a really bad shot and half your shots miss, you can destroy 15-20 enemy APC’s, IFV’s, humvees (though you could kill those with the .50 cal) before you have to re-supply.

On airpower, important but highly overrated, Germany’s airforce and rockets failed in bringing Britain to its knees, when the situation was reversed and the allies had utter air superiority why then did germany lose 1 tank to every 5 allied tanks? Gulf war USAF failed to complete its mission of destroying 25% of the enemy armor.

Which bring me to my next point once the real fighting starts heavier is better. The Americans build a lot of Sherman tanks at 34.7 tons and they lost a lot of them. The germans built 45 ton panthers which where successful enough that Russian troops frequenly captured them and put them to use, and the French army took many of them when the war was over. Heavier still were the tigers at 60 and 68.7 tons virtually invincible from the front and feared. Gulf war 2000 75 ton tanks vs 2000 50 ton tanks, a couple of American tanks mission killed but no crew died, the iraq army was destroyed. American tanks where hit several times in the front the shots bounced off (the ones hit in the side where mission killed) where as the Russian made tanks tended to explode like jack in the boxes after a single hit.

Enough ranting about the past onto the glorious future, if you want to take over a country that has a conventional force, you need a conventional force to destroy their conventional force before you have to start playing cop.

Rommel do you think that 2000 of your Canadian LAV would have done as well as the m1a1 tanks in the first gulf war? (a serious question I am unaware of the full capabilities of your vehicle)

As for the danger of top attack weapons, the Russians already have an active defense system (arena) that supposedly was 80% effective against incoming missiles. Even more cheaply you could simply have a stand off sheet of metal (think a large table on the tank roof) and simply detonate any missile before they hit your tank. Against armored warheads add some ERA blocks to the table, a tank can take the extra weight.

In my opinion its infantry that is getting more specialized not tanks. infantry mainly fight in extremely dense environments where all AFV’s cannot operate well, cities, jungles, swamps. Or does anyone here really think that and infantry division without support can take on a tank division without support in an open plain, field, grassland, or dessert?

On aircraft, yes aircraft can destroy tanks, but even the cheapest one is several times more expensive than a m1a1, while for the b2 bomber at 1 billion dollars you can buy 300 m1a1’s more than enough to take on many 3rd world countries, assuming you can get the fuel somewhere.

Still if current trends continue tanks will get lighter and smaller, until another major war breaks out, then they should get bigger and heavier.

One last thing, war is and has always been a game to our political leaders.

Well, some of the point you talked about I actually talked about them in my previous few post. But, I can't agree with everything you said.

Infantry, either light dismount or heavy infantry, cannot be replace by tank for few reasons. Tanks cannot take and hold terrain and building. And, infantry are one of the most effective AT unit presently. I remember an exemple, the Israeli 190th Armoured Brigade (commanded by Assaf Yagouri, a famous Isreali tank commander) was ambushed in the desert in 1973 by the Egyptian 2nd Infantry Division. The 190th Armor have 120 M60 US-made MBT, which was one of the best tank back in this time and this unit was one of the finest Isreali's tank unit. The Egyptian 2nd Infantry didn't have any armor or artillery support, only lot of AT-3 Sagger. The entire 190th Armored Brigade was destroyed and his commander captured... Infantry can still beat tank...

Some US M1A1 or M1A2 was actually killed in Iraq by infantry... They just hide, and when the tanks bypass them, shot at the rear of the tank with AT missile.

Well, I said it before, tanks are only good at conventionnal warfare. But the combinaison of multiple task LAV can also be effective. I give an exemple. There a unit equiped with some Coyote Recon vehicule, some LAV-III, some MMEV (is not yet in service, but I'll take the same performance as a ADAT since it's a wheeled ADAT) and some LAV-TUA. The ennemy have some heavy tanks. Even before the battle begin, the Coyote are able to detect your comming attack, after the MMEV will fire their AT missile (which have a penetration of 900mm) while the tank are out of their gun range (since the missile on the MMEV have 6km of range) If they come in the 5km range, the LAV-TUA will add firepower. So think about this... The Canadian LAV are made for battle information dominance, we know where are the ennemy even before they spot us... And coordinate a few unit together, will make a powerful combat task force.

Canada have some of the best LAV in the world.

A Infantry Division with no support can certainly beat a Armored Division. Believe me, I'm myself an infantryman. Give to the infantry division some LAW, some ATGM. And they will be able to destroy a massive armor attack. BTW, an armored division generally have around 290-350 tanks, but there's always infantry in the division. For the sole reason that only infantry are effective of detecting and fighting infantry.

I received a anti-tank formation with my soldier formation. I used mainly the M82 Carl Gustave in my training. Even this is an old weapon and cannot pierce a modern MBT front armor, thoses rounds can pierce the rear armor and dommage some important pieces like tracks or aiming device. We also have the M72 LAW, which is more effective. Give a few LAW to each fireteam, and 1 or 2 ATGM per platoon (Canada have the TOW 2 and the Eryx), their firepower is sufficient to take out a tank platoon. I remember, in a combat exercise against US National Guard (US National Guard was our OPFOR, was an exercise US National Guard vs Canadian Army Reserve), two fireteam, (my fireteam and the 1st fireteam of my platoon) "killed" 4 Abrams tanks with our weapon and we also took out the entire infantry platoon that was accompygning them.

Still, I'm reapeating myself since the beginning, tanks are made for conventionnal warfare, and LAV for asymetric warfare. The different is that LAV can be adapted for conventionnal wafare, if you coordinante your LAV correctly, this is the reason why we are developping the ISTAR communication system.