Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Tanks don't Kill Tanks. But they Could...
HeavyD    11/5/2010 4:28:33 PM
Yep I said it. Tanks don't kill tanks. Not that they can't, they just don't get the opportunity to do so very often as of late. MBT's in acutality have 2 roles: Supporting ground forces (what they really do in the field) and deterring aggression from neighbors (what they do on paper). Tankers would argue that mission #2 is more important. The grunt would prefer a tank optimized to support his vulnerable arse and wants a machine that doesn't give him a concussion when the main gun goes off shooting at a building 200 meters away. While it is fun comparing M1A2 vs T90, and discussing the relative merits of an upgraded T-72, a modernized T-55, the PT-91, etc. the fact remains that these machines are far more likely to shoot at buildings than other armor, that their defensive armor is more important than a big, honking 120mm - 125mm L55 gun. Yes, Abrams and Challys did take out Iraqi armor, but Bradleys took out more. Substitute a Bradley's turret and armamant but maintain a M1's armor on all Abrams and the strategies and outcomes of both Gulf wars would remain unchanged. And all the Abrams, Challengers and Leopard 2's in Afghanistan have yet to kill another MBT. If ever they do, it will be a case of friendly fire. The Russians and Israelis are finally recognizing this fact and are converting T-55 and Merkava hulls into heavy APCs, better suited for the real-world mission of MOUT/counter-insurgency. The next-gen MBT should be of a modular design, capable of being fielded with a counter-insurgency kit or an anti-armor kit. Give it a turret with room for 4 (plus driver) and 3 remote weapon stations for 360 degree and high-elevation operations. And the Merkava design that facilitates rear ingress/egress as well as a litter would serve us well today and for the mext 20 years that we will be in IRaq and Afghanistan. Did I say 20 years, silly me. I meant to say 20 months (no I didn't).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
YelliChink       11/5/2010 5:50:33 PM
First Gulf War was the last war which armored divisions were shooting each other.
 
Most countries with that many tanks today are either under US protection or possessing nuclear weapons, with the notable exception of Iran. Even without tanks to kill, tank guns are still very versatile. It can fire canister shots that would cause devastation to infantry. It can still fire HE/HEAT or even with electronically programmed fuze. The British-only HESH shots are especially useful in urban environment as a demonishing tool against variety of structures. Even APDS rounds can be used to engage heavily fortified positions where concrete and sandbags stop .50BMG.
 
Israelis have been converting used MBTs into heavy APC for quite a while. They have their own reasons, and they don't fly or ship their armored brigades to the other side of the Earth. Their armored brigades still have a lot of M113 in service to augment the heavies.
 
So everything is conditional. I don't believe in Korean scenario you really need heavy APC/IFV. Up-armored Bradley can do the job, and the real problem is that the DPRK have been fortifying and mining alone DMZ for six decades. Is it really smart to drive through their hidden positions and minefields? Even an old Russian 85mm AT cannon can kill an Abrams from any direction but front. In the end, you usually fight with what you have first, then figure out better way to deal with the enemy. If time comes when heavy APC is needed, the US can always crunching Namer out. In the meantime, I don't see how heavy APC will become a game-changing machine and how MBTs are obsolete.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    HeavyD   11/5/2010 10:35:31 PM
The next-gen MBT should be of a modular design, capable of being fielded with a counter-insurgency kit or an anti-armor kit. Give it a turret with room for 4 (plus driver) and 3 remote weapon stations for 360 degree and high-elevation operations.

You might want to look at the MBT-70...it had all four members in the turret and was a FAILURE.  Not only for that reason, but the added complexity of the driver, always facing forward, whilst the turret is oriented any number of other directions added immensely to the cost and complexity.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       11/5/2010 11:24:33 PM
A single 120mm main armament is really the weak point of modern MBT design, it's an inflexible weapon that is next to useless in urban combat where you would want indirect fire - replace that with a few ATGM's, Mortars, unmanned small calibre turrets and the capacity to control UAV's for reconaissance and you have a mobile command centre wrapped up in a spacious and survivable chassis that is as happy engaging insurgents over the crests of hills as it is in the centre of an urban conflict.

On the open terrain a tank gun is pretty much unrivalled as a rapid-kill anti-tank weapon, LOSAT (now CKEM) would have been a nice (and more accurate) alternative, arriving on target with 10+MJ of energy, as opposed to ~5 for a 120mm apfsds at range.
 
I think the emphasis on more numerous lightly armed vehicles as oft-cited as the future shape of armour is a shame, STRYKER is a modular design but isn't particularly survivable and has failed to impress. Given the greatest threat to armour in Afghanistan is IED's I'd rather see remotely controlled scout (IED detection) vehicles as part of convoys, followed by a decent number of Bradley-sized vehicles, with the tertiary engagement capability provided by heavily armoured systems making good use of their weight and armour by fielding a range of more useful and versatile weapon systems.
 
The UK is going to have half the tanks phased out, as it happens Challenger 2 still offers the best protection of any armoured vehicle in NATO, the only reason it is regarded as redundant for current operations is that it still relies on the same single anti-tank armament as was the case 70+ years ago. As such it's useless at engaging the sorts of targets usually found in afghanistan.
 
In all honesty, I agree with Heavy here.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       11/6/2010 3:18:37 AM
Just because the current global military situation is focused on counter-insurgency operations, doesn't mean that tank warfare is a thing of the past. The possibility of major tank on tank combat is readily apparent in a number of potential future conflict zones (the Middle East, Korea, India and Pakistan, China and Russia). You don't see Iraq buying Bradleys and Strikers, they're receiving almost 360 M1A1s and updated T-72s instead. Tanks will again become the spearhead of armed forces in the future, not only as a deterrent from attack but as the primary component in any sustained major conflict.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       11/6/2010 6:18:22 AM
The redundancy of Challenger is that it weighs 60+ tonnes. 120mm firing HESH and Practice natures, coupled with a capable sensor suite and fire on the move capability would be perfect for engaging hostile targets in Afghan environments. Rapid fire medium calibre cannon will not damage typical Afghan buildings (massive mudbrick walls). Missiles are an expensive way of delivering 120mm quantities of HE on target.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/6/2010 6:59:24 AM

Yep I said it. Tanks don't kill tanks. Not that they can't, they just don't get the opportunity to do so very often as of late. 
 
It is the lack of opportunity, not the lack of capability.  Tanks DO kill tanks, and are very good at it.

MBT's in acutality have 2 roles: Supporting ground forces (what they really do in the field) and deterring aggression from neighbors (what they do on paper). Tankers would argue that mission #2 is more important. The grunt would prefer a tank optimized to support his vulnerable arse and wants a machine that doesn't give him a concussion when the main gun goes off shooting at a building 200 meters away.

While it is fun comparing M1A2 vs T90, and discussing the relative merits of an upgraded T-72, a modernized T-55, the PT-91, etc. the fact remains that these machines are far more likely to shoot at buildings than other armor, that their defensive armor is more important than a big, honking 120mm - 125mm L55 gun.
 
The Allied armies in 1939 were designed based on the assumed that tanks should be used for supporting infantry.  They did not do very well in the battle for France.  Sure, it is fighting the last war (about 5 times over), but the resulting change in philosophy is still valid.
 
Yes, Abrams and Challys did take out Iraqi armor, but Bradleys took out more. Substitute a Bradley's turret and armament but maintain a M1's armor on all Abrams and the strategies and outcomes of both Gulf wars would remain unchanged. And all the Abrams, Challengers and Leopard 2's in Afghanistan have yet to kill another MBT. If ever they do, it will be a case of friendly fire.  
 
And your argument is because the Afghans do not have tanks that the next opponent will not either?  Sounds like either wishful thinking or an argument for producing the FCS.
 
What is your source for the Bradleys taking out more armor than the tanks?
 
How well would the Bradley's TOW missiles work in a sand storm.  And TOWs are worthless inside the arming range (about 100m) so they cannot fight tanks very well in built up areas.  And they cannot be fired on the move.  The Bradley can function as a tank destroyer, it is NOT a tank.

The Russians and Israelis are finally recognizing this fact and are converting T-55 and Merkava hulls into heavy APCs, better suited for the real-world mission of MOUT/counter-insurgency.
 
Different operational needs, i.e. fighting in built up areas against hidden dispersed infantry with tight ROE's, rather than fighting against obvious hostiles (armored vehicles) in an open environment.  The Israelis do not see the Namer as a replacement for all their IFV's, rather as specialized vehicle for a particular need. 
 
Note that the Namer only has 1(!) machine gun for armament.  No auto cannon for killing light armor, missiles for killing tanks, nothing really effective for creating openings for the infantry in walls.  The Russian BMPT and BTR-T have these capabilities, but lack adequate dismounts (0 and 5 respectively).
 
And the Israeli T-55 conversions were just an unsatisfactory conversion (entry and exit only from the top) of available hulls, from a no longer useful design, to make up for a shortage of standard designs.
 
Finally, the lighter IFVs can go places the heavier tanks and heavy IFVs cannot.  You need both designs

Quote    Reply

AThousandYoung       11/6/2010 9:48:09 PM
What is your source for the Bradleys taking out more armor than the tanks?
h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       11/6/2010 11:52:23 PM

The redundancy of Challenger is that it weighs 60+ tonnes. 120mm firing HESH and Practice natures, coupled with a capable sensor suite and fire on the move capability would be perfect for engaging hostile targets in Afghan environments. Rapid fire medium calibre cannon will not damage typical Afghan buildings (massive mudbrick walls). Missiles are an expensive way of delivering 120mm quantities of HE on target.

Accept the point re: Afghanistan, no heavy armour is much use in the sprawling mountains simply due to mobility issues, what I was referring to was more in terms of a survivable urban combat vehicle with emphasis on survivability and indirect fire.
 
I think there's been a lot of conservatism in terms of what weapons are fielded on the turret designs of combat vehicles full stop - to think it's only been a few years since anyone took the idea of a remote machine gun turret seriously... The same could be applied to heavy mortars, grenade launchers, missiles etc etc, the less exposure for the crew the better..
 
Indirect fire is key in afghanistan both as a deterrent and as an effective response, very few mobile armoured vehicles have any capability in this regard without crew dismount .
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/7/2010 1:37:29 AM

What is your source for the Bradleys taking out more armor than the tanks?

h*tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm

Got it.  The comment refers to armored vehicles of all types, not tanks specifically.  It could have just as easily said "more enemy armored vehicles were destroyed by Bradleys than by the Abrams Main Battle Tanks" and included the armed pickup trucks in the total (assuming that they are not already).
 
So, while factually correct, it is nearly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       11/7/2010 2:21:14 AM

Indirect fire is key in afghanistan both as a deterrent and as an effective response, very few mobile armoured vehicles have any capability in this regard without crew dismount .

Indirect fire is the job of artillery systems, like 155mm howitzers, HIMARS, and mortars.  The former 2, because of their reach, seldom move out of the fire bases, so armor is mostly irrelevant.  120mm and 81mm mortar systems mounted in Striker and Bradley hulls are available and do not require the crew to dismount for operation.
 
So where is the problem?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics