39 replies to this topic

[TehKiller]

@Strategia

sorry to say mate but to me that shit looks more like a exosuit than a mech....besides its too damn slow and since when were laser machine guns invented? (and btw you missed the "in theory" part)


I really doubt tanks will be obsolete in the 50 years or so judging by the money wasted on reasearch and improvements of already existing tanks. And urban combat tactics work only in urban combat not in the open field when a full scale invasion is being launched.

Edited by TehKiller, 03 July 2008 - 09:31.

[The Wandering Jew]

CommanderJB, on 2 Jul 2008, 13:08, said:

Don't be so sure, Mr President... I imagine there's at least some stuff up there which isn't strictly peaceful or even passively military. Just look at Russia's Polyus orbital weapons satellite - it had a laser to blind targeting sensors, a barium cloud dispenser to confuse incoming missiles with optical or infra-red homing devices, a nuclear mine dispenser, a recoilless cannon for even more defence against ASAT weapons, a laser comlink system allowing it to operate in radio silence and god only know what else. All this for the sole purpose of establishing a military foothold in space, because it couldn't effectively attack anything. What's more, this thing was actually built and launched. The only problem was that the positioning motor fired for twice the intended time, meaning when the rockets that were actually meant to push it into a higher orbit were fired they instead acted as retro-rockets, and the thing slowed down, fell out of orbit and burned up over the Pacific. Mikhail Gorbachev wasn't actually too displeased - he was basing most of his criticism of the west on Regan's increasing militarisation plans for space, and so expressley forbade testing of the Polyus satellite, and then didn't have to worry about it. At any rate, then the USSR fell and the military space program was put on hold. Russia does, however, still have the dedicated VKS (Military Space Forces) - the ones in my user title in fact - and the U.S. both maintains stocks of ASAT missiles and has proposed multiple programs such as the real-world version of Rods From God, so all it would take is a spark of conflict and I think you'd see space rapidly becoming the new battlegroud for both informational and physical warfare.

Well, what I meant was that markintellect's comment regarding space-based lasers will not entirely eliminate ground-based divisions. They'll be efficient against missiles, but never on ground units (in this case, tanks). Remember economies of scale? Why would a country use massive resources just to eliminate a few tanks, right? Not a smart president will do that.

But I do thank you for giving me information on Polyus weapons systems.

[CommanderJB]

Indeed, I completely agree, and said so in one of my earlier posts. Sorry, it typically long-winded and really off-topic (though I find the concept fascinating and may explore it further separately). Again, yes, the tank is far too integral to actual battle line movement and defence to be replaced by some fancy Star Wars system, even if it does have a strategic use.

[Sharpnessism]

The poll should be reworded. Of course eventually tanks will be obsolete SOME TIME but maybe not in the near future.

[Foxhound]

We've had organized infantry for 6000 years now. Despite all the technology we've come up with, we still send people to fight against things that could very easily kill them.

Also, we said strategic bombing was the end-all of all other forms of warfare. See World War II.

[The Wandering Jew]

Foxhound, on 13 Jul 2008, 13:55, said:

We've had organized infantry for 6000 years now. Despite all the technology we've come up with, we still send people to fight against things that could very easily kill them.

Also, we said strategic bombing was the end-all of all other forms of warfare. See World War II.

If you meant strategic bombing will end all other forms of warfare, then:

Hmm...Napalm strikes to Vietnamese jungles by F4 Phantoms...
But who won?

Strategic nukes? Can a country willing to trade off a few cities of its own to flatten other cities to Ground Zero?
No smart leader will do that.

And what about guerilla warfare in the Middle East? Do we really want to bomb the rebels to smithereens and affect innocent civilians in the process?

Is that considered small price to pay?

So strategic bombing will not end other forms of warfare.

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 14 July 2008 - 04:37.

[Eddy01741]

Well, in all out war, strategic strikes are basically the be all end all. But with weapons on such incredible scales of a nuke make it incredibly immoral to throw them around in warfare. A single nuke is enough to decimate a large amount of a country's population and ruin their economy forever, basically send them back to the stone age (okay, that's a bit far, but you get the point). It all kind of depends on the mission of the war, if it's to liberate, than any type of strategic strike on civilians cannot be used.

[T-34]

you gotta remember MAD. if you nuke a country, you will get owned as well.

[The Wandering Jew]

And isn't it more entertaining to see armored, infantry, artillery, and air divisions slugging it out on the battlefield rather than just watching a big poofey fireball? (albeit, in a computer game anyway )

The point is, tanks will evolve.

[Eddy01741]

Yeah, I know about MAD, hence one of the main reason that hte cold war never went hot. The only way to disrupt MAD is anti-ballistic missile defenses, which many of the super powers are or were against (especially in theSALT treaties, in order to protect the state of MAD). It sounds really counter intuitive, but by insuring there is never a way to stop a nuke, ensures that one will never be used.

[General Kirkov]

Tanks in the current understanding ofthe term will be obsolete, but somthing will replace them filling the same role and perhaps more. So tanks will still be in service at least until the time of our Grand Children.

[Reaper94]

yes, if you belive the politicians and media, we'll soon be living in atlantis, and everything will be done with ships, if we aint all dead from whatever global warming is suppsidly doing to us (no i aint a fan of this global warming tripe force fed to me daily)

even so, when its proved that that isnt happening, wars will be done with drones.

[Admiral FCS]

There are nothing in sight to replace tank, things in sight can only make it take less part in a conflict/war/global war/whatever but it will stay in the military arsenal.

Drones/infantry/airpower/whatever thing maybe are more suited for urban conbat, but in open ground, they will be all suppressed by the firepower of MBT+AA+Artillery. Tank's main usage is to use them in open ground. In cities, infantry has bonus of garrison, aircraft moves freely above, and drones are small and fast enough to move in between sewers, small roads, buildings, etc. But on the open ground, tanks moves fast, runs longer time without resupply, has range/firepower bonus, and has a psychic shock on the enemy. True, tanks can be killed by saturation bombing, guided missiles, weapons of mass destruction, AT Weapon, arty bombing, but do you think weak and fragile infantry stands more chance? Also, the urban-suited MBT are started to be produced and armed, for example: M1A2 TUSK, Leopard 2 "Urban Leopard", Merkava Mark 4, they can do most job that infantry/drones can do, although supports are still needed, they can do the jobs.

Now, look at drones/infantry/aircraft.

Infantry has the bonus of garrison in city, they can turn a building into a fortress and hold it for a long long time. But, their range/firepower are lesser than tank's: 1000m for AT missile compare to 3000m for MBT Gun. The Russian T-series has cannon-fired-missiles, which reaches a longer range. Due to short on supply, they will eventually die, surrender or retreat.

Drones are small and fast, but looks how fragile they are, 1 shot from MBT and they are scrapped.

Aircraft can kill tank in no time, but look, they need to return to base for rearm, then field commander will hame time to call in AA and repair vehicles and be prepared for next attack.

In general, the history of weapon is the relation of attack and defence, while tank has those two finely combined first time, as a milestone on weapon history it will not be removed. In the future there will be something that do the jobs of a MBT, but in the deep design target is still the same: Something that perfectly combines attack and defence.

[EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen]

No because tanks can be stationed anywhere, whereas helis cannot (similar roles).

[partyzanpaulzy]

Tank is good for ground battle and many modern tanks can be equiped with AA defence (missiles), smoke grenade is standard, ERA and NERA armor is also used on modern tanks and I saw concept of US tank (replacement for descendant of Abrams MBT) planed on 2040's (if I remember good). This concept tank will be equiped with new armor (perspective is boric carbide), electromagnetic "anti-rpg" shield, multi-railgun cannon (4 cannons or somehow).
Use appropriate AA system, tank chassis and you can pwn helis or even stratofighters from every terrain (sometimes even from water) and it's also cheaper than new heli or fighter.
Nanites or acids won't be big danger against tank if it will have some isolation against them (el-mag shield against nanites and neutral material against acid).
Weapon of mass destruction destroys large area, but nothing remains there (except ruins or eventually radiation) when tanks can clear the area with some objects relatively saved.

If you have played Emperor:Battle for Dune, you can remember Ordos laser tank - fast and deadly... :shockrifle:

OFFTOPIC: If we (EU or USA) will counter China in this century in war, politicians will probably promise them:
"We will not use nukes if you don't soak your caps in concrete!"