The future of heavy armored warfare

Great Debates
1

I’m currently reading a book in the Starfist series by David Sherman. In the story there is a small historical digression where they relate the demise of the Main Battle Tank in the OOB of all armies. In the digression they recount how, using a new generation of anti-tank weapon (the ‘Straight Arrow’), a rag tag bunch of Canadian infantry basically completely destroy a heavy armored Corps from the US (armed with the M1D7 Super Abrams MBT :stuck_out_tongue: ). Not just beat it but destroy it so badly that NO ONE ever even tries to build tanks anymore.
Ok, its fiction. But it got me thinking. Whats the real future of the MBT in the OOB of a modern military? Right now MBT’s are still the kings of mobile warfare…and the Abrams (as well as tanks from nations like Germany and the UK) are nearly impossible to destroy.

However, just looking at how the technology is improving in small arms (thinks like ‘smart bullets’) has got me thinking that perhaps there will come a time in the not so distant future that any ground soldier might be able to carry around a smart anti-tank weapon that, though small, could take out even an MBT (say it could self guide to hit that tank every time in the most vulnearable spot…the top or engine deck).

Speculating, what do you think is the future of heavy armored warfare? Is it possible to create a super-anti-tank weapon so powerful as to make MBT’s completely obsolete?

-XT

2

Sure. Nuclear hand grenades ought to take out pretty much anything short of Independence Day/War of the Worlds level force fields.

3

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Speculating, what do you think is the future of heavy armored warfare? Is it possible to create a super-anti-tank weapon so powerful as to make MBT’s completely obsolete?

-XT
[/QUOTE]
Completely? Never. If the anti-MBT is small enough to be man-held, you can simply mount it on an armored chassis and voila: new MBT!

If it’s too large to mount on an MBT, it would be expensive and slow enough that it might be vulnerable itself.

OTOH, the importance might be reduced to the point where they only engage in very open terrain, since infantry might be able to attack it at close range. At long range, being in an armored vehicle would always confer an advantage because of the mobility and ability to withstand near misses.

4

It strikes me that much of what vulnerability there is in battle tanks stems from the requirement that they carry human beings, which might not be a rquirement for all that much longer.

5

You could certainly extend the argument to ships. A ship is an even larger, slower, more metallic thing than a tank, and has fewer places to hide. In general, I think you’re right. A tank is a nice, big target, and you can only take the armor plating so far before you’ve built a castle that moves at glacier speed. And by the way, the Abrams is not quite “almost impossible to destroy” – we’ve lost at least a couple in Iraq to IEDs.

SentientMeat’s point is a good one, and quite correct. Currently we have missions in Iraq being flown by pilots in Las Vegas.

6

David Drake presents an interesting take on this question with his “Hammer’s Slammers” stories. Once you overcome the power requirements of a really well-armored tank, the rest solves itself. There will always be a place for armor, because no everybody will have “nuclear hand grenades.” :smiley:

7

Sal Ammoniac, that argument has already been applied to ships.

Armor on ships is a thing of the past. The last main combatants in service in any fleet in the world with signifigant armor were either the Kirov class nuclear battlecruisers - which had, IIRC an impressive, but limited* arsenal of 20 SSBMs, the North Carolina class battleships, or the USS Long Beach CGN 9. None of which are still in service. IIRC none of which can be returned to service, either. (I know that for the Kirovs and the Long Bitch, maybe the NoCars can come back.) Other than those vessels, nothing in the water had any armor to speak of in the past 30 years.

Heck, if you’ve seen any of my comments in the recent thread about the next gen littoral combat zone ships that the USN is planning to build I don’t think that they have the ability to fight damage nor fires. In a large part because of their small crew sizes. I really do believe that the current thinking for naval combatants is to go with a ‘tank’ model. Build an attrition unit, so that each individual loss is not particularly devastating.

I am of two minds about the use of unmanned combat vehicles: I don’t believe that they’re as proof against jamming, against a technogically similar foe, as the suppliers want us to believe. OTOH, reducing personnel casualties is a good thing. OTGH, armor and air superiority, by itself, doesn’t take land, nor cities - so even if all the armor and air assets go unmanned there will still be a need for PBIs on the ground.

*Sure they can throw a huge flurry of missiles, but their missile defense, active and passive was sub par, so why bother having armor. Esp since all their missiles were canned missles stored above the weather deck. First things to go when the firing starts.

8

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
I am of two minds about the use of unmanned combat vehicles: I don’t believe that they’re as proof against jamming, against a technogically similar foe, as the suppliers want us to believe.
[/QUOTE]

When will we ever be in a conflict with a technologically similar foe again?

9

Do you plan to guarantee that the Navy that the Chinese are building won’t be used to try to retake Taiwan? And that the US, if that does happen, won’t be involved in the conflict?

10

[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac]

SentientMeat’s point is a good one, and quite correct. Currently we have missions in Iraq being flown by pilots in Las Vegas.
[/QUOTE]

And they are getting 7:1 odds, 3:1 in Afghanistan.

11

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Completely? Never. If the anti-MBT is small enough to be man-held, you can simply mount it on an armored chassis and voila: new MBT!
.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how it follows. If an incredibly costly tank can be destroyed by a light weapon, what’s the point of keeping tanks? They’re only useful as long as they can’t be estroyed easily. Equipping them too with this anti-tank light weapon is pointless. You’re better off just handing it to a grunt for the same result. A tank that can be taken out by any infantryman is exactly the same as no tank at all.
This situation would be the same as keeping knights in chain mail despite the chain mail not being bullet-proof on the basis that you can handle a rifle to the knight too. You just get a rifleman wearing a completely useless and costly armor that serves no purpose.

12

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
…and the Long Bitch…
[/QUOTE]

The what again?

silenus, once you have people willing to be suicide bombers, it’s not that great a leap in human motivation to a suicide hand-grenader. Only the cost of the technology goes up.

All the current suicide bombers lack is the gear — there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t do it.

13

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Do you plan to guarantee that the Navy that the Chinese are building won’t be used to try to retake Taiwan? And that the US, if that does happen, won’t be involved in the conflict?
[/QUOTE]

I dunno, would we? As it’s virtually a guaranteed nuclear conflict, I highly doubt we’d actually do anything, but I could be wrong.

14

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
I don’t see how it follows. If an incredibly costly tank can be destroyed by a light weapon, what’s the point of keeping tanks? They’re only useful as long as they can’t be estroyed easily. Equipping them too with this anti-tank light weapon is pointless. You’re better off just handing it to a grunt for the same result. A tank that can be taken out by any infantryman is exactly the same as no tank at all.
[/QUOTE]

Except that tanks have other abilities as well - such as their mobility, long-distance targetting equipment, night-vision/infrared optics, and thick armor that could withstand almost anything short of this theoretical light super weapon. A whole company of infantry troops equipped with the super weapon still wouldn’t be much use if they were targeted and destroyed by a tank more than a mile away at night.

15

[QUOTE=Fish]
The what again?
[/QUOTE]

That’s an ahem affectionate nick name I’ve heard for the Long Beach from a few squids I knew who were ahem lucky enough to serve on her. :smiley:

Loopydude, I’m very leery of deciding that because we don’t see the need to use force against a techologically similar enemy in the near future we don’t need to be concerned for it. First off, just because we don’t see the need, now, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. In 1980 could you have predicted that the Argentinians and the Brits would be shooting at each other over some islands that most people in the UK and US couldn’t find on a map?

Secondly, and just as important, is recognizing that just because an opponent lacks the infrastructure to manufacture a weapon system doesn’t mean that they can’t acquire it through other sources. One reason that the Navy has been pushing the Virginia class subs so hard is because of all the German, Sweedish and Russian built convential boats that have been sold to third world navies. These vessels are a credible (if at a lower level than, say, Soviet era Alfas.) threat to US shipping and warships. With the Los Angeles class boats getting rather long in the tooth, and Congress limiting the Navy to only three Seawolf class boats something has to take up the slack.

I don’t want to start advocating that the military be given everything it wants on a silver platter - I, for one, still remember the way that the bomber mafia in the 30’s decided that fighters were obsolete, leaving the US Army Air Corps in hard straights for the first few years of the war. Likewise, the number of times that other so-called experts have declared this, that or the other thing obsolete resonate in my mind. (Dogfighting, and cannon for aircraft; specific ground attack aircraft; bombers; naval guns; torpedos… the list goes on and on.) But in general I would prefer for the US military to have the best equipment, even for low probability conflicts.

I find it hard to believe that it’s impossible to jam an unmanned remotely operated weapons platform - so it should be a design consideration. Deciding, now, that we won’t have to worry about jamming for remote controlled weapons platforms seems little more than wishful thinking.

Yanno, like, with the fall of the Soviet Union our military was far too big for any conceivable mission it might have to face, now.

16

[QUOTE=Gladstone]
A whole company of infantry troops equipped with the super weapon still wouldn’t be much use if they were targeted and destroyed by a tank more than a mile away at night.
[/QUOTE]
And the tank wouldn’t be much use if it was destroyed by a sniper version of that super weapon.

Personally, I’m betting on drones/robots taking the place of most non-infantry jobs. The infantry will still be useful, as human soldiers have far better judgement than any robot and more flexibility than any drone ( at least, any of either we’ll be able to build for some time ).

I think that a robot just smart enough to target and destroy weapons would be an excellent weapon of war, allowing you to disarm the enemy with minimum casualties. Say, something hummingbird sized ( and as fast and agile ) that swoops down and slaps on thermite or a shaped charge, or uses a cutting device to destroy any identified weapon. Drop a few hundred thousand or a million of those and you’ll cripple the enemy army. A tank would just be swarmed under. Sure, you can destroy any one of them; but can you destroy the next dozen or the next hundred ? Anything the bots miss or lose against can be taken out by drone armed with heavier weapons.

Or, if you’re more ruthless and don’t care about PR, aim the bots at the troops.

17

[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Do you plan to guarantee that the Navy that the Chinese are building won’t be used to try to retake Taiwan? And that the US, if that does happen, won’t be involved in the conflict?
[/QUOTE]

How many aircraft carriers does China have? Is it zero or one? I lose count.

18

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
How many aircraft carriers does China have? Is it zero or one? I lose count.
[/QUOTE]

What does that matter? ** We ** need a carrier for flying missions in that area - AIUI all of Taiwan is within the air range of land-based aircraft from China. And our carriers can still be sunk by diesel “littoral zone” submarines - which the Chinese do have. Plus, I believe some nuke subs, too.

None of which would involve MBTs. I’d simply meant to show one potential hot-spot where a conflict with a technologically similar opponent might happen.

19

[QUOTE=Brain Wreck]
How many aircraft carriers does China have? Is it zero or one? I lose count.
[/QUOTE]

It really doesn’t matter, since land-based aircraft can easily reach Taiwan from the mainland.

20

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Speculating, what do you think is the future of heavy armored warfare? Is it possible to create a super-anti-tank weapon so powerful as to make MBT’s completely obsolete?
[/QUOTE]

We already have them, they’re called nuclear missiles. OK, I know that sounds very tongue-in-cheek, but I believe this is the case. Sometime in the next 20 years, the next nuclear attack will occur. It won’t be on a city. It will be a few small kiloton-range weapons detonated over one or more armored divisions, probably US. A couple of observations will happen immediately: 1) The divisions ceased to exist, and 2) The actual cost of employing such weapons won’t be as dramatic as we’ve always feared. There will be some fallout, but let’s face it, we popped hundreds of these in Nevada in the 50’s and 60’s, and Nevada seems mostly OK. The result: 1) Small nuclear weapons will become the small nation’s equivalent of the handgun in the car for emergencies. 2) The international community will become far less fearful of US conventional weapons domination, having recognized that they have an effective counterbalance.

OK, so maybe I go a little far with the Fulda gap scenario, but I think the basic point has merit.