# The future of heavy armored warfare **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522 "2006-04-20T20:20:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/61 "2006-04-21T21:08:37Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Anyway, in this article the view expressed was that the power-source was a showstopper until something with a _much_ higher energy:weight could be found. The best fuel presently available, so they said, was gasoline or some similar petroleum product. The problems are obvious: A suit powered by a two-stroke engine or something like it won’t exactly be stealthy, and being strapped to a tank of highly combustible fuel isn’t exactly safe in combat. That’s true of a number of other technologies as well; robotics, for example. Lots of research is being carried out on it, and I expect we’ll eventually have something with the necessary power. There are quite a few technologies to solve the problem that _almost_ work ( advanced batteries, fuels cells, etc ); I’ve no idea which will become practical first. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/62 "2006-04-21T21:16:54Z")
Exactly. What are you going to power your exoskeleton with? Powered armor is all well and good when you can run it off a miniature fusion generator the size of a basketball, but in real life you’d need a gasoline-burning IC engine. And powering walking legs is much much much less efficient than powering wheels. You’d be better off powering the smallest and stealthiest RC helicopter that can carry the weapon, sticking some sensors and targeting equipment on it, and controlling it from the basement of the Pentagon. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/63 "2006-04-21T22:54:24Z")
We do have a functional, self-supporting exoskeleton that has an effective weight of five pounds, at the moment. Was announced over the summer. The general concept was to help take the load of a soldier’s pack off him, IIRC. That said, that’s state of the art. [http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03\_exo.shtml](http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/03_exo.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/64 "2006-04-21T23:35:25Z")
I read that one type of injury showing up in Gulf troops is shock damage: their body armor protects them from penetrating injuries but getting slammed around by the sheer impact causes bodywide trauma. [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec04/wounded2\_7-16.html](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec04/wounded2_7-16.html) ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/65 "2006-04-22T15:52:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Try that sort of anti-tank nuking in, say, Europe, and you’ll obliterate a town or village every time you drop a “small” nuke. Yes, perhaps, but conventional warfare carries the same risks. There’s a misperception that all nukes are all giant, apocalyptic weapons. Some are, and then there are some small enough to accomplish in a few seconds what could be accomplished in a few days of heavy aerial bombardment. > [@](#): > > Nevada was chosen for a _reason_. Yes, and tank warfare serendipitously tends to occur in areas exactly like Nevada… places where you could drop a number of 10KT nukes, and nobody would notice except the armored formations occupying it. (bit of theatrical license there, of course they’d be visually detected by distant observers, but if you understand the geography of Nevada then you’ll get the point). ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/66 "2006-04-22T18:41:22Z")
Perhaps this belongs in a thread of it’s own, but a theme that’s been touched on here is “what if you had a war where tactical nukes were routinely used?”. Obviously nothing is going to survive a near-hit by even a small nuke. One reason why we got into the bigger-and-heavier tank race was that robust tanks could survive and protect their crews better against tactical nukes. The biggest limitation on using tactical nukes is that although they’re great in terms of bang for the buck, they’re still pretty expensive per unit. By nuke standards tanks are small, numerous and dispersed targets, and so it isn’t worth it if you destroy only 20-30 tanks per blast. Even more than tanks, I could see 50 or so 1kt nukes pretty much obliterating any surface fleet. (hint: Taiwan). ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/67 "2006-04-22T18:53:43Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Obviously nothing is going to survive a near-hit by even a small nuke. Not 100% true. At Bikini Atoll, during the Able test, the majority of the major surface vessels survived the blast. Able was the airburst, which is what I’d consider the most likely means of employing a tacnuke weapon. Nevada, which was supposed to have been at ground zero, survived Able with minimal damage. IIRC she was about 700 yards from ground zero. The Baker test was far more devastating to the vessels at Bikini Atoll, and even there many of the vessels survived. Prinz Eugen, had she been crewed, for example, would probably not have sunk a week later. Likewise, Nevada again survived with minimal damage. I grant that battleships and heavy cruisers are not going to be analogous to how an MBT deals with a tacnuke. Even though the Abrams has more armor (frontally) than most of the ships at Bikini had. However, I also think that people are vastly overestimating how concentrated a company or brigade of armor would be, when in motion. I can easily see them being spaced at 500 meter intervals. Which brings the estimate for casualties from a tacnuke down to the single digit realm. Which seems to be reducing return on the use of the nuke beyond where it would be a worthwhile weapon. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/68 "2006-04-22T19:32:47Z")
> [@Brain Wreck](#): > > Yes, perhaps, but conventional warfare carries the same risks. There’s a misperception that all nukes are all giant, apocalyptic weapons. Some are, and then there are some small enough to accomplish in a few seconds what could be accomplished in a few days of heavy aerial bombardment. No, even a small nuke is big enough it would kill a village or two each time you used it, at least in densly populated regions. That was a major reason the European public hated the idea so much. > [@](#): > > Yes, and tank warfare serendipitously tends to occur in areas exactly like Nevada… places where you could drop a number of 10KT nukes, and nobody would notice except the armored formations occupying it. Or it occurs in cities, in farmland, in just about any location people fight over. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/69 "2006-04-22T20:18:58Z")
[Davy\_Crockett\_(nuclear\_device)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) Davy, Davy Crockett… the inspiration, I’m sure, for Paranoia’s Nuclear Hand Grenade. Minimum power had it lethal within 500 feet, and probably fatal within a quarter mile. Now, assuming a standard village built with modern, vaugely sturdy materials… I think we make a safe assumption that a quarter mile becomes ‘survivable, but real sick.’ That’s not even a full village. Not that it makes it any better, but I figured I should toss the best approximation for real numbers that I had, into the ring for you. Hey, it was used in King Kong vs Godzilla! Cool. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/70 "2006-04-22T21:09:05Z")
I think heavy tanks are dinosaurs. They are vulnerable to a variety of cheaper weapons, and are very expensive to produce. I see them as the battleships of surface warfare-slow and vulnerable. Of course, the cost alone limits them to a few armies-I don’t think that we will ever see mass tank engagements ever again. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/71 "2006-04-22T21:36:34Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy\_Crockett\_(nuclear\_device)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) > > Davy, Davy Crockett… the inspiration, I’m sure, for Paranoia’s Nuclear Hand Grenade. Minimum power had it lethal within 500 feet, and probably fatal within a quarter mile. Now, assuming a standard village built with modern, vaugely sturdy materials… I think we make a safe assumption that a quarter mile becomes ‘survivable, but real sick.’ > > That’s not even a full village. Not that it makes it any better, but I figured I should toss the best approximation for real numbers that I had, into the ring for you. > > Hey, it was used in King Kong vs Godzilla! Cool. I think you mean [THIS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29). ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/72 "2006-04-22T22:39:44Z")
Yeah, I do. The autolink turned the right parens into text and not part of the link. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/73 "2006-04-24T17:00:54Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > 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.” 😃 … and yet, as stated in that book, they all still live in fear of anti-tank missiles… ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/74 "2006-04-24T17:54:06Z")
The arguement of the MBT is the same one we (military tacticians and armchair generals) have argued through the ages, and the answer is always the same. Armor is used until there is more effective armorment. Once you negate the effect of armor you stop using it (ala gun powder and knights in full plate armor), then you find a new way to negate the effect of the armorment and you start using armor again. And on and on and on ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/75 "2006-04-24T21:29:20Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Hell, I rigged a system for my last field training exercise that allowed me to carry two missles and the launch unit without too much difficulty. That might be a little too heavy for an average soldier, but a fire team could easily move out with two missles and the CLU. But as already pointed out, a tank can carry however many round for its main gun plus the other machinegunes. It can travel a lot faster than a human can run, shoot furthur than any human mounted weapon can shoot and it doesn’t get tired. It does however run out of gas, throw a track, requires maintenance and can get stuck in narrow alleys or bridges. It also takes a long time to deploy since ship or rail is the only way to get a large number of them anywhere. Which is why the army is starting to move away from jumbo-sized fighting vehicles like the Bradley and the Abrahms in favor of the Stryker. Except that they miss the protection of the big vehicles. Besides, it’s not like tanks operate by themselves in battle. They fight alongside infantry and other arms. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/76 "2006-04-25T02:18:18Z")
Oh, I was by no means trying to say that I was as effective as a Tank. I think the point of my post was the contrary. I was trying to point out that the super fantasy weapon mentioned in the OP _does_ exist and it by no means makes tanks obsolete. For me to be effective in the scenario I described, I have to be dropped off on or near a ridge by a Bradley to begin with. Or possibly leave the AA the night before on foot and get into position ahead of the convoy. But range and speed in that situation is very limited. And all it would take is one enemy fire team out there to spot me and take me out. And then take my missles and wait for the convoy. . . ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522/77 "2006-04-25T02:21:25Z")
Oh… and the Stryker will NEVER replace tanks or Brads in symetric warfare. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-future-of-heavy-armored-warfare/353522.md?page=3)