An equation that goes both ways if you don’t have force superiority in the air corridors.
Guys… we’re not talking about a “Thereoretical Super Weapon”. We’re talking about The Javelin!! This is a man portable guided missle. It is capable of destroying (not imoblizing, but DESTROYING) an M1A1 Abrams MBT even with Reactive Armor. 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.
This weapon allowed me - one single infantryman - two destroy two armored Tanks every mission. Actually it was me and one other guy and we pretty much operated like an Anti-Tank sniper team.
But anyway… the point is that the weapon you’re talking about does exist. But it’s not going to render the MBT obsolete any time soon. Probably NEVER.
Hey, Bear! Does that thing have a stand-off mode? What I mean is, can the launcher be placed in some bushes while you go hide in some trees 50 yards away with the targeting device? The thing that made me leery about most anti-tank weapons is that you have to get visible to fire them, which makes you a target. If the tank is quicker than you are…
I think some of you may have the dynamic a bit wrong here. The problem with modern battle tanks isn’t that they are being tactically challenged; they’re not, there really isn’t anything in the world that can stand up to a company or two of Abrams or Leo2s, and that includes urban warfare. Tanks, when used correctly, are invaluable in heavy urban fighting and far superior to any other type of vehicle. There are some things infantry can do in urban terrain to even their odds, e.g. using explosives to collapse a building on top of the tank, or get enough men on rooftops to volley fire 4 or 5 rockets on the tank’s top armour, but that’s about it. It will only work once and against a trained western tank crew your chances of getting away alive are not good.
The problem with tanks is that they are heavy, both in logistical tail and sheer physical weight. You can’t really move that company of tanks very quickly anywhere. The reason the US army has rolled out their light “stryker” units isn’t because the Strykers are better than tanks, but because when the SHTF in some third world hotspot, the commander on the ground’s choices will be a Stryker unit in 48 hrs or a tank unit in 2 weeks if he’s lucky.
Right. So it is also irrelevant that Taiwan has no carriers. The US, on the other hand, is going to need some (or the use of Taiwanese airstrips) if it wants to participate in this hypothetical conflict.
I’m not doubting anything that Bear_nenno says, but let’s keep in mind that the Abrams can see you, at night, through smoke, bushes, a sandstorm, anything short of a solid wall, and vapourize you from 10+kms away while the tank itself is doing 60km/hr. If you’re really good, you might be able to sneak up on and destroy one, and hope that there’s only one tank, because once his buddy sees the backblast from your missile, running won’t do you any good.
Any vehicle could have the same abilities. The only peculiarity of the tank, and what defines it, is its armor. And if such a weapon existed, you bet that any infantry squad would have one, as long as there would be still tanks on the battlefield (and there wouldn’t be there for long), so the “almost anything short of this weapon” would be mostly irrelevant.
To use again the knight example, you’re saying : “but a knight on horseback is faster and can see at a longer distance” . Yes, but so could any rider without an armor, so it still doesn’t provide a reason to keep the armor. And the second part would be “but the armor is still useful against swords”. Which is fine, except for the fact that everybody is going to use a rifle instead of a sword as soon as rifles are available.
I don’t want to appear cynical, but you forgot " and are cheaper".
Well, so far they are the only self-programming multi-function unit capable of being mass-produced by unskilled labor! 
I don’t see why that would be too hard to develop. But because of the way it leaves the launcher, and the way it hits the target, it’s very difficult (claimed to be impossible) to tell where it was fired from. All the Tanks can do is scan the mountainous terrain and hope to find something/someone. But duck behind some earth–like in a trench up on the side of a mountain-- and they wont see shit.
This is why the the MBT requires massive dismounted infantry support to be effective in some environments. Open flat desert doesn’t require it. But in mountains, and wooded valleys in shit it’s a must. They NEED dismounted scouts and/or infantry. Also in MOUT… a Tank company without infantry on the ground is not very effective in a town or city. Bradleys and infantry are still the best Armor to use in urban terrain. Tanks are better for cordoning the area. But send the light tracks into the city.
The US is currently redesigning the way it trains and deploys it’s Tanks and Infantry together. They’re moving toward battalions that are half Tank and Half Infantry. And the Basic and Advanced training for both branches will be moving to Benning soon to become some kind of combined combat mobility branch or something (well Infantry is already there. so it’s the armor that’s actually moving). I really hope they don’t actually merge the two branches though…
Pretty much all true. That thing kicks ass. But once you learn it’s abilities and ride around in one a couple times, you can learn it’s vulnerabilities. If you know what it can and cannot see, you have a better chance of hiding from it. You 10km away thing is true in flat desert, but in the mountains, the terrain dictates your visibility. If I hide around the turn of the valley, up high in the mountains in a trench, I will see the tank before he sees me. And he’ll be destroyed before he ever knew what hit him. The tanks behind him will be helpless. They will still be on the other side of the mountain staring at turn in the valley and a destroyed flaming armor mess at it’s apex. Without infantry or scouts (or artillery) to clear the ridge, they would be like those ducks in a shooting galley coming around that turn.
Again… this is why troops on the ground–no matter how high tech the battlefield becomes–will never be obsolete.
BTW, the Javelin has no back blast. And it climbs almost straight up, almost immediately and attacks the target from the TOP. So the origin and even the direction it came from is very difficult to determine.
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. Nevada was chosen for a reason.
First, it’s very expensive to train an American infantryman. Second, it’s politically cheaper to lose thousands of machines compare to one human soldier. Third, manufacturing is becoming cheaper all the time; by the time we can build what I was talking about I expect the factories that build them will be nearly human free, and produce very, very cheap products.
Wasn’t dismounted infantry scattered among the tanks standard doctrine since…hell, Guderian? When did we start getting stupid and sending in tanks alone?
Sorry, my intent wasn’t to dispute the fact that in uneven terrain, infantry will still have some weapons against tanks that wouldn’t otherwise be useful in flat desert, but that doesn;t mean tanks are obsolete. Yes, I know you didn’t say that, but I didn’t want our less knowledgable readers to come to that conclusion based on your post.
Let me phrase my point a bit differently: Even in uneven or urban terrain, the side with tanks will still have a huge advantage over the side that doesn’t. Thus tanks are very very far from being obsolete.
If science-fiction scenerios are includable, suppose some miracle breakthrough makes it possible to manufacture carbon nanotubules out of, coal say. Suppose diamond hard, 100X the strength/weight ratio of steel nanofiber armor is as cheap as plastic. That might prolong the usefullness of MBT considerably.
I dunno. I don’t think it was so much the sending in of tanks alone. But the sending in of infantry without the tanks. So many operations in the last 50 years or so have called for light infantry and not heavy armor. So infantry was getting a lot of use (without armor support), but the tanks were staying in garrison. Or just performing cordone missions. In a com
I think it’s been this lack of cooperation between the branches that has produced ignorant and inexperienced commanders (with respect to commanding combined arms) and a lack of doctrine for the combined deployment of Armor and Mech Infantry. Before, there was an FM for Infantry and an FM for Armor. There’s finally been some great FMs written on integrating the two effectively. I have them on .pdf and I reread them constantly.
I dunno. I don’t think it was so much the sending in of tanks alone. But the sending in of infantry without the tanks. So many operations in the last 50 years or so have called for light infantry and not heavy armor. So infantry was getting a lot of use (without armor support), but the tanks were staying in garrison. Or just performing cordone missions. In a combined mission, the tanks might handle the outer perimeter and the infantry will handle the inner cordone and the main assault of the mission. Even though this is a combined mission, it’s pretty much two seperate things. It’s like “hey, tanks. You guys go do your thing. And we’ll go do ours” But they weren’t integrated or actually doing any movements together.
I think it’s been this lack of true cooperation between the branches that has produced ignorant and inexperienced commanders (with respect to commanding combined arms) and a lack of doctrine for the combined deployment of Armor and Mech Infantry. Before, there was an FM for Infantry and an FM for Armor. There’s finally been some great FMs written on integrating the two effectively. I have them on .pdf and I reread them constantly.
Uneven terrain… tanks are definitely a huge advantage over the side without. But in urban ops… I gotta say that the advantage lies with the defense. Despite who has tanks or if they both have tanks, the advantage will always go to the city. Thus is the nature of MOUT. But I’m definitely not trying to dispute anything you’re saying. If the mission was simply to “Destroy the City”, then the side with the tanks has the advantage. But that’s not going to be the mission. If it was -lol- the Airforce would get the job.
Post 36 was in response to this statement. Post 35 was just a fuck up. This board is pissing me off…
Anyway, what I was trying to get at was it’s probably the lack of tank use in an offensive role in the past few decades that has caused the recent command/control issues with deploying them together with Mech Infantry. Also, I forgot to mention, that Army Organization made it the Cav Scouts who were the “dismounted infantry scattered among the tanks”, and not actual infantry. So, while Tank commanders might have been a little used to moving dismounts and tanks simultaneously… the Infantry hasn’t had experience in that area. Working with Tanks up until recently was as foreign to an infantryman as working with fighter planes. And, while the Tank commanders might have been good and knowledgable with maneuvering their dismounted scouts, they were pretty piss poor at using the Bradleys. To them the Bradley was just a vulnerable little toy. It wasn’t heavily armored like a tank, and had a puny main gun. So may have a tendancy to keep them in the rear away from the fight to “protect them” from harm. Like an overprotective mother who keeps her child protected from irrational perceived dangers. (Like not letting him skateboard or something)
I watched a Tank Company Commander REPEATEDLY do this to his Bradley and infantry assets. And guess what. He got his ass handed to him everytime. He kept putting the Bradleys in the back as “reserve”. But that’s not how it’s suppossed to work. The fucker should have studied the new FMs The Bradley has TOW missles and infantry troops ready to dismount! These are super valuable assets that must be implemented into the maneuver aspect of the mission…
Needless to say, he got his ass handed to him every time.
Effectively maneurving Bradleys, Tanks, Scouts, and Dismount Infantry is a new thing to modern commanders. It’s going to take some experience and practice to get good at it.
If that makes any sense…
Steve Jackson Games published a nifty collection of articles about their Ogre/GEV wargames called “The Ogre Book” back in the 1980s, I’ve got a copy around somewhere. It’s armored combat in the near future, including powerful robotic tanks, but just as fun to play sans the Ogres.
Anyhow, they have a few discussions of the future of armored warfare and they brought up the same point 20 years ago as now - cheap antitank missiles have made it easy and effective for infantry to destroy MBTs. What is to be done?
They showed a few things - high mobility made it much harder to hit an MBT (less a problem with “fire and forget” weapons but still comes into play), armor beefs up to meet the improved weapons (along with newer technology like reactive armor and the charged armor under development). One thing that they postulated as being feasible was an anti-missile system made up of a ring of little “claymore” tubes spaced around the tank with a sensor that can tell the difference between a thrown rock and an oncoming missile. Missile headed for the tank gets sprayed with pellets when it gets too close, and a missile headed for a formation of tanks will probably get multiple shots at it. You can also program such a system to backtrack the line of fire and shoot off a few rounds of something nasty at where the missile might have come from.
Here’s an example of just such a system - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/12/trophy_system/; it’s even safe to use around friendly infantry. There’s already stuff like counterbattery fire that works against incoming artillery fire (purely ballistic projectiles, where you can trace the point of origin accurately and then fire a few howitzer rounds back), transmitters that will cause proximity fused shells to detonate early, etc. So we get pop-up missiles (to obscure the point of origin) and so on.
Point being that people were thinking about this decades ago and the ideas they had are actually being put into production. I think that we’ll see a big game of one-up-manship; build better antitank missiles, there’ll be better armor and ways to seek out and kill the infantry, back and forth.
When someone develops a super-weapon that there is no practical defense against (aside from “Don’t get hit”), no amount of armor is enough and it’s light enough to be portable and cheap enough that there are tons of them in the field, at that point the MBT may go away but I can’t see it before then.
It does, but it sure is surprising. When I dabbled in soldiering some 20 years ago in Denmark, my company (Armoured Infantry) trained with tanks very often indeed - I’d estimate 50% of our exercise time. Even if the tanks themselves were not available for an exercise (“Cousin Leo” is a fuel and maintenance hog), tank commanders would be assigned M113 personel carriers and maneuver them as if they were tanks, simply to train cooperation. I thought all western armies trained that way - interesting. (Fighter planes were rare, admittedly…)