| Author |
Tanks |
Polecat 900
Lt. Cdr.
Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 137 |  Posted: 2002-03-11 13:27
The US as i understand isn't developing a new tank....instead it's investing in a lighter more mobile MAV...this raises a question...do we now need tanks....because in deserts and plains(like in the indo-pak scenario)....ac will rein supreme provided it is known exactly where the formations are...then there are helos which have offered massive adavancements over tanks.....then again in an israeli sort of scenario....tanks are still needed...they are also needed to hold ground in an area not securable by ground troops(middle of desert,nuke affected area).
What are your views?
 
|
Pakistani
1st Lieutenant
Joined: Mar 04, 2002
Posts: 52 | Posted: 2002-03-12 08:28
In an Indo-Pak envoiroment I think tanks and anti-tank missiles will certainly play a major role.Certainly from Pakistans point of view, hence the investment in T-80UD,Al Khalid and Bakter Shikan.
Pakistan Army can really expect little or no help from the PAF in fighting the Indian Army, only 50 A-5's and 20 Cobra choppers is what they can expect to rely on.
The PAF will be way to busy trying to keep the IAF off the Pakistan Army's back.
This also probaly explains the heavy concentration of RBS-70,Stinger and Anza 2 missiles in Pakistani Armoured formations....
_________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth"
|
UserFlage
Rainbow
Joined: Mar 12, 2002
Posts: 11
From: a
| Posted: 2002-03-12 15:45
The reason why there hasn't been many tank development projects in the west is to do with the fact that the present systems (in there highly upgraded form) can cope with basically all threats that exist at present.
No new tank in production from russia has even approach the M1 yet so there's no need to create a new counter-tank.
The MAV is designed first and formost to fit within the belly of an aircraft which will allow the US to have a rapid deployment strategy. In this it will be serverly comprisimed in performance compared to many MBT's out there.
Don't be confused with the ability of modern aircraft to destroy ground targets like what happened during the Gulf War2. Any ground force which is in a very open & featureless terrain is vunerable from the air, however add a few tree's and the situation is completely reversed (ala alied force in serbia in 1999). You'd also require a massive number of aircraft to stop a ground invasion which is something that the pak's or indians probably could not acheive. (reducing ground forces mobility through airpower is a different matter).
And lastly the tank's role in warfare is in its mobility rather than its gun or armor. Its the ability to move rapidly after an initial breach through a defensive line that makes a mechinized force so dangerous.
The panzer's here to stay for sometime
[ This Message was edited by: UserFlage on 2002-03-12 15:49 ]
|
RistoJ
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 8
From: Finland
| Posted: 2002-03-15 03:59
Tanks are definitely not going away any time soon, since they are very important part of any ground fighting. Even USA will need to have enough of them despite their unrivalled air warfare capabilities. In some situations like in Afganistan they are not needed or even that useful, but in many situations there really isn't anything better.
They are vehicles that combine excellent (ground) mobility, very powerful weapons with large numbers of ammunition and pinpoint accuracy (within centimeters) and also protection that need very powerful weapons to overcome. Being ground based vehicles they are there 24/7 and are not affected by weather. Other systems like light vehicles or helicopters or aircraft have some of these attributes, but not nearly all of them. This means that there is nothing that can really replace tanks, albeit in some situations there are better alternatives.
The importance of tanks for US has diminished somewhat because there is no real danger of huge fight against enemy with anywhere near the ability of US forces (especially USAF and Navy AF). But most countries of the world don't have the luxury of having such huge power disparity against their potential enemies. If the enemy has the ability of at least contesting your airforce and has tanks/mech forces and you don't, then you're seriously screwed. Even US will need heavy ground units to hold enemy off /break their attacks for extended periods of time in some situations. For example if North Korea decides to attack South Korea, any troops in the area will be very grateful of any tank on their side. Air forces can beat on ground forces, but not if their bases are overrun.
|
