The Last of the Heavies

[Marko]

I have been reading and contemplating the future of armoured warfare of late.And have come to the conclusion that the Armoured Monsters that are currently deployed by most Nations Armies may well be the last of the super heavy tanks.i will list some of my reasons.

The current generation has reached the practical limited of weight.

The huge cost to purchase and maintain them.

The difficulty deploying them out side your borders.

The increasing sophistication and lethality of ATGM,s

The advent of active protection systems.

I am aware there are some new tanks on the drawing boards like the M1A3.the T-95

And some have working prototypes.i have seen a mock ups of the new tanks.

Also a lot of nations are updating there tanks.but i also notice in this time of austerity

And military budget cuts tanks seem to bare the brunt of the cuts. There will always be a need for

Fire support for the troops on the ground but this role can now be undertaken by much lighter wheeled vehicles.and IFV.s equipped with large calibre Guns.such as the CV120.the sprut-125mm.

Your thought on the subject please.

[Gibsonm]

No change really from the discussions that have going on since the AT-3’s cut up the unsupported IDF Centurions in October ’73 in the Sinai.

Or the introduction of the AH-1 Cobra and / or Mil Mi-24 Hind.

If you want to rely on “much lighter wheeled vehicles and IFV‘s equipped with large calibre guns.“ when closing with the enemy in a defensive position or in an urban environment - good luck to you.

Yes a current generation MBT have some “disadvantages” but they still provide more firepower, “shock action” and crew protection than say a Stryker based MGS.

Its primarily an issue of if you focus on the short term “The War” or retain the capability and longer term flexibility to fight “A War”.

[Kingtiger]

I have no doubt the tank are here to stay. However I think it will translate more into a infantry support centric tank more then the offensive tank on tank versions we are used to see.

No matter what you develop the enemy will develop a counter-measure against it. but just because there is a counter-measure against your weapon doesn't mean its obsolete if its used under right conditions. pretty much the same with any weapon really.

Two countrys to keep your eyes on are the canadians, who has gone from "we gonna scrap the Tanks" to "hell let buy some Leopards ey?" and Holland who just recently scrapped their tanks (and a few of them ended up in Canada ) and going "light".

[Grenny]

...and Holland who just recently scrapped their tanks (and a few of them ended up in Canada ) and going "light".

Its not just Holland, the whole Netherlands are doing it ;-)

[Ssnake]

The current generation has reached the practical limited of weight.

I agree.

The huge cost to purchase and maintain them.

I disagree. In comparison to maintaining an air force, a tank fleet sin't extraordinarily expensive. It may be more expensive to maintain than, say, a fleet of mechanized infantry fighting vehicles. But at the same time MBTs also are a unique combination of medium range precision firepower, mobility, survivability, and endurance. Plus, they offer a psychological effect that other vehicles do not have in the same way.

The difficulty deploying them out side your borders.

The question is what your aspirations are with respect to power projection. This is a decision that each nation must make itself in the context of its collective defense organizations. Off-loading all serious fighting capability to a big brother is a dangerous thing, if that bigger brother is not available for some reason.

The increasing sophistication and lethality of ATGM,s

How does that jive with your next statement:

The advent of active protection systems.

One would assume that the APSs are also suitable to defeat ATGMs, no?

So put the APS on the tank, and you have maintained its survivability.

If MBTs can be killed, so can any other (lighter) combat vehicle.

Even if they can be defeated by weapon X, it doesn't mean that the enemy has weapon X at his disposal, or not all the time, or that you can defeat X with a new countermeasure Y. This is why we are fighting with combined arms tactics. It requires more tactical sophistication (hence the need to train it), but it does not necessarily require to have the latest and greatest equipment in every area because some of the deficits can be balanced with other weapon systems.

I am aware there are some new tanks on the drawing boards like the M1A3.the T-95

You seem to be too much focused on western nations and Russia. The hotbed of new tank development is China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey.

I have yet to hear a single argument that tanks can be defeated by X that wouldn't also apply to any lighter vehicle. Yet the fact remains that against weapons of type "not X" the MBT is the most survivable platform, and weapons of type "not X" are still the majority of what is fielded worldwide. Just because our western nations aren't investing much into tank development it doesn't mean that the entire world thinks this way.

Canada was ready to give up its entire tank fleet just half a decade ago. Now they have more and heavier tanks than ever. Australia ditched the light Leopard 1s in favor of a brand new Abrams fleet. Singapore, Chile, Venezuela, Algeria - all have procured a substantial number of heavy MBTs, or have announced that they are planning to do so.

The Dutch didn't give up the tanks because they thought it was no longer needed. They admit that it will result in a capability loss. They just hope that the conflicts of the future will not be so lethal that they will need to have tanks, and in the immediate future it's a means to save costs and help to balance the national budget. Turkey is massively updating its tank fleet. So are China, or India, or Pakistan. In (most of) Europe it doesn't seem that there are territorial disputes that anyone hopes to solve with military power, so the need to maintain massive tank fleets has by and large ceased to exist (Greece, looking across the Aegean sea, may beg to differ; so may neighbors of Serbia).

For the US, the Abrams fleet has proven itself as a crucial combat multiplier. The same goes for the UK and their Challengers. I agree that it is important not only to look at the current state of things, but also (and more importantly) at the trends. I just don't see a trend to discard MBTs from the force package.

[Grenny]

I'd like to add that APS onyl help you if you are inside and armoured vehicle.

APS enhance armour plates, not replace them.

(the shrapnell shower of a "defeted" ATGM or KE-round ist quiete substantial)

[rump]

Interesting read on the Canadian armour in Afghanistan:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf

Excerpt:

By deploying tanks and armoured engineers to Afghanistan in October 2006 and

supporting the acquisition of the Leopard 2, the leadership of the Canadian Forces (CF)

has acknowledged the importance of maintaining heavy armour in a balanced force.

While the continued development of sensors and technology will be extremely important

to achieving improved situational awareness (SA) on the battlefield, the hard-earned

experiences of the Canadian Army and our allies in sustained combat in Afghanistan and

Iraq have proven we must be prepared to get our hands dirty and come into physical

contact with the enemy if we wish to define their strength, composition and intentions,

and subsequently kill them. Canadian tanks and armoured engineers have better

protected our dismounted infantry soldiers in Southern Afghanistan, allowing them to

close with and destroy a fanatical and determined enemy in extremely complex terrain.

-Rump

[Marko]

No change really from the discussions that have going on since the AT-3’s cut up the unsupported IDF Centurions in October ’73 in the Sinai.

Or the introduction of the AH-1 Cobra and / or Mil Mi-24 Hind.

If you want to rely on “much lighter wheeled vehicles and IFV‘s equipped with large calibre guns.“ when closing with the enemy in a defensive position or in an urban environment - good luck to you.

Yes a current generation MBT have some “disadvantages” but they still provide more firepower, “shock action” and crew protection than say a Stryker based MGS.

Its primarily an issue of if you focus on the short term “The War” or retain the capability and longer term flexibility to fight “A War”.

With some of the advanced protection system starting to be fieled you will not need 62 tons Of armour to close on your enemy also with modern auto cannons.grenade launchers And there support variants like CV-120.you still have the same capability's as a tank in terms of firepower.

I am not saying armies will get rid of there heavies any time soon.but i think the tanks currently fielded Will be the last in the sixty ton range.

[12Alfa]

A light AFV will not take a blast from a IED like a 60Ton Tank!:cul:

All the tech (advanced protection system) in the world has proven this time and time again.:eek2:

Lets not waste any more crews to re-learn this.:decu:

[john.gear]

With some of the advanced protection system starting to be fieled you will not need 62 tons Of armour to close on your enemy also with modern auto cannons.grenade launchers And there support variants like CV-120.you still have the same capability's as a tank in terms of firepower.

I am not saying armies will get rid of there heavies any time soon.but i think the tanks currently fielded Will be the last in the sixty ton range.

I am very afraid this is the feeling among too many leaders. What they are really looking for is savings in maintenance and training funds. There are many not so many friendly countries around the world that are not downsizing to a smaller lighter force. This is line of thinking is misguided and will cost those who believe a lighter vehicle can provide the mobility shock effect and firepower of a heavy tank.

12A is right.

[Marko]

A light AFV will not take a blast from a IED like a 60Ton Tank!:cul:

All the tech (advanced protection system) in the world has proven this time and time again.:eek2:

Lets not waste any more crews to re-learn this.:decu:

I agree with you alfa.

I am not trying to support the view heavies should go

Just pointing out. that seems to be the trend in the west anyway.Ssnake was right to

Point out This is not the case in Asia.the new Turkish Altay looks intresting.

[IrishHussar]

Just remember

"Those who hammer their Guns into ploughs will plow for those that dont"

Irish

[Richie61]

Just remember

"Those who hammer their Guns into ploughs will plow for those that dont"

Irish

This about sums up the whole story here :drink:

[Panzer_Leader]

Some more insight into Canada's position on this perennial debate - won in favour of the MBT for them - from Defence Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tanks-for-the-lesson-leopards-too-for-canada-03208/

[oscar19681]

Its not just Holland, the whole Netherlands are doing it ;-)

You are kidding right? Holland and the Netherlands are the same thing.

[Raploc]

You are kidding right? Holland and the Netherlands are the same thing.

That is just like saying that Wales and the United Kingdom are the same thing.

[Grenny]

That is just like saying that Wales and the United Kingdom are the same thing.

Thats what I was trying to tell them :-P

[rump]

That is just like saying that Wales and the United Kingdom are the same thing.

Problem is, the Netherlands is marketed abroad as 'Holland'. But for indigenous people they should be known as different.

- Rump

[Alicatt]

And we speak Vlaams here not Nederlands

oh and they seem to have got rid of most of the Leos around here too

[rump]

And we speak Vlaams here not Nederlands

oh and they seem to have got rid of most of the Leos around here too

So, to confuse the matter even more, no more tanks in the Low Countries...