Have tanks had their day?

Discussion in 'RAC' started by Chef, Mar 9, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The arrival of utterly lethal ATGM's like Javelin has writen the tanks obituary.
    What good is £2 million of steel and high tech when a bloke with a £50k missile can kill it at will.
  2. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    there's always been that battle between a tank and ant armor though. give it time and they'll mount baby phalanx on the top of them to shoot down said javelins, milans etc..

    not sure if they are dead or not but they should be moved somewhere safe until they work it out rather than turning them into bean cans like everything else.
  3. Makes little difference, we only have 300 of them anyway.
  4. Fair point, but the same argument was made for manned fighters, and that turned out to be premature. It could well be that tanks have reached their ultimate form, but if they can't survive would that not also imply that AFVs in general are finished?

    What will future battlefield transport look like? Remote controlled vehicles? Or will the infantry and artillery dominate again?
  5. Tanks have their place, mostly for killing other tanks. Given that we are unlikely to be engaging anyone with AFV's in any kind of quantity and have multiple means of killing them anyway what does a tank bring to the party?
  6. The difference between the calls for manned fighter ac and tanks being obsolete is that a tank can only traverse in 2 dimensions and at a fraction of the speed that ATGM fly, whilst fighters can bust moves in all 3 and at a much more competitive lick. If tanks can sort out their countermeasures then they might edge back into the useful category. This is all in reference to conventional warfare however

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MBT's very effective once in theatre but,well,there a lot of buts.I suppose 90 years ago,we would be saying the same about horses.
  8. Not much but they do look ******* nails and I always used to think that as they roared past spewing up sand and dust. Can we keep them cos they look cool?

    Sent from ma hoose.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    same goes for apcs but you still need something to get the crunchies too and from the battlefield safely. tanks can also be used as artillery which might be their future.

    I thought our main problem is they shut the factory which makes the bullets?
  10. Being artillery rather precludes being a tank though. APC and CVR(T) will still have a role as will SP Guns. What will an MBT do?
  11. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    Not every force has those £50k missiles - if you don't then even a T34/85 will make you shit yourself. What a more relevant question would be I feel is whether "home grown" tanks have had their day - you need a bout 200 or so to keep a force relevant which is tiny in terms of manufacturing and tech development so in future I think it would be better amalgamate demand into a single vehicle over a number forces/countries.
  12. Not major point but an old tankie I shared an office with after he'd served in the Balkans once said "a challenger says something about your roadblock that two landrovers never could"
    • Like Like x 13
  13. What force doesn't, bar some African tribe that don't like their Government?
    PIRA had MBT killing weapons FFS.
  14. Big, smelly, noisy, a **** load of maintenance, pol intensive, limited ammunition, 20+ yrs old chassis a 'mare to get to the shit etc etc.

    Yup I can see why they are happy to bin them, however when they're gone they're gone. We can always buy off the Chinese when it hits the fan again.