Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

Political failure does not negate military effectiveness. The military should never have been used without a clear political end game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

Political failure does not negate military effectiveness. The military should never have been used without a clear political end game.

Excluding our involvement in WW2, our only "won" war in the last 100 years, since when has "military effectiveness" resulted in a victory? I see lots and lots of industrialists and contractors getting rich, yet I see nothing for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

You guys are all missing the point. Tanks are big and heavy and MANNED. The Marines are scaling down with what is now available and in light of what is online to become available in the next few years; UNMANNED armored units of all sizes for the future of ground warfare.

This is just one. Why carry around a massive vehicle that is vulnerable because it carries crew instead of multiple smaller units for all tasks that are equally useful?

https://sofrep.com/news/check-out-the-ripsaw-m5-a-10-ton-robo-tank-looking-to-join-the-army/

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

At least until an EMP fries the electronics.

quote:

Or mud is splattered on the cameras outside. Ir someone hits the vehicle with enough paint balls to blind the thing.

quote:

If a little something breaks, who can then fix it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There are non-nuke EMPs:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/peter-pry-china-emp-attack/

quote:

A disabled unmanned AFV could be captured, repaired, and used against the previous owner/operator. Thus, there is still a need to secure it.

quote:

If a tank is mobility killed, the tank crew may be able to repair it, short track it if need be. Another vehicle could come up and with a tow cable mounted, get someone outside to put the cable through the towing pintle, secure it, then the AFV could be retrieved. An individual could ride under the AFV if needed to do this. Of course, that individual might need big brass ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

A lightening strike could act as an EMP, so could a large electrical discharge from power lines. But then again, it could from a nearby star as well.

True, an Abrams tank could also be captured relatively intact although it may be harder.

An unmanned recovery vehicle would be a good thing. So would an unmanned recon vehicle, even if it was the size of a toy car, so would mine clearing vehicles, as well as ones to detonate booby traps. Although why someone would want to trap boobies, I don't really know unless they just want to tag them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

A lightening strike could act as an EMP, so could a large electrical discharge from power lines. But then again, it could from a nearby star as well.

True, an Abrams tank could also be captured relatively intact although it may be harder.

An unmanned recovery vehicle would be a good thing. So would an unmanned recon vehicle, even if it was the size of a toy car, so would mine clearing vehicles, as well as ones to detonate booby traps. Although why someone would want to trap boobies, I don't really know unless they just want to tag them.

I'll settle for an unmanned beverage cart on the golf course. Dial a drink! Order while your partner is teeing off, delivery as you leave the green.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is **** when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Funny how even though 15 year old RPGs supposedly made tanks obsolete, EVERY major power in the world today continues to develop, produce, and field tanks. Seems all the educated people running all those ground forces are not as smart as some of our forum members.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is **** when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

According to you, the United States should unilaterally disarm. Sieg Heil, comrade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You guys got me thinking about this, and I will ask my sons what they think about armor. Haven't talked to them about armor in a long time. One of them has been in combat recently, and most recently a trainer at Fort Irwin -- and I suspect he will probably think it is ok for the Marine Corp to do it (smaller, specialized)...but that there are plenty of solid applications that armor solves the problem for in the Army. My guess is he would prefer to fight an enemy that didn't field tanks while his side did....but we shall see.

I do know that Joint readiness training switched several years back to feature larger, more traditional clashes and away from insurgency models-- I think the Army was at the time prepping for a conflict in Syria which thankfully never came to be -- although I do know several young man that did fight there.

The Marines are ditching their current tanks. This doesn't mean they are giving up on armored fighting vehicles. My bet is they already have an array of specialized smaller manned and unmanned vehicles that can be flown in and dropped, swim in on their own, and won't either break the bank or put crews at risk in the same way as traditional armour.

This is moving quickly. I know someone here that works in transport focusing on cars, and he says self-driving taxis will be common in five years in the UK. If it's in the civilian sector, then those technologies will be far ahead in the military sector.