Which Tank do you think is the best?

[Darkreaper]

now play nice children

[Mission Space]

Keep posting people, nice conversations..

[Darkreaper]

Principle necessities of a tank design

Power
Protection
Reliability
and a good gun

if you can maximize all 4 of those characteristics then youve found yourself the best tank out there

[Feltan]

Principle necessities of a tank design

Power
Protection
Reliability
and a good gun

if you can maximize all 4 of those characteristics then youve found yourself the best tank out there

Quite true. Technology keeps raising the bar on what is acceptable, and what is great.

However, in my opinion, we might well see the tank eclipsed as a weapon of decision on the battlefield. I know ... hard to believe. It was also hard to believe, at the time, that horse cavalry would be eclipsed, as well at the big gun battleship.

As I mentioned, or alluded to, the capability to kill a tank in a somewhat easy manner is becoming more widespread. Tanks are expensive to build, and expensive to maintain. When an 18 year old illiterate peasant can point a stick and knock out a $10 million vehicle with ease -- you need more 18 year olds, more sticks, and less big expensive targets.

Currently, man portable anti-tank weapons (the real good ones) do not exist in sufficient numbers, nor are they inexpensive themselves. They will be eventually. Eventually, tanks maneuvering against well equiped infantry will have the same prospect of success as horse cavalry maneuvering against machine guns.

Regards,
Feltan

[Ruges]

Eventually, tanks maneuving against well equiped infantry will have the same prospect of success as horse cavalry maneuving against machine guns.

Regards,
Feltan

I think that sums it up pretty good right there. And tanks will probly have it even worse then the horse.

[Darkreaper]

i dont see that making the tank obsolete, just making infantry more powerful in comparison to other weapons of war. Same thing has been happening with aircraft due to the proliferation of handheld SAMs, but doesnt mean were gonna stop using helicopters and aircraft in combat. Have to remember it goes both ways. Wont be long before someone comes up with a better counter measure for Anti-tank weapons. I believe several organisations are already in the process of developing laser defense systems to jam the guidance systems of these weapons, deflect or destroy them outright. It was once believed that Air to Air and Ballistic missiles would make fighter and bomber aircraft obsolete

[Feltan]

Some of what you say is undoubtedly true. There will (or currently is) a technology race between armor and anti-armor systems. My point is that once you burden a vehicle with all manner of counter measures, and their associated cost, you have a system whose reason for existance is to prove it can survive, rather than a decisive weapon on the battlefield. My guess is that it will be decades before armored monsters slowly give way to light nimble vehicles that can carry troops as well as pack an anti-tank punch.

The air-to-air missle comparison is a little off. While some advanced anti-tank weapons (e.g., Javlin), like anti-aircraft missles, have sophisticated guidance -- most anti-tank weapons still use the Mk I Eyeball and a ballistic flight path, and can't be jammed or evaded (all RPGs, M-72s and derivatives of the old bazooka/recoiless rifle for instance). Such simple guidance would never do against a high performance aircraft, but Kentucky windage usually works just fine against tanks.

Regards,
Feltan

[Darkreaper]

yes but their simplicity is also one of their greatest weaknesses. Their ballistic flight path makes them very predictable, and thus would make them very easy to knock out with some manner of CIDS, like those being currently developed

Now you need to take into consideration that a lot of the tank's weight is taken up by advanced armour, designed to protect the tank from small arms and Anti-tank weapons. If you eliminate or at least reduce the threat from AT weapons, the armour needed to protect against small arms is significantly less, thus drastically reducing the overall weight of the tank, which would then allow for greater speed and mobility. This would allow the tank to re-embrace its original role, maneuver warfare, where it could once again smash its way through infantry ranks, drive into the enemies rear and wreck havok with impunity

This would once again make the tank the master of the battlefield, answerable only to other tanks, attack aircraft and high precision artillery. Im sure you can understand the ramifications that would have on todays current conflicts

[Feltan]

Indeed, I can understand those implications. However, I believe it is a pipe dream.

Anti-tank systems are less expensive and take less time to research, develop and field. That is compared to the same cost and time to improve a tank. Hence, anti-tank weapons have the capability to field, say, two or three generations of weapon improvement as compared to a single generation of tanks. In the technology race mentioned above, it is clear to me that tank technology will eventually be far out paced by weapons meant to destroy them.

I don't expect this to happen any time soon. Nor do I expect it to be a straight line event; any success of tanks in combat will be used to argue against the tide. Military inertia and political factors alone will keep tanks in the field far longer than they have practical utility. Trying to turn them into land cruisers festooned with counter-measures will keep them around longer too.

After some battle in distant future, somebody is going to look over a battlefield littered with multi-million dollar vehicles knocked out by weapons that cost a small fraction of that. That person is going to have the advantage of immediate hindsight. There will be an epiphany. And soon thereafter everyone is going to wonder -- what were we thinking?

The same thing happened after Pearl Harbor with battleships. The pride of the U.S. Pacific Fleet was relegated to harbor defense duty in the months after the Japanese attack. In one morning, in about four hours, the entire orthodox thought about how naval battles would be fought was turned upside down. Today, it is difficult to fully appreciate how much of a shock this was to the world's navies.

That is going to happen again, and this time the Army of some nation is in for a shock.

Regards,
Feltan

[Darkreaper]

Wont be long before someone comes up with a better counter measure for Anti-tank weapons. I believe several organisations are already in the process of developing laser defense systems to jam the guidance systems of these weapons, deflect or destroy them outright. It was once believed that Air to Air and Ballistic missiles would make fighter and bomber aircraft obsolete

case in point
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... ead#unread

And as for battleships, it is true that the heyday of the battleship has come and gone, however, if you consider the development of Anti-aircraft weapons at the time you realize that it was not the battleship itself that was truly lacking, but all ships of all kinds were highly vulnerable to aerial attack. Had ships then possessed AA weapons even approaching those we possess today, the day of the battleship may well have lasted longer than it did

Then again the Falklands war showed just how vulnerable surface ships could be to cruise, and Anti-ship missiles despite the possession of sophisticated anti-air missiles and defense systems

[The Khan]

I think the future will be in hands of remote operated hover vehicles, seeing a human body has limits for piloting... or very fast APC's, with armor only as an insurance against small arms fire, and anti-tank guns being one shot one kill items...

this thread makes me want to play BF2142

[fool]

You even mentioning BF2142 makes me get pissed off with EA again.

[The Khan]

You even mentioning BF2142 makes me get pissed off with EA again.

Nah I hate it too I just like the futuristic APC stuff which had nanorepair modules to close dents and anti armor holes...

After all the game is just a BF2 Mod FGS...

[Lightbringer]

@Darkreaper & Feltan

Y'all are thinking of the next step ahead, but what about the ramifications and "next step"? Ok, say Feltan is right, and every soldier carries 2-3 effective AT missiles. This also obsoletes armored infantry, or even mobile infantry riding around in Humvees, jeeps, trucks etc. If any metal box with wheels becomes a death trap because every two bit military has effective hand held weapons to kill them, then what?

That is why I think you are oversimplifying the situation Feltan, because hand held missiles that will dependably kill lighter vehicles have existed since WWII, and the military still uses metal boxes on wheels or tracks to move men faster than they can walk. Yes, the world military philosophy may drift away from massive MBTs, but just do a quick search through different region's inventories in 2020, every area has multiple light tanks and beefed up IFVs that approach light tank killing power. We may see poisonous gasses make a come back, maybe not even lethal ones, but those designed to incapacitate enemy infantry. We may see old school battlefield saturation bombings become more common, or massive firestorm weapons which armor has been designed to operate in and through. The military will always want something that can slaughter mobile infantry, and outmaneuver foot soldiers. What this comes to consist of is not decided, but I would not put any money on it not including some form of tank.

Simply stating "Armor is obsolete!", and not investigating other possible tactics is not the type of military thinking I have come to expect from you Feltan.

-Light

P.S. You had the answers right in front of you BTW. Battleships became obsolete, so they figured out how to make frigates and destroyers just as deadly instead alongside the reign of the carriers.

[The Khan]

Yeah, the vehicles are becoming smaller with same killing power and armor. What will happen in next century? Nanoswarms with transceiver antennas as commanders? Ninja-pirate-cyborgs on horse steroids?

What is important is that size means a hindrance nowadays. UAV's are living proof. They are arming them, no human lives hurt, all the same power!