A little off topic but…I thought I would open a thread concerning whether or not tanks such as the M1 and the new Leo are relevant anymore on todays battle field. Obviously, we still see tank to tank engagements in recent regional conflicts,but, with air, artillery and missile assets, do we really need a 60 ton fuel guzzler? I’m thinking we need something lighter, faster and more efficient. Keep in mind, I’m an ex M1 TC, so, don’t get me wrong here. I think the Abrams is an OK tank, but, for the sake of the future…What do you guys think?
i think you have a point about it being a gas guzzler but I think that there will always have to be a main battle tank to support troops and engage other tanks. But what we should do is force the Middle East to lower their oil prices by a lot. They have a monopoly and the prices will still rise.
Oil prices are driven by market supply and demand forces, not the whim of the Middle Eastern producers. We have high oil prices now because of increasing demand from China and Asia for oil but there’s correspondingly less oil being produced to meet that demand…mostly because the current exporters are producing at or near capacity already. It’s not in their longterm interest to see high oil prices as that actually reduced consumption and their profit/revenue flows.
Anyhow, back to the topic of the future of the MBT…I do think we are a pivotal moment in terms of where technology and strategic needs play a role. The MBT is taking on a lot of the characteristics that battleships had at the start of WWII. They are expensive, highly visible expressions of force/might, but really only useful if the other guy also has expensive highly visible expressions of force/might for them to go up against and defeat.
I think there is still a place for the Abrams in the TO&E of the modern army but it’s role is diminishing as more and more conflicts become localized or asymmetrical as opposed to the mass battles on the plains of Central Europe that were once envisaged. Smally unit mobility and survivability are coming more to the forefront and the role of the MBT by contrast is being reduced to the background.
I’d say that the Abrams and MBT still has a role to play. They are virtually impenatrable to anything that’s out there. I’d prefer something smaller and more mobile that still packs a punch and doesn’t give up its armor defences. Probably a tall order. Since we control the air, that makes our MBT’s pretty darn tough to defeat.
As long as you have citys,forests and bunkers you will always have a need for an MBT. Its sort of liken to a shotgun and are needed in urban warfare.The role of any MBT was not tank to tank but to clear the way of any obesticles that the infintry might incounter. This was and still is its main mission.I have to agree that they should be light and faster.This will happen in a few years with what the British are trying to devolpe and I think that they will do it.As soon as the British do devolpe there eletric-magnetic field for the tank you will see some radical changes in tank devolpiments.You can’t always get what you want in desturction from the air or with missells.So for as right now the MBT’S are need and provide an important funcition.Digger
I think there will be a place for the Tank in many more battles to come. How else can you get a very large and protected gun to travel with the infantry. I know someone out there is yelling “SP arty,” but arty is only effective at stand off ranges. Airpower can only be at so many places at one time (Wingy Things and Choppers aren’t very cheap either). I know there’s all kinds of anti-tank stuff out there, but the cheap stuff (bad-guy-terrorist cheap) seems unreliable. I’ll be willing to bet that the US line of MBT’s doesn’t end with the Abrams.
I think MBT are ok when they meet eachother on the battlefield, however most fights thesedays are close quarter combat, and in the “narrow” streets of a city, an MBT may look impressive is in reality useless and even an easy target for that one guys with his RGP.
I’ve listened to this argument for decades and the answer is still the same. The tank is an essential part of the battle field. The problem I found as a tanker was that infantrymen don’t understand what a tank can do. As a grunt I was constantly pissed off at the other squad leaders who didn’t appreciate a tank’s capabilities. A squad of infantry can sit a ‘klick’ away from a target and call in support fire from a tank 800 (or more) meters behind them! A tank is a beautiful battlefield weapon, especially when an M1 gunner can watch a crunchie at night walk around two kilometers away totally unaware that he is under the guns of an M1.
What the US needs to develop again is an effective light tank (right now the ‘Humvee’ is listed as a ‘light tank’ on Cavalry MTO&E’s… if I’m not mistaken, which I may be if updates have occured since I last looked at a Cav MTO&E), I can tell you I’d rather be in an M5A1 Stuart than some #($%**$& Humvee. For some reason, tracks demand respect that wheels don’t get and solid armor is much more impressive than ‘bulletproofing’.
Let’s give infantry a choice… hmmm. Wanna take an objective with the help of a company of tanks with five high velocity 120mm cannon, ten 7.62 and five .50 cal. machine guns, or wanna go it alone? I think most infantrymen who’ve worked with tanks enjoy the cover they provide as well as the attention they draw away from the guys in danger on the ground. … of course, there ARE times you want to be all alone without a hint of any support…
My point, we need tanks. We’ve had a lot of smaller battles around the globe, but there’s no guarantee that they’ll stay small, in which case we’ll need all the firepower we can get: from infantry squads to tanks to artillery to sea and air support.
My opinion.
Interesting topic. From what I’ve seen and read in recent months, the MBT is very much alive and well. I think the Army may be a bit premature in declaring the MBT an ideal weapon for urban warfare, but our doctrine has shifted sharply after the experience of OIF. Tanks were traditionally thought of as sitting ducks in urban environments. Our guys in OIF proved that they arent and can operate quite effectively.
Dwight, interesting article. I think the author may be falling into the same trap that the Navy and Air Force did in the 1960s with their fighter design. “It doesn’t need a gun, it has missiles!” While missiles sure do have the advantage in range, they also are much more likely to be faulty. A gun doesn’t have that drawback. Now a healthy combination of both… that’s something to think about.
I personally think we need to get some hovertanks… [2c]
You can’t hold or take ground with an airplane or missle… also, the ability of being able to flank the enemies ground units and bring to bear massive fire power on their rear is still vital in todays standards of war. Kicking them in the pants while holding them by the nose is still one of the best strategies devised and still in use today… Granted we could have parachuted a bunch of our guys into Baghdad, but nothing speaks power like the MBT and I don’t believe we could have taken Baghdad as successfully as we had if not for the MBT…
There is a new round on its way to M-1 crews for use in close quarter contact it’s a 120mm beehive and will allow for direct fire inclose combat conditions with our troops. There is also talk on an hatch riser similar to the old M-60 that would house up to a 40mm grenade launcher and a possible mini-gun for the loader. Ammo supply to the mini-gun would need reconsideration to munitions storage but I believe it will improve the ability to not only survive but control the bad guys. I support my local main battle tank.
Did anyone else happen to catch that article about the “unknown” projectile that penetrated the flank of an Army M1 in Iraq not too long after the war was over? I read it in Marine Times (I’m a SSgt USMC) that “something” penetrated around where the armor skirt attaches, grazed the back of either the gunner or loader’s (I can’t remember) seat, and splattered against the far bulkhead. Did they ever find out what happened there? Just curious, I’d hate to think some third party was testing anti-armor weapons at our expense.
While I tend to agree with your sentiment, and definately concur that we need a good light tank, I think the problem is the nature of the modern battlefield, which limits a tanks capabilities. What good does it do me, as a grunt, to have a tank that can engage targets two clicks out when I am in an urban fight with the badguys only a few hundred (if I am lucky) meters away? The other problem is that in operations such as those in Iraq, just seeing a ‘target’ from two clicks doesn’t mean you can kill it. Have to make sure it is a legitimate target, which requires getting much closer. The very nature of the modern battlefield, as evidenced in Iraq, tends to negate the primary advantages that a tank provides.