Hey Yamafreak,
I’m a SSgt in the Corps as well. Just returned from Staff Acacdemy with a tanker and that very topic came up. Seems like there is debate about weather it was an RPG round that just happened to get lucky by passing right between the turret and the hull or weather it was a round fired by another M1. Seems to me that if it had been an M1 shot, the damage would have been a lot worse. Still, from what my tanker buddy told me, I’m not sure that anyone knows for sure.
SEMPER FI, man.
I tend to think that MBTs will stay around for a while to come. The analogy made to battleships at the end WWII may be valid. However, if it is a valid comparison, the tactical siutation for MBTs today is not entirely similar to that faced by battleships at the end of WWII.
Opponents
At the start of WWII, we needed battlewagons to defend against the other guy’s battlewagons, but after WWII, there were no more battleships to fight. Our potential iron curtain opponents weren’t deploying them, so our own need for the diminished.
On the other hand, currently many of our likely opponents have very competant MBTs, so we need to have a counter. Presumably a Bradley equipped with an anti-tank missle has a good chance against an enemy MBT provided that they get the jump on the enemy, but I don’t think that anyone really wants to make that matchup part of the Bradley’s bread-and-butter operations.
Targets
At the end of WWII, battleships no longer had much in the way of likely targets. Naturally, there were no battleships to sqaure off against, and principle ship to ship fleet action would be handled by carrier borne aircraft and submarines. The only real targets left for battleships would be shore facilities, primarily as part of pre-invasion preparation. The navy figured they could handle those tasks with aircraft, so battleships were retired because they were a very expensive luxury to handle a fairly limited role.
On the other hand, MBTs still have lots of battle field targets. Enemy MBTs, APC.s, pill boxes, strong points etc. Admittedly, any of these items can be taken out by a missile, but missiles are usually fairly expensive compared artillary rounds. Considering the number of such targets that need to be eliminated in a ground offensive, it probably adds up to make the tank not seem as expensive.
All in all, I think the Abrams has a place in the arsenal for a long time to come. With the changing nature of warfare, i.e. no more Kursks. possibly the next generation of MBT may well have its designed capabilites adjusted to account for the more likely scenarios of the future.
Hi, I really had to wade into this one…
I love tanks as much as the next guy but one point that no one has mentioned yet has to do with the changing role of CAS. It used to be that you needed something like a big can opener on an A-10 or something from an Apache or other missile platform to get the accuracy you needed to take out solitary hard targets. Now CAS is a guy at 35 or 40,000 with a laser guided bomb and he can put that baby just about where you want it. You can buy a lot of bombs for the price of an M1. As an ex-airforce guy (we loved tanks) I can’t help but think that a lot of the reasons we use to justify tanks are being filled from the air where one guy sits in relative safety and provides ground support. I am familiar with the old adage that only infantry can hold ground but if there is no enemy left after a thorough pasting…
One other thought is that several people have compared MBT’s to Battleships. I think you might be better off looking at them as Roman Cataphracts or heavy armoured cavalry (in the horse sense, not as we use the term now). History is replete with examples of the value of a heavily armed (and armoured), highly mobile force on the battlefield. I won’t even bother to list the first 100 or so examples that come to mind, but the psychological value of seeing something that large, moving that fast, with that much force (whether it be a cataphract, or an MBT) coming towards you to kill you, cannot be underestimated. Again, history is full of accounts written by the guys on the receiving end of these advances and they rarely sound “calm, cool and collected”.
Our view of history is pretty short. We have had tanks for only about 100 years or so but before that, the same role was served by horses, elephants, chariots, and what ever could be armed, armoured, and made to move. My guess is that the MBT will stick around for quite awhile. I believe we will always need something to accomplish the specific task given to armour. We can keep making the armour better and make the armament better, but the next big change will come will need to be some way to make them much more mobile. They are already a heck of a lot faster than their brethren of 50 years ago, but we coming close to maximizing the weight/horsepower ratio and still maintain the armour effectiveness. So we either have to provide the same armour protection with less weight, or provide a lot more mobility (eg horsepower or the like) and keep the same weight. Science fiction does the former with “sheilds” and the latter with “hover tanks” but I think we are aways away from either of these two in practical terms.
Anyways, just come thoughts from an ex Canadian Airforce Officer and former Armoured Recce trooper.
ciao
they’ve been asking that question since 1918. there is not a weapon system in this world or in our arsenal that can’t be overcome by a clever adversary. every time one of our tanks hits the street, it’s a shock to our enemies, but they find a way to knock them out. there will come a day when the m1 isn’t needed, but until then, let’s keep it on the frontlines.
well i skipped reading the rest of the posts so my first reply would be valid i guess, or so i think.
but i would have to say they are, they are hudge heavy and well when they roll around in iraq it terrifies the locals that everything shakes and rattles around when they pass by, so it’s an intimidation factor as well as a mobile fortress on tracks. If they know they can’t destroy it they either run from it or hunker down lower in their holes in the ground and wait for a softer target then the rest of us get to play!
Hmm, I was just wondering about this myself the other day. I was watching a documentary regarding the Third Reich, and generally thinking about battles, we do not seem to see any major engagements anymore. There is most definitely a need for these types of vehicles still, but that need is apparent less and less. Imagine in the future, if projects like the Commanche are actually placed into production, I can see the MBT becoming a liability rather than an advantage.
How many of you guys have been hunkerd down in a fox hole, and a platoon of M1’s roll through your position? I have and even though it was an exercise and I knew that they were on our side it still scared the crap out of me. The earth shakes, its loud, its dusty and so very imposing. The MBT brings not only massive amounts of fire power it also brings a psychologicaly crippling affect with it. I cant imagine them shooting at me while they were rolling through us. I would have wet my BDU’s!!!
As for the round and the M1, common thought around here is that it was an RPG round. There are a few places that it is vunerable. I wont go into detail cause I dont know who all is reading this forum.
As for the light armored attack vehicle, I thought that the striker was the answer for that. Perhaps I am wrong on this.
The few scattered reports that I’ve seen about the Stryker have been less than stellar. Apparently it’s too vulnerable to RPGs and other light AT weapons.
Check this out;
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php
Checkout this link (I hope it works)…a good article on tanks, their role and such…seach NY Times for “Fighting the Old-Fashioned Way in Najaf” if the link isn’t good…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/weekinreview/29bere.html
A klick, or I suppose in English we’d call it a ‘Click’ is a kilometer.
Ron
The MBT will never be obsolete! It may metamorphosize into some other tracked vehicle, but the MBT in the battlefield is as essential as water in a canteen. The big gun provides support against built up bunkers, emplacements, buildings and other tanks, but the small weapons (ie: machine guns) are also essential for close support in urban areas and against enemy infantry. You must remember that the tank is man’s blending of speed, protection and hard hitting power in one vehicle. Since its inception the sound of a heavy tank approaching the frontlines always instilled fear in an enemy. Today without hearing it, the tank can take you out at 2 “klicks” distance but it can support the infantry in close quarter city fighting with its precise gunnery and awesome firepower. The MBT will be around for a long time.
TigerII
MBT obsolete? I don’t think so. The current expereince in Iraq shows that an enemy loaded with RPGs in an urban environment is going to need a heavily armored adversary. Bradleys and even Strykers are vulnerable. Fuggedabout Humvees.
Special situations call for variants on proven forms. Look at all the guises the Sherman took on in WWII. Look at ‘Hobo’s Funnies’ in the WWII Brit Army.
Maybe what will be developed will be a specialist urban warfare MBT- something like an Abrams or Merkava with a shorter gun to be more manuverable in tighter older cities, and firing a flechette beehive round
( with more reliability than the old Sheridan ). With some auxiliary weapons like 40 MM mortar or that new intelligent 23mm ‘machinegun’ weapon system we are developing, such an MBT would be the E ticket to ride in urban battle or possibly close-up infantry support elsewhere.
Ultimate answer is to ask the Israelis if they have any plans to give up on Merkavas. 'Nuff said.
As I said before the MBT is like a shot gun and is need in urban warfare.It is hard enought for troops to get in the citys without being shoot at.The tank is what clears the way for a solider to get in the citys and lessen his chance of being killed.I do agree that there are weapons that get do the job of a tank but the problem is getting it there with soliders in hand to do it.It takes one good sniper to hold up a whole company troops with state of the art weapons but a tank can take out a whole company of snipers.This is a solded way to protect troops and get them inside of the citys with less loss of life.
As for comparing the battleship to a tank,that would be a wrong comparison.This is due to what Billy Mitchell showed the world with one airplane and for the cost to run 1battleship in a year,you can run 4 aircraft carrriers for 1 year.So at the time of Pearl Harbour the battleship was obsellite.Digger
Diggeraone, That’s right! Also, according to the IDF, another indespensible piece of urban warfare equipment is the armored Cat D-8 (I think it’s the D-8), which can use it’s high ground clearance to get up to an objective and its blade to nudge down walls and such. This way, the people inside of a ‘target’ building can bug out if need be. That way, the infantry can identify threats and civilians.
Bismark9 has some good points about lazer guided bombs and such also, but since we rule the air (so far), I don’t think our troops worry too much about other air forces.
I was amazed by the capabilities of the M1 after being in M60’s. It’s quite a weapon system, as far above the M60 MBT as the Paladin is above the M109A5.
Ron
In the famous words of Patton, “as long as we got brave sonsuvbitches that drive these machines we will always have need for a tank.”