Challenge: tanks made obsolete

I'm not so sure. Simpler anti-tank weapons, such as the German 13mm rifle and 37mm anti-tank gun, were based off established weapons and concepts, yet they could not be developed in time to enter widespread service. So I don't see why a more complicated weapon (which would probably suffer from poor range and accuracy) could be fielded any sooner.

Besides, in WWI tanks were vulnerable to all kinds of weapons. With luck, ordinary machine guns and field artillery could disable tanks. And still, they were undeniably successful. So adding a new weapon into the mix wouldn't cause any radical alterations in my opinion.

All these were designed for use against various fortifications, and then adapted for use against tanks. So if shaped charges were becoming common weapons for use against fortifications, they would make things more dangerous for tanks. And a lot of new weapons technologies were introduced in the war - flamethrowers, rifle grenades, gas warfare, the revival of mortars, the revival of body armor, and so on.
 
Drones can and do offer constant air-cover at minimal cost, and are indeed pin-point accurate. Modern artillery is also incredibly precise, with the option of Excalibur-type guided rounds for pin-point accuracy where needed.

On drones, I can see very little use for them other than hit and run attacks. They're just as vulnerable to a seeker missile, or a machine gun, as an RC plane. A few have been shot down by just AK's! They have no armor and would really be a nuisance more often than not against a better equiped foe.

Artillery (with the exception of SPG's) must remain static. In an advancing battlefield situation I would be much more comfortable just to send a dozen tanks running up the road with my infantry rather than have them wait for artillery.
 
True, but Bradleys are not as useful at destroying Soviet tanks as Abramses (is that a correct way to say it?).

They cannot withstand direct gun hits like the Abrams, and they can't hit targets accurately from very long range.

Completely agree with you on that. Range is important and Bradleys are more suited to a "dedicated infantry support" role rather than a "engage and destroy enemy armor" role. Three tanks travelling with say nine Bradleys is a very effective and fast fighting unit. Give em a drone for reconnaisance and surprise attack and youve got a great strike force.
 
On drones, I can see very little use for them other than hit and run attacks. They're just as vulnerable to a seeker missile, or a machine gun, as an RC plane. A few have been shot down by just AK's! They have no armor and would really be a nuisance more often than not against a better equiped foe.

Artillery (with the exception of SPG's) must remain static. In an advancing battlefield situation I would be much more comfortable just to send a dozen tanks running up the road with my infantry rather than have them wait for artillery.

Erm.. I'm pretty sure large Predator-type drones fly too high to be taken out except by proper AA weapons. And even then there are probably 5 other Predators in the same airspace to take its place, and 5 more taking off just in case...

The thing about drones is you can lose them all day and nobody dies or much cares. One tank crew gets surprised by a squad with an ATGM, or even a single enemy soldier with an RPG-29, OTOH, and you have a whole mess of dead soldiers, which isn't politically tenable for Western militaries these days.

Also, if a friendly infantry squad needs fire support, it'll almost certainly get it quicker from the air or arty, rather than waiting for a tank to show up. It also has the option of using a missile/rocket/recoilless-rifle/mortar as a tank-gun substitute if it want to, say, blow up a building.
 
No, it will come from the Tank that is already there designated to support them quicker than arty or air support, that is the idea behind combined arms
 
Completely agree with you on that. Range is important and Bradleys are more suited to a "dedicated infantry support" role rather than a "engage and destroy enemy armor" role. Three tanks travelling with say nine Bradleys is a very effective and fast fighting unit. Give em a drone for reconnaisance and surprise attack and youve got a great strike force.

More is always better, everything else being equal, but in this age of austerity :D difficult choices need to be made. If I were charged with cutting the fat from Western militaries tanks would be the first target. After that the choices get a LOT harder, although I'd probably look hard at rationalising the manned fighter and bomber forces...
 
Erm.. I'm pretty sure large Predator-type drones fly too high to be taken out except by proper AA weapons. And even then there are probably 5 other Predators in the same airspace to take its place, and 5 more taking off just in case...

The thing about drones is you can lose them all day and nobody dies or much cares. One tank crew gets surprised by a squad with an ATGM, or even a single enemy soldier with an RPG-29, OTOH, and you have a whole mess of dead soldiers, which isn't politically tenable for Western militaries these days.

Also, if a friendly infantry squad needs fire support, it'll almost certainly get it quicker from the air or arty, rather than waiting for a tank to show up. It also has the option of using a missile/rocket/recoilless-rifle/mortar as a tank-gun substitute if it want to, say, blow up a building.

I was thinking the smaller drones that have been put into use lately. There were two shot down in Libya (one a predator but that was by AA). Also you can't make those things forever. They aint exactly "cheap" by any standards. Less expensive than a tank? Yes. More cost effective? Debatable. What I've read on them isn't exactly stellar and they dont seem to be as useful in combat as people think, one missile against one target won't change the outcome of a firefight. Not to mention the things can and have been hacked (by a man with a laptop no less). All it could take is a dedicated electronic warfare division and you could end up with high jacked drones.

Also for insurgent operations you can probably rely on arty and air, but the jets can't stay up all the time. Nor is it necessarily better to attack an insurgent strongpoint with an F-16 as opposed to an Abrhams. In a city style fight the tank can probably be there sooner and have an easier time demolishing the pill box. And arty could do it, but its probably better for a tank to be more direct. Firing into a city with arty has never been the best option for simply silencing one inconvenient building.
 
Something I should point out here for Iraq and similar conflicts if others haven't is this. Those T-72s were made of scrap metal. I seriously doubt a tank even as old as the T-72 if it was made of modern materials would be destroyed as easily by the supporting vehicles described. So yes, I think tanks are here to stay for awhile.

With that in mind, I do think they're used badly at times. Additionally, more needs to be done to adapt them better to urban enviroments. Now, stuff is already under way like non-explosive reactive armor, and point defense weapons to make them better for those situations.

Additionally, there doesn't need to be as MANY of them. Military budgets are far too bloated as they are, we don't need to have nearly as many tanks as we deploy, especially with their individual cost. With that, we need a way to transport tanks better, much better.
 
I think the 'hacked drones" thing only conceivably applies to line-of-sight radio controlled (mostly surveillance) drones. E.g. as Israel deployed to keep tabs on Hezbollah. Predators and the like have a direct satellite connection to their controllers.

Anyhoo, I think it's worth applying the same "what if it didn't exist?" question to drones and modern warfare: needless to say the West's wars of the past decade would be RADICALLY different, and a LOT less insurgents would be dead (granted, probably a lot less innocent bystanders as well). Drones have had an ENORMOUS impact on friendly and ESPECIALLY enemy tactics (they have to fear being watched and attacked totally out-of-the-blue at all times, anywhere, day and night). That's a weapon system worth having / investing in!
 
Additionally, there doesn't need to be as MANY of them. Military budgets are far too bloated as they are, we don't need to have nearly as many tanks as we deploy, especially with their individual cost. With that, we need a way to transport tanks better, much better.
Pretty much this, though if someone would figure put a way to make Tanks cheaper without sacrificing quality I would not complain

I think the 'hacked drones" thing only conceivably applies to line-of-sight radio controlled (mostly surveillance) drones. E.g. as Israel deployed to keep tabs on Hezbollah. Predators and the like have a direct satellite connection to their controllers.
It was US Predator fleet that was hacked
 
Something I should point out here for Iraq and similar conflicts if others haven't is this. Those T-72s were made of scrap metal. I seriously doubt a tank even as old as the T-72 if it was made of modern materials would be destroyed as easily by the supporting vehicles described. So yes, I think tanks are here to stay for awhile.

With that in mind, I do think they're used badly at times. Additionally, more needs to be done to adapt them better to urban enviroments. Now, stuff is already under way like non-explosive reactive armor, and point defense weapons to make them better for those situations.

Additionally, there doesn't need to be as MANY of them. Military budgets are far too bloated as they are, we don't need to have nearly as many tanks as we deploy, especially with their individual cost. With that, we need a way to transport tanks better, much better.

If you ever do get effective non-explosive armour and point-defence systems, then why not apply that technology to something like the MGS, get all the firepower, at less cost, and *MUCH* more transportable?

...although the alternative likely isn't new tanks vs. new wheeled gun platforms, but existing upgraded tanks vs. new wheeled gun platforms, so I'm not sure where the cost advantage would lie.
 
If you ever do get effective non-explosive armour and point-defence systems, then why not apply that technology to something like the MGS, get all the firepower, at less cost, and *MUCH* more transportable?

...although the alternative likely isn't new tanks vs. new wheeled gun platforms, but existing upgraded tanks vs. new wheeled gun platforms, so I'm not sure where the cost advantage would lie.
Because that setup is far less effective against KE penetrator rounds than heavy armor is

Essentially both vehicles get equal protection from ATGM but Tanks are still better protected from gunfire
 
I think the 'hacked drones" thing only conceivably applies to line-of-sight radio controlled (mostly surveillance) drones. E.g. as Israel deployed to keep tabs on Hezbollah. Predators and the like have a direct satellite connection to their controllers.

Anyhoo, I think it's worth applying the same "what if it didn't exist?" question to drones and modern warfare: needless to say the West's wars of the past decade would be RADICALLY different, and a LOT less insurgents would be dead (granted, probably a lot less innocent bystanders as well). Drones have had an ENORMOUS impact on friendly and ESPECIALLY enemy tactics (they have to fear being watched and attacked totally out-of-the-blue at all times, anywhere, day and night). That's a weapon system worth having / investing in!

The incident I'm reffering to involves Predator drones. It doesn't apply to line of site ratio at all. All one has to do is pick up on their signal.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10417247-83.html

My biggest concern is that it is still a branch of warfare where against a more dedicated modern enemy it becomes moot and is completely untested. Its proven great at assasinating insurgent commanders (including the entire house filled with family there in but I personally think that is an acceptable case of collateral when it destroys entire insurgent networks command structures, sad as it is).

Pound for pound they are more suited to reconaissance and small support roles for spec ops teams, not front line combat.
 
I guess there's no accounting for stupidity, but securing drones from 'hijacking' seems as simply as not having the controllers system on a network, and having the OTA signal to and from the drone encrypted.

Jamming is the real scare, with spying on the signal a much more remote possibility. Actually hijacking a drone would seem impossible given the most minimal precautions against it.

And I agree drones are dubious in a full-scale WW3-style military conflict, but where is that likely to happen involving the West? (perhaps if NATO ever went insane and fought a war in/over Georgia we might see drones pitted against a worthy enemy)
 
A lot of people are saying tanks are obsolete due to modern ATGMs and RPGs, but the thing it, lesser armoured vehicles are also vulnerable to such, and to older, more readily available versions of them (like the RPG-7).
 
Top