Role of Armour on the new front

[blackhat56]

as I former mud monkey and crewman, i can state that we will always need heavy C/S‘s because of the shock value in battle, light wheeled veh‘s are fine but and its a big but, by their nature they are lightly protected, as any old soldier will tell you having a few panzer‘s around breaks up a enemy attack like nothing else, tracked veh‘s preform a lot better in adverse conditions then wheeled veh‘s. Sure light wheeled veh‘s are cheaper and that seems to be the direction the bean counters seem to be moving in. Don‘t get me wrong both light and heavy C/S‘s have their place in the order of battle. The light veh‘s find the enemy and the heavy veh‘s kill them. Just look at the armoured corps cap badge and it says it all, the mailed fist. A tracked veh can navagate the battle field a **** of a lot better then a wheeled light veh, sure there are a lot of AT weapons out there but any good crewdog worth his salt wont make it easy for any mudmonkey with a rocket. By the way did ya know that us Panzer soldaten used to call cougar and coyote troops "boat people" lol lol

 

[gate_guard]

Zipperhead56,
I agree with your viewpoint, in modern warfare tanks play a very important role. But, with the way the CF is being deployed currently, do you foresee a need to retain MBT capability? I guess this could be more generalized to ask the question: Should the CF focus on peacekeeping/making abilities in its procurement of new equipment? Or should the CF try to keep it‘s capability open to modern warfighting (keeping tanks, etc)?

 

[mht]

"The function of an armoured officer is to command and to lead armoured troops, exploiting armour firepower, mobility, flexibility, and shock action on the modern battlefield."
- duty of an armoured officer according to the CF

Now, I‘m only entering the Reserves as an armoured (now recce) officer, but from what I can gather, the Stryker might be able to bring about firepower and mobility (and therefore maybe even flexibility?) rivalling that of an MBT. However, I don‘t see how a wheeled direct fire support vehicle could duplicate the shock effect of a tank, and I don‘t think the shock/psychological effects should be overlooked. I would imagine heavy cavalry has always been intimidating when it‘s brought to bear, from the middle ages and glory days of cavalry charges to mechanization and bliztkrieg, I know if I were an infantry soldier assigned to a peacekeeping mission, or combat mission, I would feel a lot better with some big, tracked, noisy battle tank hanging around to discourage any ideas of rendering harm to my mates, people we‘re protecting, and sure, even myself.
I know they‘re expensive to purchase and no doubt to maintain. I understand that the Army has limited and insufficient funding, and so what little there is must be used wisely. I realize that the majority of our missions are "peacekeeping" and are likely to remain so in the near future, and that these usually occur where there are roads and wheeled vehicles are better suit this terrain. Also, I know some consider the tank an "offensive" weapon only, and since "We don‘t do that sort of thing", a tank is not suitable for our image. HOWEVER, I don‘t think you can skimp when it comes to the military. Yes, social programs and healthcare are essential services, and they should not be short-changed. It‘s just my opinon that not only should you address current needs and plan for the immediate and forseeable future, but just as importantly for the UN-forseeable future. Could we not save even one regiment of heavy armour, if for no other reason than we MIGHT come to need it in the future? Nobody likes to get caught with their pants down. Okay, the Americans, Brits, French, Germans, and Australians all have tanks, but what do we do when/if they say, "Sorry guys we just can‘t spare any for you right now?"
I just realized how long this is so I‘ll shut-up now.

 

[McG]

gate_guard,
The principle requirement of an effective peacekeeping ability, is the ability to effectively wage war.

You must be able to enforce your mandate and protect yourself. Otherwise, you are just a symbolic presence and an easy target.

There are certain capabilities that only a tank can bring to the battle. It is generally accepted that the best weapon against a tank is another tank. The LAV III with the 105 mm low profile turret brings capabilities that a tank does not have (most notably that it can be airlifted in a CC-130). Tracked vehicles generally have better cross country mobility, but wheeled vehicles can better exploit existing roads and trails.

This is a debate of trading strength in one ability for strength in another ability.

 

[Cycophant]

We could always go to a low-cost MBT. We seem to traditionally favor allied tank designs. But the truth is, they‘re not always terribly economical.

There are a few good low-cost alternatives to the M1A1, Challenger and Leopard II. They may not be as effective as the aforementioned tanks, but they‘re pretty close. And much more "bang for your buck", really. I don‘t think we‘ll be seeing our Forces with much more money in the near future, so we‘d need to be as economical as possible, I feel.

 

[Garry]

Howdy!

Tanks project power like nothing else. Are they necessary? Dunno.

FWIW- the inability of the American forces to rescue some of their forces in Somalia was due to the Commanders inability to project power locally. The Commander had anticipated that very problem earlier, and requested that a troop (4) of tanks be made available. He was denied due solely to political considerations.

I don‘t think that we as Canadians should send our soldiers anywhere if they‘re unable to defend themselves...ie "project overwhelming power locally".

Cheers-Garry

 

[Recce41]

Tanks are not just offence, they are also defence. Armour/Recce has 15 different tasks. And now more with the Coyote, UAVs. Grunts need tanks, for the assault. MHT, you better rethink about the LAV III. I‘m a Advance Armour Recce Instructor, tanks are not high on my list to be in. But we DO NEED tanks. Even a light can do its tasks. The new 105s are just as good as the 120, 125s.
So anyone that thinks we don‘t need tanks is a lil out of it.
:evil: :tank:

 

[mht]

I agree with you Recce41, I was just trying to address others‘ percieved shortcomings of tanks, and convey my belief that despite those ‘downfalls‘ I still think we should operate with the tanks.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it!

 

[Franko]

So the question is:

In the future...say 25-50 years...will tanks be required on the field of battle?


Comments please.

Regards

 

[Enzo]

Absolutely, nothing has as much of a commanding presence as armour. It dominates. With newer technological development - radar,anti-air, ECM, ejection systems, camoflage, who knows really, and improvements to powerplant (range), armour and suspension. These vehicles will continue to be the Queens of the field well into this century.

Besides, nothing says, "COVER!" like a 50 ton tank rolling your way at 60kph.

Are you concerned about your job security Franko?

 

[John Nayduk]

I think that there will always be a need for a mobile weapons platform that will offer protection to the operators. Whether this will be remotely controlled or fully automated is anyone's guess but believe the need will always be there. A weapons system to provide the shock effect on the battlefield has always been used, whether it was Hannibal's elephants, the Roman's chariots, the Mid-Evil knight on horse back or the tanks of the Blitzkrieg. The shape will probably change the need will be there.

 

[Franko]

I can‘t possibly see a remotly controled tank go into battle.

Anyone else? If war were a computer game....

Regards

 

[Infanteer]

the Roman's chariots

Umm...sorry to get picky, but Rome never adopted Chariot warfare, the Legion, a well-diciplined shock infantry formation, was the mainstay of both the late Republic and the Empire.

Tanks will go out of style when the Infantry gets Power-Suits with jet packs and bomb racks on the back.

Infanteer (Classical History Minor and Heinlein Uber-fan)

 

[Garry]

Wth every new weapons system that comes out, the armchair warriors cry the death knell for the tank (remember the Israelis and the spiral?)...but tactics or engineers figure out a way to defeat the new super weapon, and tanks keep rolling track.

The whole concept of a "wire crushing, trench crossing land battleship" originated in WWI to combat the entrenched Infantry, breaking the stalemate. (Navy ran it, hence the nomenclature)While tanks generally now confine themselves to the anti-tank role, having a few loose without effective anti-tank resources handy still creates terror on the battlefield.

The tank will stay with us as long as there is wars...anyone think we‘ll finally "just all get along"?

As for remote control- I really doubt it. The Air Force is looking hard at RPV‘s, and the general consensus is they will NOT replace the manned weapons platform- too many potential problems, from jamming to on board systems failures. Same reasons we still have Nukes aboard manned bombers vice ICBM only fleets.

Cheers-Garry

 

[Gunner]

Tanks will go out of style when the Infantry gets Power-Suits with jet packs and bomb racks on the back.

I‘m with you.

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by Gunner:
[qb]

Tanks will go out of style when the Infantry gets Power-Suits with jet packs and bomb racks on the back.

I‘m with you. [/qb]

For sure....and we‘ll have no need for Artillery and Engineers either......Right!

It amazes me that just because someone has developed a more effective way to defeat Armour, it always becomes obsolete. Throughout man‘s existance we have been developing better ways to defeat INFANTRY, yet they never become obsolete. Get real. It is a Combat Team of all Four Cbt Arms that will win the day.

GW

 

[Lepine]

I personally dont believe afvs will not be neccesary in about 50 years.. maybe troop transports and fast quiet recce vehicles but what about attack helicopters and remote firing...

All the new technology means is more shock action and less lives endangered in the middle

what couldnt you do with a afv that you couldnt with superior "death from above choppers"

 

[Franko]

You still need someone on the ground to make it yours....

Good points all.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by Tpr Lepine:
[qb] I personally dont believe afvs will not be neccesary in about 50 years.. maybe troop transports and fast quiet recce vehicles but what about attack helicopters and remote firing...

All the new technology means is more shock action and less lives endangered in the middle

what couldnt you do with a afv that you couldnt with superior "death from above choppers" [/qb]

Could you rephrase this without all the double negatives and make it a little clearer for me to understand what exactly you are saying? Do you believe that AFVs will still play an important role or not?

GW

 

[Franko]

Patience George.....

Regards