Weapons and Warfare

[Sionnach Glic]

I recall hearing about an Israeli military program to build some sort of anti-RPG "shield" system for tanks. "Trophy", I think it was called. Should something like that fall into common usage, it would make tanks incredibly tough to kill - far more so than they already are.

Certainly marks against them. So, regulated to scifi, or just waiting for technology to make them viable? Not necessarily as a tank replacement, but perhaps for some other role?

Mecha are nothing more than interesting concepts for sci-fi. Even if we get the technology to build them, we'll never have a military walker. Why? Because a tank can fill every role a mech can. And not just that, but a tank is smaller (meaning a more difficult target than a large mech), more heavily armoured (a mech would have to be very light to move quickly), less complex and easier to maintain (think of all the complex parts a mech would need), capable of carrying heavier armaments, less likely to get bogged down in soft ground, and, best of all, far far cheaper.

[Captain Seafort]

Killing one man only seems more of a job for infantry, wouldn't you think?

As Deep said, advancing against enemy fire is a serious proposition. There are many jobs that only an infantryman can do - clearing buildings, going down narrow streets, anything that involves talking to the locals a lot. They are, however, extremely vulnerable. Even with modern body armour, an infantryman who exposes himself to enemy fire runs the risk of being killed. A tankie, on the other hand, can return fire with several tons of armour between him and the opposition, and is a lot more difficult to take cover from - walls that will ignore a Browning HB will be ignored by even a practice round from a 120mm gun.

Ah, now that makes some good sense. Does beg the question, just how available are RPGs to forces like the Taleban?

They're rarer than Kalshnikovs, but not by much.

So you have a vehicle that can sit around more or less indefinitely on site and be ready to engage practically instantly to just about whatever kind of force is likely to be able to come upon it unnoticed, and survive the likely element of surprise the enemy force will have. And is cheaper than the alternatives.

Alright, got to agree, as a defensive element, a tank is a hell of an option.

Not just defensively, but offensively. Because they're operating in the same environment as the infantry they don't need to have the situation explained for them. To call an air strike a unit would have to come under fire, radio CAS to alert them, explain the situation and the location of enemy and friendly forces and tell everyone around to get down before the strike came in. A tank would either be engaged itself or observe nearby infantry engaged, traverse the turret and that's that. It's a lot quicker and a lot safer.

While I certainly won't disagree on the vulnerable part, at least compared to a tank, a tank is really that much more precise?

To expand on Deep's point, which do you think would be more precise - engaging from less than a thousand feet, stationary, or several thousand feet, travelling at hundreds of miles per hour?

[Aaron]

I recall hearing about an Israeli military program to build some sort of anti-RPG "shield" system for tanks. "Trophy", I think it was called. Should something like that fall into common usage, it would make tanks incredibly tough to kill - far more so than they already are.

The Russians have had a similar system for some time, Arena IIRC. Unfortunately for them it's so expensive that they can only fit it to their command tanks. The US has one in development as well, they were going to buy the Israeli one but I think you can figure out what happened there.

[Sionnach Glic]

"Not Invented Here" syndrome?

[Tyyr]

Probably. In a way it only makes sense. We still have major ocean going warships today, aircraft didn't eliminate their existence. They just changed and adapted. Similarly I think tanks will change somewhat. They'll still have big slabs of armor but you'll see their active defenses becoming much more common as defense against missiles and such rather than just relying on armor.

[Tsukiyumi]

...Similarly I think tanks will change somewhat. They'll still have big slabs of armor but you'll see their active defenses becoming much more common as defense against missiles and such rather than just relying on armor.

We're already working on that.

[Tyyr]

*Nod* The problem is finding a way to put it in a tank and not tying it to a logistical point by the laser needing more fuel every couple of shots.

[Tsukiyumi]

Well, they apparently think they're on schedule for final testing this year. Deployment could be in just a few years at that rate.

[Tyyr]

We'll see. The laser isn't the only part. You've also got to design a tracking and identification system that will work in a tank and can take the rough handling. That's actually interesting as tanks have traditionally been quite low tech and relied on passive sensors. You're likely to see an active tracking system which will be a big change in the way tanks operate.

[Aaron]

I highly doubt that you will ever see a liquid fuel laser deployed on a tank. The fuel is just to dangerous and the US military is working on special kit and capacitors to charge solid state lasers on AFV's and ships. Apparently they are only a decade off, which is why folks aren't jumping all over the ABL and similar stuff.

[Aaron]

"Not Invented Here" syndrome?

Yup. Incidentally, it's one reason why the US is the least efficient in the world at turning money into issued kit.

[Sionnach Glic]

Heh, I'd well believe it.

Personally I see tanks becoming even more powerful as time goes on. As engines get better and better, the vehicles themselves will become faster. As armour tech increases, they'll become better armoured. As weapons improve, they'll be given more powerful guns. With anti-missile systems becoming more common in the future, I can see tanks becoming all but impervious to infantry-carried firepower, requiring heavier weapons from air-support to take them down. And if this anti-missile system could also be used against ordanance dropped by aircraft or fired from helicopters, they'd be pretty damn tough to take out. The main threat to tanks in such a situation would be simple land mines.

[Captain Seafort]

Personally I see tanks becoming even more powerful as time goes on. As engines get better and better, the vehicles themselves will become faster. As armour tech increases, they'll become better armoured. As weapons improve, they'll be given more powerful guns. With anti-missile systems becoming more common in the future, I can see tanks becoming all but impervious to infantry-carried firepower, requiring heavier weapons from air-support to take them down. And if this anti-missile system could also be used against ordanance dropped by aircraft or fired from helicopters, they'd be pretty damn tough to take out. The main threat to tanks in such a situation would be simple land mines.

While I agree with your analysis of general trends, I disagree with your conclusions. I don't think anti-missile systems will be as effective against infantry weapons as you believe, because while aircraft usually engage from a good distance, giving the system time to identify and lock onto the ordnance. Infantry-mobile weapons, while they're smaller and less effective, are also employed at much shorter ranges (they have to be to be effective), so I think they'll usually hit. The key question, as now, will be whether the vehicle's armour can withstand the attack.

Regarding mines, I don't think your typical big lump of HE will do much. They're effective against lighter vehicles, but to take out IFV's, let alone a tank, the Taleban and Iraqi insurgency need to use inordinately large devices - fifteen 6" shells in a single device became standard, and even then a tank would often shrug it off. As protection improves disabling or destroying them becomes even more difficult, as has been demonstrated by the US MRAPs in particular. I therefore think that the most effective future AT "mines" will be remote or sensor-operated missiles, engaging from such short range that an infantryman couldn't hope to survive and anti-missile systems can't react.

The systems described above would have to be infantry portable and probably disposable - a very expensive way of dealing with tanks. They would also be fairly easily cleared by supporting infantry. There is, however, a better option - weapons carrying much larger and heavier warheads, allowing them to be effective at longer range, vehicle mounted for mobility, and heavily armoured to protect them from the tanks' supporting infantry. In short, the best anti-tank weapon is, and will remain, another tank.

[Deepcrush]

Fully agreed with Seafort. Tanks, in one form or another will always be around. For the simple reason that they bring so much ability in such a small and cheap package.

[Deepcrush]

The new season Deadliest Warrior. Premiere is Samurai vs Spartan!