Recently, the Department of Defense placed a huge order for Mine Resistant Ambush Protection (MRAP) vehicles. This massive order will consume a large part of the Defense budget. When this type of financial musical chairs takes places something goes unfunded. The M1 series tanks are schedules to go out of the inventory by 2025 and be replaced by the ill starred Future Combat System (FCS). The question is: "are the days of the tank as we now know it (and by inference the Bradley) over?"
thanks
DJ
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Are the days of the tank numbered?
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 11:31 PM UTC
matt
Campaigns AdministratorMember Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Saturday, July 07, 2007 - 11:41 PM UTC
Maybe in it's cuurent form of a Large & Heave tracked vehicle. I can see them evolving more into possibly wheeled vehicles (but that's gonna depend on Armor development) It's all a Design game. you design around the Crew protection and the Gun. I can (at a minimum) maybe see the Hull configurations changing to be more Mine resistant.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 07:59 AM UTC
Matt-- I can appreciate your comments on the protection issue. Metal can always be replaced, replacing a trained Soldier is another matter. edited by moderator
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
redshirt
Member Since: January 26, 2007
entire network: 270 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 10:04 AM UTC
By the Publiser:
"This is just a friendly reminder from your webmaster. The history forum is for talking about History, not current events. Several recent posts have been locked down because their core discussion is about current events.
There is no forum for current events on this site (even the Junk Drawer).
I know a good number of members like to discuss these kinds of topics respectfully, but this site is about modeling and "modeling related" topics.
Thanks,
Jim"
"This is just a friendly reminder from your webmaster. The history forum is for talking about History, not current events. Several recent posts have been locked down because their core discussion is about current events.
There is no forum for current events on this site (even the Junk Drawer).
I know a good number of members like to discuss these kinds of topics respectfully, but this site is about modeling and "modeling related" topics.
Thanks,
Jim"
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 11:29 AM UTC
History shows us that weapon systems don't necessarily go obsolete, their mssion changes. Best example is the battleship. By the middle of WW2 the battlesip as a leading fighting force was eclipsed by the carrier. Other than the brief flare up during the Battle for Leyte Gulf at Suriago Strait. Yet, the Iowa class remained in sporadic service until just recently by changing their secondary weapon systems and their overall mission.
You might also point out the plane used in Viet Nam for close air support. The propellor driven A-1 Skyraider, and of course the venerable C-130's and B-52's.
NO, I thnk the tank will be around a long time though it might be modified from it's present huge configuration as weapon systems and lightweight protective armor becomes more viable.
Hope this adds a historical twist to the topic
You might also point out the plane used in Viet Nam for close air support. The propellor driven A-1 Skyraider, and of course the venerable C-130's and B-52's.
NO, I thnk the tank will be around a long time though it might be modified from it's present huge configuration as weapon systems and lightweight protective armor becomes more viable.
Hope this adds a historical twist to the topic
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 03:20 PM UTC
Redshirt, I don't believe this thread crosses the line as far as being a current event discussion. I have in the past, and will in the future if necessary, blocked or deleted threads that I felt crossed the line. The way I look at this thread is in the spirit of taking what we know of history and extrapolating it to future events. I have no problem with that.
It's interesting in that in his book, My War, the journalist Andy Rooney made several comments about tanks being a huge waste of time and resources. Perhaps he was being swayed because of the Sherman tank and it's huge losses in the war. The tank seemed to have proved itself in WWI and WWII, and to a lesser extent in Korea. I supposed the case could be made that Viet Nam could have led people to believe that the day of the tank was over. In Iraq the tank was instrumental in beating Saddam in both first and second gulf wars. It's only when the battle switched to counter insurgency that the tank seems to have been eclisped.
The tank was designed for a specific task, to protect crews from the weapons of the time. If the weapons of the future become more lethal than the tank can protect from, and if other weapons systems evolve that protect crews better than a tank, then the tank will go the way of armored knights and horse cavalry.
It's interesting in that in his book, My War, the journalist Andy Rooney made several comments about tanks being a huge waste of time and resources. Perhaps he was being swayed because of the Sherman tank and it's huge losses in the war. The tank seemed to have proved itself in WWI and WWII, and to a lesser extent in Korea. I supposed the case could be made that Viet Nam could have led people to believe that the day of the tank was over. In Iraq the tank was instrumental in beating Saddam in both first and second gulf wars. It's only when the battle switched to counter insurgency that the tank seems to have been eclisped.
The tank was designed for a specific task, to protect crews from the weapons of the time. If the weapons of the future become more lethal than the tank can protect from, and if other weapons systems evolve that protect crews better than a tank, then the tank will go the way of armored knights and horse cavalry.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, July 08, 2007 - 11:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
By the Publiser:
"This is just a friendly reminder from your webmaster. The history forum is for talking about History, not current events. Several recent posts have been locked down because their core discussion is about current events.
There is no forum for current events on this site (even the Junk Drawer).
I know a good number of members like to discuss these kinds of topics respectfully, but this site is about modeling and "modeling related" topics.
Thanks,
Jim"
Jim---
Just what caused you to submit this post? We have had armor on the battlefield since 1915. My question was designed to elicit repsonses based on considering several questions. For example, Is the conduct of warfare changing to the extent that we no longer need a 67 ton tracked vehicle? Is the Army's work with the FCS an act of futility? Why are we buying so many MRAPs? I see these as valid historical questions that we should reflect upon. Last time I checked Rodger is the moderator and he certainly will tell someone when their input crosses the line. So far, he hasn't told me that my topic is off the mark. I am big boy, I can take it.
DJ
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 01:17 AM UTC
I would like to explain a decision to moderate one of DJ's post. I received a PM from somebody on the board that made me go back and read the edited post again. It did contain two references to current events that I can see did violate the "no current events" policy put forth by Jim. I really don't want to be "big brother" but I also want to conform to the spirit of Jim's decision. If we can discuss the history of the tank, and extrapolate from that what it's future might be, without getting into discussions about what is going on in the world now, and especially not budgets, which I would have to call a political issue, great. If not I may have to block the thread, which I really don't want to do.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 01:48 AM UTC
Rodger-- thanks for the response. Why don't you just shut this post down so I can crawl back to asking questions about paints, my favorite color and glues. I think the whole matter of "current events versus historical subjects" is childish. Have we decended that far from common sense? Lord, help us!
thanks
DJ
thanks
DJ
AndyD
Member Since: December 01, 2004
entire network: 672 Posts
KitMaker Network: 218 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 02:30 AM UTC
I'm with the Judge on this one.
Seems silly we can have threads like the one about the panther project CD - full of vitrol and childish behaviour but an adult conversation on tanks (that's why we are here folks) is edited and threatened with shut down
Seems silly we can have threads like the one about the panther project CD - full of vitrol and childish behaviour but an adult conversation on tanks (that's why we are here folks) is edited and threatened with shut down
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 02:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm with the Judge on this one.
Seems silly we can have threads like the one about the panther project CD - full of vitrol and childish behaviour but an adult conversation on tanks (that's why we are here folks) is edited and threatened with shut down
Andy-- thanks for your response. Stay with it.
DJ
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 03:42 PM UTC
DJ and Andy this may sound like a total cop out but I can only say I don't make the rules, I only try to follow them to the best of my ability. Personally I'd love to get some input from Jim on this, but I have a feeling I know what he will say. As to the "Panther Project CD" I haven't read any of it so I can't comment on any posts on that thread. If you feel strongly about it PM the moderator of the forum it's on.
I really wish I had more ideas of ways to add to The History Forum so that it's not just "what was the 10 best ..." or "I think Patton was the greatest soldier of all time..." type of posts. The catch is to do so without violating the one restriction we have, don't talk about current events.
I've seen forums absolutely ruined by current events fights, and I'll try to do my best not to let that happen here.
I really wish I had more ideas of ways to add to The History Forum so that it's not just "what was the 10 best ..." or "I think Patton was the greatest soldier of all time..." type of posts. The catch is to do so without violating the one restriction we have, don't talk about current events.
I've seen forums absolutely ruined by current events fights, and I'll try to do my best not to let that happen here.
AndyD
Member Since: December 01, 2004
entire network: 672 Posts
KitMaker Network: 218 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 05:58 PM UTC
A very reasonable reply Roger.
I tend to see the site as an overall - and forget that different forums are steered by different moderaters.
Please don't take my post as being critical of yourself - it was to pint out the irony that in one post character assaination is taking place yet this one is sanatised in case it offends / upsets anyone.
But I understand your constraints as a mod - thanks Roger
cheers,
Andrew
I tend to see the site as an overall - and forget that different forums are steered by different moderaters.
Please don't take my post as being critical of yourself - it was to pint out the irony that in one post character assaination is taking place yet this one is sanatised in case it offends / upsets anyone.
But I understand your constraints as a mod - thanks Roger
cheers,
Andrew
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, July 09, 2007 - 11:20 PM UTC
Never again. If someone on the "board" monitors every post for political correctness than I (along with several regular contributors) should gracefully bow out of the history forum. I merely attempted to get a discussion going among people I enjoy conversing with. I fail to see what is controversial about this topic. If you do not consider that any Nation has only some many resources to apply against domestic needs and foreign requirements than how do you possibly conclude that a particular type weapon system is necessary? If we are buying MRAPs by the bushel basket there are implications that we cannot continue until 2025 retaining the Bradley and Abrams systems. If you consider the question as similar to "did we retain horse cavalry too long?" I think you can appreciate why I wanted to spark a discussion. Are we retaining a system that has outlived its usefulness. If there is something here that gets the "board" all upset, pray tell me.
DJ
DJ
goldenpony
Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 01:18 AM UTC
The tank will continue to evolve, just as it has since WWI. Aircraft have changed over the years to meet different needs and goals and so will takns. I think it will continued to be tracked in the future, but it might become smaller and be easier to move around. The large main battle tank will become less and less important.
In WWII Germany went from small mobile tanks to large monsters that could take and dish out a pounding, but could not manuver very well. Since then we have seen large tanks able to run just about anywhere.
I can see a small tank about the size of a SUV.
In WWII Germany went from small mobile tanks to large monsters that could take and dish out a pounding, but could not manuver very well. Since then we have seen large tanks able to run just about anywhere.
I can see a small tank about the size of a SUV.
matt
Campaigns AdministratorMember Since: February 28, 2002
entire network: 5,957 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,626 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 01:22 AM UTC
The current problems are:
Armor thickness
Power & Size of the rounds (because of Armor)
We're gonna need to develop some powerfull ammo or alternitive types to get to the size of an SUV
Maybef Railguns become easy to produce and require less power they'd be a Alternitive.
Armor thickness
Power & Size of the rounds (because of Armor)
We're gonna need to develop some powerfull ammo or alternitive types to get to the size of an SUV
Maybef Railguns become easy to produce and require less power they'd be a Alternitive.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 02:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The current problems are:
Armor thickness
Power & Size of the rounds (because of Armor)
We're gonna need to develop some powerfull ammo or alternitive types to get to the size of an SUV
Maybef Railguns become easy to produce and require less power they'd be a Alternitive.
Matt-- Jim and you certainly have captured some of my thoughts on the matter. You need something smaller, lighter, and sufficiently armed. The new Mobile Gun System (MGS) just coming into the inventory has several of those characteristics. She mounts a 105mm main gun, has an auto loader and the speed of the Stryker. Plus, you can fit it into a C-130 (albeit with some alterations--minus fuel, ammo, etc). What gets me is the procurement of the MRAP. The Department of Defense is securing a large number of them. I have seen numbers as high as 7000 vehicles. They deliver protected troops to a given location, but currently lack firepower beyond a CROW 7.62mm on the top. These are prototype vehicles so maybe they are considering more innovations. But, I believe that we will soon see the Abrams/Bradley/Hummers used in a more limited fashion with the MRAP taking a higher place in the pecking order. MRAPs are wheeled, high carriage vehicles and thus air transportable by C-130. We may be into a whole new line of "armored" vehicles. What do you think?
DJ
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 08:41 AM UTC
Several years ago I did some highly classified work with one of the major players designing new systems. So I know where and what we are looking at. One thing I vivdly remember dring the 73 Arab Israeli war was the use of the wire guided "suitcase " missles that the Arabs / Egyptians used. Big headlines...the Tank was obsolete the one man with his cheap itty bitty missle wipes out a multimilion dollar tank. Well in the end it was discovered that some 75 % of tank kills were done by other tanks. Trust me the armor and the type / size of the gun may change but the tank will be around long after my old body dries up and turns to dust
Oh and for the record Rodger, I appreciate your not being heavy handed whle trying to operate within the guidelines and restrictions set forth.
DJ as usual man...love your thinking man topics at least you keep this section from being one of those little kid topic areas that have permeated throughout ths entire web system for the past couple of years.
Oh and for the record Rodger, I appreciate your not being heavy handed whle trying to operate within the guidelines and restrictions set forth.
DJ as usual man...love your thinking man topics at least you keep this section from being one of those little kid topic areas that have permeated throughout ths entire web system for the past couple of years.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:10 AM UTC
Steve- let me ask you this....the Army is blending Armor and Infantry by moving the Armor School to Benning. I see the day where we have only a "mechanized" branch along with a light branch. If that does come about then do you think we will see a replacement for the Abrams/Bradley that attempts to combine the both? Do we have an armored personnel carrier with variations mounting a main gun? The FCS which in humble opinion will never see the light of day is trying to do this with limited success. As the current fleet ages replacing, for exampl, the turbine engine can become cost prohibitive. If I am tracking, the MRAP correctly, it offers us the possiblity of getting the kind of vehicle to move troops, place effective fire on the enemy and retain an air mobility characteristic unavailable from either Bradley or Abrams...what do you think?
thanks
thanks
sweaver
Member Since: April 19, 2007
entire network: 759 Posts
KitMaker Network: 131 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 08:44 AM UTC
I think that the need for an armored vehicle will always be there, especially as war becomes increasingly mechanized and electronic. I don't think, however, that they will always have a turret and tracks as we know tanks to be now. They could become wheeled instead of tracked, fire missiles instead of shells, etc.
But for the sake of us modelers, I hope not!
But for the sake of us modelers, I hope not!
SkateOrDie
Member Since: September 09, 2005
entire network: 747 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:05 AM UTC
I'm still waiting for a tank like the ones in the game Battle Tanks
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think that the need for an armored vehicle will always be there, especially as war becomes increasingly mechanized and electronic. I don't think, however, that they will always have a turret and tracks as we know tanks to be now. They could become wheeled instead of tracked, fire missiles instead of shells, etc.
But for the sake of us modelers, I hope not!
Sam-- I lean towards seeing the day when we produce a truly multi-functional combat vehicle. Common chassis with on-order add ons. Thus, you would have a troop carrier, mortar carrier, medic vehicle or armored vehicle. I realize that the FCS concept was designed to produce just such a system. It has not for a wide variety of reasons (cost, too many fingers and interest involved, no clear idea of end state, etc.). So, I see us going back to the drawing after we conclude other matters currently on our plate. Trust this next time we get right from the start. Your thoughts?
DJ
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:59 PM UTC
How many times over the years have the "experts" said a certain weapon system was obsolete? Just in the 20th Century the Battleship was dead as a dodo, until it was brought back for Desert Storm. The manned interceptor was doomed, but new fighters are still coming out. Even the infantry is out of date, but they're still out there.
goldenpony
Member Since: July 03, 2007
entire network: 3,529 Posts
KitMaker Network: 422 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2007 - 01:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How many times over the years have the "experts" said a certain weapon system was obsolete? Just in the 20th Century the Battleship was dead as a dodo, until it was brought back for Desert Storm. The manned interceptor was doomed, but new fighters are still coming out. Even the infantry is out of date, but they're still out there.
Exactly. The MBT will change over time. It may get smaller, it may get larger. But it will be there. With the MLRS people thought the regular cannon would leave the battlefield, but it is still there.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2007 - 01:27 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How many times over the years have the "experts" said a certain weapon system was obsolete? Just in the 20th Century the Battleship was dead as a dodo, until it was brought back for Desert Storm. The manned interceptor was doomed, but new fighters are still coming out. Even the infantry is out of date, but they're still out there.
Rodger-- well, obsolete is not the term I would use to describe the intent of my question. rather, I would use transition as the optimum expression. The battleship, to use your analogy, is outdated. We have better firepower, more joint coordination and better cost factors applied to situations that demand massive firepower. The range probable error for a 16inch gun is tremendous. Look at the overshots of any of the Pacific campaigns to see how much was fired and how much actually landed where it was suppose to. The same holds true for our traditional view of the tank as the master of land combat. IMHO, it makes much better sense to create a common chassis (maintenance cost of parts, training, familiarity) than to sustain a turbine engine in the Abrams and a diesel system in the Bradley. With the advent of the MRAP, we may have the right moment to transition from the traditional to a more responsive, robust means. Moving 67.5 tons of tank from one location to another is costly in terms of transportation and reaction time. If we can provide the crew the same degree of protection and firepower by moving to another version of land combat, we owe it to ourselves to explore our options. We are withdrawing troops from forward deployed locations. We neeed to have the materiel available for them to project power from the continental United States.
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.