Are tanks worth it?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

The costs on society for building and maintaining defenses have always been high. Nation's have traditionally needed them to remain independent or expand. Old technology often remains in place decades after it's use has ended.

Tanks are possibly coming to that point in their history. At 2 to 10 million USD a vehicle they are expensive to build and maintain. Even modern variants can be destroyed by relatively inexpensive personal weaponry. They rarely engage each other. APC's and other "light" combat vehicles have been up armored and upgunned in continual mission creep. It's nearly to the point where a Bradly or btr can stand in for a tank. Anything requiring heavier firepower may come from the air.

Tanks require significantly more logistical support then almost any other ground equipment. Transport, maintenance, fuel, training, etcetera.

On the other hand a tank must have an affect on morale. They are the spearhead of mechanized warfare. The modern era has been filled with one sided wars that have skewed the view of certain nation's.the idea that armor is of little value is predicated upon a belief that air superiority is assured. Forthcoming technology will quite possibly require these beasts.

What do y'all think?

[Salus Maior]

I think Tanks still have a while left before things start changing.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I think Tanks still have a while left before things start changing.

Yeah i agree, tanks are still useful and do still play a substantial role for pretty much every army that has them in the field at the moment.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

[Purpelia]

It all depends on what you think your army is for. If you want your army to go on colonial adventures where it rapes innocent nations or to be a bulwark against such efforts by imperialists than yes, you want tanks and you want a lot of them and good ones at that. If not, than I guess you don't.

[Trumptonium1]

let's put it this way - if you're in an open field with no air support, a tank is definitely not something you want to see, regardless of your equipment.

[Petrolheadia]

(Image)

*shoots the uncovered hydraulics*

[Internationalist Bastard]

As former infantry I can give my pure unbiased opinion that tanks are dumb and people who drive them smell their own farts

[-United Republic of Freedonia]

(Image)

Back to the topic, the Bradley is the only light AFV that could pull up against a tank that i can think of.
While the "Fifth Generation Warfare" and other asymmetric warfare concepts are taking more strengh, modern armies still need their armored arm in the shape of the tanks.

Did the War on terror kicked the NATO-club so bad that their perception on Warfare got broken?.

[Internationalist Bastard]

let's put it this way - if you're in an open field with no air support, a tank is definitely not something you want to see, regardless of your equipment.

Eh I’d rather have an IFV at my back

[Thermodolia]

As former infantry I can give my pure unbiased opinion that tanks are dumb and people who drive them smell their own farts

Tanks are awesome. Infantry are just a bunch of overgrown toddlers.

[Internationalist Bastard]

As former infantry I can give my pure unbiased opinion that tanks are dumb and people who drive them smell their own farts

Tanks are awesome. Infantry are just a bunch of overgrown toddlers.

And I could do a medics job mate

[Engleberg]

The technology of the tank has improved over the 100 years of its existence, and today our main battle tanks are the most advanced they have ever been. Rounds capable of penetrating 500+ mm of armour, composite armour made to withstand these rounds, technology that allows them to see in the dark, etc. As with every form of technology, they will continue to advance until they cannot advance any further and become obsolete. I do not see this happening within the next 30 years, but by 2050 who knows what'll exist.

But in today's world, tanks and other armoured vehicles are necessary. War will not go away anytime soon, and it's always good to have some depleted uranium between you and the enemy. But never forget who's watchin' them from above

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Tanks are very useful for fighting tanks and other armored vehicles (some top-of-the-line armored vehicles might stand up to a thirty year old tank model in a fight, but I doubt they'd beat it), but not so much for fighting infantry. The reason this isn't seen as useful isn't because it's not useful, it's because we're fighting insurgent armies that consist of infantry supported by civilian vehicles with sheet metal bolted to them, which is not the tank's ideal environment. IFVs and the like are more useful against terrorist armies, but I'd like to see an IFV go up against anything other than infantry and come out on top.

In addition, let's be real here, the terrorists aren't really a threat compared to the likes of Russia, China, or North Korea. Those three are the ones we need to prepare to fight, not a bunch of brainwashed peasant soldiers in the Middle East.

[Thermodolia]

Tanks are awesome. Infantry are just a bunch of overgrown toddlers.

And I could do a medics job mate

Ya I doubt it

[Fartsniffage]

Tanks are possibly coming to that point in their history. At 2 to 10 million USD a vehicle they are expensive to build and maintain. Even modern variants can be destroyed by relatively inexpensive personal weaponry. They rarely engage each other. APC's and other "light" combat vehicles have been up armored and upgunned in continual mission creep. It's nearly to the point where a Bradly or btr can stand in for a tank. Anything requiring heavier firepower may come from the air.

Regarding the Challenger 2 tank.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to Iraqi fire, although one was penetrated by an Improvised explosive device (IED). This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within an urban area, a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit by 14 rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[32] The crew survived, safe within the tank until it was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[33]

In August 2006 south east of al-Amarah, southern Iraq, an RPG-29 capable of firing a tandem-charge penetrated the frontal lower underbelly armour of a Challenger 2 commanded by Captain Thomas Williams of The Queens's Royal Hussars. The tank, which had already been hit by 10–15 RPGs, small arms and sniper fire, was attempting to draw fire away from another callsign that had become stricken.[citation needed] Its driver, Trooper Sean Chance, lost part of his foot in the blast; two more of the crew were slightly injured. Chance was able to reverse the vehicle 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the regimental aid post despite his injuries.

Only one Chally was killed during the Iraq war and that was a blue on blue by another Challenger 2.

They seem to be pretty okay at dealing with infantry carried weapons...

[Internationalist Bastard]

The technology of the tank has improved over the 100 years of its existence, and today our main battle tanks are the most advanced they have ever been. Rounds capable of penetrating 500+ mm of armour, composite armour made to withstand these rounds, technology that allows them to see in the dark, etc. As with every form of technology, they will continue to advance until they cannot advance any further and become obsolete. I do not see this happening within the next 30 years, but by 2050 who knows what'll exist.

But in today's world, tanks and other armoured vehicles are necessary. War will not go away anytime soon, and it's always good to have some depleted uranium between you and the enemy.

Thing is, you don’t need to penetrate 500mm of armor
Most combat is infantry or air, the actual need for a tank seems minimal, at least in the ears we’re fighting

[Internationalist Bastard]

And I could do a medics job mate

Ya I doubt it

Eh spit and duct tape it’ll be fine

[Isilanka]

I think we'll still need the heavies for quite some time.

In a way the debate around tanks is quite similar to the debate around manned jet fighters. Both are expensive to build and maintain and both have proved quite unnefective in asymetric conflicts. However, a weapon system is only viable or not in relative terms, depending on what you use it for and the doctrine of your army. For fighting another conventional army, you still need tanks. I don't think we have yet reached the point where weapons are so effective powerful and heavily armored vehicles aren't useful anymore.
I mean IFVs and stuff are very effective but they are heavily fragile, one shouldn't overestimate them. They're very useful but they can't be the be all and end all of the battlefield.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

That impression is largely due to every modern war being a civil war or against an insurgency. In open field battles between nations, tanks are still king (on the ground).

[Fartsniffage]

That impression is largely due to every modern war being a civil war or against an insurgency. In open field battles between nations, tanks are still king (on the ground).

I think you'll find that artillery is still king of the battlefield. *polishes gun*

[Conserative Morality]

Until infantry acquire weapons able to take out tanks from the same distance tanks can, tanks will be needed to eliminate other tanks and steamroll light vehicles.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I think we'll still need the heavies for quite some time.

In a way the debate around tanks is quite similar to the debate around manned jet fighters. Both are expensive to build and maintain and both have proved quite unnefective in asymetric conflicts. However, a weapon system is only viable or not in relative terms, depending on what you use it for and the doctrine of your army. For fighting another conventional army, you still need tanks. I don't think we have yet reached the point where weapons are so effective powerful and heavily armored vehicles aren't useful anymore.
I mean IFVs and stuff are very effective but they are heavily fragile, one shouldn't overestimate them. They're very useful but they can't be the be all and end all of the battlefield.

I haven’t seen a heavy tank in action but I know an rpg can take out every thing I have seen in action short of a plane

[Thermodolia]

Ya I doubt it

Eh spit and duct tape it’ll be fine

Dip spit doesn’t count.

And how did you figure out my secret?!! This is a national crisis!!

[Thermodolia]

That impression is largely due to every modern war being a civil war or against an insurgency. In open field battles between nations, tanks are still king (on the ground).

I think you'll find that artillery is still king of the battlefield. *polishes gun*

Nah that would be us medics because without us none of you would do anything!!