Main battle tanks of today.....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Matt308 said:
Besides... I couldn't figure out why you would be prowling around this site at 0530 German local time.
Click to expand...

Well I do live within that time zone (It's 4:30 btw), and the reason I'm up this late is that I'm on watch
 
Is it true that the Canucks have not replaced their MBTs, instead opting for a 105mm armed vehicle called the "Stryker". The whole issue of MBT replacement is very topical at the moment. The US, has for example, found that it has never used more than 25% of the available tank forces at its disposal, whereas its Infantry formations are strained to the limit. The rough rule of thumb is that for every armoured formation available, there is a need for an equivalent three or four Mech inf formations. Neither the US nor Australia are able to field that many Mech Inf units, so the force structure appears to be "tank heavy".

The other consideration is whether or not MBTs are now basically obsolete. I am personally completely undecided, but strong debate rages around this very issue. Are MBTs simply too vulnerable, given the multiple (and cheap) threats that can be brought against them. In Australias case, we have been involved in perhaps half a dozen limited wars since the end of Vietnam, and our tank forces have not been utilized in a single one. The US at least has used their armour, but it appears their forces are a bit top heavy,

Its an interesting and as yet unresolved debate. The Australian solution has been to go for a half measure, we are replacing our 103 Leopard Is with 59 second hand, and cheap, Abrams tanks for the time being. Looks for all the world like a wait and see procurement to me
 
Seems like a classic case of preparing for the last war and not the next. Current structures are to a large degree based on the Cold War and a clash of armoured forces.
The current conflicts are anything but.
 
There are a number of unresolved problems with the MBT centred force structure. Firstly is the enormous cost of the MBT. It is vulnerable, despite the the sophisticated armour that is now being developed and employed. it has very limited applications in just about any battle environment, except the northern european plain. It cannot effectively engage in urban warfare, and its mobility in anything except the european context is very limited. It is a force structure heavily dependant on its support echelons. there are many who are beginning to wonder if the expenditure for such a limited weapons system is actually worth it
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
He does not live in Germany. He is in Denmark.
Click to expand...

For the time being, yes. Like you say the taxes are very high, although that does have its benefits.

My biggest problem with this place though is when moving here I had to get used to driving much cheaper cars as the registration toll is so high.
 

For the most part, this is true; however, we (meaning the Americans) don't currently have anything else that is as survivable as an MBT, even in an urban environment. An APC (such as the M2/M3 Bradley AFV) is probably more useful in the urban combat environments we are currently involved in (I'm thinking of Iraq, of course) since it is fairly mobile and has adequate firepower for the environment it is in, but it is not very survivable. The Bushmaster cannon on the M2/M3 series of vehicles is much more useful against the "soft" targets we are encountering, as opposed to the M256A1 120 mm smoothbore cannon on the M1 which is, to say the least, overkill against "soft" targets. Unfortunately, the aluminum armor on the Bradley is not as effective as the DU/composite "Chobham" armor on the M1.
 
one has to also say that the tanks still play significant roles in delivering firepower for the assault. I think the traditional exploitation role of the tank, developed prior to WWII is the role most under threat. Tanks in the modern battle environment appear to be just too vulnerable to race off in the lead towards the rear area. If ther are any Iraq vets, would not mind any comments on the veracity of this observation. I am not completely convinced by the arguments either way which is raging not just in this forum.
 
Copy that Matt! And may the farce be with you as-well Now lets toast on that!
 
Stitch;For the most part, this is true; however, we (meaning the Americans) don't currently have anything else that is as survivable as an MBT, even in an urban environment.

Hello Stitch,

that was the reason why the German Army had the worlds best APC in Bosnia.

We took a Leopard and packed six infantry guy's into it. it's true

Regards
Kruska
 
I think he means they used Leopards as APC's - I've seen that before (Wont hold in combat though)
 
What remove the turret like other attempts to use a common chassis? Sounds rather ponderous for a APC in all but the most extreme environments.
 
No he means they crammed 6 guys into a Leopard because of the protection. In combat it would not be very feasable because as your gusy are scrambling to get out of the turret hatches they will get picked off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The F16 Turned 50 Years Old Today, Dec 13 1973.
Replies
13
Views
874
cvairwerks
C
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
806
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
456
Thumpalumpacus
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
639
SaparotRob
S
Request help identifying type of aircraft
Replies
4
Views
1K
MiTasol
Menu
Log in
Register