[jessupjonesjnr87]

Even if large scale war does break out modern MBT's will be easy targets for today's modern guided anti tank systems. Drones gunships small squads and long range artillery are more suited to today's fast moving battlefields. The days of tanks acting as mobile pillbox's are over

[layman]

A main battle tank is a huge investment and can be knocked out by a huge variety of cheaper solutions.

I have heard the term 'swarm tactics' thrown around a bit in recent years. The idea is old but I guess today it would mean lots of infantry and light vehicles but with heavy firewpower.

The day of the tank might be numbered.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The future tanks will be equipped with anti missile defense systems they wont be so easily knocked down besides infantry cant advance as fast as tanks and it cant run easily though walls barded wires and other obstacles

a tank can drive on 40km per hour a human cant

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Mechanised infantry are usually supported by IFV transports which are far quicker and more maneuverable than tanks, and can also be equipped with anti tank weaponry.

[foxdemon]

I would like to see this T90 up against the european tanks. I rekon it is outclassed.

Check out some of the youtube videos from Syria. There are T-90's in action and they seem to be a lot tougher than the T-72 tanks.


[youtube]Lko_s9nEQPc[/youtube]


Also note the lack of supporting infantry in many of these videos of Syrian armour in action. Tanks need to operate as part of a combined arms team. especially in close and urban terrain. Supporting infantry would be able to locate the enemy AT positions and coordinate the tank fire to take 'em out. Quite possibly supporting infantry could engage enemy infantry and prevent them from using their AT weapons (keeping their heads down) until the tank lines up on 'em. Tanks are very nasty when they know where you are.....

With the evolution of mechanized infantry a small squad of men mounted in a Stryker armed with weapons like the MILAN or Kornet can now out manoeuvre and out gun large expensive battle tanks with ease. In future warfare I can see the MBT taking a more supportive role behind small well equipped squads using guerilla tactics. I would be favouring cheaper smaller faster MBT's in the future over the expensive cumbersome tanks like the Abram's.

Hmm, OK lets talk light armour. Light armour stops shell fragments and bullets. It is much better to be in light aroumred vehicle than a soft skin anywhere near the battlefield. However, light armour is vunerable to many more weapons than heavy armour. You might notice in any photos or videos of wars in the middle east tahat the scene is strewn with BMP's and such like. Light armour frequently blows up when under fire. In my opinion, light armour is best viewed as bullet proof transport, recon, but only useful in the fighting when desperate.


Heavy armour is what you want in a fight. Note the Israelis are going for new APC's that carry as much armour as an MBT. Also there are intermediate armour, such as Bradleys. These are certainly more survivable than light armour in a fire, but I wonder how well they would survive in a high intensity fight?


The disadvantage of heavy armour is that it is a logistical nightmare. They gobble fuel, crush bridges, and need heavy repair equipment to support them. But they are hard to knock out and carry a lot of firepower. They can domnate open battle fields and are at least more survivable in urban terrain. Note no armour does particularly well in urban areas, as the Syrian videos show (where are their infantry???).


AT missiles and RCL's/RGP's do make a big difference. But infantry need cover. Consider the US javelin ATGW. Possibly the best short range ATGW today, but the operator still needs between 10 and 30 seconds for the IR homer to lock on. I wouldn't want to be waiting 10 seconds to fire if the tank could see me. Also, as Zionist Nationalist points out, tanks are far more mobile than infantry. In an armoured battle, infantry are basically static unless they have APC's (which haven't blown up yet). In US Army wargames, the Javelins did very well, but their opponents learnt that if they could locate the javelin teams, they could avoid them by using their vehicle mobility.


I am not sure in the days of the MBT are over. Certainly they are not invincible. But their protection, firepower and mobility still make them a formidable weapon, especially in open maneuver battles. It is also true that tanks remain vulnerable in urban terrain and rugged terrain. Given so much of the battles these days are in urban terrain, the MBT is limited in usefulness. To address this, the Russians are developing urban combat vehicles (heavy armour with multiple auto canon turrets with high elevation). I mentioned the Israeli heavy APC's which are another attempt at a solution to armour in urban and rugged areas.

[Smilin' Dave]

Something else to consider in the debate about the future use of MBTs is that many of the things that make tanks vulnerable today are basically also true of infantry or anything else you might use to take and hold ground.
* Tanks are big and easy to see - proliferation of thermal imaging etc. makes infantry just as easy to see
* Tank armour isn't much good at stopping current general AT missiles - infantry armour won't stop a whole lot either
* Tanks can be engaged with artillery or air power without the ability to counter-attack - infantry are also pretty helpless in the face of long range bombardment

The other thing is that many of the vulnerabilities of tanks 'now' have always been true:
- They're quite limited/vulnerable in close terrain (tanks can't climb staircases and it's not easy to see out of them)
- They're vulnerable to purpose-built AT weapons (before it was the infantry portable missile/rocket it was the AT gun)

[Igor Antunov]

A main battle tank is a huge investment and can be knocked out by a huge variety of cheaper solutions.

You can say this about anything. The point is the guys doing the knocking out are trading lives, and the guys getting knocked out are trading cash. The side that doesn't have unlimited cannon fodder will be seeking to use heavy weapons to equalise the playing field.

[Godstud]

An MBT can indeed be knocked out by cheaper weapons, but bringing those cheaper weapons to bear is another matter. A lot of those cheaper wweapons are not that cheap for your average infantryman, and will NOT, in fact, have 100% effectiveness against an MBT.

An MBT will always have a role on the modern battlefield.

[layman]

Well America has the most advanced army and is moving away from them right?

If firepower keeps ahead of defence then swarms of light vehicles/air and infantry seem to be the logical direction.

At sea as well I would expect lots of mini subs and smaller boats.

PS i am talking 50-100 years time - not very soon or anything.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Tanks are big and cumbersome because they need heavy armour and big engines to bring massive guns into the thick of battle to engage the enemy.
The future of warfare is in smart ammunition and rockets that do not need to be brought into the thick of battle and shot from big guns.

[foxdemon]

Well America has the most advanced army and is moving away from them right?

If firepower keeps ahead of defence then swarms of light vehicles/air and infantry seem to be the logical direction.

At sea as well I would expect lots of mini subs and smaller boats.

PS i am talking 50-100 years time - not very soon or anything.

50-100 years! It is very difficult to predict that far ahead. Technology is changing very quickly. 50 years would be 2063. By then you might see armies of robots and powered armour clad soldiers contesting the battle field. Probably lots of human infantry with high tech weapons on the poor side (much as rebels in Syria today).


The term 'swarm' is used in the context of robotic war platforms (eg: combat jets or tanks) that are basically autonomous but with human over sight of a group (swarm) of robots. The robots are able to share info and determine which assets to use against targets presenting themselves. The human is in the loop to solve any confusing novel events might cause the robots.


Most of the humans will serve as technicians to keep the robots running. Front line maintenance might be highly automated though, to provide fast turn around of weapon platforms. The technicians do represent a 'centre of gravity' that could be targeted as a strategy.


We can really only look maybe 20 years ahead with any confidence in our predictions. So, 2033. We will still see human operated MBT's on the battle filed in that time frame.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Something else to consider in the debate about the future use of MBTs is that many of the things that make tanks vulnerable today are basically also true of infantry or anything else you might use to take and hold ground.

* Tanks are big and easy to see - proliferation of thermal imaging etc. makes infantry just as easy to see

Thermal imagery is only effective on open battlefields where the cover is very limited, also once a squad of infantry go to ground they are very hard to flush out even with concentrated fire power.

* Tank armour isn't much good at stopping current general AT missiles - infantry armour won't stop a whole lot either

Tanks are designed to get hit and take the damage, mechanised infantry are designed to stay mobile and avoid fire, but if pinned down they can use the cover around them like a tank uses it's armour.

* Tanks can be engaged with artillery or air power without the ability to counter-attack - infantry are also pretty helpless in the face of long range bombardment

Modern infantry are the best tool on the current battlefield for taking out gunships, they are vulnerable to artillery all right.

[Typhoon]

I am saying it is hard to believe it is of 'similar performance' when so much cheaper and lighter and say the leopard 2 or challenger2.

Well the Soviets manufactured tanks with very small profiles, everything is much more compact with a much smaller internal volume than Western tanks, this does come at a disadvantage in terms of habitability during long marches but you have a lot less volume for your armor to protect. The Soviets also deleted a crew member (loader) by using an auto-loader, this allowed them to shrink the volume of the tank further. Finally the Soviets employed innovative solutions to gain better protection for a lower weight such as using composites, ERA and exploring active protection systems.

Russia has about 6000 tanks but only about 200 are T90's I think.

By 2010 that number had increased to 500, they are working on a new unified system of armored vehicles, but essentially it will build off the T-95 project the government recently rejected.

The future tanks will be equipped with anti missile defense systems

This, as missiles become more of a threat we will see greater adoption of active protection systems, we can already see this with the proliferation of ERA on coalition vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are T-90's in action and they seem to be a lot tougher than the T-72 tanks.

At the moment Syria only operates the T-72.

[layman]

50-100 years! It is very difficult to predict that far ahead.

Totally correct - its no more than an uneducated guess from me.

Also, if this discussion were in any way serious we might need to define a tank.

Armoured vehicles with guns surely aint going anywhere - I guess I just see them getting lighter, more similar to the WW2 idea of a trank destroyer.

Israeli style use of tanks as very heavy armoured troop carriers might become more common though. Perhaps fewer tanks in number but used for specialist roles.

[Smilin' Dave]

Thermal imagery is only effective on open battlefields where the cover is very limited, also once a squad of infantry go to ground they are very hard to flush out even with concentrated fire power.

Tanks are also able to utilise cover, though admittedly the cover needs to be relatively larger. Unless the terrain in flat like a billards table, being hull/turret down isn't entirely out of the question. While infantry can go to ground, forcing them to do so also neutralises their ability to continue to act, and they may find themselves in trouble if the opposition are able or wiling to close in on their position under cover of that fire.

Tanks are designed to get hit and take the damage, mechanised infantry are designed to stay mobile and avoid fire, but if pinned down they can use the cover around them like a tank uses it's armour.

- Tank armour will accept quite a lot of punishment, and can certainly stand up to a lot of things the infantry/IFV cannot. A tank can probably actually manoeuvre better under fire than infantry or even an IFV.
- Mobility is difficult in close environments, which is also paradoxically where those infantry will find the most cover. Some problems on the battlefield cannot be easily manoeuvred around, and that's where something like a tanks comes into it.

Modern infantry are the best tool on the current battlefield for taking out gunships

I don't know that it's a question of best so much as they can play an important role in air defence when equipped with shoulder-fired SAMs. Something like the Tunguska weapons platform for example can fulfil a similar role, though naturally it can't operate in as broad a range of environments (infantry portable missiles performed well in the Cenepa War). On the other hand a vehicle mounted system can mount a larger radar, giving it a better capacity to deal with fixed wing air to ground attackers.

[Typhoon]

The results are published and Russia won, perhaps this will become a regular event? The article touches on some of the discussion here as to the future of the tank as of course its not just a 'sporting' event but a sales pitch for Russian armour.

[youtube]xbqEjZWBJBQ[/youtube]

ALABINO FIRING RANGE, Moscow Region, August 17 (Alexey Eremenko, RIA Novosti) – Russia’s latest military invention – a tank biathlon pitting ex-Soviet states against each other – is an assault on the senses, especially on hearing.
The racing field dwarfs the 40-ton machines and is clouded by smoke. The announcer’s deep voice struggles to cut through the booming guns and whistling signal rockets, and the engines’ roar is deafening as brightly-painted killing machines thunder past, each leaving a plume of dust in its wake.
The idea is pretty simple – just like a regular biathlon, only with tanks.
The Russian military unleashed this new sport on the world this week, delivering an event that was part sales pitch, part post-Soviet bonding exercise.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it won, trouncing rivals from three post-Soviet countries – Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan – in Saturday’s superfinals.

Surprise Victory
“I don't know how we did it. Just sat there in the machine going all out, thinking, the whole of Russia is watching us,” Pvt. Igor Artemyev, the Russian team’s driver told RIA Novosti after the race. His left control lever stopped working, and he pulled his machine through while maneuvering with a single track, the 19-year-old conscript – a round-faced, sturdy fellow with the wholesome looks of a rustic fairytale hero – said.
To the spectators however, Russia’s crimson T-72B seemed to breeze through the racing ground like it was a Saturday morning trip to a supermarket.
The crew commander in Kazakhstan's blue tank sprained his arm handling the main gun shell. After a replacement was found it bounced back, coming in second, just under a minute after Russia. Belarus finished third, Armenia last.
“It was new to us. We've done all these exercises before, but never at the same training run,” Kazakh gunner Aidyn Kalioldin told RIA Novosti after the race. “The Russians handled it better. But we would have won if the race had taken place in Kazakhstan,” Kalioldin added with a smile.

Pegs & Minefields
All four teams at Alabino training grounds outside Moscow on Saturday competed in T-72Bs, the staple tank of all post-Soviet armies and a close relative of the T-90, Russia’s main export tank.
Like any good show, it started with a warm-up: Out on the field several heavy war machines of the same model – though not the performers – executed elaborate maneuvers. Incongruously, the host talked like he was at a ballroom dance contest, though there was an apocalyptic grace to this “tank ballet,” as he put it.
Each lap was 6,100 meters (3.8 miles) long and included a scarp, ford, minefield and bridge. The tanks must complete the lap without losing speed or overturning.
During the first lap, each fires its main gun at a target from a distance of 2,200 meters (7,200 feet), which is close to their maximum range. Then it is the machine gun that sees action, and then flanking fire at three consecutive targets. Ammo is loaded onto the tank at the firing line each time. There is no slack – no extra shots are allowed and every miss costs the team a 500-meter penalty lap.
Crucially – to keep the event sporting – they are not allowed to fire at each other.

Culture Clash
The military made an effort to entertain. The superfinals came complete with fireworks, music and dance shows, and a display of old Soviet tanks, cars and state-of-the-art military training equipment.
Children and adults jostled to get their picture taken with what looked like a real rocket launcher.
But the vibe was like that at a pro wrestling match organized by the Soviet Union
The adrenaline-filled event called for scantily clad cheerleaders, hard rock, beer and an announcer frothing at the mouth with excitement but came up short on all counts.
Instead, there were yawning gaps between events, punctuated only by officials’ sleep-inducing speeches.
Any metal band would surely sell their souls for the chance to play this gig, but the live soundtrack to the event sounded prehistoric. Some of the Soviet tunes played were so old that one explicitly praised Stalin.
At times the announcer imitated the booming “this is Moscow calling” style of World War II-era radio host Yury Levitan, but this inevitably fell flat when he had to deliver a running commentary on tanks rolling through obstacles in the haze.
The 3,000 spectators were mostly a hand-picked assortment of former and currently-serving soldiers who were invited along with their entire families. No tickets were on sale to the public.
“Who knows what would happen if we just let anyone in,” army spokesperson Nikolai Dolyushkin told RIA Novosti.

Endangered Species or Export Opportunity?
Not many saw it coming, since tank forces have hardly been a priority in Russia over the past two decades. Plans to scale back the tank force from the current 20,000 to just 2,000 tanks were reported in 2010 by news agencies citing Defense Ministry sources, though never implemented.
Russia’s top brass feel that the tank’s golden age is already over, Voenpens.ru military news website cited military analyst Alexander Khramchikhin as saying last year, shortly before new Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was appointed.
The development of cheap anti-tank weapons and the tendency toward small-scale conflicts arguably eliminate the need for clashes between massive tank armadas, Ruslan Pukhov of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technologies told RIA Novosti on Friday.
However, the experience of actual wars of the two past decades in the post-Soviet space (including two Chechen wars, the clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh in the early 1990s, and the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008) all showed that tanks are still relevant, Pukhov said.
Russia remains the world’s biggest exporter of battle tanks, the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Global Arms Trade says. So this tank biathlon appeared to be an entertaining if unconventional sales pitch, Pukhov said.
“We’ll do our best to ensure that foreign armies buy our tanks in the future,” Shoigu said, announcing the event last week.
Forty-six military attaches from embassies in Moscow were invited, the Defense Ministry said, and most showed up, many with their families in tow.

US, Germany – Bring it On
Shoigu also said that the United States and Germany, Russia’s rivals on the arms exports market, were invited to bring their own tanks to compete against Russia next year.
After Saturday’s race, the US and German military attachés both said that their respective superiors are still deciding whether to accept Shoigu’s invitation, though the German officer sounded excited about it.
Shoigu previously claimed that US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had approved US participation in 2014, but Colonel R. Taft Blackburn, US Army Attaché in Russia, said this was not the case.
“It is an interesting idea, but there are many issues at stake,” was all that Blackburn said when asked by RIA Novosti whether the Pentagon is considering the risk that Russia could interpret US unwillingness to take part as weakness.
Blackburn then beat a hasty retreat into the VIP stand, as an Armenian tank thundered past.

[Godstud]

In something like that, a British Challenger or a Leopard 2 would kick ass.

[Igor Antunov]

Congratulations to Pvt Igor and his team. But my money is on the Germans next year.

[Oxymoron]

Merkava was not invited? Anti Semites

[Typhoon]

But my money is on the Germans next year.

Considering the performance of the Leopard in the now defunct Canadian contest I think it would be odds on to be the favorite, if they get an invite.

Merkava was not invited?

Only the Americans so far but perhaps if it keep growing...