Will demand for tanks increase?

I have noted that there seem to be claims of some very huge leaps in material development for armor recently. Some claiming extreme gains in strength and lighter weight. These new ways of making armor on a nano scale are relatively new technology. If there is indeed a huge leap in armor technology that allows cheap production of it within the next 10 years I would expect that the demand for "heavy" armored tanks to increase because of their increased survivability. With new development of gun fired / rocket propelled hybrid projectiles to make use of the efficiency of the cannon and added range of rocket propulsion along with advancement in guided munitions and unmanned areal vehicles. A high tech very heavily armored tank armed with high tech anti air weapon systems such as uav sensors for detecting and tracking aircraft and ground targets for guided missiles/guided cannon fire. It seems that tank technology has the potential to drastically increase their strength in tactical battlefields of the future. Any thoughts on this?

Ever read the "Hammer's Slammers" books by David Drake? That's where the future of armoured vehicles is heading. Hover tanks that can run on all types of terrain.

No but it sounds interesting ill see if I can find it. I doubt that tanks will become hover tanks unless armor becomes ineffective at stopping projectiles. If armor technology keeps up with projectile technology then why not just slap more armor on a hover tank until it cant fly and put tracks on it. Less mobile but you a brute that can take some hits and keep going. And with the more advancements in targeting the more a tank will need to be able to take a hit and keep going. I had another thought. Perhaps with advancements in armor we might even see the advent of heavy armored warships again?

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Heckman]

Actually I would argue the oposite... That tanks will be needed less and less because with the increase in armor technology, a vehicle the size of a Hummer might be able to have the same survivability as a tank.

In addition, tanks are extremely hard to transport - it can take weeks to redeploy them - and current trends call for a lighter faster reactionary force.

You can see that trend now with some key heavy weapons cancled for the US army, such as the cruader 155mm howitzer artillery system.

I was watching a History Channel presentation that claimed the tank was now on its way out. The M1A1 was supposedly the last tank the US was planning to make or something like that.

the stryker seems to be the way of the future. Lighter, faster and more mobile. I don't think the MBT is going the way of the dodo bird just yet, but it will used less and less.

In the open, the tank will always be the king of the battlefield, regardless of how many APC's you have.

I dont think the tank will ever dissapear because of its massive destructive capablility. Soldiers will always need armoured support I believe and the next gen tankof the US will meet that demand. A new tank typically comes out every 30 years.

Originally posted by Raideur
In the open, the tank will always be the king of the battlefield, regardless of how many APC's you have.

Actually tanks are very weak now-a-days against a technically advanced army. A single footsoldier with a Javelin is more then a match against a tank, and represents a very cost effectice counter to a multimillion dollar tank.

In addition, helocopters pretty much dominate tanks in open space with standoff missles. That is of course to say nothing of CAS aircraft like the Warthog or specter gun ships or high altitude precision strike aircraft/bombers.

This is why the vast majority of our army operates on a mechanized doctrine, and at the core of that are the armored divisions.

Originally posted by Raideur
This is why the vast majority of our army operates on a mechanized doctrine, and at the core of that are the armored divisions.

Yes, but if you hadn't noticed, the 'heavy' armored divisions are being fazed out in favor of smaller, lighter, faster, more mobile, more easilly transported platforms with 90% of the leathality.

In todays world of global volitile conflict, there is more of a need for rapid response, especially when tanks are so easilly defeated by such a wide range of weapons available to every modern power.

Truth be told, tanks are more effective against lesser oponents then they are an equal. Against Saddam for example, our M-1s had such a fire control system and armor advantage that they completely dominated the enemy. If however, we were hypothetically fighting the Britts and their challanger, the traditional tank vs tank battles would probably be avoided. Instead, we'd try to locate their heavy armor and attack them with Apaches, or cut off their supply lines (oil especially).

In other words, I believe the age of the tank is at the beggining of the end (much like the manned fighter aircraft). Sure we will still have tanks for the next couple of decades...We may even make 1 more generation of them. But it will end there. They represent an expensive weapons platform with severly restricted rapid deployment capabilities. Their hallmark of survivability is coming to an end with the age of advanced shoulder fired missles, helo's with stand off anti-tank missles, and precision high altitude bombing. Their lethality can be duplicated with much smaller platforms.

Tanks could end up being equipped with the laser weapons that are being developed surely?

Tanks also work as a threat. Having armor forces your enemy to focus on it instead of anything else because of its ability to devastate all other combat units in traditional land engagements. Also, tanks are very lethal to any ground force at speed.


Tanks simply fill a role on the battlefield that has existed ever since WWI and has always reoccured in traditional army vs. army engagements. I simply doubt any amount of technological advancement will change that.

Originally posted by Raideur
Tanks also work as a threat. Having armor forces your enemy to focus on it instead of anything else because of its ability to devastate all other combat units in traditional land engagements

I would argue that tanks wouldn't be the for-thought in a major war. For instance, if the US were to go to war with Russia (hypothetically) we'd focus on owning the air, because if you can fly the enemy will die. Helo gunships make quick work of tanks. Now adays a simple infentryman is more then a match for a tank.

Tanks simply fill a role on the battlefield that has existed ever since WWI and has always reoccured in traditional army vs. army engagements. I simply doubt any amount of technological advancement will change that.

Again, I think smaller lighter APC type platforms will be able to provide 90% of the armor and leathality of a traditional MBT, with vastly greater speeds, endurance, and flexability. This is of course to say nothing of the greater deployability nor significantly lesser costs.

Tanks at speed in an engagement are in fact the "counter" to mechanized infantry. APC's, despite their ATGWs and integrated CAS, will be vulerable to tanks because the main role of the tank on the battlefield is to destroy enemy vehicles, and that includes other tanks. Tanks are not suppose to deal withhelo gunships, and thus they will always have a weakness in that respect, however they are covered by the other elements of the military. Gunships cannot operate against enemy intercepters and will fall prey to integrated SP AA units in tank formations. Its a giant rock paper scissors game, as far as military hardware goes. There is no "super unit."

to the person who said that tanks are good when your fighting a lesser enemy, and gave an example of saddams army, i would say Saddams army was no match for the coalition forces because the war was full of betrayals and corruption, iraqi soldiers were sent to the battlefield, with no ammo, with empty barrels, the tanks weren't supplied, so basically it was a fault of iraqi strategists and leaders who were corrupt, and had no loyalty to there country whatsoever. nevertheless so it wasn't that the troops were i'll equipped or backward, it was the leadership that was worthless.

anyhow tanks are thier to make rapid gain of land, much like a blitzkrieg, it is made to overcome obstacles and hard targets and hard defences, such as barbed wire etc, that infantry cannot overcome. in a blitzkrieg you see tanks and mechanized armor used i believe to there full capability, fast and rapid movement, no stopping, and uses destructive power, and of course is supposed to win you a war fast by capturing major cities fast and overcoming defensses or leaving enemy defenses behind where you can encircle them. there was once an expert or a general that said that the job of the infantry is to fill the land that the armor just conquered.

anyhow in the end i believe that tanks won't be ereased from the battlefields, because you will always need something to destroy the other enemyu with destructive power for psychological impact, and tactical dominance and strategic dominance which is in the form of rapid movement, and as said before it's own destructive power.

i don't believe APC's can take the roll of the main armor on the field either, APCs in there name mean armored personnel carriers and they are basically used to hurriedly used to transport troops to the battlefield with minimal losses and with little firepower so it can destroy a little ressistance on the way if faced, and it was actually best designed fora blitzkrieg from my point of view, were the troops had to keep up with the tanks that were moving much more rapidly. so APC's have an advantage which is that they can have troops on the spot to help them, but still they lack the armore the firepower and the ruggedness of MBT's...