Faster pace of modernizing tanks

batskcab

New Member
tanks are by no means obsolete but its effectiveness lies in its role in combined arms combat and/or lack of enemy means to destory the tank(agressive manuvers comes after that :p). however in modern warfare, means of destroying the tank in either urban iraq or plains of russian steppe have increased dramatically(ie anti tank missles can be used by infantry, IFVs, Humvies, helicopters etc etc). although IFVs can fill in for the tank in a more efficent manner, in certain applications, its still better to use a tank, where the armor is needed for certain hot areas. therefore i think its more appropriate to keep the tank, in fewer numbers but enough to fight enemy armor at key points / to be used in a spearhead as i can see better means of destroying enemy tanks as long as u can stop its penetration roll. i am basically in agreement with posters before me that tanks are no longer the backbone and it all comes down to cost efficency and risks imho. i think the PLA are thinking similar things and are just currently prolonging its tanks by giving them upgrades until something solid comes up, say maybe hover attack platforms :p

to skywatcher:
the tank suffers in performance but its heavier than an APC or IFV and provides better(sometimes needed) protection to the crew. it will perform less in other areas but its design is based on the bigger picture. ie. u lose 2 more tanks but a company survives because of that.
 

kovona

New Member
Okay, I can see the point why tanks are still needed. But the question that I have now is, what's the next stage of development for heavy armor?

APS seems to be making progress, but how come there aren't any efforts to develop lighter and stronger armor instead? Carbon nanotubes seem be a good place to start (provided that we learn how to mass produce it first).
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Okay, I can see the point why tanks are still needed. But the question that I have now is, what's the next stage of development for heavy armor?

APS seems to be making progress, but how come there aren't any efforts to develop lighter and stronger armor instead? Carbon nanotubes seem be a good place to start (provided that we learn how to mass produce it first).

Well you do note we have another forum member who thinks the way to go are for super tanks with twin barrels and a great deal of redundancy.

Just to illustrate you the great spectrum in opinion differences about the future of tank warfare.
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The northern barbarians (Soviet Union) is no longer a land border threat after her demise.

When China is strong and Russia is weak, then is the opportune time to seize a coastal presence on the Northern polar ocean by way of Siberia, and that is when you will need mass modern tanks.

Otherwise, with a secure land border, there isn't really a need for tanks. This is my outlook for the 20-30 year horizon though...
 

Lion

Senior Member
The northern barbarians (Soviet Union) is no longer a land border threat after her demise.

When China is strong and Russia is weak, then is the opportune time to seize a coastal presence on the Northern polar ocean by way of Siberia, and that is when you will need mass modern tanks.

Otherwise, with a secure land border, there isn't really a need for tanks. This is my outlook for the 20-30 year horizon though...

You want to have an armageddon? You forget Russia has how many nuke warhead? And you think their topol ICBM is fake like Iran F-313 stealth fighter?
 

vesicles

Colonel
The northern barbarians (Soviet Union) is no longer a land border threat after her demise.

When China is strong and Russia is weak, then is the opportune time to seize a coastal presence on the Northern polar ocean by way of Siberia, and that is when you will need mass modern tanks.

Otherwise, with a secure land border, there isn't really a need for tanks. This is my outlook for the 20-30 year horizon though...

Building a modern military, including a modern tank force, is not only for the clear and present danger, but, even more importantly, for the future. Just because China does not have a land enemy NOW, it does not mean that it should stop developing tanks. Quite the opposite, China does not have any credible land enemy BECAUSE it has a massive and capable tank force. And if China wants to remain unchallenged on land, it better keep up the pace and get better tanks out ASAP. You just wait and see. If China stops developing these weapons, enemies will pop up left and right. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there.

So what would happen if China actually follows your advice and stops developing tanks and all of a sudden finds itself in a land conflict 20-30 years from now (assuming your outlook for the 20-30 year horizon is correct)? Starting the tank programs from scratch while the enemy is at its doorstep???
 
Last edited:

solarz

Brigadier
Well you do note we have another forum member who thinks the way to go are for super tanks with twin barrels and a great deal of redundancy.

Just to illustrate you the great spectrum in opinion differences about the future of tank warfare.

Something like this?

baneblade_003.jpg
 
Top