The Stryker has been facing problems. (not being resistent to attack :o ) and is being subsituted with M113 variants designed prior to Vietnam!
Light and easily deployable as the stryker is, it carries no armour when stripped for transport and cannot actually go on patrols until a second plane flies out with all the bolt on armour, still it is their problem and not ours - yet!
This is one possible direction.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/
As with all armour it is a trade off. Speed, firepower or protection. The Stryker may not be as bad as its press. I have seen some horrendous pictures of before and after an IED with the crew getting out alive. It may have more to do with defending positions (within the establishment) than the vehicles suitability for task. The Stryker is far better than the Humvee in the support role. The US needs a good vehicle for convoy (CVR(T)/(W)?) work which they are in great need of. Given a choice which would choose?
Excellent point. Except for the quibling point. There was no “quibbling” - the subject of fuel consumption/weight had not been brought up. That was just slanted enought that I thought for a second you must be in the press!
For instance, a given design may be able to support the weight of a certain amount of armour; however, a heavier design could be made with more armour and a larger engine, giving the same performance. What may be overlooked, however, is that unless fuel capacity is increased, the latter would also have shorter range.
I Believe that that is related to fuel consumption and weight, personally. A “quibble” can involve only one person if two views are weighed against one another or if one person explores an idea in depth postulating theorie as to how a certain course has been chosen consequently you had a one man quibble.
a quiffle is very different being a bit like a wiffle and a qui…anyway enough of that there might be children listening.
You hit on an important point. The future of MBT’s is limited. War has shifted toward airpower and efficient combat troops with lighter, shorter, faster-firing weapons (AR’s). In WWII for example, the tank was used more in the countryside than in city fighting. Now it is used every bit as much in urban warfare. I think it’s safe to say that large tanks with large guns are going to dissapear in the next few decades. There will be no need for them, since serious artillery, guided weapons, and smaller fighting vehicles will replace the need for mobile cannon of their size.
Eventually, human soldiers will be replaced as well. And that is something that is closer to reality than some might think. A few more decades, and there may not be human soldiers at all. They may be replaced with remotely-operated ones.
find something about perforated armour
“…perforated steel, with hollow spaces serving the same function that they do in spaced armour, often filled with ceramic foam and backed by layers of Kevlar or similar material to trap and reduce fragmentation.”
That quote taken from 12 seconds of searching on google. Of course, I don’t really have any idea of what they’re talking about.
this is kevlar, very tough stuff
http://www.ulb.ac.be/sciences/cudec/ressources/kevlar.jpg
I think the MBT has plenty of life yet. Before Desert Storm, the consensus was that MBTs were an expensive folly as there would never be another large scale tank battle. Then the consensus changed to Desert Storm being the last ever war with a decisive part role for MBTs. Now, Gulf II is that last war.
Humans will always fight battles - purely because people fight for what they believe.
It is the nature of people to want to fight, if they feel unjustly treated for one thing. If on 9/11 George Bush has said, he was sending a legion Sony toys to fight freedom and Liberty Im not sure that there would have been a groundswell of public support.
There is a particular mindset that necessitates going into conflict that cannot be superceded by the knowledge that R2D2 is out there fighting for you.
MBT’s will continue to exist in one guise or another for as long as war is waged. Even the advent of Drones like Shadow and predator cannot replace the ability of land forces to “hold ground” post conflict. For as long as people fight in cities or on land, a physical presence needs to be felt on the ground. If a tank is the securest place from which to exert that presence so be it.
This is more like the future of robotic within the field of conflict. It is more towards Starship Trooper (the original not the crappy film). The use of UAV for recce and targeting will probably increase, but they will not be the be all and end all of combat.
http://bleex.me.berkeley.edu/bleex.htm
They have been telling us that the tank is dead for 40 years. That the attack helli would take over its role. The attack helli is too soft a target, it does not carry very much ammo, it does not have a presence, you can take it out with rifle fire and RPG, it can not stay on target for long, it requires a big logistical tail, and it can not work away from a base (the base may be mobile but it still needs a base).
ATGW was supposed to kill off the tank after Yon Kippur but it is still here. You will always have tanks as long as the enemy have them. Are you going to be first to get rid of your tanks?
The M1A2 can only be operated by a country that has easy access to oil or a very good logistical tail. It drinks and drinks it also has a very high heat signature. On one occasion a tank recovering another tank set it on fire. The heat produced from the gas turbine is so great. The driver left the hatch open of the towed tank, the exhaust heat went through the hatch incinerating the crew area, the crew where not in the veh.
The reason MBTs are being looked at is that they are difficult to get to operational areas. It is difficult to fly tank regts around the world (I know they have gone in the back of aircrafts)
The USArmies ideas for the future
http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/november_2004/11_04_1.html
Ironman you are assuming that in WW2 tanks were not used in FIBUA because they could not be. This is a misconception. There was not a great deal of FIBUA, but when there was tank were used very effectively. The problem the tank has is that it has difficulty seeing and requires infantry support to protect it. The tank offers mobile artillery and support fire for the infantry. That’s why the US would now like to have HESH reintroduced to its tanks.
FW-109 pilot wrote
That quote taken from 12 seconds of searching on google. Of course, I don’t really have any idea of what they’re talking about.
this is kevlar, very tough stuff
Research into a number of armour types are ongoing. One that is looking good is electrical armour. This a s is understand it puts a current through the armour and sets off HEAT and HESH ammo. It is light and could be retro fitted to existing veh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_armour
Electric reactive armour
Recent research has produced the idea of Electric Reactive Armour, where the armour is made up of two electrically charged plates separated by an insulator. When an incoming body penetrates the two plates and closes the circuit, a high current and voltage will flow through the penetrator, and tend to vaporize it, and significantly reduce the resulting penetration. It is not public knowledge whether this is supposed to function against both KE-penetrators and shaped charge jets, or only shaped charge jets. This technology has not been introduced on any operational platform.
Also in response to this stuff about robots fighting, did you see the new star wars films? The robots lose, now if that isn’t enough to convince the defence procurement agency i dont know what is. :lol: :lol:
But on a serious note heavily armoured vehicles either MBTs or IFVs (warrior/bradley) are very important as they provide excellent protection for infantryman during FIBUA. E.G. during GW2 the Brits used warriors to great effect to move thier troops around urban areas protected by their excellent armour. This sort of action has extended the lifespan of such heavily armoured vehicles though i can agree that few mass armoured engagements will ever happen again, as the owners of all heavy MBT hardware are very unlikely to go to war against each other.
I believe both tanks and manned helicopters will be replaced with remotely controlled stealth flying battle machines. The US military is already using them in Iraq, and has used them to kill terrorists there from the sky without even being noticed. It uses small, fast, yet powerful rockets.
Consider also: In Iraq I, the US and coalition forces used a great many tanks. In Iraq II, the number of tanks used is a fraction of what it was in Iraq I. This trend will continue. I doubt there will be another war which uses MBT’s to any large degree. They will be replaced with better technology before too long.
The tank was developed because in WWI troops faught a largely stagnant, imobile war, and a tank represented a way to push into the enemy without a bolt action rifle taking your head off from 700 yards. That kind of war is gone. The vehicles designed for that kind of war are going too.
But the tank was vital to the manoeuvre warfare tactics developed by Captain Basil Lidell-Hart and advanced by Guderian as ‘Blitzkrieg’. This used the tank for the fast moving warfare seen in the invasion of Poland, the Battle of France and Barbarossa. That was very different to the static trenches of WWI, yet the tank could dominate.
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards fought the largest British tank battle since World War II on Op. Telic. 14 Challenger 2s took on 14 T55s. I’m not claiming it was a fair fight, but the overwhelming superiority of the Challenger 2 made it a short fight, won 14-0. Without a powerful MBT of our own, it would have been a much tougher engagement.
The usefulness of the MBT is self perpetuating - they are mainly useful to counter themselves on the battlefield.
EDIT: Corrected unit name from Queen’s Dragoon Guards to Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.
Here’s my take on it. Technology does not stop. It is constantly being developed, and in the US alone, billions of US dollars are spent on research and development for military applications. Many things have become obsolete. As airpower becomes more and more important because it saves the attacking force’s soldiers from peril better than ground conflict, so will the tank and other heavy land machines go by the wayside.
Police in the US are already begining to use miniature remotely controlled helicopters with video cameras and a small firearm on them to enter buildings into which heavily armed criminals have been chased. This kind of replacing humans and big machines with smaller, lighter and faster ones will not stop. Nanotechnology will before your great grandchildren pass from this Earth provide machines small enough to be injected into the human body to investigate illnesses or “live” inside of them to fight disease an infection. It may happen sooner than that.
The tank is a machine concept that is 100 years old or so. It’s time is coming soon.
You are right - air power has certainly reduced the power of the tank, and will continue to do so. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) will become increasingly important in the coming years. UCAVs are especially important where the enemy has a significant anti-air capability as the use of air power will present less danger to human life.
The major limitation of air power is that it cannot hold ground, which is essential to win wars. The Kosovo campaign illustrates this well. Heavy armour, as part of an all-arms battlegroup, will have a role to play well into the future.
OT, and I mean no criticism by this:
I would interpret the phrase “Its time is coming soon” as meaning that soon it will be of great / greatest importance, rather than cease to be important. Is this another case of two countries divided by a common language?
VAUs are all very well when dealing with technologically inferior enemy. But have limited use against an enemy who can see and deal with them. One or two UAVs were shot down/crashed in GW2. Aircraft cannot hold ground and an unwillingness to take casualties will hamper how you operate. Again Kosovo is a prim example of the US not willing to put its forces at risk. This attitude hampered the US foreign policy after Vietnam. It only changed after the 11 Sep when the state believed that the public would support the use of troops and casualties. As you can see the attitude in the US to casualties has changed and they accept that troops die.
If you are not willing to take casualties do not fight wars. War is nasty and people die, some not very quickly or cleanly. By sanitising it into a video game you make it fluffy and no one gets hurt.
By having tanks in close support I can remove obstacles (the enemy) that may impede me. Its fire power is instantaneous, it has direct, fire it can give me covering fire as I move, it intimidates the enemy, it has viewing equipment that I can use to locate the enemy. The tank is not dead it is far too useful. It may get lighter, but only if it is used against an enemy who does not have them.
Chine has a lot of tanks. 
Police in the US are already begining to use miniature remotely controlled helicopters with video cameras and a small firearm on them to enter buildings into which heavily armed criminals have been chased. This kind of replacing humans and big machines with smaller, lighter and faster ones will not stop. Nanotechnology will before your great grandchildren pass from this Earth provide machines small enough to be injected into the human body to investigate illnesses or “live” inside of them to fight disease an infection. It may happen sooner than that.
Short range, small = small fuel tank. It also needs to be soldier proof (Now that’s a philosophical argument).
'Twasn’t the QDG it was the Royal Scots D.G.s, QDG are formation recce.
Now I do feel silly. I even checked on Google. But, I thought it was QDG, then found ‘Dragoon Guards’ in the Sandy Times and missed the ‘Royal Scot’ bit. And I was so sure it was the Welsh Cav too.
I’ve amended the original post and I’ll look out for my schoolboy errors better in the future
<hangs head in shame>
Especially as the Welsh cav are recce! :lol: :lol:
Perhaps. In the US the statement “It’s time is coming soon.” can mean “It’s time for demise or abandonment is coming soon.” or “It’s time for maturity is coming soon.” It depends on how it is used.
It seems we Americans use the English language a bit differently. But that is true of other countries which speak English too I am sure. We all have coloquialisms and applying our own meanings to phrases. Some of the things the British say, for example (not insulting, just observing) seem odd to Americans as well. 
To make you feel better IIRC C sqn QDG was awarded the Commando dagger badge by one of the RM units they were working with.