Is the MBT tactically irrelevant? I ask because of all the weapon systems designed to kill it...just in US service check out the following...
 |
| Maverick Missile |
 |
| A-10's Gun |
 |
| DAGR 2.75 rocket noteworthy because it could revolutionize attack helicopters. Instead of a heavy load of 16 antitank missiles you could carry a 'light' load of perhaps 32 DAGR's...don't laugh, an RPG-29 penetrated an M1 in Iraq. These should be several times more powerful...just need the right warhead. |
 |
| Brimstone (not US) but supposedly we have our own version under development...noteworthy because so many rounds can be carried by one airplane. |
 |
| Hellfire (love this guys artwork) |
All this and we haven't even started to look at GPS guided weapons that can be retrofitted for the precision work necessary to take out tanks...we haven't even talked about area denial weapons and bomblets designed to channel and destroy tanks...I haven't even talked about precision artillery shells.
I have been critical of our allies that appear to be destroying there heavy armor forces but perhaps in this area a 'holiday' can be taken.
History has shown that although artillery is still the biggest killer on the modern battlefield, most attention has been paid to destroying tanks.
Perhaps the threat to tanks has finally pushed it into the obsolete category...useful, but on a modern battlefield too heavily hunted to be able to hunt.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThere were more than that 30 years ago but they're still around.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's still extremely relevant. Is the MBT invulnerable? No. Of course not. Never has been. It is still a critical part of the combined arms team.
ReplyDeleteSol,
ReplyDeleteYou could also have listed a whole load of AAM or SAMs and asked if the fast jet is now obsolete on the modern battlefield. Of course it isn't, neither is the MBT, nor are infantry soldiers (list any type of small arms or anti-personnel weapon going), they just need to work as part of a combined force in order to defeat the specific threats to each one. That's why infantry and tanks have always worked together, combining strengths and mitigating weaknesses. Now you throw aircraft and arty into the mix. Sure some will get destroyed in any conflict (although Challenger 2 seems to have a pretty damn high survival rate - 1 total loss to another Challenger 2) but it doesn't make them a useless tool.
What alternatives can give direct fire support? These APCs/IFVs with 105mm guns mounted that have started popping up again? They'll do the same as an MBT just with a lower survival rate (you can write an even longer list of weapons that'll kill one of those).
....I should use that rant if I ever decide to apply to the Cavalry :P
No, the mbt is a vital link of any military. Especially the abrams to the army and marine corps ( while I can entertain the argument to draw down our limited tank presence in favor of a assault gun mpc, but even then still keep some) the abrams can take some punishment from anti armor weapons it was design to.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure people have seen the video of the vampir rocket hitting a abrams from the side. Yes it damaged the vehicle and did injure the loader but what's not shown is the tanks response.
With tusk being equip on more abrams the threat is being mitigated more but with all things their is always the chance.
I believe you will see a major tank battle in the middle east in the next 5 to 10 years. We will see how the merkava does in a tank on tank fight and well maybe how it does against a lower grade abram
Speaking as a 19K... Aint gonna happen :)
ReplyDeleteEvery aspect of warfare evolves via a measure/countermeasure type of development cycle and tank warfare is no different. We have seen this trend in tank warfare from the beginning.
Tanks begat anti-tank cannons & rifles
which begat thicker armor
which begat heat warheads (bazooka, RPG, etc) and larger cannons
which begat RHA & reactive armors
which begat tandem warheads & penetrators
which begat composite armor
which begat APFSDS & APFSDSDU rounds
which begat active protection systems & electronic armor
etc, etc, etc
I think you get the point. For every new system, weapon, armor, etc there will eventually be a counter to it.
btw, The biggest drawback to the Hydra-70 as a tank buster is that it is limited to 70mm. The power of a HEAT warhead is directly proportional to it's diameter. As such the Hydra-70 will not likely ever be an effective anti-tank weapon.
ok...then why are so many nations choosing to massively downgrade there tank forces????
ReplyDeleteCost money to maintain. Put them in storage is cheaper than maintaining them.
ReplyDeleteThe large US tank force was designed around a Fulda Gap European Scenario (I had the pleasure of participating in Reforger 88 as part of 8th ID). Just like the need for the F-22 was reduced by the breakup of the USSR, so has the need for over 10k front-line MBTs (M1s and M60A3s) been reduced by over half.
ReplyDeletewell do you remember Transformation that Rummy was trying to push?
ReplyDeletedoesn't it look like thats what we're heading toward?
He made a few mistakes, IMHO the Stryker concept was one of them. I would have preferred a reworked (stretched and up-armored) M113 (since we had thousands in storage just waiting for the refit).
ReplyDeleteI believe your talking about the transformation similar to the Corps maneuver warfare doctrine. I do see that change.
ReplyDeleteMy one fear for the Corps is that this transition to a "middle weight" force leaves us a shell of our former combat power. Trying to walk and talk like we have a extra 20lbs.
yeah but the guy behind the book breaking the phallanx and all his buddies were pushing the stryker brigade concept and with the concept they wanted a light wt vehicle so that the Army could have highly deployable medium wt brigades that could take out old fashioned heavy armor ones.
ReplyDeletebut my point was that we're headed toward a very small number of troops depending on high tech gear to survive.
i know everyone disagrees but we're seeing the tank go away....
we posted at the same time. i totally agree. and thats the danger i'm seeing. i wonder how an MEF from the 1990's would compare firepower wise with one from today. what i'm talking about is if they had comparable smart weapons and such.
ReplyDeleteThe Stryker concept was a failure in one major regard, transport ability. The Stryker can only fly in a C130 in the lowest armor state (and sometimes without crew or ammo) and often requires a waiver to do so. An upgraded M113 can be transported with full kit including crew. The M113 can also be air-dropped which the Stryker can NEVER do. The M113 carries more, maneuvers better and is better protected yet is smaller than the Stryker.
ReplyDeleteMany of the perceived drawbacks of the M113 had solutions if the Army had the stones to go forward with them. These included band tracks (for speed, mine/IED resistance, and quietness) and hybrid engines (for range and quietness).
A mef from the 90's has nothing on the capabilities of todays marines. The missions a meu is capable of now are amazing.
ReplyDeleteLook at the 24th meu last year around this time we had units from that meu doing humanitarian missions in Pakistan while another group was doing combat missions in Afganistan, then we had parts of the same Meu in Africa doing SMEE training as Force Recon conducted anti-piracy on the Horn and to wrap it all up a big deck was conducting operations in libya. All at the same time. I do not believe a MEU from the 90's would of done that.
Firepower wise I believe we carry a lot more bang, and a lot more proficient at doing it. 10 years of war brings with it more developed small unit leadership, combat experience, better combat aid (huge), and a better understanding of how combined arms works ( maneuver warfare has proven itself).
SpudmanWP. careful you're sounding like Sparks! but you're both right on this issue.
ReplyDeleteJohn. i said the 90's but that was the wrong decade, i should have said the 80's and you're wrong. don't take a "my Corps is doing it better than yours" cause i know for a fact we were doing humanitarian ops, facing off against Iran in the oil rig wars and doing Haiti and other stuff.
the MEU from the 80's had 8 inch howitzers, had fighter bombers that have longer range than anything projected and had on paper at least a heavier throw of firepower across the board (including infantry squad level).
Imagine what could have happened at Tora Bora if they would have flown in M113s (using Chinnook or CH-53) with 60/90/105mm cannons, 81/120mm direct fire capable mortar turrets, TOW & Hellfire turrents, 25/40mm auto-cannons, etc. These would have provided quick, armored, maneuverable, and more importantly... persistent fire on enemy positions. Who knows, we might have gotten OBL right then and there.
ReplyDeleteok, now you're creeping me out with that. that's Sparks concept to a tee but the issue was about willingness to hunt him down and accept the inevitable casualties or let me go with the idea being that he was no longer a threat.
ReplyDeletehindsight is 20/20 and its obvious that he should have been pursued but again we didn't need a mechanized force to do that. besides isn't tora bora mountainous terrain? a B-52 strike(s) might have been better options but we were pussy footing around.
Ahh the 80's when the meu's got their Awsome reputation. Panama, gernada, Haiti. I could argue the firepower issue but I have to make that argument with my father everytime we get together. I normally finished the argument with personal footage.
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, I'm a tanker (hence my proclivity to an armored response to Tora Bora).
ReplyDeleteThe Super Gavin? Wow, I'd never have guessed... It's not April 1 is it?
ReplyDeleteI've only got two problems with that idea.
A Chinook is 5000lbs short of even lifting an empty and unarmoured M113A3...
A CH-53K might be able to, though I've never heard of it, but as it's ceiling is 14,400 feet, it'd be an interesting exercise watching it trying to get over the 14,000 feet mountains at Tora Bora, carrying a 31,000lbs armoured vehicle...
If I hadn't heard of supercruising F-111's this would have hit near the mark of most ridiculous military ideas ever...
I was not being completely serious about Tora Bora for a few reasons.
ReplyDelete1. I don't know enough about the battle (terrain, altitude, etc).
2. I don't know enough about the weights of the proposed M113 variants.
I was just lamenting the sidelining of the M113 in favor of shiny new Strykers :(
i think you and Sparks (God help me) are right on many parts of this issue. the Stryker is a capability loss for the Army in many ways.
ReplyDeleteit would have been cheaper and more cost effective to upgrade M113's...but i wonder if it could have been done in light of the new emphasis on ied's? additionallly i think that the M-113 for better or worse might be at the end of its use by date. the new question is now whether or not to upgrade Bradleys or to buy more strykers?
remove the manned turret from the bradley, stretch it, upgrade the power train and suspension, put a RWS on it and perhaps band tracks (don't know much about them) and i believe you have a more effective vehicle than any stryker could hope to be.
but back to the issue of the tora bora campaign. it was high mountains and definitely not armored vehicle terrain.
but we could have gotten OBL just chose not to. another failing of the Bush Admin but history will judge him.
I would stick to upgraded M113s (or it's equiv) in order to maintain C130 transportability.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one whos been with strykers? Just wondering. When I was working with the army we would be attached to strykers from time to time and always had a good experience. We had two go down, one for power train and the other had parts of right side blasted off from a ied. Both got back into the fight far faster than any aav (m113 was basically the same) the mgs we used as a assault gun and had great results.
ReplyDeleteNow I really need to read on their weight and such but I enjoyed having their support, nothing rallys ANA better than air strikes and armor support
lets ask this a different way. if you were operating on roads that were didn't exist, in an environment other than the desert (swampy, marshy, hilly etc...) i think your mileage would vary greatly on those statements.
ReplyDeletealso remember that the 8x8 are built to automotive standards so any body that can perform work on there 4x4has a pretty good grasp (not perfect but pretty good) of these vehicles.
against a competent foe i think they're dog meat, have poor cross country mobility and are having to be upgraded to the A2 version with a double V-hull making them weigh almost 35 tons.
Wow 35 huh. A lot heavier than my 27 ton kitted out aav. fun thing is that a lot of people doubted the aav in urban and well modern combat, granted I want better, but the crews in oif, showed they could take on btr's and bmp's (all types)
ReplyDeletemy bad. i was waaaaay too heavy. its supposedly coming in at 25 tons but thats with a quick google search to verify my 'remembering'....
ReplyDeletei still think that's lighter than what the Army is getting because that weight is from a proposal to retrofit LAVIII's with addon armor.
the US Army is getting double hulled vehicles so maybe 30 tons? i'm still looking.
Problem with M113's is that they are so light (in their non up-armoured) form that they are unusable in any area that has any IED or anti-armour threat.
ReplyDeleteThey need to be up-armoured to the same degree as the British FV432 Bulldog (which had better base protection than the M113 as well) to be survivable.
This is what you're M113 will have to look like to survive in the modern battlespace:
http://tinyurl.com/88phkmc
And it hasn't been C-130 transportable for many, many years in a configuration that is survivable on the modern battlefield...
hey Aussie Digger that looks like one of those Israeli kits that they tried to sell to their Army but was found unsuitable.
ReplyDeletei think you're right on the M113. the Israeli's think its too light after running a series of upgrades on it.
the problem is that they also evaluated the wheeled ifv concept and found it lacking....
which brings me back to the tracks vs. wheels argument and me falling solidly on the side of tracks!
At least the M113 can be transported via C130 and then up-armored in the field. A majority of the Strykers do not have that option (especially the 105mm equipped version). The thing, IMHO, that makes the M113 a better option in a vast majority of situations, is it's versatility.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Solomon... tracks all the way :)
Technically yes an M113 with no up-armoured capability can be transportedd in a C-130. Just not very far...
ReplyDeleteMuch better to simply use a C-17 straight up and then you don't have to try and make do with the limitations of the M113 in a modern battlefield.
I'm all for tracks but why you'd want to use an M113 when you can use a Bradley instead is beyond me...
I beg to differ. I have seen many photos of Up-armored M113s being loaded into a C130. While I am sure that the level of armor is not the max, it still has the ability. A quick Google search came up with this pic showing a moderately up-armored M113 (with cupola) being loaded into a C130.
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons why you would not use a C-17 to transport a M113.
1. More C-130s available (still have a 2000 mile range while carrying M113)
2. The departure or landing field cannot support the C-17.
On the Bradley issue: The M113 is smaller, lighter, faster, more maneuverable, more versatile, cheaper, etc, etc. If you stick to the Bradley then you can only use the C17 while the M113 can use the C17 and the thousands of C130s available. There is also the issue of 4-5 M113s per C-17 and only 2 Bradleys.
While digging up info (and looking up Mike Sparks since everyone keeps mentioning him), I came across this which does a decent job of comparing the M113 vs the Stryker.
http://www.combatreform.org/WHEELSVSTRACKS/compsld001.htm
The M113 is slower and less maneuverable than a Bradley even in it's standard form, as well as far less well protected and lacking in firepower. When you bolt on tons worth of additional armour to attempt to make it combat survivable it gets even worse in terms of a comparison. The Bradley is the size and weight it is because extensive wargaming and operational experience has shown that is what is needed for modern survivability and combat effectiveness for close combat scenarios in anti-armour weapons and IED rich environments...
ReplyDeleteOut of interest you may want to pause for a second and consider which type of vehicle modern IFV's CV-90, Puma, ASCOD are resembling in terms of size, weight, maneuverability, load-carrying capability, firepower, sensor systems and protection? Bradley or M113's?
Now I'm happy to believe in some circumstances that an M113 has an advantage over a Stryker, but it is by no means a given that this is the case in all terrain. You complain about poor maneuverability and weight of a Stryker at 35t due to double-hulling and applique armour packages, yet overlook that an M113 needs the same thing and the same effects on it's combat range and maneuverability to be of any use in a modern battlespace.
I know a C-130 can lift 1 M113 but only at near 80% of it's payload capacity, do you honestlly think that is not going to effect it's range? Attempting to mass airlift armour has never worked out well, look at the Sheridan experiments. A techinical capability for an airlifter to get off the ground carrying an armoured vehicle Isn't the same thing as a strong capability to deploy an armoured force, especially in any form of "rapid deployment" scenario.
As to Sparks, go and read his reasoning as to why the A-1D Skyraider should replace the JSF before you go on too much about how "credible" his thoughts are...
That M113 was an a New Zealand Army M113 in Bosnia too. If you're only talking about admin lifts fine no problems, but NZ's M113's weren't deployed by Bosnia to air even in the non up-armoured form in which they deployed...
ReplyDeleteIf you want to advocate M113 go ahead. I'm not going to bother arguing. The operational experience is clearlly observable. Forces are moving away from M113 sized and capable vehicles because they aren't sufficiently capable against the threats we are facing on current battlefields.
ReplyDeleteIf you think 50 year old vehicles are the way to go good luck with that idea. Perhaps the A-1D Skyraider should replace the JSF. One of Sparks' other "brilliant" ideas...
SpudmanWP.
ReplyDeletedamn. i thought this had been shut down.
sorry bud, Sparks is right on his 'general' contention. its in the specifics when he starts to go overboard.
the M113 is dead as far a being viable as a future fighting vehicle. the Bradley with its turret removed and stretched with better suspension and engines is the only possible solution (unless the Army buys a new vehicle).
the Israeli's followed the Sparks line of thinking to the utter end and are in the process of retiring all M113's from active service.
remember even the Willy's Jeep had to eventually be retired. so does the M113.
But, but, but... oh nevermind :)
ReplyDelete