Is Modern Armor (Tanks) Usefull? 57 replies

Please wait...

Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I was thinking recently about modern armor and how it isn't really usefull in modern war. For example, it takes much time, energy, and resources to move armored units anywhere (If they move by ground it takes a while, but if you have to move to another region of the world it takes at least a month). Then, once the units arrive, they aren't very efficent (Both in terms of fuel and combat). Armor isn't very usefull in urban fighting (Like Iraq), and in big open areas they are vunerable to helicopters, attack aircraft, infantry rockets, and other tanks. They also burn threw fuel at an alarming rate (M1s take up 25% of the US Army budget). So do you think that armor (Mostly tanks but any mechinized unit) is usefull now that most combat (At least US) is very Air Force and Naval oriented untill it comes down to occupation?




Aeroflot

I would die without GF

169,400 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

15,205 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

You just stole my argument from the GD, biatch. :p

I have to go right now, but I'll post my reasons for why tanks are useless later.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Tanks primarily act as tank killers these days (not every nation is navy based and sending out bombers to kill every tank is inefficient and expensive), and in the future will serve as support units to massive infantry attacks covering their backs, creating smoke screens and aid in blasting apart fortified positions so tanks serve a purpose and should be kept along if not improved. In Iraq however they aren't coming in too handy as we're using abrams which are mostly tank killers versus people with no tanks, but a shitload of bombs and rocketlaunchers which are taking down tanks. With no way of tracking enemy unit movements tanks are pointless even the new german ones that fire with a range of 25 miles, much less abrams. So to save money and lives we should pull tanks from Iraq and use more efficient armored carravans with something far ahead to set off trip mines before the actualy soldiers get there.




Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Tanks are only useless when used where they should not. Going into a defended urban area or dense forrest with one is suicide, but that doesn't mean they can't be good in the right terrain, i.e. areas that aren't too open but neither too dense. They should also have AA vehicles with them. If the enemy has no airpower tanks reign supreme on open fields.

Waging war overseas takes too much resources with or without tanks anyway.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,148 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,009 Posts

6 Threads

#5 12 years ago

In open warfare it is quite useful because of the combination of protection, mobility and firepower.

There are many ways to destroy tanks but an army which fights without (or with obsolete) tanks is at an disadvantage.

edit: DeltaForce, the next time you steal ideas from other threads please give some credit to the person who came up with it, mkay? ;)




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,508 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,156 Posts

6 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Tanks are a component of mobile warfare, if you're just going to deploy tanks by themselves you may as well hand someone a nice map of all your positions as well just to help them along even more.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 12 years ago

As has been said it all depends on where the tanks is being used, and what it is up against.

AT missles only have so much range and with infantry cover the infantry can take out the AT rockets while the tank blast holes in enemy defenses.

Against the kind of enemy we are fighting now tanks are pretty useless though. You can't use tanks to secure a town of terrorists who sit in their buildings all day. You need infnatry to clear out those positions.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

Night, wars will not always be fought like this you know. North Korea for example. Thought definatly not ideal tank terrain, the M1 series will play a rather large role in the ground war, should war ever come.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#9 12 years ago

i agree, I was just pointing out that tanks arn't perfect in every scenario and every war. Our current one tanks are pretty useless, int he beginging of the war when we were fighting the Iraqi military they were quite handy at tanking out Iraqi tanks. In N.K. they would also be quite handy, same in Iran if war ever does come.




MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

Yes, that is very true.

We had the M551 brought out of service a while ago, when it was a perfectly good infantry support tank. In my opinion, we should have uparmored and upengiend it, given it modern electronics, and then we could bring it back into service.

SheridanTank.jpg

M551 Sheridan Airborne Tank