OT:USMC junks their tanks (smart breath edition)

[Rusty1961]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... rps-tanks/

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

[IdahoNYer]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Good move. Cost effective.

Tanks are obsolete as we've seen in Iraq and Yemen. The ATGM is dominating the battlefield.

Too bad the USAF doesn't understand the changing nature of modern war.

Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer




Yeah right.....the Thunder Run in '03 sure proved tanks were obsolete. Little has changed since then...everyone claims they are obsolete and then everyone clamors for tanks when the need arises.

typical admin budget cutting. Marines will now just be asking for armor support from the Army if needed. I could see reducing the number of USMC tank battalions based on new mission priorities, but gutting the force completely (and training/supply system that goes to support it) is a major mistake they will regret in the long run.

When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

Political failure does not negate military effectiveness. The military should never have been used without a clear political end game.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy




When Canadian troops were fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the walled off fields and properties were a major problem for the infantry. Think an entire checkerboard grid of walls. The best weapon to deal with them was the Leopard tanks that could punch a big hole with their cannon to let the infantry clear the Taliban on the other side. If the Taliban retreated over another wall (usually with losses), the infantry would check the ground for IEDs and then bring up the tank to blast the next wall. Drones kept overwatch on the enemy's locations.

Most of the naysayers assume a "maximum worst" battlefield for tanks, but there are few countries that have plentiful, long ranged anti-tank missiles or guns. The plentiful standard RPG can do some damage but will not penetrate the front of most tanks. Just like a handyman's toolbox, you just have to choose the right tool for the job, and tanks have their uses.

Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

Political failure does not negate military effectiveness. The military should never have been used without a clear political end game.

Excluding our involvement in WW2, our only "won" war in the last 100 years, since when has "military effectiveness" resulted in a victory? I see lots and lots of industrialists and contractors getting rich, yet I see nothing for it.

[obvert]

You guys are all missing the point. Tanks are big and heavy and MANNED. The Marines are scaling down with what is now available and in light of what is online to become available in the next few years; UNMANNED armored units of all sizes for the future of ground warfare.

This is just one. Why carry around a massive vehicle that is vulnerable because it carries crew instead of multiple smaller units for all tasks that are equally useful?

https://sofrep.com/news/check-out-the-r ... -the-army/

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961




Yet in the end it was all for naught. Taliban won. The guys with tanks lost. Just like when US went heavy with armor in Vietnam when Abrams took over. It was failure.

Political failure does not negate military effectiveness. The military should never have been used without a clear political end game.

Excluding our involvement in WW2, our only "won" war in the last 100 years, since when has "military effectiveness" resulted in a victory? I see lots and lots of industrialists and contractors getting rich, yet I see nothing for it.

When you state "our" you mean the Soviet Union, correct?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

You guys are all missing the point. Tanks are big and heavy and MANNED. The Marines are scaling down with what is now available and in light of what is online to become available in the next few years; UNMANNED armored units of all sizes for the future of ground warfare.

This is just one. Why carry around a massive vehicle that is vulnerable because it carries crew instead of multiple smaller units for all tasks that are equally useful?

https://sofrep.com/news/check-out-the-r ... -the-army/

Well, until we can be sure that our computerized links that we depend on so much have not been compromised by spies planted in the military or the industrial sources, going all robotic is putting too many eggs in that basket. I am thinking of the spy who gave the USSR the plans for the US towed sonar array which allowed the Russians to suddenly catch up in that technology, and presumably develop countermeasures like suppressing certain frequencies.
Worst case scenario would see an enemy cyber attack overriding our computer links and taking over our weapons systems to use against us. We know they have been researching cyber warfare very heavily and have some brilliant minds to work with. It could happen.

[mind_messing]

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

At least until an EMP fries the electronics. Or mud is splattered on the cameras outside. Ir someone hits the vehicle with enough paint balls to blind the thing. If a little something breaks, who can then fix it?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

At least until an EMP fries the electronics.

At which point, the priority for any soldiers is "Why are the nukes flying?" followed by "We need to get the radios working". In that situation the tanks seem very low priority.

Or mud is splattered on the cameras outside. Ir someone hits the vehicle with enough paint balls to blind the thing.

A problem that exists with manned MBTs. IIRC most of the Abrams losses in Iraq were due to RPG fire damaging sensors.

If a little something breaks, who can then fix it?

The repair element, at an appropriate point.

Another secondary advantage of unmanned craft is that there's less imperative to rescue stranded vehicles. Tank gets bogged down in a swamp? Can leave it for a week or two till it's safe to retrieve. Rendered immobile under enemy fire? No rush to rescue any crew.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

The problem is the common perception that humans are being phased out. All these changes are moving towards a human-centric force augmented by unmanned machines. There's too much "hurr durr army of robots" in the discourse that ignores the already substantial use of these machines already.

[RangerJoe]

There are non-nuke EMPs:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/peter-pr ... mp-attack/

A disabled unmanned AFV could be captured, repaired, and used against the previous owner/operator. Thus, there is still a need to secure it.

If a tank is mobility killed, the tank crew may be able to repair it, short track it if need be. Another vehicle could come up and with a tow cable mounted, get someone outside to put the cable through the towing pintle, secure it, then the AFV could be retrieved. An individual could ride under the AFV if needed to do this. Of course, that individual might need big brass ones.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

There are non-nuke EMPs:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/peter-pr ... mp-attack/

The claim for non-nuke EMP's as an effective substitution for nuclear-EMPs isn't supported much by those two articles.

The first reads as a veiled advert for a defence contractor and the second seems to discuss EMP as a side-use of nuclear weapons.

Is there something more substantial on this?

A disabled unmanned AFV could be captured, repaired, and used against the previous owner/operator. Thus, there is still a need to secure it.

Ditto a conventional tank, except pushing the self-destruct button on an Abrams will be substantially harder than an unmanned tank.

If a tank is mobility killed, the tank crew may be able to repair it, short track it if need be. Another vehicle could come up and with a tow cable mounted, get someone outside to put the cable through the towing pintle, secure it, then the AFV could be retrieved. An individual could ride under the AFV if needed to do this. Of course, that individual might need big brass ones.

Or, now here's a radical idea, send an unmanned recovery vehicle to do the job.

No big brass ones needed, no need to endanger anyone. Almost like it's the future!

[RangerJoe]

A lightening strike could act as an EMP, so could a large electrical discharge from power lines. But then again, it could from a nearby star as well.

True, an Abrams tank could also be captured relatively intact although it may be harder.

An unmanned recovery vehicle would be a good thing. So would an unmanned recon vehicle, even if it was the size of a toy car, so would mine clearing vehicles, as well as ones to detonate booby traps. Although why someone would want to trap boobies, I don't really know unless they just want to tag them.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

A lightening strike could act as an EMP, so could a large electrical discharge from power lines. But then again, it could from a nearby star as well.

True, an Abrams tank could also be captured relatively intact although it may be harder.

An unmanned recovery vehicle would be a good thing. So would an unmanned recon vehicle, even if it was the size of a toy car, so would mine clearing vehicles, as well as ones to detonate booby traps. Although why someone would want to trap boobies, I don't really know unless they just want to tag them.

I'll settle for an unmanned beverage cart on the golf course. Dial a drink! Order while your partner is teeing off, delivery as you leave the green.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

A lightening strike could act as an EMP, so could a large electrical discharge from power lines. But then again, it could from a nearby star as well.

True, an Abrams tank could also be captured relatively intact although it may be harder.

An unmanned recovery vehicle would be a good thing. So would an unmanned recon vehicle, even if it was the size of a toy car, so would mine clearing vehicles, as well as ones to detonate booby traps. Although why someone would want to trap boobies, I don't really know unless they just want to tag them.

I'll settle for an unmanned beverage cart on the golf course. Dial a drink! Order while your partner is teeing off, delivery as you leave the green.

Why wait that long? [8|]

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

Yeah...no. Bush lost is shit when he found RPG-7Vs had been supplied to Iraqi resistance about 15 years ago.

15 years ago. I can assure you-M1A2es have not kept pace. Obsolete.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

They naysayers in the thread seem to overlook the fact that the greatest weakness with modern MBTs is that they require a human crew.

An M1A2 can sit on a hilltop and have RPG's fired at it all day pretty without a complaint. The human crew, less so.

Then there's the cost-savings found from down-sizing multi-man tank crews to smaller teams controlling unmanned AFVs, as well as the advantages of cutting out the crew from the AFV design process (no crew = more space = more engine/armour/guns).

As Obvert points out, the transition to unmanned AFVs is an evolution that makes sense.

I wasn't saying we should not try out the concept, but let's not phase out all human operated equipment too quickly. War is full of unexpected situations and no machine is as adaptable as a well-trained human.

Battleships are still relevant thinking. Wrong.