Are tanks still play a vital role in conventional warfare as in the WW2?

Question

sorry for my poor grammar.

Answer 1

Yes. Some of the first units to arrive at the city limits of Baghdad were of the Armored Divisions in the US Army. The main battle tank of the US Army, the M1A1 Abrams is designed with a cruising speed of 55 MPH, while retaining firing accuracy.

Answer 2

It depends heavily on the strength of the enemy military. Against a much weaker military such as the Iraqi military, tanks are an extremely effective weapon because the enemy lacks high tech weapons such as portable anti-tank missile or attack helicopters. They are still very intimidating on the ground against infantry. However, against a sophistated enemy, tanks are no long as effective or as vital as it was in WW2. There are simply too many cheaper weapons that can take it out. A person firing a relatively cheap portable anti-tank missile from the right angle can take a tank out from a mile out. A tank is also no match against a sophistated attack helicopter like the Apache or Mi-28 and its anti-tank missiles. Even an attack aircraft like the A-10 can kill a tank from its cannon rounds above. Tanks are just too vulnerable and too slow and too big of a target in the modern war

Answer 3

Only in certain places as the Guerrilla warfare that is Urban warfare tends to cut off some of the practicalities of Tank warfare.

Saw a good pic in a photo-book of the Iraqi Tank graveyards, counted at least seventy tanks in the smallish space that the photo captured.

Answer 4

no one reported the anti-tank strategies stepped ahead. Like arming a foot soldier with a bazooka and having him knock out 4 adult males and 40 a lot of conflict gadget. Or digging tank traps or struggling with in heavily forested aspects. now to not coach using plane that made tanks sitting ducks without pleasant air help.

Answer 5

If anything, they have proved to be an extremely valuable asset on the battlefield. Much cheaper to build and operate than modern aircraft and with the state of the art thermal imaging a lethal presence that has ended battles in hours instead of days, weeks, or months.
In my experience (Kuwait/Iraq) in 1991 we could hardly keep up with the Abrams Battle tanks as they simply mowed the enemy opposition down. All we came across were Iraqi tanks with their turrets blown of and on fire. Eventually they got the word and we started to come across abandoned tanks and fighting vehicles. They were afraid to get caught in one on the same battlefield as the Abrams.

Answer 6

In the two Iraqi wars, tanks played an even more important role than in WW II, in which there were a lot of Soviet tanks, but that was really an infantry war and horses still played an important role.

Answer 7

Oh, absolutely! Armor is vital in today's combat - but we're still searching for the ideal tank - fast, maneuverable, armored enough to be reasonably assured of battlefield survival, and armed with adequate weaponry to face a wide variety of challenges and deal with them successfully.

Answer 8

Totally dependent on the air power ability of the enemy. While it's quite obvious what our tanks did to Saddam, it was also quite obvious what our air power did to his tanks.
A lot like playing "paper, scissors, rock".

Answer 9

Yes, but not for long. In fact, according to the Book of Revelation (last book in the Bible) the soldiers of WW3 will be on foot, and horseback, probably (partly) due to a lack of fuel for modern armored vehicles. Try to imagine 200 million of them, if you CAN!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

Revelation 9:16 (King James Version)

And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: (200,000,000) and I heard the number of them.

Answer 10

yes

Iraq 1 & 2 proverd that

guerilla warfare, not so much

how about "modern warfare"?