Never! The armored fist is the most shocking and awe inspiring of combat force on the assault. No other ground force can exploit vulnerability as violently or as quickly as an armored attack. As long as there are soldiers, there will be some form of tank.
Regards.
2007-06-02 08:45:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by oda315 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tanks in modern warfare not yet obsolete. Maybe in a few years the need for human personnel to be on the battle Field with them my of diminished. The will most likely be operated from a position many miles away. Modern tanks are equipped with state of the art technology and can pack quite a punch. Also they give you a view of the battle Field that you do not get with satellite, planes or other unmanned craft. Tanks alone will not surface but with the support of man, helicopter and air strikes ready to be called in they are still a force to be reckoned with. Tanks can also provide much needed shelter for soldiers say when they are being bombarded my mortars . The are actually quite speedy now around 40-50 mph and are ideal for crossing most types of terrain otherwise inaccessible. They very rarely breakdown and can travel great distances. SO yes in the open battle field there is still a place for them.
2007-06-02 15:50:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by mad123 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tanks are pretty useless in the guerilla warfare of the most recent conflicts except to scare the enemy.
However, we cannot be sure that there won't be a full scale conflict between two well equipped modern armies in the future, so new tanks will always be designed and produced.
There will always be a need for men on the ground. In a lot of situations tanks trump infantry, so there will always be a need for tanks.
I think there will be a trend towards more well designed tanks, such as the merkava and the challenger 2 , rather than powerful but ill concieved tanks like the abrams (infantry cant hide behind it because of the red hot exhaust gases)
2007-06-02 15:53:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mikey 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am a tanker in the Army, and I must say that tanks are not obsolete even in our current situation over seas. Our sights and firepower are still used for overwatch. Although blowing tons of crap up isnt happening right now, there will be a time when the Abrams is going to be needed badly. Nobody thought tanks were useless during the invasion of Iraq did they?
2007-06-02 15:47:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jopa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say so, the rpgs and IEDs are proving that no amount of armor can protect the occupants inside. The cost of those things are enormous and it requires a lot of logistics and supply ( not to mention fuel!) to keep those things moving in a combat zone where there is no static enemy force. Mobility is needed in todays warfare, not lumbering armored divisions. The technology of today make them juicy targets for any military. I mean Saddam used to have numerous Russian heavy battle tanks, and most were destroyed without a fight.
2007-06-02 16:42:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by trigunmarksman 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not at all, infantry is devastated by bullets and small explosives, modern day tanks can sustain hours of small arms fire and even small explosives. Tanks are therefore used to pave the way for infantry, EXPECIALLY in urban areas.
If you send a troop of infantry running towards you're enemy, WW1 style, they would be simply cut down by modern small arms fire. You need the armour of a tank to make progress.
2007-06-02 15:50:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by ukcufs 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suspect that, as conflicts will become more about insurrections, street fighting, and guerrilla action, tanks may become irrelevant in future. I'm not entirely up on military matters, but I imagine that long-range missile deployment and the development of infantry equipment might become prominent instead.
2007-06-02 15:42:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jim 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wouldn't say obsolete as much as lessened. They are still useful for being a "battering ram" to beat down heavly armed defenses. They are also cheaper than sending in an air strike.
2007-06-02 19:16:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would'nt argue with you on that, a bit like peoples faces(ie the enemy you don't see their faces nowadays always seem to be covered up). that proves there was a lot to be said for our old enemies who had the courage of their convictions and you could see full face and the colour of their eyes.At least you knew who you were fighting with "Jerry" the best fighting force in the world according to the British Tommy,not like these scallies nowadays.
2007-06-02 15:51:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
not really but with the proliferation of urban combat theyre not as useful, theyre not really made for fighting in built up areas as theyre too vulnerable!!
2007-06-02 17:06:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by vdv_desantnik 6
·
0⤊
0⤋