Is the tank going to be around for much longer?

[vegito12]

Tanks are strong, and hard to hit and can be used to use fear on the enemy and cause panic in the war as it moves around and shoots at the enemy and is useful in a fight in the land. The ground still needs to be covered and, will be around for a long time and will aid in the war and keep the ground area safe from ground enemies and also ones from the sky. It can be used for, hurting the stronghold of the enemy on the ground and do more damage there and may prove useful against drones in the fight in wars.

 

[PoRiRam]

I agree with some of the other people that posted--they're not the most prominent force on a battlefield anymore, but they certainly can be very strong and do damage. They also work for situations in their own countries as well as outside in warzones.

 

[JulianWilliams]

Tanks are strong, and hard to hit and can be used to use fear on the enemy and cause panic in the war as it moves around and shoots at the enemy and is useful in a fight in the land. The ground still needs to be covered and, will be around for a long time and will aid in the war and keep the ground area safe from ground enemies and also ones from the sky. It can be used for, hurting the stronghold of the enemy on the ground and do more damage there and may prove useful against drones in the fight in wars.

The issue is they are quite easily hampered from moving around with a mine field for example, or by digging some anti tank trenches. They're also very expensive to run and need a lot of support to be able to move around and do their job.

 

[Gelsemium]

Great question here, it's quite fascinating to see how fast the weapons change. Tanks will more and more start to be something of the past as wars are won on the skies and not on the ground lately.

 

[kestas57]

Tanks are very useful on wide and open fields where they aren't at risk of RPG or are limited because of their terrible maneuverability. Despite this, anti tank weaponry such as mines are permanent and so can become a great threat to tanks. I would say that machinery like attack helicopters have essentially replaced their role in battle.

 

[kittyworker]

I think the role of the tank is less about its maneuverability now and more about its psychological effect on the enemy. Knowing that if you are facing a tank that it can blow away any cover you have is quite intimidating. Yes there are Anti-Tank weapons but they really aren't that common apart from Mines. Until we see a real War between standing Armies and not Army vs Rebels or Army vs Terrorists, the Tank is going to remain on the battlefield.

 

[tournique]

Doubt we will see a full scale war between two developed armies any time soon. The tank has a psychological effect on the enemy as well but it's role is two take out infantry fast while resisting most of the attacks.

 

[Gelsemium]

I agree tournique, the tank can be helpful in a terrain fight, but like you say it's unlikely that two countries get into war like that, air strikes usually destroy most of those vehicles.

 

[haitch]

With land war on the slide do you think that we will see a decrease in the use of tanks opting for light jets or lighter vehicles? As helicopters and planes becoming even more developed and used in combat, less land troops and vehicles will be needed. But in war do you think that you can be effective with only troops or do you think it essential to resort to heavy land vehicles like tanks?

 

[orangesunset]

Ever play the game; rock, paper, scissors ? Rock smashes scisssor, scissors cut paper etc. Tanks have the advantage in large open terrain where they can move fast, and engage at long distances. In close up areas such as urban areas or forest, infantry has the advantage. At ranges of less then 50 meters the tank is pretty much blind. Also it is difficult for the tank to engage its main gun or machine guns on close target.

That is why tanks and infantry work closely together.

 

[KimberlyD]

Don't think so. Tanks are to much of a power house for the military to just toss to the side. Yes they are slow and bulky, but have you ever seen one in action??? If I were at war and I saw one coming my way I'm getting the heck out of the way. Tanks will be improved and modified, but the military would never give it up.

 

[orangesunset]

Don't think so. Tanks are to much of a power house for the military to just toss to the side. Yes they are slow and bulky, but have you ever seen one in action??? If I were at war and I saw one coming my way I'm getting the heck out of the way. Tanks will be improved and modified, but the military would never give it up.

During WW2 Russians and Japanese would knock out tanks with satchel charges. Tanks goes down the street next to a building, guy with satchel charge pops out, throws it ontop of the tank, ducks back inside the building. Tank crew does not notice satchel till it explodes.

Even is Isreal, the Palestineans have managed to destroy a few of the Isreali Merkava tanks with similar methods. Suicide bomber jomps ontop of the tank from a building, blows himself up. Tank costs minmum 40+ million, crazy fanatic costs pretty much nothing, and he goes to heaven.

 

[xTinx]

Soldiers operate tanks. Without soldiers, who's going to drive those heavy tanks? Yes, a tank can be disadvantageous as it lacks the mobility of fighter jets and drones. That's why during infiltration operations, there are also soldiers who fight on foot alongside tanks. Perhaps in the future, the military can start deploying machine-operated tanks (somewhat similar to drone technology) using materials that greatly reduce their bulk and increase their speed.

 

[KimberlyD]

During WW2 Russians and Japanese would knock out tanks with satchel charges. Tanks goes down the street next to a building, guy with satchel charge pops out, throws it ontop of the tank, ducks back inside the building. Tank crew does not notice satchel till it explodes.

Even is Isreal, the Palestineans have managed to destroy a few of the Isreali Merkava tanks with similar methods. Suicide bomber jomps ontop of the tank from a building, blows himself up. Tank costs minmum 40+ million, crazy fanatic costs pretty much nothing, and he goes to heaven.

Hehehe... just realized I did not emphaze what my post was referencing. I was not referring to tanks being stronger then soldiers. LOL I was answering the question as to whether or not the military would ever give them up. Soldiers will always be stronger then tanks because tanks are just machines that can not operate without a soldier and soldiers have the ability of cognitive thought enough to stop tanks.

Perhaps in the future, the military can start deploying machine-operated tanks (somewhat similar to drone technology) using materials that greatly reduce their bulk and increase their speed.

Didn't they already do that? Great! Now I have to do some research. I could have sworn I saw an article somewhere where they showed a new style tank that was lighter and smaller then the lugs they had before and is remote control capable.... maybe I am thinking of something else.

 

[meenz]

I don't believe they're going to discontinue the usage of tanks on the battlefront, at least not any time soon. Tanks have their own area of specialty, which is land. Yes, countries may try to find ways to make tanks more efficient at what they do, but I don't believe they will be wiped out. Air forces are definitely making a huge difference, but there's only so much you can do with them.