Is the tank going to be around for much longer?

[kestas57]

Let's look at it this way. In cities, a soldier can hide in a window and destroy a tank with a rocket launcher-type weapon. On a wide open field a tank will destroy that same soldier. Thus, it is very difficult to compare such different things.

 

[003]

On tank is to so much people. So if take 1 go 1 ration, we'd know that tank is far away more powerful, but you just can't have the tank alone without its manipulator which is again a soldier. A good soldier can make a tank good, the same goes with a badly trained one.

 

[goldenmaine]

Yes there may be a decrease in the use of land vehicles because air vehicles are faster and more lethal and can easily penetrate the defenses of the enemy. They can also transport troops faster and in large groups which are very effective in warfare. It is essential to have both land troops and tanks or any other heavy land vehicle during a war. They both have different strengths and weaknesses, and when they are combined, it will be very effective so they are both essential.

 

[stevesxs9]

I agree that there are strengths and weaknesses in both as well as limitations to both. I think that when strategy calls for tanks to be the main assault, then so be it and when its time for the soldier to be the primary assault weapon then that's what will be used.

 

[Waynefire]

Air strikes have been around and were even used in World War II. However, the tanks were still a powerful force in this war. While everyone is talking about drones and everything else a tank is still a powerful platform for weapons and a great way to transport troops. Not only that nothing is restricting countries from putting an anti aircraft system on the tanks.

 

[valiantx]

Err, I don't know about any of you, but a tank doesn't do anything without a man or woman operating it. More over, soldiers have won battles and wars since as long as the concept of soldiers have been around - the tank has only been in full use since WW1 and is already phasing out since WW2. I'm primarily looking forward to those exo-skeleton suits soldiers maybe wearing in the future, like from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" or the HALO games, because I believe that is the next generation of soldiers. Until tanks can be more like Transformers vehicles, artificially intelligent and powered by something different than combustive engine, tanks will be used similarly as they are now and be vulnerable to guerrilla tactical attacks, airborne missile strikes, IEDs, and the plethora of other weaknesses attributed to tanks.

 

[crimsonghost747]

Tanks have their uses and while I do see their usage going doing, they won't be going completely out of the picture just yet. They are vulnerable in dense areas but as long as you have air superiority then they are pretty much the best thing you can have in wide open spaces like deserts or other flat areas with limited vegetation.

 

[crimsonghost747]

The tanks of today will have to transform a lot if they hope to survive in the long run. The problem I see is drones, fighters and helicopters which have already overpowered the tank. But for countries which can keep air superiority then tanks are still a good tool as they can be protected from air threats.

 

[Gelsemium]

I agree with that, the technology developed these days can pretty much blast a tank, so I feel that even ground troops can destroy them and even if they don't they get blasted from the air.

 

[wahmed]

Regardless of new technologies the tank is a big asset. It not only aids in taking large hits but it is also an armoured way of convaence. It may not be used in wars but I think for civian situations where the army gets involved it will still play a huge role.

 

[Falcon29]

Tank will remain along with other armored vehicles. In some cases they aren't needed, such as in Ukraine. The rebels managed to achieve their objectives with grad rockets/manpads/anti tank weapons and infantry. Tanks were not needed.

 

[Rowe992]

I think the use of tanks on the battlefield will continue for a while. After all most of the conflicts now are between armies and rebel groups and so the armies can use their tanks confidently because the rebel groups don't have the weapons to destroy them.

 

[kana_marie]

I think the advancement in anti tank weapons will cause them to adapt the tanks rather than abandon them. The tanks serve a really important purpose other than destruction... intimidation. When you see one coming you know something bad is going to happen. I believe intimidation is a very important asset in battle.

 

[Gelsemium]

Regardless of new technologies the tank is a big asset. It not only aids in taking large hits but it is also an armoured way of convaence. It may not be used in wars but I think for civian situations where the army gets involved it will still play a huge role.

It can be a big asset depending on the ground and on the kind of war developed, in another situations like Falcon said it's simply not needed. Also, it's not as important as it used to be.

 

[Metadoom]

Battlefields of the future are going to depend a lot on speed. Tank development with the enhancement of speed is key like the US M1 Abrams tank. Mobility such as being able to fire on the move is also key. This was the Republican Guards down fall in the Gulf War in the tank battles that ensued having to stop and fire got a lot of them destroyed by the quicker and more mobile M1. Speed and mobility are key.

I believe has long as developing countries such as the US, Britain and others continue to make advancements in technology it will carry over to the tank and other military warfare equipment.