From: chem7l@jane.uh.edu 
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:11:00 GMT

In article <meharg.712527067@sfu.ca>, meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg) writes...

>The most significant use of tanks is to take terrain (and hold it)
>quickly from an enemy. To take terrain you need a ground vehicle, unless
>you have infinate fuel in an A/C. Sure helicopters can do damage to the
>enemy in an area, but they will not be able to hold it. This is what
>you need tanks for, to clear an enemy from an area and to keep it clear.

That's what the infantry in the APC's I mentioned are for.  The increasing
power of the armament on APC's makes them potentially good replacements for 
MBT's, provided something can come in with even heavier firepower very quickly
when needed. 

>When I say tank I mean any maneuverable, fast, heavily armored and armed
>vehicle.

Heavy armor is quickly becoming useless against modern weapons designed to 
penetrate it.  (I am talking about some time in the future, presumably after
current weapons technology has reached the third world and better weapons 
exist for those who can afford it.  Of course, there could be improvements
in armor technology too, but our ability to destroy tends to increase faster 
than our ability to prevent destruction.)

>Different platforms must take an important factor into consider-
>ation : if you can see it you can kill it. 

But not if it gets away before you get a shot off.  Computerized anti-aircraft
(or anti-tank) batteries can make this impossible, but infantry will always
have a reaction time.  Also, it is possible today for helicopters to fire
missiles at targets they can't see while other units (infantry, vehicles, etc.)
paint them with laser designaters.

>Therefore a low profile is 
>critical for a tank, all the armor in the world wont help if everybody on
>the battlefield can see you to shoot at you. This is partly why helicopters
>are not a good replacement, any flying vehicle gives up the protection of
>ground clutter. Its much harder to conceal in the air than on the ground.
>A ground vehicle can use terrain as its advantage.

Actually, it's pretty difficult to see a helicopter from a distance if the 
ground is wooded or hilly.  Tanks can't move fast enough to keep from being 
killed once seen, and they can be heard coming before they are in a position
to fire in wooded or hilly terrain.  Helicopters can move fast enough that you
often don't hear them until they are on top of you.  Thus, tanks suffer worse 
from these drawbacks than helicopters.


>Tanks of the future will be faster, more maneuverable, armed with smart 
>weapons, low profile, and with ECM (active and passive).

If you consider a helicopter flying nape-of-the-earth to be low profile because
they can't be seen from very far away (except on exceptionally flat terrain, 
like a desert without sand dunes or heat waves) then a helicopter is all of 
these things now.

>You pointed out that tanks are easy to kill with a hellicopter, sure thats
>if you dont have air cover protecting your forces. Look at the gulf war, 
>the Iraqis had no air cover, the Americans were able to take out the tanks
>no prob.  

This is part of my point.  The critical factor in future warfare will shift 
from who has the best armor to who has the best airforce.  I concentrate on
helicopters replacing tanks because they provide the traditional infantry 
support better than aircraft because of their ability to hover and to land
on most terrain.


>I havnt seen ANY rpg (ive seen a lot of em too), that properly (realisticly)
>handles futureistic tank combat.

>Gersham Meharg
>Simon Fraser Unniversity
>Vancouver, Canada.

Jim Corbit