From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:49:44 GMT
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA

In article <30JUL199214051584@jane.uh.edu> chem7l@jane.uh.edu writes:

[intro deleted]

>What I'm wondering, is whether anyone has any ideas for better platforms.

>I personally favor the helicopter.  It is very fast, very maneuverable, is not
>limited by terrain, but can take advantage of it, and can mount decent weaponry.

>The principle limitations are in weaponry and armor.  The armor protection can
>be very good against light infantry weapons, but is not effective against 
>missile weapons.  Even hand-held missiles (like a stinger) can take it out 
>quickly.  The weaponry that a helicopter can mount is limited to light (relative
>to tank guns) ballistic weapons and missiles/rockets.  This means the helicopter
>can't pack the long-range punch that a tank can except against targets that its
>(few) missiles can target.  On the other hand, the ability of those missiles to
>destroy tanks and armored vehicles quickly makes helicopters a viable heavy
>weapons platform.

Helos last no longer than tanks against air superiority.  They last
significantly shorter against infantry with missiles...simply because
they are exposed to fire far more.  NOE is nice but no helo runs
around at 10 ft.

Both these weapon systems exist (APC and Attack Helo) and neither has
replaced the tank in our inventories simply because an APC is used to
transport troops (to protect tanks) and helos get shot up too easily.

In general it should be safe to assume that the armor protection of
the same generation APC and AH is roughly the same...you might assume
that ground assault vehicles are heavily armored APCs...which is...well
a tank.


[more deleted - as a note helos don't make awesome AA platforms except
against other helos.]

>This is becoming even more important in times when infantry
>men have missiles (like the dragon and the stinger) that kill a tank
>or a helicopter

I dunno...it looks like you can carry a heck of a lot more stingers
than Dragons.

>This brings up the central question: what role should the tank (or whatever 
>takes its place) have on the modern battlefield? The first tanks were designed
>to cross an area raked by machinegun fire and attack entrenched positions.  

They pretty much do the same today...what they represent is massive
firepower that is protected very well on a very mobile platform with
medium long endurance.  Helos represent massive firepower with light
endurance and virtually no protection.

[air cover plus lots of infantry can stop tanks deleted]

Sure...works okay in theory on the defence...what do you do on the offense?
Anything gear toward killing tanks will eat APCs too.

>But then again, what about tomahawk missiles and smart bombs?  If they can hit
>within a few feet of the target, they can be much more effective as artillery
>than the tank can be at point-blank range.

Expense.  Compare the cost between a TOW and a tank round.  Compare
the cost between a tank round and a Tomahawk.  Granted we're ignoring
the cost fo the tank but heck we're hoping it lives.

>With improved hand-held anti-tank weapons, even a tanks ability to
>kill infantry would come into doubt.  A helicopter can use its

Ummm...there aren't any hand held anti-tank weapons that can kill
modern tanks.  I don't know of any that really ever fit the bill.  We
might come close soon but it is rather doubtful...the problem is while
lethality has increase heavy armor technology has kept pace.  So far
material science is keeping up with weapon technology.  Where the next
breakthough occurs is iffy...

>machineguns, rockets, or bombs (especially bombs with fragmentation or
>incendiary submunitions) to hit infantry and 'run for the hills' --
>literally.

>Does this mean that future battlefields will be dominated by
>fast-moving APCs, helicopters, long-range artillery missiles and smart
>bombs -- and that tanks will become extinct?  If so, why do no rpg's
>that I know of use such settings?

Infantry strength continues to rise (as does the cost) and infantry
lethality increases...but most of the time the damage potential of
modern weapons require that targets are either dispersed (and hard to
hit) or tough enough to take the fire.  Infantry fits the first quite
well while tanks fit the latter quite well...on the ground.  Helos are
basically no more than light tanks with high speed and low endurance.
Great when no one shoots back...pretty dead when people do.  The Air
Cav concept died in Vietnam and looking at the kill rates of SAMs
versus helos it isn't hard to see why.

>Please post your ideas -- they could lead to some interesting game developement.

>Jim Corbit

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction