The tank is dead. Long live the tank.

[Peter1469]

The tank is dead. Long live the tank.

There has been talk lately of phasing tanks out along side talks of the future tank.

Capabilities and SpendingLandLong ReadOpinion
The tank is dead. Long live the tank.

by Jon Hawkes, Sam Cranny-Evans and Mark CazaletOctober 1, 2020

Experimental Feature: Audio Read Version

From the day that the concept of a tank was introduced there has been debate about the utility of these vehicles. Hard to build, difficult to man and drive, and ultimately vulnerable once deployed, tanks have never been the perfect package that they externally represent. The late Professor Ogorkiewicz wrote in his 2016 book Tanks, of how Lieutenant Colonel J. F. C. Fuller came to realise the limits of tanks during the 1917 Ypres offensive.1 And, following that war, only Britain and France continued to see utility in the tank for close to a decade, before the Soviet Union began to enter the field.2


The contemporary discussion around the abiding value of the tank is not therefore new, however the context and the nature of the modern battlefield has changed considerably since 1916, and this in turn warrants a different discussion around the value of the tank. To be clear, this article is intended to initiate discussion, it is a reflection of those issues that must be considered when balancing forces. There is value to any asset deployed to the battlefield, from an entrenching shovel to aircraft carriers, providing that they are used properly and adequately supported.




We have chosen three select areas, which all influence the utility of tanks; the Totality of the Battlefield (TotB), the totality of technology, and the totality of society. Much of this discussion should be regarded as a “Red Team Exercise”, a deliberate attempt to pull apart entrenched thinking. And, while it is framed against the current climate that prevails within the British Army, it should be understood that these considerations will apply in some measure to every single force in the world.

[Chris]

Something I read a week or so ago: Weapons of War - Tanks, a history of early tanks from the 18th centruy on.

...A (brief) history lesson is in order. The caterpillar track, upon which the tank travelled, was designed in its crudest form in 1770 by Richard Edgeworth. The Crimean War saw a relatively small number of steam powered tractors developed using the caterpillar track to manoeuvre around the battlefield's muddy terrain. Thus even in the 1850s the development of the tank seemed tantalisingly close - except that its development dimmed until the turn of the century....

[Tahuyaman]

I think it would be a mistake to phase out the main battle tank from our inventory.

[Newpublius]

The tank is dead. Long live the tank.

There has been talk lately of phasing tanks out along side talks of the future tank.

The problem is we spend millions on ordinance to take out $10 pup tents. I mean, sometimes it does make sense to cost engineer the force based on who you're engaged with. If you carry an M1 around, it weighs alot, you have to carry it to the spot you need it, then fuel it and so on.

[Newpublius]

I think it would be a mistake to phase out the main battle tank from our inventory.

I agree so far, to date, the M1 has proven to be essentially impervious.

In WW2 the Germans used their top tier tanks against Red Army armor. In Yugoslavia they tended to use much lighter, captured tanks that had limited front line use against Red Army T-34s, but which were effective against partisans who had no tanks.

Indeed, there should be an acknowledgment that, yes, many times using an M1 is overkill for the situation and something cheaper to build and to maintain should be employed.

[Peter1469]

I think it would be a mistake to phase out the main battle tank from our inventory.

Me too.

[Private Pickle]

I think it would be a mistake to phase out the main battle tank from our inventory.

I agree.

[Private Pickle]

I agree so far, to date, the M1 has proven to be essentially impervious.

In WW2 the Germans used their top tier tanks against Red Army armor. In Yugoslavia they tended to use much lighter, captured tanks that had limited front line use against Red Army T-34s, but which were effective against partisans who had no tanks.

Indeed, there should be an acknowledgment that, yes, many times using an M1 is overkill for the situation and something cheaper to build and to maintain should be employed.

The M1 really has never been tested against a modern battle tank. But that’s exactly why we would need a main battle tank. If we go to war with a modernized army one of these days we will need the M1.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree so far, to date, the M1 has proven to be essentially impervious.

In WW2 the Germans used their top tier tanks against Red Army armor. In Yugoslavia they tended to use much lighter, captured tanks that had limited front line use against Red Army T-34s, but which were effective against partisans who had no tanks.

Indeed, there should be an acknowledgment that, yes, many times using an M1 is overkill for the situation and something cheaper to build and to maintain should be employed.

The M1 is not impervious. It’s just a superior tank to most others on the planet. The range of its main gun is superior and the accuracy is phenomenal. Plus the crews are well trained in how to get the most out of that piece of equipment. At least the used to be.

It has its vulnerabilities though as is the case with all weapon systems.

[US Conservative]

Part of the issue besides their size and weight, is the emergence of small drones and micro munitions.


The Turks are wrecking Armenian tanks right now. Hopefully the US military is taking notes.