Role of armor in today's battlefield

[TSLexi]

What is the role of armor in today's battlefield? The mostly-urban environments of today's conflicts render a tank unable to utilize its full firepower, due to the risk of civilian casualties.

Also, tanks can only shoot LOS.

In urban conflict, they just seem to be frightening hunk of metal that can easily be disabled by someone throwing a Molotov at the intake, or firing an RPG at the rear.

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective and demoralizing to set up an M109A6 battery, barrage the target, and send in mechanized infantry to take the position?

Better yet, if the mission was to take out a critical target, and the enemy was bordering an ally, we could set up a HIMARS battery in the ally country within the range of our target. Then, a CIA Special Operations Group operative could waltz in in plain sight, get an accurate position fix of the target, and call for fire.

Cheaper than calling in an airstrike, and we could legitimately claim that we had no forces in enemy territory.

 

[Bleipriester]

There is the Leopard 2A7+ (PSO, Peace Support Operations).
It´s made for urban warfare.

 

[Mushroom]

What is the role of armor in today's battlefield? The mostly-urban environments of today's conflicts render a tank unable to utilize its full firepower, due to the risk of civilian casualties.

Also, tanks can only shoot LOS.

In urban conflict, they just seem to be frightening hunk of metal that can easily be disabled by someone throwing a Molotov at the intake, or firing an RPG at the rear.

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective and demoralizing to set up an M109A6 battery, barrage the target, and send in mechanized infantry to take the position?

Better yet, if the mission was to take out a critical target, and the enemy was bordering an ally, we could set up a HIMARS battery in the ally country within the range of our target. Then, a CIA Special Operations Group operative could waltz in in plain sight, get an accurate position fix of the target, and call for fire.

Cheaper than calling in an airstrike, and we could legitimately claim that we had no forces in enemy territory.

Wow, so many inaccuracies.

For one, we are no longer "on the battlefield", we are engaged in an insurgency and peacekeeping operation. But initially armor was badly needed.

And no, tanks are not "LOS", that is simply how they are most accurate. We have been using tanks as indirect fire for almost as long as there have been tanks. The calculations simply have to be done manually, with a spotter to guide in the rounds.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCX8Vjy9WXs]Tanks as Artillery - Indirect Fire - Korean War - YouTube[/ame]

And for the rest of this, really? CIA Special Operations Group calling for fire? What kind of drugs have you been taking?

 

[Politico]

Armor is still needed. That's why we still have it.

 

[longknife]

Tank gunners no longer aim their cannon "by the seat of the pants". They use advanced maps and GPS.

 

[whitehall]

Tanks were pretty important during the Iraq war. Was it that long ago? If NK invades SK again tanks will come in handy. If anything has become obsolete it is the gigantic Navy.

 

[longknife]

Tanks were pretty important during the Iraq war. Was it that long ago? If NK invades SK again tanks will come in handy. If anything has become obsolete it is the gigantic Navy.

I beg to differ. Although I retired from the army, I recognize the strength of aircraft carriers and marine assault vessels. And, they are no longer as vulnerable as before.

 

[Mushroom]

Tanks were pretty important during the Iraq war. Was it that long ago? If NK invades SK again tanks will come in handy. If anything has become obsolete it is the gigantic Navy.

Actually, your post actually goes against military thinking.

As for tanks, they will not be all that useful in Korea because of the terrain. Tanks are best in flat and open terrain, like that of huge areas of Europe, or the Middle East (ot most of the US). Flat open ground with few hills and only moderate groupings of trees is their ideal territory.

Korea has some of the worst terrain to fight from a tank. Mountainous, with dense forests and swampy flat lowlands, they can not travel fast other then on the roads, and enemies can be hiding almost everywhere. This was a brutal lesson of the Korean War, and why in the video I provided earlier another use had to be found for most of the tanks (like improvised artillery).

However, in such a war the Navy will be of paramount importance. Because not only is this going to be the main way we get our supplies, but it will also be the source of a great deal of our air power. Air bases can't be moved easily, either forward or back. Aircraft carriers however can.

I predict that if there was a Korean War II, it would play out much like the first one did. The North surging across the border, taking probably 1/2 to 2/3 of South Korea before being pushed back North again. And every Air Base north of that forward line will be destroyed and useless until it is repaired. So unless they are going to fly all the way in from Japan, we will rely heavily on Naval Aviation to protect those on the ground.

And such a war will also show the shortcomings of the lack of conventional firepower of our modern navy. The complete lack of any serious shore bombardment capability will make any other future conflicts that much harder now that I think the biggest guns our ships currently have is no more then 5".

And I don't care how powerful an Air Force is, it is not going to land a Tank Battalion, let alone a Tank Division. You need the Navy for that.

 

[Mushroom]

Tanks were pretty important during the Iraq war. Was it that long ago? If NK invades SK again tanks will come in handy. If anything has become obsolete it is the gigantic Navy.

I beg to differ. Although I retired from the army, I recognize the strength of aircraft carriers and marine assault vessels. And, they are no longer as vulnerable as before.

This capability is what scared Saddam Hussein in 1990-1991 more then anything else. He was so concentrated on what those Marines and their amphibious assets were capable of that he built up some really impressive shore defenses to hold them off.

I wish I had some photographs my Warrant Officer showed me of the shoreline around Kuwait City. It looked like something out of WWII, with giant earth and cement ramparts, bunkers, and miles of trenches with artillery positions and dug in tank bunkers designed just to hold off the "Marines landing". I laugh in delight in thinking of all the time and effort wasted for nothing. There were even several of the "sand table" that was laid out in a high school basketball court. It was gigantic, and showed in detail about 10 miles of shoreline, with all the defensive positions, as well as the believed location of all the amphibious ships and where they were expected to land.

The US Navy had assembled 40 Amphibious Warfare ships for the expected Amphibious Assault on Kuwait City, the largest such assembly since the Inchon Invasion. One operation conducted was the raid on the island of Umm Al-Maradim, which they discovered had already been abandoned by Iraqi forces.

A second raid was planned on Faylaka, but in the movement towards this island 2 ships (one the LPH USS Tripoli) struck mines prior to getting there so the operation was scrubbed. But coalition forces continued to build up the belief that an amphibious assault was imminent.

And in doing so tied up more then 6 divisions of troops and massive amounts of artillery and other equipment, facing out to the sea where it was pounded without mercy by our BBs.

And when the time came the US Marines did indeed land from those ships, by helicopter.

For some reason people always forget that modern Amphibious Warfare ships can not only brings Marines to the shore by boats, but also in Helicopters, the Osprey, or even use an LCAC and drop them off miles inland if the terrain is right.

 

[SteadyMercury]

I believe air power would play a much larger role in any second Korean conflict, to the disadvantage of the North Koreans. They relied on the the night to move troops and supplies, but the US had air power that was almost exclusively daytime capable for things we needed most like ground support and interdiction. Today the challenge for North Korea to maintain long supply lines would be almost insurmountable given their reliance on massive force to achieve objectives.

 

[Politico]

Tanks were pretty important during the Iraq war. Was it that long ago? If NK invades SK again tanks will come in handy. If anything has become obsolete it is the gigantic Navy.

That is silly. They're who give the ones who do the work a ride.

(ducks for cover)