Issue 71 Do we need Tanks? May 7, 2013

In the world today the way wars are fought have changed dramatically, or so we thought. We still have large armies smashing against each other in some conflicts, while we have guerilla fighters in others. There are even cases where traditional war and insurgents mix to form a complex war front that can only be a field commander’s nightmare. At current, there is a debate due to the changing face of war about how useful the battle tank is. So do we still need tanks?

Those against keeping tanks: Surprisingly, the ones wanting to get rid of tanks are the U.S. military. Well, let me correct my self, they wish to reduce the force by approximately 1/3. The reasons for their thinking are the budget cuts and the altered war front. They feel that the battle tank in future of war is a lumbering war machine that while useful is burdensome to transport, labor intensive and a waste of fuel. If you study the militaries tanks in most Army's including the American military you will know that the tank is generally a gas guzzler. Also, it takes a lot of time to train troops to use tanks effectively. America has a crew of 4, while other armies have a crew of 3 due to an auto reload system and teaching them how to be a team and then how to fight with allies is very costly. Militarized video games help, but even that is not enough.

Keep the tanks part 1: The group that wants to keep tanks is the politicians in America. Through various dealings the manufacturing process includes contracts with multiple companies to make parts all before being shipped to be assembled. Literally almost every politician has some company in their districts building something and they don't want them to loose their jobs. For if that person or company looses the contract, then that politician looses a vote. A little political corruption goes along way.

Keep the tanks part 2: Another group who wants to keep the tanks is those who see that the lumbering behemoths of the battlefield still play a role. They cite that despite the disadvantages, tanks, particularly the U.S.'s M1A1 Abrams, is still a very effective combat vehicle. The Abrams is used in situations where lighter vehicles would be easily destroyed by man portable anti-vehicle weapons (something that is becoming more common with insurgents and terrorists). A tank like the Abrams can shrug off most of such weaponry. Also, currently the Abrams tank outranges most other tanks with its main gun and is highly maneuverable with a top speed of around 60 miles and hour. A tank on an active battle field can reposition and provide line of sight firepower to targets directed by infantry (less risky than calling in artillery further away). Tanks when employed properly can change an entire battle.

Conclusion: My opinion is as follows. The tank is going to evolve again. It is going to be able to provide direct and indirect fire support for troops. They will be used as mobile communications links and surveillance tools. And they will change from being gas guzzlers to fuel efficient power houses (they need to because a fuel truck is a very tempting target and no fuel means the tanks can't move). They will use new engines and fuels to be more fuel efficient, new targeting and tracking systems to hit harder and faster and new munitions that may even be guided by GPS to their target. Also, tanks may become lighter, as the heavier a vehicle is the harder it is to transport. As to armor, they may get lighter more advanced materials, but they may also get active protection systems that intercept incoming rounds before they hit (the Israelis have this technology already). I will even predict that the tank may eventually replace traditional artillery systems save the furthest reaching of that class of vehicle. The tank no matter what its incarnation may fade, but will reappear when needed to due battle and do the job it was designed to do, support the troops on the active battlefield.


This issue is my reaction to a Huffington post article and a journal entry in Foreign Affairs.