The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.

[n2doc]

YORK, PA. — When an armored vehicle pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the Iraq War, it triggered a wave of pride here at the BAE Systems plant where that rig was built. The Marines who rolled to glory in it even showed up to pay their regards to the factory workers.

That bond between the machinists and tradesmen supporting the war effort at home and those fighting on the front lines has held tight for generations — as long as the tank has served as a symbol of military might.

Now that representation of U.S. power is rolling into another sort of morass: the emotional debates playing out as Congress, the military and the defense industry adapt to stark new realities in modern warfare and in the nation’s finances.

As its orders dwindle, the BAE Systems plant is shrinking, too. The company is slowly trimming workers and closing buildings.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

[jberryhill]

1. Tanks for the memories

[wercal]

2. Ex-Tanker here...

First of all, this statement can lead to some confusion:

"When an armored vehicle pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the Iraq War, it triggered a wave of pride here at the BAE Systems plant where that rig was built."

The 'armored vehicle' that tore down the statue was not a tank. And this isn't just a matter of semantics, that vehicle isn't remotely close to a tank, nor are many of the vehicles listed in the article.

Further down in the article, the author finally mentions the M-1...the 'Tank' referenced in the title. Reading carefully, the Army isn't saying they don't want tanks....they just don't want them right now. They even quote a general, who states that our fleet is only 2.5 years old - after a huge refurbishing program....this is an astonishingly young vehicle fleet. So of course it makes sense to not buy any more...right now.

Does the Army need tanks? Will the Army need tanks in the future?

IMHO, the answer is complicated. No, I do not think there will be a large scale tank battle in the next 50 years. But that's only because we have tanks. At this point, they primarily serve as a deterrent....not expected to be used much, but necessary.

[Aristus]

4. Ex-tanker here, too. And I agree.

Military analysts have been predicting the end of the tank almost since it first appeared in WWI.

And while there is no more future likelihood of massive tank-to-tank battles in the manner of Kursk than there is of sky-darkening flights of long-range bombers as in WWII, there is still likely to be a need for the tank in years to come. If only, as you pointed out, as a deterrent.

After the tank was misused in the thick jungles of Vietnam, few could have predicted that the tank would be needed for swift, blitzkrieg-style penetration and breakthrough operations other than in Western Europe, in the long-predicted face-off with the Soviets that ended up never happening.

But the Gulf War proved the worthiness of the Abrams, as long as there is time for a proper deployment and build-up of tank forces for the job. We had that in 1990-1991. We may not have it the next time, whatever and whenever that time may be.

My feelings about the tank as a weapon system are a little paradoxical. I'm essentially a pacifist, having changed my outlook since I was the hot-headed 17 year-old who enlisted to be an M1 Abrams tanker. But I'm still fascinated by military hardware like the tank. I probably always will be.

[wercal]

9. The technology also fascinates me

And its not really that 'whiz-bang', especially by today's standards. But the fact that the same platform (M1) was developed in the 1970's, and is still in use/in the running for best tank in the world today, is amazing to me.

Whether it was blind luck, or foresight, it has proven to be a very versatile platform.

And, pacifist or not, its hard to resist the thrill of being in the turret when its fired.

[Aristus]

11. That's a fact.

There are times when I miss it...

[loli phabay]

14. nothing better being a grenadier than having the heavy boys come up on your position

not only for you to use as cover but saves you from having to assault bunkers etc. yeah we may never have massed tank battles in the future but nothing beats them for local heavy support.

[Aristus]

15. For me, as a tanker, it was cool having your house, your car, and your job all in one convenient

60-ton package.

I could get the track up and running, ready to roll in the blink of an eye.

When we were doing live fire, the TC would send me to chow earlier than the rest of the crew, with the assignment to eat up, and then get the tank prepped for the day.

After chow, I'd race down to the track park, open up the tank, incuding all three hatches, stow the sensitive items (PVS-7's, gunner's quadrant, M-16, etc.) mount the machine guns, check the headspace and timing, install the firing pin, pre-set the radio freqs, and start the engine. I'd have everything ready to roll by the time the rest of the crew came down from chow. My TC was impressed enough with this to send me to PLDC even before I was promotable.

I loved that freakin' tank!

[loli phabay]

17. i loved tankers, many times had them get me out of a hole

maximum firepower at a ground level. also nice that they tend to draw attention away from the grunt with his peepee stuck in the ground giving said grunt a chance to do a mole. dont think they will ever be totally obselete as ground has to be held and mbts give you a heavy hitting capability.

[moondust]

5. It was an M88 recovery vehicle.

I have driven one myself.

It's an armored vehicle at ~60 tons, somewhat lighter than an M1 but still heavy enough to pull an M1 out of a ditch and tow it back to camp. For all practical purposes, it is a tank with the turret and main gun removed and replaced with a small cabin, boom and wench. The boom was used to pull down the Saddam statue.

The battle tank may be too vulnerable for a prolonged asymmetrical conflict involving IEDs, but as long as there are still some nation-states with large armies and tank divisions...

[wercal]

6. The M88 is not tank. Period

Tanks have traditionally been defined by their capabilities in two areas - firepower and armor.

The M88 has neither.

It also fails in maneuverability and range.

Yes its heavy and has tracks, has a machine gun, and light armor. Same goes for the medic track, and its not a tank either.

These are not nuanced differences or semantics or people using different terms. The article is flawed form the outset, as it touts the demise of the tank, then dedicates the first dozen paragraphs to endangered vehicles that most certainly aren't tanks. (And as a side bar, although it opens with the Saddam statue comment, I didn't see any plans to scrap the M88, which is another problem with the article). When it finally gets to the tank discussion, it glosses over the fact that the reason the army doesn't want to buy tanks now is: the entire fleet was just updated, because we most certainly are not scrapping the tank.

So lets review:

1. Title uses 'tank'
2. Opening sentence discusses M88
3. Then article describes completely different vehicles.

These are the problems you get when you don't understand terms. Trust me - an 88 is not a tank.

[moondust]

10. "Tank" is a generic term.

For an armored vehicle. Not to be confused with "MAIN BATTLE TANK," which is a specific type of tank.

[wercal]

12. Gee thanks for the lesson

Whut....noooo...an emoticon. Well now that means I've lost the argument.

I will throw out my personal life experience as an actual fucking tanker, and replace it with your great wisdom.

Or I can help you out a little more: You see, tanks used to be classified by size/weight...just like your happy meal, they came in 'small/medium/large'. But they kept getting progressively heavier, and yesterday's 'large' was tomorrow's 'small', and the designation became useless and confusing. So the term 'main battle tank' came into use, to get rid of the size classifications.

Trust me (and I know you do, but don't want to admit ignorance on the interwebs), the term 'tank' does not generically cover the M88. Not even an emoticon can change that.

Seriously - the sun is hot, water is wet, and that's not a tank:



Geez

[Aristus]

16. Well,

someone knows language, anyway...

wercal was right, but whatever...

I can't count how many scouts and Bradley crewmen seemed to think they operated a tank. One of them actually had the audacity to brag that his TOW missile array meant that he could go head-to-head with an Abrams and win. I tried to tell him that with his TOW array against my 120mm smooth-bore gun, in the time it took for him to get off one wire-guided shot, and possibly miss, I could get off four rounds and hit.

He didn't listen, which is okay, I guess. If scouts don't feel invincible, they can't do their jobs well.

[wercal]

18. I think the Bradley is a very impressive vehicle...

But your scout friend would probably reconsider his position, once the gun turned towards him.

[Lurks Often]

3. The question is how do you keep the trained & skilled workers?

without spending money on equipment not currently needed or wanted.

Once a company loses that workforce and all of the skills, training and experience that in brings, it becomes difficult and expensive to bring a new generation of employee up to the same standard.

[wercal]

8. Answer - the US will market these weapons systems to other nations

We already do. Pros and cons to this strategy, of course, but that is one way it is done.

Also, huge defense contractors are given 'busy work'. I remember at Fort Irwin, Hughes was in charge of the MILES. MILES is fancy laser tag type equipment...Hughes really handled the issuing out/accepting back the equipment, and minor maintenance. Surely this could have been performed by a company that wasn't a major defense contractor...but Hughes had been left out in the cold on a major aircraft contract, so the DoD kept them afloat with these types of jobs.

[Blue_Tires]

7. With no tanks, what's going to happen to the "Battlefield" franchise?