What's new

Are main battle tanks obsolete? The view from Latin America

Thats like saying fighter aircraft have not been relevant since the creation of SAMs. You see them still flying and being used in conflicts. No different than tanks being used in Syria especially with all those ATGMs being used and destroying them in the hundreds.

apples and oranges. you need airpower to dominate the skies. you don't necessarily need tanks (depending on the the battlefield) to dominate the ground. There are no alternatives to aircraft (unless someday unmanned drone tech gets there)

tanks in Syria were not very effective. Syrian army lost huge numbers of them. they were being used by the Syrians still because of sheer desperation. this was a total win or death war for the Syrian army/government. even in that capacity tanks performed extremely poorly, and were relegated mostly to firesupport.

the Syrian army actually adopted the technical tactic to combat ISIS in the open fields with tanks being used as mostly fire support.. ( with great effect. )

a very very good example of a mobile technical + ATGM force completely outclassing and anahiliting a much more modern army with tanks and air support would be the Libyan chad war

also remember the terrorists in Syria did not have an abundant supply of ATGMS. They had very limited quantities that they used to devastating effect. imagine how bad the situation would be if they had access to unlimited ATGM supplies?

Then there will be dron-hunter drones covering tanks.

doesn't sound very practical or easy to be honestly.. especially if faced with a multi drone swarm attack
 
.
doesn't sound very practical or easy to be honestly.. especially if faced with a multi drone swarm attack
Then mount powerfull EW-gun on the tank. It will burn drone's brains from a few km.
 
.
Then mount powerfull EW-gun on the tank. It will burn drone's brains from a few km.

you have to consider cost to benefit ratio as well. even if that is a practical solution you have to design a brand new system. install it on your entire tank fleet, train a crew member on its use, and actually hope and pray it works in practical battlefield situations.

at some point it becomes impractical, and expensive to have all those systems piled on every single tank. also it leads to maintenance problems in the field if these complex and expensive gadgets enevitable start to breaks down in grueling field conditions.

Iran killed thousands of American troops in Iraq by supplying the insurgents with extremely cheap and crude armor penetrating EFPs. so simple it could be made at home with easy deniability for Iran.

there is a Persian saying that roughly translates to :

"any idiot can throw a rock in a well, but it will take many intelligent men enormous time and effort to bring that rock out"
 
.
you have to consider cost to benefit ratio as well. even if that is a practical solution you have to design a brand new system. install it on your entire tank fleet, train a crew member on its use, and actually hope and pray it works in practical battlefield situations.

at some point it becomes impractical, and expensive to have all those systems piled on every single tank. also it leads to maintenance problems in the field if these complex and expensive gadgets enevitable start to breaks down in grueling field conditions.

Iran killed thousands of American troops in Iraq by supplying the insurgents with extremely cheap and crude armor penetrating EFPs. so simple it could be made at home with easy deniability for Iran.

there is a Persian saying that roughly translates to :

"any idiot can throw a rock in a well, but it will take many intelligent men enormous time and effort to bring that rock out"
Tank is cheaper to disable by mine, rather then drones. Or by several RPG-7. But still tank is the best thing to operate against soldiers and fortifications and enemies armored vehicles.
 
.
you have to consider cost to benefit ratio as well. even if that is a practical solution you have to design a brand new system. install it on your entire tank fleet, train a crew member on its use, and actually hope and pray it works in practical battlefield situations.

at some point it becomes impractical, and expensive to have all those systems piled on every single tank. also it leads to maintenance problems in the field if these complex and expensive gadgets enevitable start to breaks down in grueling field conditions.

Iran killed thousands of American troops in Iraq by supplying the insurgents with extremely cheap and crude armor penetrating EFPs. so simple it could be made at home with easy deniability for Iran.

there is a Persian saying that roughly translates to :

"any idiot can throw a rock in a well, but it will take many intelligent men enormous time and effort to bring that rock out"
bro you are looking at this from wrong perspective, we did that to US troops in iraq but imagine what would happen if US troops did not use tanks, apcs, mraps and protected cars??
 
.
They have their application and their usage in this era.

It all depends on the situation.

They're certainly obsolete for countries like Bolivia. for example.

But not in flat lands like the mid east.
 
.
Nope. Tanks are vital for close support to infantry. And latest tanks have active defense to defeat anti tank missiles.
 
.
They have their application and their usage in this era.

It all depends on the situation.

They're certainly obsolete for countries like Bolivia. for example.

But not in flat lands like the mid east.

Agreed. It all depends on the situation.

MBT based forces are best used to penetrate or out maneuver densely manned, dug in field defensive works. For example, toward the end of the Iran Iraq war of the 80's. The Iraqi's stopped waves of Iranian infantry assaults with dense dug in field fortifications. But these same style Iraqi field fortifications were easily penetrated and out maneuvered by US and coalition armored formations during the first gulf war. The second main use of MBT forces is to stop other MBT based forces in the field....the classic tank on tank battle.

For urban combat or COIN....My opinion is that tanks based forces are not as relevant. They can be used but the are not as cost effective an option. There is less need to shoot out 5KM with a long canon in urban combat or COIN scenarios (with all the expensive optics and targeting systems). Threats come from all directions, tank's thinner rear and sides are vulnerable to IED and ATGM's. Tanks require more logistical support (tanks are gas guzzlers) compared to lighter options.

Motorized/mechanized infantry forces (pickup/technicals, MRAPs, IFV's) with direct fire and mortar support are far better suited for urban combat and COIN based on recent ME conflicts. A heavy IFV can also be equipped with active defense systems and provide direct fire support. This is not exclusive to MBT's.

Looking solely at the Syrian war. The various military factions were thinly spread out over a wide area. Also no major field defensive works were constructed. Sure a few lightly dug in field positions here and there.....but nothing like the Saddam line. In this spread out, low force density, light field defenses environment.....Pickup/technicals based forces could be used to "blitzkrieg" the other factions. Combined with suicide bombers....ISIS did this very effectively early on. The Assad forces starting winning when they adopted the same strategy using Shia militia on technicals with direct fire support from the remaining regime tanks. Obviously, Russian air support was critical as well.

Other significant things to note. Modern wheeled vehicles are good enough to navigate off road in much of the ME. Tracks are not critical to mobility any more. Pick up/Technicals are more mechanically reliable (Toyota's are preferred) and fuel efficient than tanks. This has operational advantages...reduced logistical requirements and higher combat readiness.
 
Last edited:
.
Are main battle tanks obsolete? The view from Latin America
It is becoming increasingly difficult to make the case for heavily armored systems in Latin America

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Is the tank becoming obsolete for today's battlefields?

Defence iQ has recently hosted the International Armored Vehicle event and one of the big takeaways was the focus on mobility and modularity for tomorrows armoured vehicles. So, we ask: “Is the tank becoming obsolete for today's battlefields?”

For the U.S, military planners will have to reconsider their procurement needs in the near future in the context of U.S. security concerns and the likelihood that urban warfare will become more common over the next decade. However, what is the view from the Latin American perspective?

Latin American nations are decommissioning outdated models and replacing them with more modern machines. For example, Brazil is undergoing a modernisation program, which includes the revitalization of M60 combat vehicles, Leopard 1A1 and M113 armoured vehicles, greatly enhancing the effectiveness of its two tank battalions.

Furthermore, Brazil recently donated a number of tanks to Uruguay. Future acquisitions also need to take into account regional geopolitics, the likelihood of war and the technology of armoured vehicles itself. What is the future of heavy armour in Latin America?

Lessons from recent conflicts in Latin America
The last inter-state war between two Latin American states was the short 1995 border conflict between Ecuador and Peru. Other regional conflicts in the post-World War II era were the Falklands/Malvinas war between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982; the 1981 border conflict between Ecuador and Peru; and the 1969 Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras.

RECOMMENDED: Future trends in armoured vehicle lethality

Meanwhile, the U.S. military’s most recent interventions in the region were in Haiti in 1994 (Operation Uphold Democracy) and in Panama in 1989 (Operation Just Cause).

"Security threats in the region are generally insurgent in nature"
While there are ongoing border disputes (e.g. Bolivia and Chile or Guyana and Venezuela) and tensions (mostly coming out of Venezuela these days), security threats in the region are generally insurgent in nature. For example, terrorist movements like Colombia’s ELN and EPL, Peru’s Shining Path, or Paraguay’s EPP; narco-cartels in Mexico; or organised gangs such as the Maras in Central America or the Primero Comando da Capital in Brazil. These entities are highly mobile and operate in isolated regions or in urban areas.

vbtp-mr_guarani.jpg
VBTP-MR Guarani in Brazil. Source: Shutterstock

Recent Tank Acquisitions in Latin America
Latin American governments continue to acquire new (or used) platforms for their armed forces, but heavy armour is not purchased particularly often. Some recent deals worth noting are:

  • In December 2018, the Brazilian Army completed the transfer of 25 M41C light tanks to the Uruguayan army. “Of the 25 vehicles, 15 were completely refurbished by Brazil while the remaining 10 will be used for parts. Those that will remain intact will be assigned to armoured infantry units, which currently use M24 light tanks,” Jane’s explains.

  • In 2016, Russia delivered 50 T-72B1 tanks to Nicaragua. The platforms are “an upgrade of the 1970s-era main battle tank and feature explosive reactive armour and thermal weapon sights, among other improvements.”

  • Venezuela has received a plethora of Russian weaponry over the past couple of decades, though these deals have been quite scarce in recent years due to Caracas’ financial crisis. Amongst the acquisitions are T-72 tanks, as well as infantry fighting vehicles like the BMP-3M, and an array of transport vehicles.
"Latin American governments continue to acquire new (or used) platforms for their armed forces, but heavy armour is not purchased particularly often"
As for other nations, while no other major sales have occurred, there are ongoing reports about armoured vehicles in need of modernization or replacement. For example, Chile possesses Leopard 2A4 tanks, and it will be interesting if they will be upgraded anytime soon, given that the Chilean government is replacing the famous Copper Law, which helps fund the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, Peru has yet to find a replacement for its old T-55 tanks, while Ecuador recently upgraded several AML and M113 A2 Plus armoured vehicles, as the country does not possess heavy armour.

RECOMMENDED: Armoured vehicle mobility: Strike brigades and future trends

As for Mexico, its fleet consists of light and medium armoured vehicles. Finally, Colombia also possesses light armoured vehicles; for example, media reports published in late January show vehicles that appear to be the EE-09 Cascavel, a 6x6 light tank, on patrol in urban areas close to the border with Venezuela.

Latin American Armoured Vehicle Requirements
The intrastate conflict that has plagued many Latin American countries is one of the strongest drivers for defence spending. Many countries continue to acquire new (or refurbished) platforms, such as Brazil’s new carrier Atlantico, Chile’s new Sikorsky S-70i Blackhawk helicopters, Argentina’s used AB-206 helicopters, or Mexico’s new patrol vessel Reformador. As for Peru, the Andean state has commenced the construction of a second landing platform vessel, BAP Paita. However, when it comes to heavy armour (or even medium armour) new contracts have been quite scarce in recent years.

black.jpg


S-70i Blackhawk. Multi-use platforms are easier to procure. Source: Shutterstock

One argument in favour of procuring heavy armour is so that nations can maintain minimal deterrence capabilities. While interstate warfare is very unlikely, it does not mean that the scenario is impossible. The Venezuelan government’s behaviour, particularly during the 2008 crisis in the Andes is an example of this ever-present possibility. Nevertheless, given the region’s current peaceful status, limited defence budgets and other security threats, it is understandable that regional governments have other priorities. Moreover, the focus for Latin American governments is the acquisition of multipurpose platforms, which can be utilized not solely for war.

RECOMMENDED: Maintaining NATO overmatch: Modernising armoured vehicles

This is exemplified by the new vessels the region is acquiring (or domestically manufacturing) which can be utilized for military and peaceful operations, such as combating maritime crimes (like illegal fishing) and transporting supplies to areas affected by natural disasters. Helicopters can similarly be utilized to transport medical personnel and supplies to remote areas after disasters occur, not just troops.

"The focus for Latin American governments is the acquisition of multipurpose platforms, which can be utilized not solely for war"
As for armour, personnel carriers have been recently utilized in Brazil and Peru as part of emergency and support operations to help civilian populations. It is their flexibility to have multiple uses that makes them attractive to civilian and military leaders alike. The problem with heavy armour is that it is difficult for the main battle tank to have anotheruse other than what it was designed for. “A tank cannot carry humanitarian assistance, so it is difficult for us to convince our civilian leaders of the need to buy new ones in times of peace,” explained a Latin American military officer interviewed by the authors.

"A tank cannot carry humanitarian assistance, so it is difficult for us to convince our civilian leaders of the need to buy new ones in times of peace"
Nevertheless, when it comes to armoured vehicles, just like any other system, it is important to have a vision of the future and to carry out a cost-benefit analysis regarding weapons acquisition. In terms of life-cycle cost, it is more expensive and difficult to maintain heavy tanks that were designed in the 1950s-1970s, than to repair more modern equipment. Purchasing a tank is not a one-time payment, as this platform demands continual upgrades of its systems, armour, chassis, and weapons. This can often spiral and stakeholders become politically and financially tethered to projects making them hard to abandon.

RECOMMENDED: Steel Hexagon: The evolution of armoured vehicle requirements

A great example of this is the modernization process of the M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks for the US and the Challenger 2 for the UK. However, vehicles that were designed in the 1950s and 1960s have incredibly low survivability compared to modern assets. Even though Latin American governments may not want to upgrade their heavy armour, it may be financially advisable.

Geography is also an issue that influences the procurement of heavy weaponry. In spite of technological advances that make modern tanks able to operate in harsher conditions, it is difficult to justify the use of the main battle tank in insurgency operations. Brazilian, Colombian or Peruvian policymakers would traditionally use a combined force of infantry, light armoured vehicles and helicopters.

As for urban warfare, light armour seems to be the norm, and, as previously mentioned, the Colombian army sent 6x6 light armoured vehicles in a routine operation through a Colombian town in late January. Light 8x8 armoured personnel carriers were also utilized in Rio de Janeiro as part of the Brazilian armed forces’ operations to combat criminal gangs in the city’s shantytowns (known as favelas). In these instances, The authors have been unable to find any incidents of explosives, such as rocket-propelled grenades, that were utilized against these platforms, however, this is an obvious concern. Theoretically heavy armoured could have been utilized in some of the wider streets though.

brazil_1.jpg

Brazillian patrol in Rio. Source: Shutterstock

"It is difficult to justify the use of the main battle tank in insurgency operations"
Lastly, we must remember that mobility has become a key requirement. If a tank is utilized in a cavalry role, it must be fast to deploy and able to pry open the enemy lines.

However, in a "rapid action response" scenarios that often faces many Latin American states, the main battle tank is unable to give commanders the ability to react to crises in remote areas with a flexible set of capabilities that can be tailored to the situation

Similarly, a command vehicle must be able to move about relatively unnoticed so as to not draw fire. Finally, if a tank is used to strengthen a position, it must be tough enough and hit hard enough to win the fight. If a vehicle can’t manoeuvre because it is highly visible, or too slow to break contact then the effect is the same: your opponents locate you and bad things happen. Designing your system to be mobile enough to accomplish your mission is an absolute necessity.

Final Thoughts
Armour can be versatile, but going forward in the Latin American theatre, given the region’s clear-and-present dangers, it is difficult to make case for the acquisition of heavy armour in comparison to light platforms. Platforms with higher tactical and strategic mobility can be deployed in constrictive urban areas, or other assets that have multipurpose uses, such as personnel carriers, helicopters or ships.

https://www.defenceiq.com/armoured-...y-armour-obsolete-the-view-from-latin-america
yes and no. Tank worth in urban warfare , but in battle field different scenario. If we talk about urban warfare then its different category. For people need to analyze two fronts , Syrian war and Pakistan fight against terrorism in FATA. We go in detail later.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom