How good is the TR 85-M1 tank?

Well US has that problem since the M1 is a heavy beast almost 70 tonnes
by the normal definition the Russian T-80's are quite light 45t.

Anyway US has pioneered something weird Prepositioned Sealift ships.. a damn smart thing... Basically they don't redeploy their major tank division... they already have the needed tanks on storage on board big ass ships... the ships a prepositioned in close vicinity of possible conflict zone.. they only need to airlift the Crews ....

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfi.../ship-takr.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/sealift.htm I neve thought I'll cite from FAS ...

Yes,that is a solution until the shore.Great achievement in transporting a whole tank division in say, 1 day (given the fact that they were at sea) . What next? Because is highly improbable that the conflict zone is in the desant area.And what is the reason in keeping at sea such vessels because they cost quite some money.While a carrier can patrol the seas to fast intervene they justify the cost.A conflict broke out and you can quickly respond.Paratroops,SpecOps etc. Tanks will still have to wait their crew and then start the long road to the conflict zone. But can you imagine the maintenance cost on such vessels?And that only for regional conflicts.I guess they works best when it has to transport from home to the conflict zone.Is pretty hard to leave them at sea.As I read in the links they are not designed to stay at sea but to transport from point to point.Maintenace is impossible because this is just a warehouse basically.It is not like a carrier.And then again my question : why keep such a vessel loaded with 100 tanks when you can have there 200 HMMVS and 20 Kiowas plus couple of Apaches
Speed is crucial.Well,that's my idea anyway.

This post has been edited by Zayets on September 19, 2005 01:01 pm

Well man the Ah-64 ain't that cheap either...they require a lots of maintenace
and the Hummer came with the LPD /LHA the first wave

See my post, I said couple Apaches. Anyway,the first wave are the flying chaps.Shock and awe,baby! Usually Hummers come last to leave first.

well only when the enemy is armed with Ak's

A few words about the U.S. maritime prepositioning ships:

1. They don't stay at sea. They are located at a few strategic locations around the world (Diego Garcia for the Middle East, Guam for the Pacific). They leave when they are needed. They are highly dependent on having appropriate ports and airfields. These are cargo ships not not amphibious ships... they can't just drop a battalion of tanks on a beach, parachute in the crews, jump in and drive off.

2. They don't carry whole divisions worth of equipment. I believe it is in battalion sets, with the whole set at one location equalling a heavy brigade.

3. It's not cheap, but the US feels it is worth paying. Heavy land power can do things air and sea power cannot.

4. There is a team of contractors at each site whose only job is to maintain the equipment and the ships. When the equipment is reloaded on the ships it is supposed to be as close to ready as possible. The ships also are rotated back to the US occasionally for overhauls. I've seen them in port in Baltimore, and a friend lived on Diego Garcia for a year and worked with them.

5. The US does it because there are times M-1s and Bradleys are very useful. Look at the helicopter and HMMWV losses in the 2003 attack on Iraq, for example, where the defense was weak. Or the attack into Baghdad... HMMWVs just would not have had the same psychological effect. The action in Mogadishu Somalia shown in "Black Hawk Down" is another example... the HMMWVs were very vulnerable, but even 1 or 2 Bradleys would have changed the equation completely.

US thinking is that it's best to have both: strategic mobility plus combat power when you arrive.

It is, but look at the US deployment for the 1991 Gulf War. When the light forces arrived (82d Airborne, Marines and friends), that meant the US was serious about defending Saudi Arabia. When the heavy forces arrived later (1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, 1st UK Armoured) that meant we were serious about retaking Kuwait. Each capability has its place.

Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the answers.It looks like these floating warehouses are not the perfect thing either.They highly depend on installations for load but most important unload the equipment. Well,maybe I was too optimist in saying one division but a battalion would be also enough
Tanks love the space.In Irak they had plenty of them charging to Baghdad. But if the terrain won't allow they still have to be transported from the beach head to the conflict zone or at least close.
Nothing comes cheap,sure,but I believe flexible solutions/tactics will dominate the battlefield.And heavy tank is anything but a flexible vehicle.Sure is fast,but give it space.Stuck,a tank is dead.We will see.

Tanks will not go away. The only time when a tank is useless is when its out of gas, Zayets. Otherwise it has plenty ofuses, 90 years from its invention.

I did not imply that Imperialist. I just said that tanks as we know today will most probably disapear.The concept of main battle tank will remain but most probably we will not believe our eyes what that will be capable soon.
The tank can be made useless also when the crew is disabled or not properly trained.There are many ways of disabling a tank

The tank can be made useless also when the crew is disabled or not properly trained.There are many ways of disabling a tank

I was referring at the strategic level, not at the individual tactical one where a tank can be made useless in other ways in combat.
As a weapon tanks become useless when you have no fuel for them, and are nothing else but huge and expensive static and vulnerable AT platforms.
But on second thoughts, even at the tactical level, depriving a tank of fuel supplies is one of the most effective way of making it useless, given that it generally means many more are affected, not just one.

Guys I wonder,what tanks battles do you think will take place in the next 20 years?
Between who?
Tanks today are a waste of money.
5 man crew,a lot of fuel a lot of maintain.Need transportation from point A to B.
Yes the Apache has also mainten costs.But he can get from one place to another much easy.
Lets look back:
After ww2 what tank battles took place?
Some in the Korean war.
And the Arab -Israeli conflict (56,67,73).
And later in the Lebanon war,Israel and Syria fought very little with tanks.
They prefered sending Cobras and Mi-26 agains enemy tanks.
An armured vehicle and a self propeled gun are more then enought today.
And maximum a light tank.

OK, scrap the tank and send that 5 man crew as infantry men to assault a city. Guess what the result would be. And about the fuel... those 5 dismounted men could very well "sa se spele pe cap cu el" .

I personally dont understand this discussion. An Apache will never replace a tank and a tank will never replace an Apache.

The main purpose of the tank was not to take part in tank battles.

Thats only natural, given the Golan Heights advantage.

More than enough for what?
And here we come back to the purpose of the tank. Its purpose was not to be heavy, because it was intended to confront infantry. As the enemy got tanks and AT guns, the tank had to go heavy. So if you propose light tanks, one has to ask -- for what? Going further, why tanks at all? And this will end up another pointless arm vs. arm debate, when all arms have to work together to make an Army complete.

take care

Exactly. They're a useful tool, but not the solution to all problems.

Yes. Depending on the attacker's capabilities, he could capture the ports...sink ships in the harbor to make them unusable...bombard them with chemical warheads on missiles... and the list goes on. And not everywhere is within easy driving distance from the ports... the prepositioning ships were not much use in Afghanistan, for example. As far as I know the ship's equipment does not include a fleet of Heavy Equipment Transporters to carry the M-1s to the battle.

They even flew a platoon of M-1s into Northern Iraq after the Turks did not allow the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division to attack from Turkey. Just having a handful of tanks can expand a commander's options.

A series of off-topic posts has been deleted. Try to stick with the topic.

It appears it also has some to spare:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2...a111405tj1.html