It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ninety years of the tank

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

They made a boggy debut in the Somme but rose to play a vital part in the World War II. This week sees the 90th anniversary of the first use of the tank


source

These monsters will have been in use for 90 years come friday but do they still have a use in todays warfare? what with all the Guerrilla style wars that we now seem to be fighting are these weapons now just sitting ducks for rpg attacks and similar?




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   
In short............no!

Heavily armoured vehicles will still be needed in modern warfare, when fighting a conventional war, even if NBC weapons are introduced to the battlefield and especially more so, because of the overpressure systems on board that allow the crew to continue to operate in a contaminated environment.

Infantry Fighting Vehicles on the other hand, need to have their armour drastically upgraded and should be able to withstand both ATGW and the next generation of RPGs.

In my view the modern Main Battle Tank is a must for any armed forces. It has mobility, is protected from most ATGW/RPG and has a reasonabl turn of speed. The crew has the ability to deliver accurate anti tank and anti-personnel fire at longer ranges with first round/first kill capability.

Tank forces will take any terrain - even in mountainous regions, but it is the PBI that will hold it - and they need more heavily protected carriers/fightingvehicles if they are to keep up with the tanks.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Here's to the tank *ching*

Possibly one of the most revolutionary war fighting machines of all time . . . apart from projectile weapons


And my most favourite one? Oh, the T-84.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
In short............no!

Heavily armoured vehicles will still be needed in modern warfare, when fighting a conventional war, even if NBC weapons are introduced to the battlefield and especially more so, because of the overpressure systems on board that allow the crew to continue to operate in a contaminated environment.


The reason for armor is basically to absorb the tactical initiative your going up against when you expose yourself during assault/maneuver and it really is very expensive and unwieldy substitute for initiative derived from camouflage/longer range weapons/better aimed fires and so forth. The German high command ( and by this i mean Hitler) fascination with massively armored tanks and assault guns helped hurry on defeat like few other things. Even back in 1942 German generals were in favour of simply copying a few T-34 ideas and running with that as big guns and armor matters little when the infantry you base your maneuvers on gets stuck/smashed for lack of mobile support.


Infantry Fighting Vehicles on the other hand, need to have their armour drastically upgraded and should be able to withstand both ATGW and the next generation of RPGs.


I think the whole IFV idea is wrong to start with ( beside in few cases like airborne/parachute or as part of armored divisions , and this is all assuming preparation for high intensity conflict versus symmetric forces) and i like the idea of vastly faster battle taxis ( shell splinters and MAYBE 12.5 mm) all round) with anti tank weapons all being part of the dismount team. I do NOT want my APC drivers/commanders getting ideas about shoot outs with tanks and some such thus risking their mobility and whatever use they are in mobile warfare.


In my view the modern Main Battle Tank is a must for any armed forces.


Actually they are only useful ,imo, when you tend to invade others or pretend that you may if they push you 'too far'. I would rather have my infantry being able to defend themselves with AT weapons in abundance than have a few 60 ton monsters rushing around trying to plug holes. What makes more sense is to blunt enemy heavy armor attacks with massed infantry based anti tank weaponry ( which should be able to double as anti personal weapons and carried in that quantities by the APC which now has space for such things) with even M-10 wolverine type systems to rush around the rear and isolate and crush penetrations by ambush and shear speed.


It has mobility, is protected from most ATGW/RPG and has a reasonabl turn of speed. The crew has the ability to deliver accurate anti tank and anti-personnel fire at longer ranges with first round/first kill capability.


Trying to do that while carrying infantry is just asking to get people killed pointlessly the Merkava notwithstanding.
Merkava's get destroyed just like anything else but if you can not afford to lose lives maybe you have a half decent excuse for building such a monster which might very well result in the death of 11 men when things go wrong enough, which it quite unlikely.
Fact is you can almost never defend the battles/carry space for 10 dismounts ( the 6 man squad is SUCH a bad idea imo) with the type of armor that will protect you from main gun rounds or even many modern anti tank missiles without giving up the speed and range that makes a battle taxi worth it.


Tank forces will take any terrain - even in mountainous regions, but it is the PBI that will hold it - and they need more heavily protected carriers/fightingvehicles if they are to keep up with the tanks.


And i agree that infantry needs support but in the form of very effective transport that can carry them and plenty of ammunition of all kinds in great volumes wherever very fast. Getting your means of transport shot up means you lose you effective means of resupply and transport and that's just very bad when everyone else can manage it.

Anyways!

Stellar



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
tanks are extremely important part of most wars, since you cannot control a certain area with only airforce

land force must be used, and tanks are essential for most land warfares

but as for the 90years old ones? please put them in museums

[edit on 18-9-2006 by warset]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
tanks may not be very good for the "war on terror" [ie urban warfare, insurgencies, combat in extremely rough terrain like afghanistan] but we cant forget that even though we are fighting a new style of war we still have plenty of conventional threats from countries that have organized militaries. this is where the tank comes into play most effectively. we would be insane to give up our tank forces when theres always a possibility that we could go to war with countries like north korea, iran, syria, and china. while most of these countries have inferior tanks compared to our M1s, [although china has some very advanced tanks] our infantry soldiers would be in extreme danger if they did not have armor protection. so i believe we wont be giving up tanks anytime soon. while they may be vulnerable to a insurgent with an rpg hiding in a building, they are more than up to the challenge posed by the t 55s and t 72s that are in use by most rogue nations.




top topics
 
0

log in

join