.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Campaigns, Scenarios & Maps (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   The Tank is dead (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=51339)

IronDuke99 August 31st, 2016 10:39 AM

The Tank is dead
 
We have been hearing that the tank is dead for many years now...

ATGM, AT Helos, etc have killed the Tank as a threat.

So you have a very well trained Platoon or Company, say USMC or British Army, and you are attacked by 50-100 enemy Tanks, with armoured infantry support. Do you really think that even a well trained Company will win?

Well it might, maybe, Perhaps, given a good position, and time to improve it, and assorted armoured and air support.

But it also might not, it might kill around 50% of the enemy Tanks and then those Tanks might break through. That Company position might be passed and surrounded.

It is a shock thing. The Tank is dead? Really? Think about it...

RightDeve August 31st, 2016 11:08 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
A military arm is not supposed to operate on its own.

There are too many variables to take into account:

-When deploying tanks with a high chance of encountering mighty enemy Attack Helos or Standoff AGM tank busters, they should be supported by equally mighty anti-air measures.

-Tanks, when blitzing, should be supported by voluminous artillery support, at least when cracking the initial defensive positions. After that it may roam around freely in the backyard area (unless enemy employs defense in depth).

-When attacking dense terrain, tanks should be accompanied by infantry to clear out possible AT locations or ambush. The tank, in return, will provide quick & heavy fire to the advancing infantry.


Those who think that tanks are now mighty enough, that they can withstand ATGM fire quite well (despite obscure & very rare sources pointing to that, not to mention the many variables involved in a chaotic battlefield), failed to understand that for every action there will always be a reaction. A tank gets better, and so will the Anti-tank measures.

We should not think tanks are mighty enough now that we can forget about Combined Arms principle, and do an attack pell-mell Yom Kippur style.

Generally, tanks are still useful of course. It is the 'tough type' of ground force, the soft one is the leg infantry. Each one complementing & helping each other.

IronDuke99 August 31st, 2016 11:35 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
Generally agree with the post above.

It is about combined arms.

The Tank is far from dead.

jp10 August 31st, 2016 11:38 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
This is the type of question that will get a respondent an ear full of lemonade.
You postulate a platoon/company defeating an armored battalion/short brigade with little other defining attributes? Why not throw in a Death Ray from the planet Mongo?

The concept of the 'land battleship' is what died. The swagger of a tanker on a Saturday night is still going strong.

www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a264578.pdf

shahadi August 31st, 2016 01:08 PM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
The tank maybe dead on terms of it's changing role given MOUT combat that we seem to witness increasingly since the first Gulf War.

But it's role in combined arms doctrine, while undergoing change (what does not change) is secure on the battlefield.

The underlying issue as I understand this thread is what is the changing role of amor given maneuver, reconnaissance, and security operations in a combined arms context, the Air Land Battle.

I wonder what they're teaching at Fort Benning, the US premier armor school today. I

=====

jp10 August 31st, 2016 11:27 PM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 835258)
I wonder what they're teaching at Fort Benning, the US premier armor school today.

Classes on how to warm up your coffee with a laser rangefinder. How to wear a CVC helmet without messing up your hair style. Lectures on "Tank-Tops, appropriate turret wear or Tank Park Trash?" and "Bogey or Bogie?, the little wheels that mean so much."
:D

jivemi September 1st, 2016 01:30 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IronDuke99 (Post 835252)
So you have a very well trained Platoon or Company, say USMC or British Army, and you are attacked by 50-100 enemy Tanks, with armoured infantry support. Do you really think that even a well trained Company will win?

Well as jp10 pointed out this is a mismatch, an infantry company against one or two tank battalions. Were it company vs company though, about a dozen tanks and platoon of infantry vs maybe 150 grunts, the tankers might run into problems if the ground-pounders were dug-in. But if they catch the leggies out in the open it would most likely be a slaughter.

No, the tank ain't dead, but it isn't a panacea for every land combat situation either.

troopie September 1st, 2016 02:51 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
If the tank is by itself, it's just a target. If the tank is with support units, it's a serious threat.

troopie

Suhiir September 1st, 2016 08:09 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...xt=usarmytrain

DRG September 1st, 2016 08:58 AM

Re: The Tank is dead
 
This was posted in the past but it's still a "fun" read......I especially like the 5 gal gas can in front of the claymore....nasty


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.