Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 17th, 2012, 05:54 AM   #11

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,024
Blog Entries: 1

And a tank can hang around a lot longer than any aircraft possibly could, especially a plane, and offers more firepower than any drone I'm aware of.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:15 AM   #12

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 11,270

Click the image to open in full size.

How many of these can you buy for what one tank costs?
Lucius is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 06:59 AM   #13

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,830
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Click the image to open in full size.

How many of these can you buy for what one tank costs?
good point. even reactive armor cannot do anything against 3 consecutive strikes to the same point with rpg-7. modern tanks do have infrared, speed etc. detection but against many projectiles i believe they're helpless.
infestør is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:15 AM   #14

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 2,546

Experience in Iraq, Chechenia and Lebanon tells that tanks are still crucial in the battlefields. But they need to be well supported.

I've read accounts on how infantry took advantage of tanks in a crucial way: as a last line of resistance. If the tank is protected by rear, it can deliver a lot of damage and resist a lot of attacks, while infantry fight around. When things went bad, soldiers usually get around the area of the tank, as if it were a tower.
Frank81 is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:28 AM   #15

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,788

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
Click the image to open in full size.

How many of these can you buy for what one tank costs?
While I'm admittedly more of a naval fan, it's my understanding that RPGs are not a very effective way to take out armor. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:29 AM   #16

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 13,788

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
good point. even reactive armor cannot do anything against 3 consecutive strikes to the same point with rpg-7. modern tanks do have infrared, speed etc. detection but against many projectiles i believe they're helpless.
You're not going to hit the same point twice, much less 3 times.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:33 AM   #17

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 2,546

Old RPG-7 is no more effective against modern tanks, but they were against 60-70s tanks as it was proved in Yom Kippur war.

Modern RPG-29 are very effective against modern tanks.
Frank81 is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:44 AM   #18

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,182
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
(i hope this is the correct subsection)

this question came up in some of the turkish sites i read, upon the development new turkish mbt altay.

many people argue that a country (turkey in this case) should concentrate on spending money on missile systems and fighter planes instead. also, tanks are not that effective on the battlefield if you have superior air power.

what do you think?
That it's the right attitude thinking to a large or mean scale war to defeat an enemy, without occupying its territory. US did something similar facing Serbia. The NATO Air Forces got the result without land troops involved.

But in the second phase NATO tanks were there [with that curious run to take the control of the airport, won by the Russians, btw ...].

If the war is not of high level tanks can be still decisive. Simply because they are less expensive than fighters.

Missiles are the weapons which will decide any wide future war, no way. The initial missiles phase is the key to win [or to lose] a conflict today. But missiles destroy, they don't control, they don't conquer, they don't limit ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:54 AM   #19

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 11,270

The thing of it is, the scientists can come out with more better newer shoulder-fired/tripod-mounted ordnance a lot faster than new tanks can come out of trials.
Lucius is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 08:34 AM   #20

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,830
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The thing of it is, the scientists can come out with more better newer shoulder-fired/tripod-mounted ordnance a lot faster than new tanks can come out of trials.
i believe their armour has to be upgraded as long as new anti-tank weapons come along. most modern tanks can be, but quite costly.
infestør is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, crucial, tanks, today


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confederacy uses tanks Nick Speculative History 7 April 27th, 2013 05:45 PM
Crucial battles of the antiquity duccen Ancient History 2 January 16th, 2012 05:55 AM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 04:04 AM
Three most crucial battles in your nation's past? JohnnyH General History 60 December 4th, 2009 06:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.