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, 01:41 PM   #31

RusEvo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,390

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
With the age of drones, I don't think tanks are as material as it was during WW2.
You cant have drones if you dont rule the skies first, current drones cant defend themselves.
RusEvo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 17th, 2012, 03:50 PM   #32

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,416

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
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.
modern anti-tank missles hit tanks from the top and are able to destroy all types of armours

Mosquito is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:05 PM   #33

lemage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 506

Well there is the modern active protection systems which launch small projectiles to intercept anti-tank missiles from most angles, making sure that most missiles launched do not get a hit. But the value of tanks is that they provide immediate fire power that can be tailored to suit the situation in a much more precise way than aircraft can. Soldiers may have to wait a long time for air support which maybe over powered for the situation e.g. a sniper in a building. If a tank is nearby it could easily and quickly lay down accurate machine gun fire, but an aircraft would take time to arrive, and destroy the building and may harm civilians.
lemage is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:19 PM   #34

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 11,015

OK, you take the tank and I'll take 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles and we'll fight it out.

(Obviously, I'd be able to buy a lot more than 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles for what your tank cost you, but I like to keep the math simple.)
Lucius is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:27 PM   #35

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by RusEvo View Post
You cant have drones if you dont rule the skies first, current drones cant defend themselves.
For sure, my only point is that in the most recent epoch of history tanks are not as relevant as they were during WW2. Like its much easier to destroy the enemy camps with the use of air power like drones or helicopters than using main battle tanks. Though, I agree with the rest of the posters that tanks are still relevant in today's wars.
dagul is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #36

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
OK, you take the tank and I'll take 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles and we'll fight it out.

(Obviously, I'd be able to buy a lot more than 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles for what your tank cost you, but I like to keep the math simple.)
Absolutely right.
dagul is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 04:37 PM   #37

lemage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
OK, you take the tank and I'll take 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles and we'll fight it out.

(Obviously, I'd be able to buy a lot more than 50 shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles for what your tank cost you, but I like to keep the math simple.)
Ok.
Quote:
Challenger 2 had already been used in peacekeeping missions and exercises before but its first combat use came in March 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. 7th Armoured Brigade, part of 1st Armoured Division, was in action with 120 Challenger 2s around Basra. The tanks saw extensive use during the siege of Basra, providing fire support to the British forces. The tank's availability was excellent and the problems that were identified during the large Saif Sareea II exercise, which took place eighteen months earlier, were solved by the issuing of Urgent Operational Requirements for equipment such as sand filters.
In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.
lemage is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:32 PM   #38

bluesman's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: Boston
Posts: 820
Blog Entries: 1

Even if you disperse those 50 anti-tank weapons among a platoon or company of infantrymen, a tank formation is going to retain the upper hand through superior movement and communication.

Tanks have gone from being the war winners to a vital component in the commander's kit. In the aforementioned example, the armor section would likely call for artillery fire as it closed in, mopping up the rest of the infantry with machine gun fire and the main gun. Anti-tank weapons are good, don't get me wrong, and could easily take out several of the tanks, but the edge still lies with mobility and communication, with firepower being a distant third.
bluesman is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 07:44 PM   #39

Belloc's Avatar
Historical Sociologist
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: USA
Posts: 4,916

Yes they do, although what may differ is the crucial role they play depending on the tactical situation. In urban warfare situations, tanks seem to take on more of a support role rather than being the spearhead of a blitzkrieg-style assault.
Belloc is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 09:15 PM   #40

Mangas Coloradas's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 794

Quote:
i think A-10 thunderbolt is also a tank killer with its depleted uranium firing gatling. simplest but costly solution would be a small heat seeking missiles (or whatever they could lock on) launching tank.
A-10 have always been great aircraft but the liability is it's slow speed and vulnerability to MANPADS and AA artillery. A-10s are not going to beat tanks with support. Same goes for choppers close in BUT choppers can hide among the terrain, aircraft can't.

I think the ultimate tank in the next 100 yrs will be of a hover type capable of moving fast over the ground and very stealthy. If you get away from the weight of the treads and suspension systems you really can have some crazy options. It will have defensive systems also. It will most likely be modular and tanks will run in groups as self supporting interconnected systems.
Mangas Coloradas 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.