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 19th, 2012, 04:28 PM   #61
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,725

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUZGUN View Post
Small by US standards. Maybe we should build 10000 of them.
Go ahead...you will probably never use a single one.

Do you think you can out-sell them to rich ME states?
Poly is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 19th, 2012, 04:31 PM   #62
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,725

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
As in the Merkava you mean. My concern with that would it would tie the tank to closely to the Ifnfantry. Also, with the engine at the front, doesn't this reduce the protection afforded by the armour.

Armour has always fell victim to air power, control of the air is always vital for any operations. But you can't always be certain that air power will be up tehre when you need it. The tanks can be there right next to you.

They may be mobile pill boxe's, but they proved very useful in the close confines of basra. and it was very nice to hear the sound of a 120.
Actually Bish, the engine is also part of the protection...the reason why Israel designed it's MBT with the heavy engine up front.

I'm not sure a 120mm gun is ideal in low intensity conflicts. A rapid firing 45mm gun would be more effective

If I was an Iraqi soldier circa January 1991, the last place I'd want to be would be inside a T-72
Poly is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 10:42 PM   #63

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

Don't underestimate the big gun. It shuts up the entire city and provides overwhelming firepower on a specific point. The concussion from the blast is enough to disorient or disable combatants for a several meter radius, even more if the round impacts inside a structure or, for example, a cave. Modern systems like the Abrams and Challenger II can also reload fast enough that the fire rate is irrelevant considering the power of the 120 mm gun.
bluesman is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #64
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,047

The Answer is, it really depend on what sort of war your looking at. But either way Tanks are still needed to some extend.

First off, using fighter planes to pick off tanks is generally not very cost effective, Helicopters are somewhat more cost effective but they are also more at risk of being counter attacked from the ground.

The greatest problem for Tanks today is not the threat from the air, it's the fact that since the end of the cold war, most war have been between very uneven sides, where the usefulness of tanks are less obvious, and more over, the powerful side would generally want to limit the collatoral damage that Tanks would usually bring. Israel COULD level Gaza and basically kill off most of it's inhabitants in the process (quite easily) if they really want to, but it's rather obvious why they don't.


If the US or say.. Israel didn't give a damn about collatoral damage and were willing to level whole cities Mongol style to achieve it's ends. then Tanks would still be much more cost effective at getting this done than almost anything else. But even with it's present (mostly self enforced) limitations, Tanks still provide a huge role in terms of presense. When you have infantries on the ground and they are attacked, Planes and Helicopters or missiles aren't gonna get here in time to help them more often than not.
RollingWave is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 11:11 PM   #65

KUZGUN's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 345

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Go ahead...you will probably never use a single one.

Do you think you can out-sell them to rich ME states?
I was just kidding.
KUZGUN is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:13 AM   #66

KUZGUN's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 345

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
turkish citizens will be paying for those tanks with their tax, so i very much doubt that the military cares about the high price tag of the tank. the companies involved in r&d and serial production of altay are partly owned by the state. i also doubt that they will be very competitive against other tank manufacturers. if turkey can export altay, then it's good profit but otherwise the idea is to renew the fleet and reduce the dependency in military equipment.

correct me if i am wrong but tanks are not used against PKK, artillery and howitzers are. turkey is very much a defensive country. so there is not much need for a massive tank fleet (except the intimidation factor...against which country, i don't know). imho, this tank project should have been a secondary goal after missile or helicopter development. afaik, turkey has no domestic short or long range missiles (of course i dont mean ICMBs )
helicopters are much more useful against terrorists that fight mainly in mountains (also for medevac).
It will be a competitive tank. The only thing we don't know yet is its armor. If they succeed at developing a good armor, Altay will have a high chance of being exported.

The only neighbour of Turkey who has a modern tank fleet is Greece, they have Leopard 2A6 and 2A4. Other neighbouring countries have ****load of obsolete tanks. And no, tanks are not used for fighting PKK. So building a modern tank fleet for Turkey was not a high priority need. But Turkey's plan is to modernize the armed forces while we can afford it, and export the developed vehicles-weapons if we can.

T-129 attack helis are ready, we are going to start receiving them next year. They will be extremely useful against PKK. And Turkey's planning to license build 100+ utility helis. As for missiles, Turkey has lots of missile projects on development, don't worry about that. We may see not an ICBM, but an IRBM in the near future.

Last edited by KUZGUN; November 20th, 2012 at 01:15 AM.
KUZGUN is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:35 AM   #67

KUZGUN's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 345

infestør, T-129:

https://www.tai.com.tr/tr/proje/atak
TAI/AgustaWestland T-129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TAI/AgustaWestland T-129 - Vikipedi

Click the image to open in full size.

Camo looks great.
KUZGUN is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 05:56 AM   #68

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUZGUN View Post
It will be a competitive tank. The only thing we don't know yet is its armor. If they succeed at developing a good armor, Altay will have a high chance of being exported.

The only neighbour of Turkey who has a modern tank fleet is Greece, they have Leopard 2A6 and 2A4. Other neighbouring countries have ****load of obsolete tanks. And no, tanks are not used for fighting PKK. So building a modern tank fleet for Turkey was not a high priority need. But Turkey's plan is to modernize the armed forces while we can afford it, and export the developed vehicles-weapons if we can.

T-129 attack helis are ready, we are going to start receiving them next year. They will be extremely useful against PKK. And Turkey's planning to license build 100+ utility helis. As for missiles, Turkey has lots of missile projects on development, don't worry about that. We may see not an ICBM, but an IRBM in the near future.
oh yes, there was the T-129! i totally forgot about it this will indeed be more useful to turkish armed forces (tsk) than the tank. as far as i remember, there was a lot of political pressure on tsk to continue buying apaches from usa. it's good that tsk (via tai) managed to complete this project.
infestør is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:01 AM   #69

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

also on a related and obvious note: both projects have invaluable know-how for the turkish manufacturers. i guess this is the real value
infestør is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 09:50 AM   #70

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

Yes been keeping an eye on the altay,if we didn't have a MBT programme of our own we could have considered it i guess as a heavy breakthrough option to complement the t-90 ad upgraded t-72s.,though turkey may not have sold due to relations with pakistan.
harbinger 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.