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 20th, 2012, 12:06 PM   #81

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
Its not my experiance that MILAN and mortars worked together. A MILAN Det would normally be assigned to each rifle Company as would a Mortar MFC. But the rest of the Mortars would be further back. MILAN needs to be up front.

Yes, the number of missiles carried in limited, but then once rounds are fired, you want to be moving to a new position, during which time you can pick up fresh rounds from your vehicle. yes vehicles present a larger target, but the vehicles for AT teams are generally nothing more than taxi's. With modern vehciles such as warrior, you have a degree of fire support with you. But when AT teams are deploying, the vehciles should be out of sight.

Yes, AT teams alone can only have minimal effect. Thats what they work in conjunction with other arms, such as armour. They can't stop a large armoured attack, despite what we may have been taught, but they can make them look the other way and cause major problems.

The biggest threat to a tank is not another tank, or a plane. It is a single soldier with a hand held AT weapon.
how about damaging the palettes first? then attack the immobile tank. most tanks have unprotected palettes. is this a viable strategy in most battles?
infestør is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:09 PM   #82
Suspended until November 2nd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 5,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
how about damaging the palettes first? then attack the immobile tank. most tanks have unprotected palettes. is this a viable strategy in most battles?

Sorry, palettes? Not sure what this is.
Bish is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #83

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
Sorry, palettes? Not sure what this is.
sorry, i meant tracks. yes, tank tracks!
infestør is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 12:16 PM   #84
Suspended until November 2nd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 5,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
sorry, i meant tracks. yes, tank tracks!
Right, got yer. Well, why tack out the tracks when you can take out the whole tank. Man portable AT weapons aim to engage the target from side on rather than head on. I am not sure how they do it with javelin, i left our MILAN Plt before the change in weapons, but as i understand it javelin is a top attack weapon. And trying to aim at a specific part of the vehicle is all well and good for a crack shot. But its a bit like the idea of going for the head shot. Doesn't quite work for the average soldier who is cold wet tired and hungry and probably scared out of his wits. You go for the centre of mass to increase the chance of a hit.
Bish is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 01:10 PM   #85
Suspended until November 2nd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 5,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by HBT View Post

The first is the prelude to Operation Desert Storm, or the 1st Gulf War. The Allies had unquestionable air superiority and the Iraqi surface to air defences were woefully inadequate; however, despite having control of the airspace above Iraq, the Allies were unable to completely nullify Iraqi armour from above.

The vast majority of Iraqi armour 'kills' in that war were as a result of superior Allied armour, tanks and ground tactics.

.
This also ignores something else. Without Allied air superiority, Allied ground forces would not have been able to operate with such impunity. They would have had to keep one eye on the sky without the advantage of wooded terrain to hide in.

And if Allied aircraft could not find the Iraqi tanks, this means they were in hiding. Thus denying them of of the tanks 3 key asset's, mobility.
Bish is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #86
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2010
From: Dehradun
Posts: 1,936

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?
It really depends on the terrain where the battle will be fought. They certainly do not matter in Siachen, often called as the World's Highest Battlefield :

Siachen_conflict Siachen_conflict

BBC News - In pictures: Siachen, the world's highest battlefield
Jhangora is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 02:47 PM   #87
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,111

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesman View Post
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.
What is the RoF of a 120mm smooth bore gun I wonder?
Poly is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:00 PM   #88

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
What is the RoF of a 120mm smooth bore gun I wonder?
depends on the loading mechanism. if it is automatic (like leclerc) it could be quite fast really: 12 shots per minute. i think manual loaded ones are half that speed.
infestør is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:01 PM   #89
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,111

Quote:
Originally Posted by HBT View Post
I think there's an important point that's been missed thus far in the debate - and that's the inability of aircraft to take out tanks...

...the prelude to Operation Desert Storm the vast majority of Iraqi armour 'kills' in that war were as a result of superior Allied armour, tanks and ground tactics...
Strange you should make this point because I seem to recall a US army Apache squadron claiming 149 kills (not all tanks perhaps) on a single mission

I used to be an Image Analyst, modern sensors mounted in UAVs locate AFVs easily - as soon as they turn on their engine, they stand out like a turd on a billiard table

If tanks are caught in the open, they're dead meat to unopposed airpower

It's no coincidence that in 1973 the Egyptian advance was halted as soon as it advanced beyond the umbrella of their SAM screen

In 1967, with their air forces destroyed the combined Arab forces lasted 6 days

Air power does count
Poly is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:37 PM   #90
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,111

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
depends on the loading mechanism. if it is automatic (like leclerc) it could be quite fast really: 12 shots per minute. i think manual loaded ones are half that speed.
I did a little checking, it seems like auto loaders are not beneficial as to RoF as accurate gun laying (aiming) is the deciding factor

It is claimed a Challenger 2 can fire 10 rounds in 50 seconds...but a Leopard 2 crewman states that the human loader re-loaded fast than it took the smoke to clear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A...2#Rate_of_Fire

Then again the Challenger 2 carries only 50 rounds so if you fire flat out, you're empty inside 5 mins

I still think an MBT on low intensity operations is using a sledge hammer to crack nuts
Poly 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.