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


View Poll Results: Which quality is the most important for a tank?
Firepower 10 34.48%
Armor 8 27.59%
Mobility 11 37.93%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 14th, 2015, 12:58 AM   #31

Dan Howard's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: Australia
Posts: 3,016

Other: infantry support.
Dan Howard is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 14th, 2015, 01:52 AM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
Other: infantry support.
If your tank depends on infantry support, the tank can't be worth a lot.
beorna is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 02:45 AM   #33
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 563

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
If your tank depends on infantry support, the tank can't be worth a lot.
All tanks of the period in ww2 rely on other people supporting them.Such as infantry, artillery, scouts, mechanics, pioneers.

Ask the russian federation tank crews if infantry support was useful in battle of grozny

Russians certainly improved their combined arms tactics in preparation of the second battle of grozny.


But I think it is little bit age old dilemma.

If the tank is not 'worth a lot', I suppose then that infantry is worth even less than tanks and the tank crews. It seems Germany often used this kind of thinking but eventually there were too many casualties. Hitler was often obsessed with SS panzer divisions and didnt sometimes care much about the rest of German army.

Tank was created to give support to infantry. In fact, infantry supported by tanks will suffer less casualties in battle. That was in ww1.

Most casualties will be allocated to infantry...so it is often useful to use combined arms tactics to reduce casualties. Tank crew are not in so much danger as infantry of course.

Even sherman tank was MUCH safer than rifleman in e.g. Normandy campaign (bocage fighting). Americans chose both options, fast tank divisions and also infantry support tanks.

Infantry support tanks were batallions embedded into infantry divisions
Late347 is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 02:55 AM   #34

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,611
Blog Entries: 19

It was better a free question than a poll. Infantry support is not there, so I guess we have to focus the attention on the vehicle.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 02:56 AM   #35
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: -
Posts: 17,473

Quote:
Originally Posted by Late347 View Post
All tanks of the period in ww2 rely on other people supporting them.Such as infantry, artillery, scouts, mechanics, pioneers.

Ask the russian federation tank crews if infantry support was useful in battle of grozny

Russians certainly improved their combined arms tactics in preparation of the second battle of grozny.


But I think it is little bit age old dilemma.

If the tank is not 'worth a lot', I suppose then that infantry is worth even less than tanks and the tank crews. It seems Germany often used this kind of thinking but eventually there were too many casualties. Hitler was often obsessed with SS panzer divisions and didnt sometimes care much about the rest of German army.

Tank was created to give support to infantry. In fact, infantry supported by tanks will suffer less casualties in battle. That was in ww1.

Most casualties will be allocated to infantry...so it is often useful to use combined arms tactics to reduce casualties. Tank crew are not in so much danger as infantry of course.

Even sherman tank was MUCH safer than rifleman in e.g. Normandy campaign (bocage fighting). Americans chose both options, fast tank divisions and also infantry support tanks.

Infantry support tanks were batallions embedded into infantry divisions
The advantage of a tank is firepower and speed. If tanks have to wait for the infantry, they lose their advantage. Of course doesn't that mean, that tanks do win a battle alone. There is still the tactics of combined arms, but if I chain up my tanks, I give away my advantage.
beorna is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 03:28 AM   #36
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 563

Yep.

Tanks also help a lot in tactical scale attacks, evidently.

But the germans used recon troops, motorized infantey and panzergrenadiers.

Tanks with panzergrenadiers as some armour commander would say. Or infantry supported by tanks.

In recent times with modern mbt there is still infantry and tanks together.

Maybe not 'chained together' but certainly in the same armored brigade (but in their own batallions)

Late347 is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 03:33 AM   #37
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 563

Americans still use sometimes embedded tank companies into infantry force. It certainly happened in urban fighting in middle east.

Tanks lose their speed, but infantry gains a lot of firepower and even some protection. (Because the tank draws fire to itself...)

But also tank has the armor to survive most direct fire hits. Tanks also carry ridiculous amount of firepower inside which helps to supress and destroy enemies which are located.
Late347 is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 03:43 AM   #38

shikaka's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2014
From: Budapest
Posts: 696

As for the question:
The main task is to break through enemy lines, not battle against enemy armor.
(I think Keegan wrote it that the real reason of armor is to provide additional motivation - our mates are already through, let's not leave them behind enemy lines - for the others to attack)
This type of breakthrough could be done without mobility (Cromwell) or firepower, but it is very risky without proper armor.



The question seems a bit outdated though, judging by the wars which are fought today. Nowadays it seems that combatants who can afford tanks at all (how many tanks were used by Afghans or Palestinians?) use it mainly in city fighting: tanks lob a grenade into a barricade or destroy a house, while the supporting infantry is behind the next corner.
For this specific task, they don't need much mobility or a great deal of different weapons (like ANY anti-armor stuff).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Germans tanks of WWII look so cool, big guns, lots of armour (the genius Hitler loved big guns and lots of armour) but they were difficult and expensive to make and broke down -a lot.

A broken down Tiger is just a very expensive pillbox.

I dunno. German tanks often broke down, that part seems true.
But it doesn't necessary mean those were not dependable: It might have happened because they were always in the front line, and pulling them out for regular maintenance was out of the question. Tanks without maintenance brake down, independent on their reliability.
shikaka is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 04:10 AM   #39
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 563

Dependability has anothyer aspect.

was something available when needed. Then again maybe there was simply too much demand and not enough supply. Thats a strategic problem and not because of the equipment. At least not necessarily.

"Joe is a real professional at his work; when he comes to work"
Late347 is offline  
Old August 14th, 2015, 04:15 AM   #40
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Posts: 563

The tiger I stands out as worse tank than panther.

Because tiger was more expensive and time consuming to produce.

Panther tank (later models evidently) were better because they were cheaper and still quite good at tactical level.
Late347 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
aspect, important, quality, tank, warfare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Role of the tank in Modern War-Just as important, Less important or Near-Obsolete? Mrbsct War and Military History 40 May 21st, 2015 04:19 AM
The Tortuga Tank: A Rather Strange tank (armored vehicle) Bernard Montgomery War and Military History 8 April 26th, 2013 08:58 PM
The Tank gashead War and Military History 20 December 17th, 2009 01:28 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.