Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bundeswehr and in how silly shape it is in.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    The IFV or light tank is being utilized more and more like the medium of WW2..
    Yes, in todays world of longrange AT missiles governments regard heavy tanks as expensive sitting ducks, and spend their money elsewhere.
    For example there are vids all over the net of Syrian army tanks being toasted by portable man-fired TOW missiles at ranges of around 2 miles.

    Comment


    • #77
      Yes, in todays world of longrange AT missiles governments regard heavy tanks as expensive sitting ducks, and spend their money elsewhere.
      For example there are vids all over the net of Syrian army tanks being toasted by portable man-fired TOW missiles at ranges of around 2 miles.
      True, but they are not modern tanks by NATO standards (the Saudi M-1s are de-rated in various ways), they lack proper C4I and are not crewed by personnel with high degrees of training.

      However, ATGMs - like MANPADs - are on something of a lethality upswing.
      History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

      Pierre Vidal-Naquet

      Comment


      • #78
        It's always part of an endless cycle. The tanks can be taken out by ATGMs. However, the ATGM crews are exposed to all sorts of artillery fragments, machine gun fire, and other threats. They also have no mobility. So to give them mobility, you put them in a vehicle, an armored vehicle to give them protection from MGs and fragments. Then you realize that the vehicle itself could easily carry the ATGMs instead of having dismounts do it. So you do that, then the vehicle can be taken out by light cannon fire, so you uparmor it and give it a light cannon of its own. Then it can be taken out by medium cannon fire, so you do that, and so forth until you've got a heavily armored vehicle with ATGMs. But a heavy armored vehicle can mount a heavy cannon, which is more efficient than ATGMs and has secondary roles that ATGMs don't do as well. So you just wind up with a Tank.

        Or you mount the ATGM teams on helicopters, then you just make attack helicopters.

        Either way, the logical progression will mean that unless your military is willing to spend huge numbers of infantry as ATGM teams mounted on soft skins, you'll always end up with Tanks, other IFVs, and/or Attack Helicopters to more effectively deploy anti-tank systems in battle.
        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • #79
          It's always part of an endless cycle. The tanks can be taken out by ATGMs. However, the ATGM crews are exposed to all sorts of artillery fragments, machine gun fire, and other threats. They also have no mobility. So to give them mobility, you put them in a vehicle
          Except:
          - They are also organic to and lightweight for small infantry units that can create headaches for armoured forces and require changes in operational planning, even if they will not win any fights by themselves.

          - A lot of users are low-tech, worry less about mobility over more than a few tens of miles, and if needs be can use some pick-ups.

          Again, much like MANPADs

          Have to wait until the IDF kicks off something against Hezbollah and see how Trophy and Iron Fist fare regarding protection of armoured vehicles against ATGMs
          History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

          Pierre Vidal-Naquet

          Comment


          • #80
            I for one do not expect the IDF to advance their tanks into Large ATGM zones like the ones Hezbollah set up in Southern Lebanon. They need different tactics so they can blind these bunkers. Maybe they can use Hellfires?

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #81
              I for one do not expect the IDF to advance their tanks into Large ATGM zones like the ones Hezbollah set up in Southern Lebanon. They need different tactics so they can blind these bunkers. Maybe they can use Hellfires?
              Yes, to do it once was silly, to do it again would be plain stubborn.

              However, the outcome of 2006 does show that even an experience force can suffer high losses and be put off-stroke by determined ATGM teams. See not dissimilar things happening in other wars across MENA.
              History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

              Pierre Vidal-Naquet

              Comment


              • #82
                Quite true. Determined ATGM teams are a serious danger. And extremely effective in the defense where they can ambush and/or defend in depth.

                The reasons behind my 'logical progression' which shows that despite many heralds the Tank has never gone away (and I opine that it never will, it'll only morph somewhat) is based on the following:

                1) Professional Armies are not willing to accept the excessive dangers and casualties to their infantry for them to engage in mass ATGM engagements with enemy mobile and/or armored forces. Quality trained troops are simply too valuable both on a cost and a public perception vein to be considered 'expendable'.

                2) ATGM teams, even those mounted on trucks or even light armored vehicles (thinking along the lines of APCs like the M113 for instance) are far inferior to Tanks for anti-armor warfare in an offensive environment. A well-designed tank combines a near-perfect combination of speed, protection, and firepower that such teams simply cannot attain without themselves basically becoming Tankers.

                3) Against an enemy with moderately decent field artillery who knows how to handle it, infantry-based ATGM teams on the offense or defense will suffer excessive casualties or suppression which will make them combat ineffective at any point where the enemy wishes to concentrate. While tanks can also be 'mission eliminated' by artillery, it is a far more difficult and chancy task than killing or suppressing infantry or soft-skins.

                4) Against infantry, Tanks bring Anti-Armor, High Explosive, and Machine Gun firepower to bear in a single mobile pillbox package. Infantry-based systems attaining the same level of capability would need to include ATGM team, Rocket Team (SMAW, unless the ATGM used has a secondary mode like Javelin does), and Machine Gun team, which combined with transport will need one large or up to 3 smaller trucks.

                In short, yes, if you're primarily defending a location, ATGM teams are the economical choice, whether mobile or immobile. If you have a conscript army or have a national psyche that is willing to accept casualties to accomplish the mission, ATGM teams (and the ancillary rocket and MG teams) are more 'economical' than tanks. However, if you have or are seeking to have a professional force, then 3-4 men inside an armored vehiycle with a multi-role main weapon (like a Tank's main gun) and 1 or more machine guns is a superior and cost effective option when compared to deploying 9 men with the various weapon systems needed (3 x 2 man teams plus drivers). Also, if you're seeking to engage in offensive warfare at any point, an armored mobile vehicle carrying all the necessary implements to defeat armor, break through dug-in infantry, and support your own infantry is far superior to deploying slow-moving and unprotected systems in the open.
                Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                Comment

                Working...
                X