Is cavalry useless??? [Archive]

Jaret

12-01-2002, 21:32

Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...
Wrong

At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them

Its the same with Cavalry You can well use them in a frontal charge ... but not without Infantery following them
They have the same problems like Tanks in a situation like that. Always let your infanterie follow your cav units ... and when the Cavalry has engaged the enemy ... swarm them with your Infantery to support your Cavalry.

Stand alone, Cavalry was a total waste ... especialy on difficult ground like hills or woods, God loves the Infantery.

PS: The Blitzkrieg was acieved because the superior German tanks trashed the Polish frontline and the German Infantery followed them to tak over Control and act as a future Garrison.

PPS: A stand alone German Tiger was captured by a Polish group of Kid Pathfinders in the assault on Poland

Hakonarson

12-01-2002, 22:30

Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...
Heavy cavalry wasn't "invented" it evolved.

And it did not evolve to ride down spearmen - the first heavy cavalry evolved to resist archery - the Cataphracts of Parthia are most easily explained as the answer to vast numbers of cheap horse archers - fully armoured cavalry that were pretty much impervious.

Such cavalry proved marginally useful vs infantry tho - Carrhae (53BC) is a good example of their inabilty to simply ride down infantry despite considerable advantages, and lesser known Parthian invasions of Roman Asia in 39 and 38BC also foundered upon the legions.

The Seleucid successors to the Parthians also used heavy cavalry - both archers and lancers, and Roman tactics were to charge them with infantry as soon as possible But the battles were often very tough.

Medieval cavalry evolved from nobility and riches. Horse soldiers have almost always been higher ranked than foot in all societies, and so nobles looked to ride as soon as they could afford it. Being the richest they also tended to be the ones who could afford armour and extra weapons.

So medieval european heavy cavalry "evolved" to suit the vanity of the nobilty

There are also numberous examples of heavy cavalry not riding down infatry as long as the infantry kepts it's cool - Hastings (1066) is a great one since it shows bot that and also what happens if the infantry loses it's cohesion.

Courtrai in 1302 is often touted as the first time infantry defeated medieval heavy cavalry, but there are many, many other occasions where infantry stood against cavalry.

It did require reasonably good infantry tho - able and willing to hold their nerve.

NinjaKilla

12-01-2002, 22:35

hrvojej

12-01-2002, 23:06

Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Dec. 01 2002,14:32)]At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them
Erm, those were Ferdinands, not Elephants. And they were tank destroyers, which means fixed gun and no turret, and inherently more vulnerable to infantry. On top of that, they didn't have machine guns, as NK mentioned.

And it's strange that none of those 3 units of knights were able to flank, even by simply enveloping the Saracens. They can usually still kill a decent amount of spearmen, even through frontal charge, but they are way too precious to be used that way.

Hakonarson

12-02-2002, 00:10

Quote[/b] (NinjaKilla @ Dec. 01 2002,15:35)]This is a game, not a simulation. It's not supposed to be accurate
huh??

what double-speak is this?

why is a "game" "not supposed to be accurate"?

And what's the difference betwen a game and a simulation? Especially when the "game" quite specifically in all it's advertising makes a popint of being a historical simulation??? (or at least words which I certainly took to mean the same thing)

tarkins

12-02-2002, 02:33

HopAlongBunny

12-02-2002, 03:01

I think Hakonarson has covered the point. Armour got heavier to counter-balance the increasing effectiveness of ranged weapons. Of course the heavier armour also made them better against less well armoured knights...provided they could get them to stand for melee.

If it bore no relation to the historical period, why call it "Medieval"? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

12-02-2002, 03:29

Ah....Braveheart - the most historically accurate movie since The Life of Brian

You know it's a serious conversation when ppl are using Braveheart as a source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

deutschlanduberalles

12-02-2002, 03:38

German Ferdinand tanks had the nickname of Elephant tanks. "Tiger" isn't actually the official name for that German panzer we hear so much about, it was called the Mark VII. And to compare heavy cavalry to Elephant tanks, or any tanks, is totally inaccurate. The Ferdinand was perhaps the worst designed tank of the entire war--no machine guns was only one of a plethora of problems with it. That's why only 90 were made ;P Also, to call Kluge, Guderian, Hoth and Manstein "stupid" German commanders is to imply Patton and Eisenhower were 60- IQ Downs' syndrome half senile senior citizens who needed their aides to help them on with their Depends every morning.

P.S. The assault on Poland was in September 1939. The German "Tiger" tank wasn't in use until late 1942 and not in mass use until 1943. I'd suggest spending a little more time with reputable history sources before posting that nonsense on the forums, thanks :P

Sorry folks, but I've been a WWI--WWII buff for ten years now, since I was eight years old, and things like this have been bugging me for a long time.

Cousin Zoidfarb

12-02-2002, 03:40

Here we go again?

After the patch cavalry has improved somewhat. Spears aren`t as effective against cavalry which makes the game more fun. If you ain`t happy just mod your cavalry`s charge bonus.

BTW I don`t think Tiger tanks were around in 1939. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

hrvojej

12-02-2002, 09:08

Quote[/b] (deutschlanduberalles @ Dec. 01 2002,20:38)]German Ferdinand tanks had the nickname of Elephant tanks. "Tiger" isn't actually the official name for that German panzer we hear so much about, it was called the Mark VII. And to compare heavy cavalry to Elephant tanks, or any tanks, is totally inaccurate. The Ferdinand was perhaps the worst designed tank of the entire war--no machine guns was only one of a plethora of problems with it. That's why only 90 were made ;P Also, to call Kluge, Guderian, Hoth and Manstein "stupid" German commanders is to imply Patton and Eisenhower were 60- IQ Downs' syndrome half senile senior citizens who needed their aides to help them on with their Depends every morning.

P.S. The assault on Poland was in September 1939. The German "Tiger" tank wasn't in use until late 1942 and not in mass use until 1943. I'd suggest spending a little more time with reputable history sources before posting that nonsense on the forums, thanks :P

Sorry folks, but I've been a WWI--WWII buff for ten years now, since I was eight years old, and things like this have been bugging me for a long time.
Ok, just one last comment and then I'll stop the hijacking.

Tigers were mark VI, not VII.

Ferdinand was also a nickname for Panzerjäger Tiger(P). They were renamed (re-nicknamed ?) Elephants after the modernization. And they were not tanks, but tank destroyers. Big difference. Also, quite effective at long ranges at tank destruction, which was their main purpose, but very vulnerable to infantry, and with a lot of mechanical problems.

So be careful before you slap people for incomplete information.

Hakonarson

12-02-2002, 11:29

Actually they were Jagdpanzers, not Panzer Jaegers - the panzer jaegers were lightly armoured AT vehicles, Jagdpanzers were very heavily armoured.

The official title I have is 8.8cm Pak43/2 L/71 auf Pz.Jag Tiger(P) 'Elephant frueher Ferdinand' SdKfz 184 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

And the reason "only" 90 were built was nothing to do with the vehicle itself.

Rather they were built to use 90 chassis that had no other purpose and would otherwise have had to be scrapped. The 90 chassis were those of the Porsche design for their proposed Tiger. They lost the competition to Henschel and so somethign had to be done with their chassis.

Actually the Ferdinand/Elephant was a very successful tank destroyer, especially in Russia. It was later used in Italy where it was much less successful - it's forte was long range tank killing - the wide open steppes were perfect for it - the hills and mountains of Italy were not

Is thisrelevant to MTW? Hell yes - horses for courses http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif The best weapon system can be useless if you use it badly

Daevyll

12-02-2002, 11:51

www.achtungpanzer.com

Just thought I'd end all debate about this subject http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Anything you could ever want to know about the different german tanks of WW2 is there, and more.

And send the guy a contribution, he bloody well earned it.

deutschlanduberalles

12-02-2002, 11:58

Yeah, I apologize for my mark VII typo and for referring to the Ferdinand as a tank and not a tank destroyer. I was wrong there, and I suppose I should have looked over that post a little more carefully before I replied. Not quite the same thing as stating Tigers were used in the assault on Poland, but hey, who am I to judge. And I don't suppose that the Ferdinand's awful performance in Russia led Germany to decide against producing any more of the things, since that would make too much sense--after all, the Porsche chassis was so incredibly difficult to make and all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif . When I say "Only 90 Ferdinands were produced because of their awful performance" that's just what I mean, and that is 100% accurate. Germany used the Ferdinands in Kursk as a kind of testing ground, and due to their awful performance, decided against producing any more. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If they had been as successful as Hitler and Guderian had hoped, more would have been made.

I think today I'll look up some of my WWII armaments books and post some specs and quotes about how terrible the Ferdinand was and what a waste and a deathtrap it was, if this topic is still alive by the time I get home from work tonight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[I]

Swoosh So

12-02-2002, 12:27

Historically speaking could a spear stop a horse or was it just pikes? I thought spears should be thrown http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

NinjaKilla

12-02-2002, 12:57

ROFLMAO man I love those hardcore history arguements How many times around here do you say something a bit careless and before you know it some hardcore mofo has just beaten your ass to a pulp. Great stuff Keep it up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson - yes this is a game rather than a simulation. Do you really thing its accurate to have groups of forty knights always sitting around in squares looking absolutely identical? That groups of 60 samurai warriors always used the same equipment and units could be distinguished according to it? I won't go on... needless to say that the primary point of a popular computer game is to make it playable. It helps if its based on a historical period, but at the end of the day, much of the accuracy go out of the window 'cos its gonna play well.

A.Saturnus

12-02-2002, 12:57

Actually, the heavy cav in the game defeats lower spearmen quiet well. You can break spearmen and even feu-sgts with chiv-knights. Even chiv-sgts usually loose more than they kill, they just win because they`re so many. Sar inf are pretty tough, did you check if they had higher valour?
The point is, you can use cav against almost everything except pikemen and high spearmen, but it`s more effective to flank the enemy or attack units that are weak against cav (and that`s not just peasants).
So, flank your foe, charge his archers with chiv knights, watch 30 archers die on impact and love the game again.

LadyAnn

12-02-2002, 23:19

Frontal assault of cavalry against infantry armed with pointed pole weapons (be it spear, javelin, pike, or even tree branch stack in the ground) is actually historically correct: the cavalry lose all the time.

Even in modern time, frontal assault of tank against well fortified infantry without infantry support is a losing tactic. There is no more pikes, but anti-tank weapons are far cheaper to produce, so in effect, infantry armed with anti-tank missile weapons is the modern spear unit.

German Panzer in WW-II was capitalizing on a few French "mistakes":

1. France didn't man anti-tank units on the North Side of the Maginot line (I believe at the Ardene forest) because France believe tanks couldn't cross the dense forest; In fact, the middle of French defence was weak.

2. France was fortifying the Maginot line, which is the Southern part of the French defense against Germany. Germany never made frontal assault on the Maginot line. The line was flanked.

3. France didn't react fast enough to capitalize on the fact that German Panzer were advancing without Infantry support (German Panzer commander was bold and daring and didn't follow his order of waiting for infantry division for support; he advanced far into French territory. It could be different with French commanders reacted fast and trap that Panzer division, WW-II wouldn't be the same).

I only put up some of the facts as rebutal to the idea that tanks or Heavy Cavalry can overrun defensive units in all circumstance.

The game certainly doesn't reflect reality, but the model is close enough.

Annie

Lehesu

12-02-2002, 23:42

I would also like to mention that the France had more AND better tanks than the germans, especially the Somua; their strategy was wrong. Rather then making mass units of tanks with infantry support, they spread them out like islands amidst a sea of infantry: not a good tactic. I would also like to point out the fact that the comp seems to have invincible cav. I charged one group of 20 level 2 valor Kataphraktoi with three groups of Vikings and 2 of Woodsmen. I lost utterly Maybe because I suck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
However, I would also like to point out that in the modern age, tanks ARE the principle out and out fighters. In urban, infantry rule. However, in conventional warfare, the only thing that can easily kill a tank

Lehesu

12-02-2002, 23:46

whoops As i was saying. The only thing that can kill a full-fledged tank, like the Abrahms, would be another tank. RPG's and TOWS can disable, but not destroy current tanks. By the time you can get one shot off, if the tanker is any good, your dead

Hakonarson

12-03-2002, 02:02

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Dec. 02 2002,16:46)]whoops As i was saying. The only thing that can kill a full-fledged tank, like the Abrahms, would be another tank. RPG's and TOWS can disable, but not destroy current tanks. By the time you can get one shot off, if the tanker is any good, your dead
Oh really??

I'm sure that'll be good news to the world'sarmies -they can do away with all those expensive AT weapons now, because they don't work

Rofl - where did you get this idea from??

Leet Eriksson

12-03-2002, 02:04

you can forget using RPGs against tanks,their armour was supposed to absorb the damage.unless you have more than 3 or 4 soldiers with an rpg the possibility of disabling the tank is higher,destroying it is another story...btw try destroying a leclerc with an rpg http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

back to topic,the knights albiet powerful are not meant to charge against a wall of spears their main purpose was to run down archers and men-at-arms(speaking from the games prespective and not historically),and they are "saracens" after all they were meant to kill "frankish" crusaders.

i tried a custom battle against the saracens,they only lost 18 while i lost 37,also i played as the saracens against the knights and lost 23 while they lost 39,all without upgrades,and on flat terrain.chiv knights are much like any crusader knight they have the same stats,also since they are the same i did'nt bother using the crusaders i simply used the chivs in custom battle.the exception is the templars i think they did more damage becuase they are armed with swords.one last thing before i goto sleep,the knights charge did more damage than an ordinary attack so consider charging them if you are desperate,also if you charge and retreat then recharge again you might break their lines.

Hakonarson

12-03-2002, 02:09

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Dec. 02 2002,16:42)]I would also like to mention that the France had more AND better tanks than the germans, especially the Somua; their strategy was wrong. Rather then making mass units of tanks with infantry support, they spread them out like islands amidst a sea of infantry: not a good tactic.
The best French tanks had generally better armour and beter guns than the German ones, but hte vast majority of French tanks weer the rather useless Renault and Hotchkiss models with 2 man crews and usually a short and utterly ineffective 37mm gun.

I read an account of tank encounters in France recently. Apparently the good French tanks were quite capable of taking on small numbers of German tanks and defeatign them, however as numbers got larger command and control became as important as guns and armour.

And here the French had a huge disadvantage. Most of their tanks had 1 man turrets - the commander also had to load, aim and fire the main gun. If he commanded a platoon or a company (or larger) then he also had to direct their actions.

So in actions where manouvre and control were important the French weer at a major disadvantage.

As numbers in actions got higher the French lost more.

It's not always about arms and armour - you've also got to be able to get them in the right place and then usee them properly.

As the French and English found out in the Hundred Years War - some things never change.

As for tanks being the be-all of armies - apparently it's still axiomatic that the only way to win a war is to have your infantry occupy the enemy's land.

I hear tanks can be quite useful at helping the infantry do that tho.

Hakonarson

12-03-2002, 02:11

oops - double post

Leet Eriksson

12-03-2002, 02:26

Tanks are used as support rather than a main assualt unit,without the support of tanks in WWI the british would have almost certainly lost,thanks to the flawed german A7P the british defeated the german with ease with the mark V,although tanks at that time where mostly support units to help the infantry breakthrough enemy lines.also i remember the man who put the bases of a tank was leonardo Devinci(a wheeled cone with a small box that enables archers to fire arrows from withinthats what i saw anyways http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif)the problem is nobody liked his idea.

and btw guys this is getting off-topic may i suggest someone opens up a thread about tanks in a forum not related to MTW?

Lehesu

12-03-2002, 03:03

I agree that the tank thread should be switched to the Tavern. However, before that, I would like to apologize for my vague statement. I would like to rephrase and say that man-pack AT weapons, such as RPG's and portable TOW's stand very little chance at DESTROYING a tank. A shot at critical parts such as the treads (easy to damage) or the crease between turret and body (requires more accuracy) will disable a tank but probably not destroy it. Now you have an armored bunker http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif However, AT weapons on BMPs or other APCs stand a decent chance of destroying a tank. I would also like to rephrase the statement that tanks were the dominant force in combat. In urban ops or anti-guerrila fighting, infantry and quick APCs rule supreme. However, if there was ever a true scale war that erupted, tanks and APCs, along with planes and arty would be a serious boon to the infantry, as it would be difficult for them to kill other enemy tanks. Sry. Didnt mean to ramble http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

smoothdragon

12-03-2002, 07:39

Quote[/b] ]The only thing that can kill a full-fledged tank, like the Abrahms, would be another tank. RPG's and TOWS can disable, but not destroy current tanks. By the time you can get one shot off, if the tanker is any good, your dead

The modern tank (not the Israeli Merkava, but the Russian T-90 or the American Abrahms M1A3 tank), is well-equipped with infrared jammers, anti-RPG canisters, heat sensors to detect infantry preparing LAWs, and .50 caliber turrets to pick off those RPG-packing infantry trying to pull off a shot. But even these nearly invincible tanks aren't armored as much on the top of the tank as it is on the front and sides. Thus, AT weapons that launch bomblets in a parabolic fashion aimed at the top of the tank has a good rate of success of blowing the tank out. Of course, the classic tactic of launching RPGs/LAWs at the tank's tracks to blow it out is an effective one, but doesn't disable the tank like the bomblets do. These bomblets can be launched by infantry using mortar propellers that have been modified from the ones used since the days of World War I. The only drawback with bomblets is that you need precise aim to land the bomblet on top of the tank, which is a lot harder than aiming a RPG straight at tank and hitting it. Of course, you aren't exposed to the tank using the bomblet tactic and thus won't be eating any .50 caliber bullets like your RPG-launching friends are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

Gregoshi

12-03-2002, 07:50

Whoops Wrong thread - I thought this was about cavalry. Don't mind me, I'll see myself out, thank you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Leet Eriksson

12-03-2002, 13:35

the t-90 and M1A3 tanks are still not match for the leclerc http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif and i thought BMPs were the only APCs capable of filling anti-tank role http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Ckrisz

12-03-2002, 15:46

Bradleys killed plenty of Iraqi T-72s in the last war. Hellfire missiles.

Disabling a tank is often much the same as destroying it. It is a suicidal crew that will stay with a disabled tank, because a tank's main strength is its armored MOBILITY. Once your tracks are thrown, it's often not a major problem for infantry to sneak around to the back and nail it with another RPG, especially in a built-up environment without friendly infantry support. See: Battle of Grozny in the first Chechen War.

Lehesu

12-03-2002, 23:31

I tend to disagree. I think that a tank crew, even if their tank is disabled, would stay in the tank. They still have the main cannon and m-guns and can keep any infantry away until help comes. Also, the BMP was a revolutionary design that changed APCs from rolling tin boxes(M113) to APCs with bite. It is not, however, the only APC to fill an anti-tank role. The Bradley is the U.S. response to the BMP series. And yes, the Leclerc is a good tank.(Why did the French sell some to the United Arab Emirates?) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

gothicform

12-03-2002, 23:53

a lance is longer than a spear therefore cavalry can break through spearmen in real life. a lance is not as long as a pike though, braveheart was PIKEMEN, spears are only 2m.
as for tanks, they are crap at assault. they have light armour on the rear and underneath and can lose their tracks easily. tanks are to support infantry in close combat with short range artillery and machine gun fire. to advance a tank into a built up area without infantry sweeping it first would lead to the tank being knocked out by LAW.

desdichado

12-04-2002, 00:22

Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Dec. 02 2002,06:32)]PS: The Blitzkrieg was acieved because the superior German tanks trashed the Polish frontline and the German Infantery followed them to tak over Control and act as a future Garrison.

PPS: A stand alone German Tiger was captured by a Polish group of Kid Pathfinders in the assault on Poland
Ummm, German Tiger tanks weren't invented until well after the invasion of Poland. I think they came out in about 1943??

Polish would have only captued a Panzer Mark 2 or 3 - an infinitely weaker tank than a Tiger.

Also, early german tanks were not actually superior. French and British tanks actually had armour thick enough to withstand german tank shells. It was only the 88mm AA gun drafted into anti-tank duties that spelt the end of the english & french. Also, english and french tactics of the day were to use individual tanks to support infantry. German tactic was to swarm with their (inferior) tanks.

Guess which worked??

Lehesu

12-04-2002, 00:38

Quote[/b] (gothicform @ Dec. 03 2002,16:53)]as for tanks, they are crap at assault. they have light armour on the rear and underneath and can lose their tracks easily. tanks are to support infantry in close combat with short range artillery and machine gun fire. to advance a tank into a built up area without infantry sweeping it first would lead to the tank being knocked out by LAW.

Yes, the french had the best tanks at the start of WWII. No tanks are not crap at assault. You guys watch too much WWII flicks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif No MBT could EVER be destroyed by a LAW. Banish the thought. The LAW was very Cold Warrish and is really only a souped-up rpg. Tanks now a day are fast, heavily armored and armed. A LAW, even a portable TOW, could not kill a frontline MBT.

andrewt

12-04-2002, 01:16

Tanks aren't a very good investment nowadays. Anti-tank technology is improving faster than tank armor technology. It takes lots of money and research to invent an armor designed to stop the latest anti-tank technology. In contrast, it takes much less to invent the latest missile or whatever to destroy or disable that armor.

Best support nowadays are ballistic missiles and planes. Carpet bombing is still a nice tactic.

Kongamato

12-04-2002, 01:17

I believe that whether a LAW, RPG, or TOW could destroy a tank will come down to the reactive armor debate.

Do tanks still use reactive armor to counter AT weapons?

MagyarKhans Cham

12-04-2002, 01:47

suicide squads have a good kill/cost ratio

Lehesu

12-04-2002, 04:40

I, too, think that planes and missiles are a much more useful investment then tanks(see desert storm http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) However, I disagree with those that think the tank is still a slow, weak, lumbering support vehicle. Modern tanks go about 75 km/h and are equipped with many useful attributes(including reactive armor). I also think that, since mobility is such a prime factor in modern day engagement, that fast vehicles, in particular APCs, are crucial. The U.S. Army realizes that and is producing a whole lot less tanks or selling them off(M1A2s to the Saudis). However, I still think that infantry alone are in a very tight spot without support against tanks ie. planes,arty,missiles,and friendly tanks.

LordKhaine

12-04-2002, 06:48

Im suprised... not one ww2 joke about French moral. Not even a.... "You know the French salute?. Stick both your arms in the air" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Anyways, tanks are not horse. You cant compare them. And as for tanks, in the open tanks ruled all on the ground. But in urban areas tanks were support, infantry are unsuppased in urban combat. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

smoothdragon

12-04-2002, 09:11

Tanks are still very powerful on the battlefield. Modern tanks have thicker armor than in the past, but also have electronics that can jam the infrared sensors that many AT weapons rely on, can release smoke grenades that can throw off an AT rocket, can release hard-kill devices like shrapnel canisters that can blow off AT weapons before they hit the tank, have auto-target machine turrets that will automatically shoot in the direction of the AT rocket and take it out, and will turn in the direction of the AT weapon to present it's most armored side, increasing the surviveability of the tank. For many AT weapons, such as LAWs, they release a huge cone of hot air upon firing, so it's lethal in a bunker or other closed position. Also, many AT weapons require that the soldier keeps his head up to aim the weapon at the tank. Tanks supported by artillery fire are in an advantageous position because the opposing infantry have to stay down and thus cannot use their AT weapons. The artillery can then be silenced once the tanks are in close enough range to fall back on their 120mm cannons and attached machine guns to pick off infantry.

The infantry's effectiveness is greatly diminished on the offensive. Even the heaviest IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) or APC (Armored Personnel Carriers) are too light to go against prepared positions, especially in view of the A/T capabilities the defender should have. This means they need tank support. While it is true that the tanks will take heavier casualties than they would have taken in the relatively safe environment of early WWII, they are still the best weapon to get the job done. Moreover, the tank is a weapon of choice for recce and pursuit missions, because of it's high mobility and and ability to withstand fire. In addition, it can be put to devastating use for counterattacks, before the enemy has time to deploy his heavy A/T weapons, and is also lethal against lightly armed amphibious or airborne forces.

Leet Eriksson

12-04-2002, 13:07

yeah UAE buys tanks from france,and aircraft from the US.we have leclercs g6 artillerry and mirage 2000,rafale and f-16 bloc 60 aircraft,we have a few M1's here and there.and we get our APCs mainly from russia(BMPS)and motor carriages from germany.and were on hell of a mix

PanthaPower

12-04-2002, 14:10

I don't think any weapon should be used as the main fighting force. For every weapon used there is a counter. So balance is the key.
A tank is very good as long as you have air superiority. If I recall correctly, the biggest thread for tanks is the helicopter. But helicopters are vulnerable by infantry, etc etc
By the way, tanks are not that much of a sitting duck anyway. Tanks come in various types and shapes. Some tanks are used mostly for anti-aircraft purposes while other are for infantry or tanks. Most modern tanks can also drive through rough bumby terrain at high speed while keeping it's target locked.

maroule

12-04-2002, 14:17

fun thread,
slightly highjacked but interesting. I'll make a parallel between France's defeat in 1940 and Azincourt (call me daring)

You've noted the difference in using tanks between the French doctrine (tanks are providing infantery with added firepower) and the German one (concentration of tanks and mechanical infantery with air support can break through lines etc. The French knew of the Blietzkrieg doctrine, de Gaulle wrote a book on it (vers l'armée de métier, 1934). It was not implemented, however, because the infantry, as a corp, as a social body, was much predominant in the mix of army forces (as the navy was in England) of course because of its prestige won in the Great war (and the immense sacrifices). Therefore all technological advances were seen/implemented from their angle, hence tanks were there only to 'serve' infantery, the one and only glorious corp.

So infantry generals, the decision makers behind the preparation to war, cost France the war...

Azincourt was the same, but with knight. The French cavalery was predominant, not only because of its actual efficiency (which led to over optimism) but also because the decision makers were knights themselves.

Let us not forget we are evolving in societies were efficiency is not necessarily the first value. Entrenched interests to protect are more often than not the guide to policies. Only in disastrous situations, or when nearing a breaking point, are (sometimes) people ready to look objectively at a situation and implement the most 'efficient' solution (or force mix/force use in our discussion)

Kraxis

12-04-2002, 18:10

I think I will jump in for one little comment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

A disabled tank, lets say one thread is gone or a drivewheel blown off. The tankbuddies drive on in their attempt to create a breakthrough, if the supporting IFVs don't drop a few soldiers to protect the tank then the tank is lost. The inevitable infantry survivors will, if of any acceptable quality, rally and see a sitting duck, and they will want revenge for their own losses.
The tank might be able to defend itself, but only if the crew can actually see the enemy. And no matter how far we have gone in technology of armour and weapons, the visibility of the presentday tank is not much better than that of a tank in late WWII. And don't say that the commander will pop up to look, he knows enemy infantry is out there (they have not surrendered thus they are there) and he will be an easy target for their rifles. So he stays down and the tank has a hard time seeing the infantry moving in.
The infantry will try their RPGs and other AT weapons. The tank might survive, it might not. A hit in the engine compartment is still a deadly way to take out a tank. The fuel will eventually make the tank blow up, and in the case of the Abrams the heavy ammo is right above the engine in the turret (granted it has blowout panels). But eventually the fire in the engine will make its way to teh fuel, or the tank will be an oven forcing the crew out or they would be roasted.
Finally, if all else fails the infantry could quickly make a few Molotovs, and they are still very dangerous to tanks. In the case of the Abrams all they need is to throw it onto the top of the backside of the hull, the airintake will suck in the flames and ignite the fuel too soon and we have a case of an exploding engine. This is very true for the Abrams as it works on highly flamable liquids and has a turbine which is an enginetype that will burn easily if something goes wrong. Of course the engineers has tried to protect it, but it is hard to protect against flames in the airintake.

Tanks are still not allpowering units on the battlefield. And infantry are not outdated even in the open (ok a desert is perhaps not the best place to be). The new AT missiles that blow down through the top armour has proven themselves quite effective and light, and that alone should even the field a little.

Jaret

12-04-2002, 21:34

Sory for corrupting the threat into an tank thread ... only wanted to make a comparison to line out that just like tanks ... heavy cavalry needed infantery ... especialy in rough terrain .

About that German Tiger ... I looked up the article in the history book of my granddad again ... it was in 1943 ... the tank was a Tiger that got lost from it´s unit that was enrout to the eastern front ... sorry about the mess up in timeline. *gg*

PS: The Ferinant ... better known as the Elephant was a mobile gun lafette ... mounting one of the biggest guns ... the fact only 90 of those were produced was also due to the fact ... that the production of it had only just begun ... and that in one of the first big field tests (the battle of kursk) the tank proved of little efficiency ... because of the poor way it was used. And yes ... I call an General that makes a tank assault, without Infantery to cover them, stupid. Maybe they had a bad day, tho.

Ckrisz

12-04-2002, 21:50

Especially into built-up areas, as in Grozny.

If you read a history of the first Russian campaign, it's very depressing. The decision to invade was made in a drunken stupor by high Russian officials. Russia's armed forces combined brutality and atrocity with utter incompetence. The Chechens destroyed the armored thrust into Grozny and butchered the crews like sheep, despite their heaviest vehicle being jeeps, just by using RPGs to wreck mobility and picking their spots.

Hakonarson

12-04-2002, 23:57

Staying completely off topic....

People here have condemed the Ferdinand/elephant for initially having no machine guns, but how many realise that all of the Russian SP guns produced in WW2 similarly lacked built in machine guns??

By late war many mounted roof-top MG's - especially in 12.7mm (.50") calibre useful for AA more than anti-personnel work, but not a single one of them was produced or even modified to have a rifle-calibre machine gun.

Think about it - all those famous machines - the SU-76 on the T-70 chassis, the Su-85, -100 and -122 on the T34 chassis, the SU-152 on the KV chassis, and the ISU-122 and -152 on the IS chassis.

Not a single machine gun among the ten thousand or more such machines produced in total.

Kindof puts teh 90 Ferdinands in perspective, and also the real importance of a machine gun with limited traverse on an assault gun - it's not all that important at all if you'er doign other things right

Lehesu

12-05-2002, 00:33

Let me set the record straight. THE LAW NO LONGER EXISTS AS A USABLE AT WEAPON In MODERN ARMIES IT WAS DITCHED AFTER THE COLD WAR Ahem, thank you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Also, I really think that, in a war that is likely to happen, (i.e. U.S. versus Iraq or terrorist.) I doubt that the untrained "soldiers" would ever be able to destroy a tank without there own tanks. Also, tanks have TURRETS This allows them to cover the REAR Against poorly trained soldiers, I think that it would be very difficult for them to effectively kill a tank. If a tank is crippled, it will be given support as the U.S. Army doesn't advocate abandoning their soldiers. Of course, this whole spiel applies only if you have air dominance, as many tanks will be easily crushed by aircraft. This reply was not made in an indignant fashion and is not ment to insult anybody's opinion based on race,creed,sex,nationality,physical disability, or mental disability http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Kraxis

12-05-2002, 02:48

Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ Dec. 04 2002,17:33)]I doubt that the untrained "soldiers" would ever be able to destroy a tank without there own tanks.
Ahh... so the Chechnians didn't do just that, and still do? And what about the clanwarriors of Afghanistan against the Russians (they do seem to get the heavy end of infantry vs tanks don't they)? It is all about hitting the tank in the right spot such as the top, bottom or rear. Hits in those places will mean an eventual doom for the tank, maybe not with the first shot.
If the tank was impervious to handheld AT-rockets then the infantry wouldn't even be scary in cities.

And about the TURRET... well, what good does that do the tank if it can't see the infantry? And tanks have very bad visibility on their own. So the tank can certainly protect itself, but it can't see.

tarkins

12-05-2002, 02:57

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Dec. 01 2002,20:29)]Ah....Braveheart - the most historically accurate movie since The Life of Brian

You know it's a serious conversation when ppl are using Braveheart as a source http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
What do you have against BraveHeart???

It's may be not an historical movie (they are so boring) but the battle tactic are true.

Hakonarson

12-05-2002, 03:35

Good joke

Appart from the names of the battles and some of the chachters, and Wallace's grisly fate there's almsot nothing historically accurate about Braveheart at all

Eg Wallace did not invent pikes for the Scots as depicted in the movie - they'd been using them for hundreds of years already. And the pikes they used had metal points - they werent' sharpened sticks

There was no battle where the Irish changed sides, and the battle of Stirling Bridge was a one-sided massacre of the English who crossed the river by a small bridge, not the brave resistance of infantry against a massed cavalry charge.

Wallace never met the French Princess as depicted in movie....and so on ond so forth.

God I hate Hollywood history

Next we'll be hearing about how "The Patriot" and "U-576" are so wonderful too....

Barf http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Lehesu

12-05-2002, 04:46

The Russians used smash-and-grab techniques in Afghanistan. The rebel would disable the tank, it would be stranded, and then they would wait (like a siege) for the tankers to come out. The Russian techniques were sloppy; they applied open war techniques to a guerilla clime. If current strategy is used, as I am sure any U.S. force would, such things would not happen. Although tanks may be vulnerable IF left alone to the mercies of infantry, this is not the argument; the argument is whether or not tanks are a more effective combat force than infantry. Personally, I think that APCs will eventually become the most versatile but tanks are still vastly superior to infantry in an open environment. Think of the Somalia skirmish; think of how different it would have been if there were M1A2s or even just Bradleys driving through the streets instead of Hummers. My guess is that more of those men would have gone home. Also, tanks have fire-control systems, laser rangefinders, and thermal night-vision equipment; I think they would do fine ferreting out infantry. I'm not saying tanks are "invincible" to infantry; not at all. However, I sure as hell would rather be a tanker than some poor bastard with an RPG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

tarkins

12-05-2002, 21:37

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Dec. 04 2002,20:35)]God I hate Hollywood history

Next we'll be hearing about how "The Patriot" and "U-576" are so wonderful too....
It was U-571

and I only said that the tactic in the movie are pretty good if you try them in Medieval Total War.
I don't care if a movie is accurate or not.

P.S You forgot Gladiator in your list.

Hakonarson

12-05-2002, 21:55

I did too - ok, so Gladiator ranks right up there with those other fine historical epics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif .

What other modern movies are there that take licence with history? I'm not so concerned about the 50's and 60's ones like Cleopatra & Ben Hur - actually in many respects they weren't too bad compared to mor recent efforts

LadyAnn

12-05-2002, 22:04

This thread is like the Crusade Stack now. It assumes life of its own and is now wandering to uncharted territory...

Annie

shingenmitch2

12-05-2002, 23:08

Holy puke http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif, where do I begin?

---------------
Lady Ann -- This is a pet peeve of mine... France, 1940, German armor was never without infantry support --- that was the brilliance of the Panzer Division -- 2 Regiments of infantry were made mobile to keep up and stay, as an integral unit, with the armor. The Panzer DIVISION would out -pace the Infantry Divisions thus creating gaps in the FRONT, but that is a completely different issue. (one being Tactical, the other Operational)

The French tanks, in armor and gun were better, but had worse command and control. BUT the real issue, and the reason they were defeated was Tactical/Operational doctrine... the tank wasn't used ENMASSE and fielded in multiple company (i.e. Battalion) sized formations. 5 crap tanks will usually beat 1 good one... and this was the net affect of their doctrine. Also, they didn't have mobile, infantry as an integral part of the armored formation.

---------------------
Tanks ARE the offensive weapon of ground warfare. PERIOD. An imobile tank is a useless tank.
You still need boots on the ground to take & deny land.
Mobile, armored gun platforms are still the best anti-infantry weapon. You still need mechanized thrusts around enemy positions (in an Operational sense) to create envelopments that cut off supplies.

-----------------------
Modern US Abrams cannot be compared to Soviet T70s as the 1991 Iraq war proved. US tanks are on an order of magnitude better... RPG might work on the Soviet tanks, but not on the Abrams. All tanks still need infantry support. All tanks are vulnerable in urban settings.

-------------------
There is confusion by some about different eras and doctrines. WW2 US doctrine had infantry divisions provide the Operational breakthrough, and used tank divisions for exploitation (i.e. creating the Operational encirclement -- see Falaise [note: however, that was the culmination of the exploitation of Op. Cobra that used massed carpet bombing to try to create the breakthrough])

German doctrine had massed armor divisions used for breakthrough itself (charge and overrun positions in conjuction with mechanized infantry to clean-up shell shocked enemy infantry) and Operational exploitation (see the 1941 Smolensk operation)--- note the word DIVISION... the armored division was a combined arms unit. They had artillery for indirect fire, AT guns, and infantry, AA units, Engineer units, etc... all as part of the division.

---------------------------------
Jaret ---
The Elephant didn't work because of the lack of machine-guns as mentioned... but they WERE sent in with infantry. But Soviet artillery and small arms fire drove them off leaving the tank-destroyers exposed.

-----------------
Lahll
People fielded armies of spearmen because they were cheap and relatively effective. Stirruped Cavalry was always better than infantry... BUT EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE to field.

No nation could afford to field an army of all mounted knights because of the cost of armor, and horse up-keep. Heck that was one of the downfalls of the Black Huns when they stayed too long in Europe --- not enough grazing lands to support all Cav armies. The Hsiung-pi & Hsiung-nu had the same problem in China-- once they would move into China for any extended period they had to give up their all Cav armies because of lack of grazing lands to support their horses.

--------------
Hakonarson
Be careful of comparing Parthian Cataphracts --- the early ones did not have stirrups (but probably used a saddle similar to the "celtic saddle"). Yet even these early heavy cav (including Sarmation heavy cav--unstirruped as well) would on occaision frontally assault spear/Roman infantry and win.

Although the knight/lancer was an outgrowth of the nobility --- DO NOT discount the battlefield superiority it provided. Humans are imminantly practical things and we rarely spend huge amounts of wealth on things that don't work. The fact that the Armored knight was a mandatory battlefield staple in all European armies & Cataphracts for the Byzants... only stresses the importance they had.

Now, well-ordered infantry spearmen? in the Middleages that was close to an oxymoron
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Kraxis

12-06-2002, 01:20

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Dec. 05 2002,16:08)]Modern US Abrams cannot be compared to Soviet T70s as the 1991 Iraq war proved. US tanks are on an order of magnitude better... RPG might work on the Soviet tanks, but not on the Abrams. All tanks still need infantry support. All tanks are vulnerable in urban settings.
What a post... WHAT a post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You must have taken your time compiling what people have written and who wrote what. Impressed I am.

I guess the quote is minted on me? Well, I will regard it as such.

Granted the T-72 tanks in the Iraqi army was certainly not up to the standards they faced, be it Abrams, Challengers or french tanks (can't remember them right now, but it wasn't LeClercs).
But to compare the export tanks to the main army Russian tanks is simply wrong. The T-72s the coalition faced were unupgraded tanks from the early 1970s, while the T-72s used in Afghanistan were heavily upgraded. But besides this, the main tank in the Red Army was after 1980 the T-80. A tanks that is immensly more powerful than the T-72. Much faster than the Abrams and as heavily armoured on the front, better armoured on the side of the turret but far worse on the side of the hull and rear. And it was those tanks that went into combat in Afghanistan, along with the upgraded T-72s (which were being replaced as time went by).
And the tanks in Grozny... well those were T-80s and T-90s even better tanks. Tanks that certainly can be compared to the latest Abrams.
RPGs will work on Abrams. The rear armour is only 75mm slightly sloped... and most shoulderborne RPGs can penetrate about 240mm of slightly sloped armour. With so much extra power the Abrams will blow up just hit correctly, at the very least the loader will get injured.

Lehesu

12-06-2002, 01:29

The RPG part needs some work, Kraxis. What armor are you talking about? 240 mm is a decent amount of armor. A lot of older tanks had about 150 mm of armor. I know that even an older T72 will not roll over and die if it gets hit by an RPG, despite only having AT MOST 242 mm of armor. On its frontal glacis plate

Richard the Slayer

12-06-2002, 02:18

Quote[/b] (NinjaKilla @ Dec. 02 2002,05:57)]ROFLMAO man I love those hardcore history arguements How many times around here do you say something a bit careless and before you know it some hardcore mofo has just beaten your ass to a pulp. Great stuff Keep it up. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson - yes this is a game rather than a simulation. Do you really thing its accurate to have groups of forty knights always sitting around in squares looking absolutely identical? That groups of 60 samurai warriors always used the same equipment and units could be distinguished according to it? I won't go on... needless to say that the primary point of a popular computer game is to make it playable. It helps if its based on a historical period, but at the end of the day, much of the accuracy go out of the window 'cos its gonna play well.
I digress with your idea that MTW was designed as a game of goblins and dragons. Its quite obvious the game was geared toward simulating Medieval warfare on a reasonable level of simulation. If you are here to argue MTW was designed without any degree of realism, I'm inclined to think as well the designers should have titled the game Medieval Fantasy. So your quite wrong in that department. Granted Medieval Total War may not be 100% realistic, but then again no game can be 100% realistic either.

Anyhow the main reason I'm here to post is to point out that knights RARELY charged. This is not my opinion, this is based on my research and reading of warfare in the medieval period. Its no wonder that the English and eventually the French adopted the tactic of dismounting knights.

P.S. Playability has plenty to do with realism. A playable game can also be realistic. Why do you think no one European power ever dominated the whole of Europe during the middle ages? And why do you think middle age armies adopted combined arms tactics? Also, visual effects have nothing to do with how realistic GAMEPLAY is. If our argument is based on the gameplay of how knights fight in the game, therefore your argument shouldnt be based on visual effects as they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with gameplay. You probably argue that an extremely realistic jet simulation is unrealistc because it doesnt show the pilot picking his nose. End of story. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

Richard the Slayer

12-06-2002, 02:22

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Dec. 04 2002,16:57)]Staying completely off topic....

People here have condemed the Ferdinand/elephant for initially having no machine guns, but how many realise that all of the Russian SP guns produced in WW2 similarly lacked built in machine guns??

By late war many mounted roof-top MG's - especially in 12.7mm (.50") calibre useful for AA more than anti-personnel work, but not a single one of them was produced or even modified to have a rifle-calibre machine gun.

Think about it - all those famous machines - the SU-76 on the T-70 chassis, the Su-85, -100 and -122 on the T34 chassis, the SU-152 on the KV chassis, and the ISU-122 and -152 on the IS chassis.

Not a single machine gun among the ten thousand or more such machines produced in total.

Kindof puts teh 90 Ferdinands in perspective, and also the real importance of a machine gun with limited traverse on an assault gun - it's not all that important at all if you'er doign other things right
Just to get off the topic even more completely. Thats true. Although I might add the primary reason the Ferdinand was so vunerable to infantry wasnt just the fatc it lacked machine guns but it was extremely slow and vunerable. The SU chasis were much faster which made up for lack of machine guns.

shingenmitch2

12-06-2002, 02:28

Hi Krax--

For the most part I agree... any tank is vulnerable if you get in close enough and hit the right spot. Hopefully the tank has supporting inf to prevent that.

Now at speed, 30 mph in a mech company charge, in semi-open terrain, supported by APCs... bye bye inf w/rpg's.

The other part I would take issue with is the armor... we are not talking about regular steel mm of slope. This is chobham armor--and what that is made of is still classified. As far as I know the Soviets have nothing to compare (though they do have some form of reactive armor). I believe you can throw the usual penetration stats out the window with Chobham though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Also the biggest Abrams advantage (besides US command and control sytems which no nation is close to) is their fire control mechanisms & ammunition. It can fight the Soviet tanks at stand-off ranges (for the most part) and can hit them on the fly like they could only dream of.

Oddly enough I heard stories from guys that the cannon on the Bradley IFV's (to everyone's shock) was penetrating the Iraqi MBT's armor. There were other stories where Iraqi tanks would be dug in, completely hidden behind a sand dune, and the Abrams would fire clear through the dune and knock the tank out.

Hakonarson

12-06-2002, 03:37

Quote[/b] (Richard the Slayer @ Dec. 05 2002,19:22)]
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Dec. 04 2002,16:57)]Staying completely off topic....

People here have condemed the Ferdinand/elephant for initially having no machine guns, but how many realise that all of the Russian SP guns produced in WW2 similarly lacked built in machine guns??

Just to get off the topic even more completely. Thats true. Although I might add the primary reason the Ferdinand was so vunerable to infantry wasnt just the fatc it lacked machine guns but it was extremely slow and vunerable. The SU chasis were much faster which made up for lack of machine guns.
Not really. Speed has little to do with it, as tanks/AFV's of all types in WW2 generally traveleld quiet slowly when in combat anyway.

Rather the problem at Kursk was incorrect useage.

The Ferdinands were anti-tank guns - big ones - behind heavy armour. Their correct usage was pounding enemy armour from medium to long range - say 1-2km - not assaulting dug in infantry at close quarters.

The Soviet SU guns didnt' fall into this trap. the big ones (SU-152, ISU-122 and 152) were mobile heavy artillery - used to blast strongpoints from a suitable range and to allow infantry to carry ouot an assault.

Teh Su-85 and -100 were used as anti-tank guns, althoug hte Su-85 was relegated more to infantry support when the T34/85 came along) - mobile "fire brigades" for attacking German armour.

The Su-76 and later the 85 were used to support infantry in attack, and, to a lesser extent, defence. So they always had plenty of their own infantry around as escort.

By contrast the German tactics at Kursk were (crudely speaking) often characterised by using armour as a "battering ram" to try to roll over Russian positions.

The most successful attacks came when their infantry assaulted supported by tanks and artilery - essentially the first few days of the battle.

The huge Russian losses in tanks came when they tried to use their own armour as "counter battering rams". The most successful defences by the Russians occured where their armour acted in support of their defesive infantry and artilery.

Which is pretty much what you'd expect really

And this holds true for medieval times too - many occasions existed when cavalry thrown into indfantry was defeated, but a combined-arms approach succeeded. Eg Bannock Burn vs Falkirk, and Agincourt/Crecy/Poitier are all classic examples of the dangers of attacking prepared defensive positions with a "single arm". (IMO)

smoothdragon

12-06-2002, 09:42

Ah, the classic AT Weapons vs. Tank debate. For the last 60 years, the anti-tank weapons have become a lot more sophisticated than their WWII breathen. The latest shoulder mounted anti-tank weapons such as the Eryx can penetrate upwards of 900mm of sloped reactive armor These new AT weapons have homing devices on them that can be either directed by the launcher or left to automatically seek out the tank via infrared signals. These "LAWs" can be launched and can hit their target within 5 seconds, and often are armed with a rocket with two sections: the first section is used to penetrate the reactive armor and the second to blow through the base armor. Even if the tank releases shrapnel canisters, it will still take damage from the explosion of the AT rocket. Smoke grenades can throw off the AT rocket, but it can miss the tank and hit a target behind it that is more vulnerable (i.e. an APC). The tank's best bet is to either neutralize the infantry before the LAW is launched or blow out the rocket before it comes within effective range of the tank. Most tanks come with machine gun turrets designed for this purpose, and a sophisticated tank like the Abrahms M1A3 have turrets that will "lock" on LAW-packing infantry using heat sensors and pick them off.

I say it's a pretty even match-up between infantry vs. tank. Unless of course the infantry are in Apache helicopters http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

rasoforos

12-06-2002, 11:43

yep , the apache absolutelly rules http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif you gotta love this piece of art

Kraxis

12-06-2002, 17:38

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ Dec. 05 2002,19:28)]The other part I would take issue with is the armor... we are not talking about regular steel mm of slope. This is chobham armor--and what that is made of is still classified. As far as I know the Soviets have nothing to compare (though they do have some form of reactive armor). I believe you can throw the usual penetration stats out the window with Chobham though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ahhh... the Chobham Armour... Yes I know it, but for it to be effective it needs to be of a certain thickness, or else it is just not able to soak up the blast. It is made up of layers of ceramic, steel and other unknown (to us) materials, if those layers are too thin they will not do any good. Thus the rear of the Abrams is not protected by Chobham armour as it would protect it nothing more than normal steel. Perhaps a small deal, but that would not only make the tank heavier (chobham is heavier than normal steel), but the protection added would not be enough for the price (chobham is expensive).
So the rear is made up of quality steel. But to the Abrams advantage, its rear armour is thicker than most tanks around the world, for instance the Leopard II only has about 25mm.

The 240mm is against normal sloped steel, against chobham I would expect about 150mm, but that is close to the effective limit of it, so we can quickly dissmiss hits to the sides and front. The rear stays vulnerable.
And remember that the RPG I'm talking about is the one equipped by those clanwarriors and guerrillas (the Panzerfaust could penetrate 200mm so we are not talking state of the art here). Proper troops would have much better weapons, as noted by smoothdragon (though I think he is talking about a weapon mounted on a foot or laid on the ground).

About the hitting capabilities of the Russian tanks now. They are equal to anything out there, but they are perhaps not as heavily armoured (though close), and they might not recieve the same amount of training as the Abrams crews. The tanks themselves are very close at the moment, and the Russians are much smaller and faster making them harder targets to hit. Remember the Iraqi tanks could not fire on the move, not effectively, so they dug in and awaited the enemy. That itself made them easy targets to hit.
Further they did not have proper night vision so the Abrams could practically blow them away with impunity at night, but that was tanks from the early 70s, export models But yes the T-72 is not greatly protected on the hull front so I won't dismiss the "through dune" story. They have about 200mm on the front hull and those 250mm on the front turret. They are simply not up to the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore cannon of the Abrams, it is possibly the best tankgun ever made (rate of fire, penetration, accuracy and muzzle velocity).
About the 25mm autocannon of the Bradley penetrating the armour of an MBT... well, that sounds wild, but it might be possible on those T-72s if they hit their hullsides, but still it must have been some very lucky shots.

You can't compare the Iraqi T-72s with T-90s, it is a no contest battle. Abrams would suffer heavy losses if they faced them, if they would win is another matter...
Don't think that the Russians are very far behind in quality of the tanks, and don't think that they only have reactive armour, they too have composite armour, it might not be all that more effective than normal armour but with reactive boxes as well it will give a good survivability. Why wouldn't the Russians work with composite materials as well? They don't just sit in a cave not listening to what happens around the world. They too evolve their tanks.

Lehesu

12-07-2002, 01:10

Actually, tanks will soon have a much more limited role in combat. The U.S., along with other countries, are realizing the usefulness of quick mechanized infantry with advanced APC's and advanced infantry weaponry. Also, in an age with cruise missiles and advanced aircraft, I doubt tanks would be much use unless you had air superiority. However, the argument that APCs would still be a viable force is that when fighting against guerillas and terrorists, mobility is key. The ability to quickly dispatch troops and provide support is much more practical AND economically more efficient than having large, comparetivly slow, tanks. The U.S., along with other countries, has begun downsizing the MBT population and emphasizing production of lighter, more versatile armored vehicles. This is why you find good tanks like Abrahms going to the Saudis and LeClercs going to the UAE; they just arent as needed anymore.

smoothdragon

12-07-2002, 09:41

Against entrenched enemy positions, the best screen for advance will always be tanks. APCs do not have enough armor or firepower needed to assault a fortified position like tanks can. Sure, tanks will take heavy losses but much less so than APCs that are assaulting a position bristling with A/T weapons and heavy flak fire.

Kraxis, the Eyrx A/T missile system is shoulder launched, although it can be fired from the prone position. The latest portable "LAWs" are relatively lighter and more powerful than their predecessors.

Lehesu

12-08-2002, 03:04

I don't mean to say that tanks will be worthless; rather, that the U.S. Army will not be so "top heavy" and will field a better balance of speed in an already very heavy military.

pithorr

12-08-2002, 16:22

Quote[/b] (Jaret @ Dec. 01 2002,14:32)]
Quote[/b] (pithorr @ Dec. 01 2002,12:40)]But it is unhistorical
Heavy Chivalry was "invented" just for breaking frontal assault throuh enemy lines, then to flank and encircle them.
Just like Panzers during Blitzkrieg...
Wrong

At Kursk a whole unit of German Elephant Tanks was destroyed by Russian Infantery ... because the stupid (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif german commander send them alone without Infantery advancing in their cover. Russians let the Tanks roll over them and then attacked the weak backside, destroying all of them

Its the same with Cavalry You can well use them in a frontal charge ... but not without Infantery following them
They have the same problems like Tanks in a situation like that. Always let your infanterie follow your cav units ... and when the Cavalry has engaged the enemy ... swarm them with your Infantery to support your Cavalry.

Stand alone, Cavalry was a total waste ... especialy on difficult ground like hills or woods, God loves the Infantery.

PS: The Blitzkrieg was acieved because the superior German tanks trashed the Polish frontline and the German Infantery followed them to tak over Control and act as a future Garrison.

PPS: A stand alone German Tiger was captured by a Polish group of Kid Pathfinders in the assault on Poland
1) Kursk is not good example for the Blitzkrieg tactics...
Better see Polish '39, French '40 or Barbarossa Campaigns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
2) Germans did not even dream about Tigers during Polish Campaign. They emerged in 1943, so what Polish pathfinders a hell... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif