oops - double post
Printable View
oops - double post
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-cg...ons/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?
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-cg...ons/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-cg...cons/wacko.gif
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-cg...ns/biggrin.gif.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
the t-90 and M1A3 tanks are still not match for the leclerc http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif and i thought BMPs were the only APCs capable of filling anti-tank role http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif
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.
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-cg...cons/dizzy.gif
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.
Ummm, German Tiger tanks weren't invented until well after the invasion of Poland. I think they came out in about 1943??Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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??
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-cg...ns/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.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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.
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?
suicide squads have a good kill/cost ratio
I, too, think that planes and missiles are a much more useful investment then tanks(see desert storm http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/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.
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-cg...cons/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-cg...cons/smile.gif
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.
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
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.
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)
I think I will jump in for one little comment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/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.
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.
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.
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
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-cg...icons/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-cg...cons/joker.gif
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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.
What do you have against BraveHeart???Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
It's may be not an historical movie (they are so boring) but the battle tactic are true.
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-cg...cons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
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-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
It was U-571Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
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.