Best Tank

[Barringtonia]

You haven't even seriously responded to the rebuttals of your posts.

Given modern warfare, tanks would be the first taken out, they're vulnerable at so many points let alone cumbersome, expensive and a waste of transport space.

We haven't had a proper war, Iraq hardly counts and most often we've simply seen an overwhelming force combined with superior airpower that wins, even then tanks are constantly taken out as shown by the Georgia link, to the point where they need additional support but that thinking is based on 'we need tanks', not even 'we need tanks' but 'we have tanks and our strategies are still based on them'.

If there was to be a war, and I'd suspect the most likely might be India against China, tanks would probably be seen to be superfluous.

We just don't have great land battles that require a cavalry, leading to the tank. Long-range targeted bombardment, pick and hit ground war supported by airpower will make the difference.

The simple fact is that if you don't have airpower, unless you're in jungle warfare where tanks don't matter anyway, you're already screwed.

How much investment is being put into tanks by the US military, not very much, they're a cold war leftover.

Now, having said that, I agree with Hurtful Thoughts that the definition of a tank is up for debate, but battletanks, of the sort debated here, are rapidly becoming obsolete.

[Parthenon]

According to a friend that's a tanker in the IDF Hezbollah used missiles with tandem heat charges, that penetrate far more steel than the average AP shot from a 105,120 or 125 mm gun. Every other tank in this thread would suffer the same fate.

Hezbollah was armed with RPG-29s and Kornet-E missiles. They are both tandem warhead missiles, although the latter is guided. None of these successfully perforated or knocked-out a Merkava tank. There were Merkavas which survived multiple hits. The five Merkavas which were indefinitely knocked-out where knocked out by improvised explosive devices, one of which was 100kg in weight.

I knew Hezbollah was operating the RPG-29s, wasn't sure of the specific incidents the above poster was referring too however.

Something that should also be noted about the Merkava in comparison to the other next generation tanks is that the Merkava has a front mounted engine and a large rear hatch rather than the traditional rear engine. What this does is gives the crew greater survivability in the event of a direct hit as the engine serves as a few extra tons of steel between the crew and the blast while the rear hatch allows for an easy loading of ammunition, emergency escape, and unloading of wounded. Crews can repair an engine, and engine can't repair a crew.

[Brogavia]

You haven't even seriously responded to the rebuttals of your posts.

Given modern warfare, tanks would be the first taken out, they're vulnerable at so many points let alone cumbersome, expensive and a waste of transport space.

We haven't had a proper war, Iraq hardly counts and most often we've simply seen an overwhelming force combined with superior airpower that wins, even then tanks are constantly taken out as shown by the Georgia link, to the point where they need additional support but that thinking is based on 'we need tanks', not even 'we need tanks' but 'we have tanks and our strategies are still based on them'.

If there was to be a war, and I'd suspect the most likely might be India against China, tanks would probably be seen to be superfluous.

We just don't have great land battles that require a cavalry, leading to the tank. Long-range targeted bombardment, pick and hit ground war supported by airpower will make the difference.

The simple fact is that if you don't have airpower, unless you're in jungle warfare where tanks don't matter anyway, you're already screwed.

How much investment is being put into tanks by the US military, not very much, they're a cold war leftover.

Now, having said that, I agree with Hurtful Thoughts that the definition of a tank is up for debate, but battletanks, of the sort debated here, are rapidly becoming obsolete.

Tanks have never been an effective weapon by themselves. With out infantry support tanks are dead meat. Just like Infantry are dead without armor support if they are facing a combined arms force.

[The Macabees]

Given modern warfare, tanks would be the first taken out, they're vulnerable at so many points let alone cumbersome, expensive and a waste of transport space.

But, this hasn't been held to be true in any modern war. You are assuming that there is no such thing as combined arms, and you ignore the fact that multiple armies have seen enough use in the tank to use them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Southern Lebanon and Georgia. Your argument is similar to: the pike defeats the horse. Unfortunately, this ignores the existence of combined arms, and the comparison doesn't hold water.

I could just as easily say that the surface to air missile defeats the aircraft. But that would be a simplistic comparison, and would not portray the value of combined arms (i.e. the artillery gun can shell the surface to air missile battery).

As a result, your opinion that the tank is susceptible to the aircraft simply doesn't hold water.

We haven't had a proper war, Iraq hardly counts and most often we've simply seen an overwhelming force combined with superior airpower that wins...

However, it goes to show that an aircraft can only target a tank if it has complete air superiority.

...even then tanks are constantly taken out as shown by the Georgia link, to the point where they need additional support but that thinking is based on 'we need tanks', not even 'we need tanks' but 'we have tanks and our strategies are still based on them'.

No, all mechanized armies are based on combined arms.

If there was to be a war, and I'd suspect the most likely might be India against China, tanks would probably be seen to be superfluous.

We just don't have great land battles that require a cavalry, leading to the tank.

Tanks are invaluable in counter insurgency operations. Ask anybody that has any strategic knowledge on the issue, including people who have actually gone to war. In fact, I would suggest asking on Tank-net.org.

The simple fact is that if you don't have airpower, unless you're in jungle warfare where tanks don't matter anyway, you're already screwed.

This argument is just as ludicrous as the argument that "the tank is the keystone of any army". An air force can be defeated by enough surface to air defenses. What you need is combined arms, which is something you obviously have no idea about.

That said, mechanized warfare is not based around the tank. It's based on a large variety of different weapons, including aircraft.

How much investment is being put into tanks by the US military, not very much, they're a cold war leftover.

[SaintB]

I hearts of Iron I mount a 90mm gun on my Sherman Tanks. Of course when I play as the US usually by the time I start fighting my troops are hitting the beaches with assault rifles, jet fighters, and a nuclear powered naval force to back them up.

[The Casino]

the Abrams, seeing as how the M1 model has supposedly never been destroyed in battle, ever. Wounded but never defeated.

Hmm....





I believe thats Destroyed

[The Emmerian Unions]

the Abrams, seeing as how the M1 model has supposedly never been destroyed in battle, ever. Wounded but never defeated.

Hmm....





I believe thats Destroyed

Nope. It still works. All you gotta do is give it to some hard working Puerto Ricans and it'll be awesome!

[Barringtonia]

Tanks are invaluable in counter insurgency operations. Ask anybody that has any strategic knowledge on the issue, including people who have actually gone to war. In fact, I would suggest asking on Tank-net.org.

Ask if tanks are necessary at iluvtanks.net?

Given we're defining a tank as requiring a turret, I'd say the Stryker was more effective in terms of urban warfare and counter-insurgency than a tank. It's been interesting that all the criticism has come from civilians as opposed to those in the field, the same civilians enamoured of their lovely big parade machines. Although it may have the same vulnerabilities from the air, the simple fact is that it's faster, quieter, more maneouverable, seemingly as safe and doesn't have an unwieldy and rather pointless turret and gun.

Bottom line for Maj. Baker, after being in Iraq with it?

“When you rolled out the gate, you were fairly confident that that vehicle was going to take care of you…. I’m familiar with what a Bradley can do. It’s a fantastic vehicle, but I would take a Stryker over it in Iraq any day.”

and...

TONY CAPACCIO: “Colonel, do you have any specific tactical instances where in the city Mosul these vehicles accomplished more than a tank could of or a Bradley could have, given their construction and their mobility?”

COL. BROWN: “How much time do you have? Because I could give you an example every single night. I’ll give you one example of a company. In Deuce Four, 1-24 Infantry, a young company commander out being very agile and adaptive, he went out, and during the day some cars drove by and fired at the Strykers. They chased the cars in the Stryker. You wouldn’t have been able to keep up in a tank or a Bradley. They chased the cars. The guys got out of the car and being, again, the cowards that they are, they hid behind women and children, so the soldiers didn’t shoot them. But they went up to the cars. They found caches of weapons in the cars, and they found their wallets in the cars. They then went to some sources who said, yeah, we know where these guys live. So two hours later, they went and raided the home with one platoon, captured some more. Those guys talked. They went and raided more.

By the end of the night, one night, one Stryker company, about 120 soldiers, about, you know, 14 Strykers involved, went seven different locations, captured 15 out of 20 terrorist cell members, captured mortar systems, sniper rifles, a very large cache of weapons, et cetera, all that was mobile, all in cars. And they were able to get their quickly using their digital capability, using the speed of the Stryker, and oh, by the way, maintained perfect situational understanding at this time using a UAV up above and all the digital systems in what the Stryker affords. And the biggest thing the Stryker affords is nine infantrymen out in this urban setting—this was all in a city, population of 2 million—a very populated area, downtown city area that this happened. So that’s one example.”

“We were hit by 115 RPGs hit Strykers over the year we had here, not one penetrated a Stryker, not one. Not any—no machine gun fire penetrated a Stryker inside. We did have a soldier that was killed in a hatch by an RPG—standing up in a hatch, and they fired from a building on top, but not one RPG penetrated a Stryker; 115 hits, it’s a fantastic vehicle. ...Does it need improvements? I don’t know of any vehicle that doesn’t. I’d put a laser range-finder on it. I’d stabilize the gun, maybe put a larger gun on it. The Army’s working all that. Is it a fantastic vehicle? Yes.”

Why do you need a tank with it's limited turret and gun system, generally able to carry 4 people max at limited speeds?

In terms of armoured personel carriers, your basic tank is, as I've maintained, obsolete.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... s3099.aspx

[Risottia]

My bad, I read somewhere that the A2 mounted a 125mm rifled cannon...

Zapadniki don't use 125mm. Only 105mm and 120mm.

[The Macabees]

Ask if tanks are necessary at iluvtanks.net?

Yes, there are people with experience there.

Given we're defining a tank as requiring a turret, I'd say the Stryker was more effective in terms of urban warfare and counter-insurgency than a tank.

Then you obviously do not know what you're talking about, and you obviously have not studied the evidence presented in Iraq. But, truth be told, one does not replace the other. They are meant for two different roles in counter-insurgency operations, and they work together.

It's been interesting that all the criticism has come from civilians as opposed to those in the field, the same civilians enamoured of their lovely big parade machines. Although it may have the same vulnerabilities from the air, the simple fact is that it's faster, quieter, more maneouverable, seemingly as safe and doesn't have an unwieldy and rather pointless turret and gun.

None of what you said is actually true. The Stryker has received a lot of criticism from soldiers in the field. But, nobody has criticized it for being a tank replacement, because it's not. The Stryker is an infantry support vehicle, and there has always been infantry support vehicles, even with the existence of tanks.

The Stryker is radically less safe than a main battle tank, and the main gun is not pointless. If it was pointless then there wouldn't be a MGS version of the Stryker.

“When you rolled out the gate, you were fairly confident that that vehicle was going to take care of you…. I’m familiar with what a Bradley can do. It’s a fantastic vehicle, but I would take a Stryker over it in Iraq any day.”

We aren't talking about the Bradley, which is an infantry combat vehicle, we are talking about tanks. Please, do not set up a straw man.

Your quotes do not actually even compare the Stryker to a tank. It just suggests the merits of the Stryker.

“We were hit by 115 RPGs hit Strykers over the year we had here, not one penetrated a Stryker, not one. Not any—no machine gun fire penetrated a Stryker inside. We did have a soldier that was killed in a hatch by an RPG—standing up in a hatch, and they fired from a building on top, but not one RPG penetrated a Stryker; 115 hits, it’s a fantastic vehicle. ...Does it need improvements? I don’t know of any vehicle that doesn’t. I’d put a laser range-finder on it. I’d stabilize the gun, maybe put a larger gun on it. The Army’s working all that. Is it a fantastic vehicle? Yes.”

This seems to undermine your previous position on the main gun.

Why do you need a tank with it's limited turret and gun system, generally able to carry 4 people max at limited speeds?

A tank can't carry any infantry compliment. It only carries its crew. Furthermore, I'm not sure how speed is relevant in urban combat, given that your speed is limited by the terrain. Your arguments don't make much sense, and ignore reality. The power of the tank, as found by both the United States and by Saddam Hussein when he still ruled in Iraq, was the psychological effect of its size. There's no other vehicle that has the power to disperse an insurgency's defense in the city. Furthermore, they are highly survivable and the main gun is still useful for direct gun fire.

Their advantages in counter insurgency operations is not only limited cities, but to most terrains, including Afghanistan. The Canadian Army has found their Leopard 2A6Ms to be indispensable in-country

In terms of armoured personel carriers, your basic tank is, as I've maintained, obsolete.

[/quote]

Um what? The tank was never an APC.

[Barringtonia]

None of what you said is actually true. The Stryker has received a lot of criticism from soldiers in the field. But, nobody has criticized it for being a tank replacement, because it's not.

Everything you say is negated by this:

TONY CAPACCIO: “Colonel, do you have any specific tactical instances where in the city Mosul these vehicles accomplished more than a tank could of or a Bradley could have, given their construction and their mobility?”

COL. BROWN: “How much time do you have?

None of what you said is actually true. The Stryker has received a lot of criticism from soldiers in the field

Not recently now they know how to use it effectively, every example of a tank's effectiveness in this thread has referred to WW2, Vietnam, Korea, let's move on shall we?

Name me one area a tank is better in terms of overall effectiveness that an APV such as the Stryker, without citing an article from before 2007?

What exactly is a tank good for?

What does it do?

I'm not sure how speed is relevant in urban combat, given that your speed is limited by the terrain.

They've just explained, in terms of carrying enough infantry at enough speed to take out multiple areas of insurgency.

I haven't seen one advantage of the tank, at all.

[Conserative Morality]

None of what you said is actually true. The Stryker has received a lot of criticism from soldiers in the field. But, nobody has criticized it for being a tank replacement, because it's not.

Everything you say is negated by this:

Everything he says is negated by someone who uses a Stryker, and thus has an unbiased opinion?

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

The Stryker that took 115 RPG's obviously has slat armor. We had an old BTR-70 covered in that stuff, and nobody counted how many times it was hit and nothing happened. With out the armor..1, maybe 2 hits and it's all over, for any APC

[Barringtonia]

Everything he says is negated by someone who uses a Stryker, and thus has an unbiased opinion?

That's a fair enough point, but the only advantage I've seen from tank commanders run roughly along the lines of:

"It's really cool to take out another tank at 4km at 30k/ph"

Like I said, great for parades.

There's nothing a tank can do that can't be effectively replaced by something cheaper, more maneuverable, more transportable and more effective, aside from taking out other tanks - which can be done in multiple other means.

Most people have no idea how the armed forces compete for budget, and for that they need 'something cool', what else does the army have but a big tank.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

Everything he says is negated by someone who uses a Stryker, and thus has an unbiased opinion?

That's a fair enough point, but the only advantage I've seen from tank commanders run roughly along the lines of:

"It's really cool to take out another tank at 4km at 30k/ph"

Like I said, great for parades.

There's nothing a tank can do that can't be effectively replaced by something cheaper, more maneuverable, more transportable and more effective, aside from taking out other tanks - which can be done in multiple other means.

Most people have no idea how the armed forces compete for budget, and for that they need 'something cool', what else does the army have but a big tank.

Maneuverability doesn't mean much for wheeled vehicles off road. Things with wheels will get stuck in the mud easier then tracked things, who can also go over trenches and not worry aboout getting stuck

[Conserative Morality]

Everything he says is negated by someone who uses a Stryker, and thus has an unbiased opinion?

That's a fair enough point, but the only advantage I've seen from tank commanders run roughly along the lines of:

"It's really cool to take out another tank at 4km at 30k/ph"

Like I said, great for parades.

There's nothing a tank can do that can't be effectively replaced by something cheaper, more maneuverable, more transportable and more effective, aside from taking out other tanks - which can be done in multiple other means.

Most people have no idea how the armed forces compete for budget, and for that they need 'something cool', what else does the army have but a big tank.

Eh, just don't like those kind of arguments. However, I'm STILL not too informed on the Stryker, but would there be a chance that as the Stryker is adopted, tanks with more powerful turrets are adopted to counter the Strykers, and thus newer tanks are needed to counteract these tanks? I mean that in a 'Whenever someone other than a few fanatics with RPGs and AK-47's come out and decide they want to take on the USA' kind of way.

[Barringtonia]

Maneuverability doesn't mean much for wheeled vehicles off road. Things with wheels will get stuck in the mud easier then tracked things, who can also go over trenches and not worry aboout getting stuck

As far as I could see, the debate came down to, "well tanks are needed for counter-insurgency", but I'm putting forward a better alternative,

The point is that, in the open, both the Stryker and the tank are open to air superiority, so, when you have air superiority and you're fighting against urban warfare and counter-insurgency, you need a tank. Yet you don't, there's better, cheaper, faster alternatives, so I ask again, where is the tank useful?

Conserative Morality » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:27 am = Eh, just don't like those kind of arguments. However, I'm STILL not too informed on the Stryker, but would there be a chance that as the Stryker is adopted, tanks with more powerful turrets are adopted to counter the Strykers, and thus newer tanks are needed to counteract these tanks?

What is the tank for?

I'm waiting for one area in which it's indispensable as a unit either in a unified combat force or standalone.

What is it other than a slow form of artillery, or a form of cavalry that's irrelevant in modern warfare? The crappiness of the turret alone is a point against.

[The Macabees]

TONY CAPACCIO: “Colonel, do you have any specific tactical instances where in the city Mosul these vehicles accomplished more than a tank could of or a Bradley could have, given their construction and their mobility?”

COL. BROWN: “How much time do you have?

He doesn't even support his position in what you quoted.

Not recently now they know how to use it effectively, every example of a tank's effectiveness in this thread has referred to WW2, Vietnam, Korea, let's move on shall we?

You obviously have not read the thread very well.

Name me one area a tank is better in terms of overall effectiveness that an APV such as the Stryker, without citing an article from before 2007?

What exactly is a tank good for?

What does it do?

I have already answered these questions in prior posts. I am not going to repeat myself, because you lack reading comprehension.

They've just explained, in terms of carrying enough infantry at enough speed to take out multiple areas of insurgency.

But, that was not in a tank's role, in the first place. This is the power of combined arms, where you can have an ICV or an APC to carry infantry, while providing light support, while a tank provides heavy, direct fire support. This is combined arms. It's a doctrine that you obviously have no idea about.

I haven't seen one advantage of the tank, at all.

[/quote]

Frankly, you don't know much about either the armored personnel carrier or the tank to have much of an opinion.

[The Macabees]

As far as I could see, the debate came down to, "well tanks are needed for counter-insurgency", but I'm putting forward a better alternative,

What you're missing is that they are not alternatives to each other. They work in combined arms.

[Barringtonia]

As far as I could see, the debate came down to, "well tanks are needed for counter-insurgency", but I'm putting forward a better alternative,

What you're missing is that they are not alternatives to each other. They work in combined arms.

You've said nothing in defense apart from 'you don't understand'.

Name me one area where the tank is indispensable?

[The Macabees]

Name me one area where the tank is indispensable?

I already have in prior posts. I'm not going to repeat myself, if all you do is ignore the arguments presented to you, set up a straw man and then call it a day.

[Lizardiar]

Could the stryker be used to clear a building safer than a tank? Instead of sending in soldiers to possibly die, the tank can fire an explosive shell into it. Also the tank in urban warfare is much safer than a stryker. Do you think the soldiers care about cost when they are being attacked? They probably think the tank is a godsend in that situation. I would take human lives over money any day.

[Barringtonia]

Name me one area where the tank is indispensable?

I already have in prior posts. I'm not going to repeat myself, if all you do is ignore the arguments presented to you, set up a straw man and then call it a day.

You can't, because you're stuck with 'tanks are cool', you've shown no understanding of modern warfare, it's easy for me to say as well.

by Lizardiar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:39 am

Could the stryker be used to clear a building safer than a tank? Instead of sending in soldiers to possibly die, the tank can fire an explosive shell into it. Also the tank in urban warfare is much safer than a stryker. Do you think the soldiers care about cost when they are being attacked? They probably think the tank is a godsend in that situation. I would take human lives over money any day.

Plenty of ways better than an inefficient tank.

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

Eh, just don't like those kind of arguments. However, I'm STILL not too informed on the Stryker, but would there be a chance that as the Stryker is adopted, tanks with more powerful turrets are adopted to counter the Strykers, and thus newer tanks are needed to counteract these tanks?

Why would they need to replace the current tanks? Stryker armor is only resistant to 14.5mm rounds, so anything larger then that will put a hole in it. It uses a 105mm gun, and I'm pretty sure the reason NATO switched to the 120mm was because the 105 didn't penetrate the USSR's later tanks very well.

where is the tank useful?

fire support, psychological effect on the enemy. What's more frightening, a lightly armored vehicle with a machine gun, or a heavily armored and armed machine which even your rusty old RPG will have little effect on?

[The Macabees]

Could the stryker be used to clear a building safer than a tank?

This is the number one reason why large direct fire is still needed in urban combat, and why after selling their last Leopard 1s to Lebanon, Belgium is now finding itself designing a light tank, with a 105mm gun, to fill in the gap. This direct fire has also been found to be indispensable in Afghanistan, by the Canadian Army, and in Iraq by the U.S., Italian (when they were still deployed) and British armies.

This was indispensable during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in the city of Tyre.

There is much empirical evidence that can be researched on the utility of the tank in urban combat.