World War 2 General Discussion Thread

[Brickistan]

I am.

Consider this example...

Cavalry and infantry working together is also combined arms. And you could argue that, if the infantry cleaned out all the machine guns in the area, then a cavalry charge could still be effective. And indeed, there were a few of them during world war 2.

However, even with infantry support cavalry is completely outdated. They're entirely dependent on other troops cleaning the battlefield, even even then they're horribly vulnerable to machine guns. With no role left in the army they were phased out.

I see tanks in much the same way. Yes, under the right circumstances they do work. However, they're dependent on infantry support to clear out the surrounding area. And they're still horribly vulnerable to infantry carried anti-tank weapons, not to mention various ground attack aircraft.

They're a piece of machinery designed for another age where they were envisioned to engage their counterparts throughout the Fulda Gap. But with the advent of infantry carried anti-tank weapons, and the rise of asymmetric warfare, they have no real role left.

Completely untrue.

Tanks have replaced the role of cavalry - a rapidly moving breakthrough force. The modern battle tank has also replaced the tank destroyer, medium tank, heavy tank, infantry tank and assault gun of WWII. The modern main battle tank is a fifty-ton plus machine gun bunker sporting a five inch high velocity gun and a speed of about 40kph over rough ground.

Only the Dutch have tried to implement "tanks suck let's replace them with attack helicopters". What happened?
They tried to buy back all the tanks they sold off.

And all of that is needed where? That's right... Nowhere...

Tanks have no place in asymmetric warfare. Too vulnerable to IEDs and not enough targets to fire their main gun at. Machine gun armed APCs might serve you just as well, and they can carry their own infantry support too.

And that's the whole point of my argument.

Going back to world war 2, if it had ended up being a stalemate with trenches stretching across France, then the British infantry tanks would have been excellent designs as slow and heavy line breakers. But with the Germans opting for fast mobile warfare, that sort of tanks quickly became obsolete.

The Germans then opted for heavy tanks, while still trying to keep mobility up. But with advances in weapons, that sort of tanks became obsolete in turn.

What emerge then was the prototype for the MBT - a reasonably fast tank with a good gun. The tanks got faster and the guns got better, but the basic design has remained fairly unchanged since then. Just consider the Abrams, a design going back over 30 years. Constantly upgraded, yes. But basically the same tank with the same role.

However, that role is now gone. The main target for the tank, namely other tanks, is no longer there. Instead the tanks are being used against guerrillas and insurgents. And when a single insurgent with a home-made IED can kill an Abrams... Well... Then you got to consider if it's actually worth using that kind of machine anymore.

Sure, you might argue that the moral boost it gives infantry is enough reason to keep tanks in the field against that sort of enemy. But then again, being able to call in supporting fire from a battleship lying off the coast would also be a huge boost, but we don't see battleships sailing around anymore.

Mind you, should the cold war suddenly flare up again (let's hope not), then the MBT might find a role in a modern army again (though it would still be quite vulnerable to infantry and ground attack aircraft). But given the asymmetric fighting the west is engaged in now, I consider them a huge waste of resources.

[Brickistan]

Ireland should have taken part.

With all due respect, I doubt they would have made much of a difference on either side.

As I recall, British sailors where rather upset with Ireland remaining neutral, thus allowing German observes to watch the convoys traveling up and down the west coast of England.

[Imperializt Russia]

Like I said, the Dutch thought the same thing. The realised their mistake and tried to rebuild their tank forces.
Battles like Fallujah demonstrated the immense usefulness of tanks in "asymmetric warfare". They continue to demonstrate use in Syria, though much less than a couple years ago as the Syrian tank corps attrites.

If one considers MBTs " too vulnerable " (a situation that has not been demonstrated), then why would lightly protected APCs be of greater value?

[Brickistan]

Like I said, the Dutch thought the same thing. The realised their mistake and tried to rebuild their tank forces.
Battles like Fallujah demonstrated the immense usefulness of tanks in "asymmetric warfare". They continue to demonstrate use in Syria, though much less than a couple years ago as the Syrian tank corps attrites.

If one considers MBTs " too vulnerable " (a situation that has not been demonstrated), then why would lightly protected APCs be of greater value?

They carry the useful weapons, light cannons and machine guns, and they are less resource intensive, thus you can afford to lose some of them. Pretty much in the same way that the Germans struggled to replace each Tiger they lost while the Americans simply kept Shermans rolling off the production line.

Yes, a 120 mm. smoothbore gun is a formidable weapon. But in asymmetrical warfare it's typically overkill. Though, of course, overkill is a typical American approach to any problem they might encounter on the battlefield...

[Napkiraly]

One of the few cinematic depictions of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was a three part Japanese film called The Human Condition

Spoilers for Part 2:

The Japanese soldiers spent the duration of the movie training. Then the last half hour is a battle against a Soviet tank column. They get murdered, since they've only been trained to take potshots from trenches with outdated rifles that are useless against enemy armor. I don't know about the factual basis of these specifics, but perhaps the director meant it as a general indictment of Japanese military shortcomings in WWII. He was himself an IJA veteran who was forcibly conscripted despite his pacifist leanings.

I think we can all agree that Iwo Jima was the exception to this rule. Ironically, that battle was completely unwinnable from the beginning anyway, so it didn't matter how good their defense was.

Okinawa as well.

Peleliu as well.

Tanks have no place in asymmetric warfare. Too vulnerable to IEDs and not enough targets to fire their main gun at. Machine gun armed APCs might serve you just as well, and they can carry their own infantry support too.

Tanks were used successfully and efficiently in Afghanistan, starting with the Canadian military. So well that the other coalition forces started to bring in their own tank forces. They ended up becoming an invaluable asset due to their protection and heavy hitting direct fire capabilities.

Many of the smaller home island garrisons were simply bypassed because there was no need to fight there, tie down ships and marine groups and expend (waste) lives.
Iwo Jima was a vital strategic objective for its airfields. I can't speak to Okinawa.

Okinawa was definitely strategically important. It was going to be one of the major bases of operations for Downfall due to its size and short distance from the main islands.

[Napkiraly]

Like I said, the Dutch thought the same thing. The realised their mistake and tried to rebuild their tank forces.
Battles like Fallujah demonstrated the immense usefulness of tanks in "asymmetric warfare". They continue to demonstrate use in Syria, though much less than a couple years ago as the Syrian tank corps attrites.

If one considers MBTs " too vulnerable " (a situation that has not been demonstrated), then why would lightly protected APCs be of greater value?

They carry the useful weapons, light cannons and machine guns, and they are less resource intensive, thus you can afford to lose some of them. Pretty much in the same way that the Germans struggled to replace each Tiger they lost while the Americans simply kept Shermans rolling off the production line.

Yes, a 120 mm. smoothbore gun is a formidable weapon. But in asymmetrical warfare it's typically overkill. Though, of course, overkill is a typical American approach to any problem they might encounter on the battlefield...

I take it you're also against airstrike usage in asymmetrical warfare considering a 1000 lb bomb from an F-18 to kill 4 guys in a little hut is overkill.

[Grenartia]

-snip-

I hate to toot my own horn, but a while back, I made a P2TM newspaper post which your point about heavy tanks reminded me of.

viewtopic.php?p=25568568#p25568568

[The Two Jerseys]

They're a piece of machinery designed for another age where they were envisioned to engage their counterparts throughout the Fulda Gap. But with the advent of infantry carried anti-tank weapons, and the rise of asymmetric warfare, they have no real role left.

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

[Goram]

They're a piece of machinery designed for another age where they were envisioned to engage their counterparts throughout the Fulda Gap. But with the advent of infantry carried anti-tank weapons, and the rise of asymmetric warfare, they have no real role left.

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

Firstly, let me wish everyone a happy Battle of Britain day. You should all go and watch that most glorious 1968 film right now, if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again.

Secondly, tanks are not useless in modern combat. They might have been designed for the Cold War, and even in 1991 and 2003 they were utilised as tank killers only. But military forces do adapt. They learn to eat soup with a knife, to quote a chap who's name I've forgotten. And the same has happened with armoured forces. Are they the Queen of the Battlefield any more? No, probably not. That title, at least in asymmetrical combat goes to the poor bloody infantry. Of course there is a limit to where and how you use them - urban areas are not ideal but that doesn't mean the tank is useless. If properly protected by infantry or lighter vehicles the MBT basically becomes a mobile close support platform with a bloody huge gun. They don't lead the assault, rather they support it. That's what they're good for today.

What's more, they act as quite a useful deterrent. Infantry anti-tank hasn't come along recently, and suggesting that things like RPGs make the tank obsolete is much the same as the Officers in the 1930's that believed the appearance of the dedicated anti-tank gun would do the same for the tank as the machine gun had done for cavalry. Usually, there is adaptation and counter adaptation in military affairs and the tank has adapted. Thicker armour, better counter measures so on and so forth. The fact remains that unless you get it to roll over an IED a 60 ton tank, kitted for urban warfare, is still quite hard to kill. If you have one, it might make the enemy think twice about attacking you. It worked really quite well in Kosovo or Bosnia, I don't remember which, when MBTs were simply parked up outside targets that had regularly been attacked. In the face of a tank, the attacks stopped.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

Firstly, let me wish everyone a happy Battle of Britain day. You should all go and watch that most glorious 1968 film right now, if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again.

Secondly, tanks are not useless in modern combat. They might have been designed for the Cold War, and even in 1991 and 2003 they were utilised as tank killers only. But military forces do adapt. They learn to eat soup with a knife, to quote a chap who's name I've forgotten. And the same has happened with armoured forces. Are they the Queen of the Battlefield any more? No, probably not. That title, at least in asymmetrical combat goes to the poor b- infantry. Of course there is a limit to where and how you use them - urban areas are not ideal but that doesn't mean the tank is useless. If properly protected by infantry or lighter vehicles the MBT basically becomes a mobile close support platform with a bloody huge gun. They don't lead the assault, rather they support it. That's what they're good for today.

What's more, they act as quite a useful deterrent. Infantry anti-tank hasn't come along recently, and suggesting that things like RPGs make the tank obsolete is much the same as the Officers in the 1930's that believed the appearance of the dedicated anti-tank gun would do the same for the tank as the machine gun had done for cavalry. Usually, there is adaptation and counter adaptation in military affairs and the tank has adapted. Thicker armour, better counter measures so on and so forth. The fact remains that unless you get it to roll over an IED a 60 ton tank, kitted for urban warfare, is still quite hard to kill. If you have one, it might make the enemy think twice about attacking you. It worked really quite well in Kosovo or Bosnia, I don't remember which, when MBTs were simply parked up outside targets that had regularly been attacked. In the face of a tank, the attacks stopped.

First, I agree the movie's really good. Probably one of very few war films that tries to tell the story of the battle, rather than some stupid romance. Too bad it's not on YouTube.

I think you have a point. It's pretty hard to tell the fate of the tank, though jamming systems might be a better deterrent than armor.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

german of course.

Ah, but did Tigers or Panthers have 152 mm guns?

Rather late, but though the Soviet tanks had ginormous guns, they took a million years to load, thanks to 2-piece ammo that was pretty hard to handle in closed quarters. Once, a couple Tigers went and blew up a doezen of them in some village in Lithuania before one got a shot off.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

I read that U-boat torps in '39 were also bad, but they somehow fixed it quickly. I have a copy of the U-Boat Commanders Handbook. It's a fascinating read.

Really? Where'd you get it?

It was a museum in Chicago. Don't remember which one, but it's one of the few w/ a real U-Boat inside.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

First, I agree the movie's really good. Probably one of very few war films that tries to tell the story of the battle, rather than some stupid romance. Too bad it's not on YouTube.

erm
you may have (understandably) forgotten all the Susannah York scenes
because BoB definitely has the stink of "studio-mandated romance subplot" all over it

[Redsection]

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

[The Two Jerseys]

First, I agree the movie's really good. Probably one of very few war films that tries to tell the story of the battle, rather than some stupid romance. Too bad it's not on YouTube.

erm
you may have (understandably) forgotten all the Susannah York scenes
because BoB definitely has the stink of "studio-mandated romance subplot" all over it

We really need more war movies with an A.J. Maggott-type character...

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Completely untrue.

Tanks have replaced the role of cavalry - a rapidly moving breakthrough force. The modern battle tank has also replaced the tank destroyer, medium tank, heavy tank, infantry tank and assault gun of WWII. The modern main battle tank is a fifty-ton plus machine gun bunker sporting a five inch high velocity gun and a speed of about 40kph over rough ground.

Only the Dutch have tried to implement "tanks suck let's replace them with attack helicopters". What happened?
They tried to buy back all the tanks they sold off.

And all of that is needed where? That's right... Nowhere...

Tanks have no place in asymmetric warfare. Too vulnerable to IEDs and not enough targets to fire their main gun at. Machine gun armed APCs might serve you just as well, and they can carry their own infantry support too.

And that's the whole point of my argument.

Going back to world war 2, if it had ended up being a stalemate with trenches stretching across France, then the British infantry tanks would have been excellent designs as slow and heavy line breakers. But with the Germans opting for fast mobile warfare, that sort of tanks quickly became obsolete.

The Germans then opted for heavy tanks, while still trying to keep mobility up. But with advances in weapons, that sort of tanks became obsolete in turn.

What emerge then was the prototype for the MBT - a reasonably fast tank with a good gun. The tanks got faster and the guns got better, but the basic design has remained fairly unchanged since then. Just consider the Abrams, a design going back over 30 years. Constantly upgraded, yes. But basically the same tank with the same role.

However, that role is now gone. The main target for the tank, namely other tanks, is no longer there. Instead the tanks are being used against guerrillas and insurgents. And when a single insurgent with a home-made IED can kill an Abrams... Well... Then you got to consider if it's actually worth using that kind of machine anymore.

Sure, you might argue that the moral boost it gives infantry is enough reason to keep tanks in the field against that sort of enemy. But then again, being able to call in supporting fire from a battleship lying off the coast would also be a huge boost, but we don't see battleships sailing around anymore.

Mind you, should the cold war suddenly flare up again (let's hope not), then the MBT might find a role in a modern army again (though it would still be quite vulnerable to infantry and ground attack aircraft). But given the asymmetric fighting the west is engaged in now, I consider them a huge waste of resources.

you do realize the ied's needed to take out an abrams is the equivalent of burying two JADMS, and its about as practical as doing so. These things regularly report taking 30 plus rpg hits without any major damage.

[Costa Fierro]

Admittedly, British designers didn't catch on as fast as American and Russian ones. The Churchill had armor as thick as the Tiger, sans sloping, minus the killer 88 - however, it still had better mobility and considerably fewer other annoyances and problems as well. Both were eviolutionary dead ends, being heavy tanks, but the Churchill (and its entourage of variants) was probably a whole hell of a lot more useful to the Allies than the Tiger was to the Germans.

Because the Tiger wasn't a very adaptable design, I'll admit. But the Germans already had a plethora of vehicles and adaptable designs that were in use and therefore the adaptability of the Tiger design wasn't that much of an issue.

Not to mention that the variants of the Churchill were largely only for the D-Day landings.

So because cherrypicked Allied designs of the time had a handful of similar problems, the Tiger is therefore good?

So you cherry pick a series of Allied tanks and claim that the Tiger was a bad tank? As far as I can remember, the KV-1 didn't have sloped armor.

[The Conez Imperium]

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

I think the M1 Garand is a fine piece of military rifle. It's not the fanciest piece of weaponry like the Stg 44 but its semi-automatic nature + its widespread ability means the average US soldier out fires the average German/Russian soldier armed with their equivalent rifle (bolt action rifles in this case).

[Brickistan]

They carry the useful weapons, light cannons and machine guns, and they are less resource intensive, thus you can afford to lose some of them. Pretty much in the same way that the Germans struggled to replace each Tiger they lost while the Americans simply kept Shermans rolling off the production line.

Yes, a 120 mm. smoothbore gun is a formidable weapon. But in asymmetrical warfare it's typically overkill. Though, of course, overkill is a typical American approach to any problem they might encounter on the battlefield...

I take it you're also against airstrike usage in asymmetrical warfare considering a 1000 lb bomb from an F-18 to kill 4 guys in a little hut is overkill.

Indeed I am. Although I have to add that in this case we're not only talking massive overkill, we're also talking about a very high risk of collateral damage.

They're a piece of machinery designed for another age where they were envisioned to engage their counterparts throughout the Fulda Gap. But with the advent of infantry carried anti-tank weapons, and the rise of asymmetric warfare, they have no real role left.

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

Well, if I did say that in a previous life I sure don't remember it...

However, I can see where they were coming from.

Still, there is a difference. Back then fighters still had a role as dogfighters. Today though...? Taken to the extreme, you could say that today you need neither guns nor missiles as aircrafts spend most of the time attacking ground targets rather than fighting other aircrafts.

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

Firstly, let me wish everyone a happy Battle of Britain day. You should all go and watch that most glorious 1968 film right now, if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again.

Secondly, tanks are not useless in modern combat. They might have been designed for the Cold War, and even in 1991 and 2003 they were utilised as tank killers only. But military forces do adapt. They learn to eat soup with a knife, to quote a chap who's name I've forgotten. And the same has happened with armoured forces. Are they the Queen of the Battlefield any more? No, probably not. That title, at least in asymmetrical combat goes to the poor bloody infantry. Of course there is a limit to where and how you use them - urban areas are not ideal but that doesn't mean the tank is useless. If properly protected by infantry or lighter vehicles the MBT basically becomes a mobile close support platform with a bloody huge gun. They don't lead the assault, rather they support it. That's what they're good for today.

What's more, they act as quite a useful deterrent. Infantry anti-tank hasn't come along recently, and suggesting that things like RPGs make the tank obsolete is much the same as the Officers in the 1930's that believed the appearance of the dedicated anti-tank gun would do the same for the tank as the machine gun had done for cavalry. Usually, there is adaptation and counter adaptation in military affairs and the tank has adapted. Thicker armour, better counter measures so on and so forth. The fact remains that unless you get it to roll over an IED a 60 ton tank, kitted for urban warfare, is still quite hard to kill. If you have one, it might make the enemy think twice about attacking you. It worked really quite well in Kosovo or Bosnia, I don't remember which, when MBTs were simply parked up outside targets that had regularly been attacked. In the face of a tank, the attacks stopped.

Reminds me of a story I heard from the Vietnam war. a US field hospital close to the coast had issues with sporadic enemy attacks, so the Americans parked one of their battleships off the coast and started randomly lobbing a few shells into the jungle beyond the hospital every now and again. After that there were no more attacks...

Don't know if it's true, but it does make for a good story.

Anyway, I'll go back to the cavalry. If the cavalry was properly supported, then they could still be a major threat against infantry. But they're still not used because it's more bother than it's worth.

Tanks are much the same. Yes, they can work, even in an urban environment. But, as you say, they're relegated to support duty then, and they still require plenty of infantry to support and shield them. They've had extra armour fitted. They've had "urban fighting kits" added to them. And still they require massive support. They're fish out of water, shoehorned into a role they were never intended to be used in.

You might say that the Israeli Merkava class tanks are some of the closest we have to an successful "urban tank". But I still claim that, given the resources needed to keep a single Abrams in combat, you'd be much better off looking at alternatives.

Firstly, let me wish everyone a happy Battle of Britain day. You should all go and watch that most glorious 1968 film right now, if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again.

Secondly, tanks are not useless in modern combat. They might have been designed for the Cold War, and even in 1991 and 2003 they were utilised as tank killers only. But military forces do adapt. They learn to eat soup with a knife, to quote a chap who's name I've forgotten. And the same has happened with armoured forces. Are they the Queen of the Battlefield any more? No, probably not. That title, at least in asymmetrical combat goes to the poor b- infantry. Of course there is a limit to where and how you use them - urban areas are not ideal but that doesn't mean the tank is useless. If properly protected by infantry or lighter vehicles the MBT basically becomes a mobile close support platform with a bloody huge gun. They don't lead the assault, rather they support it. That's what they're good for today.

What's more, they act as quite a useful deterrent. Infantry anti-tank hasn't come along recently, and suggesting that things like RPGs make the tank obsolete is much the same as the Officers in the 1930's that believed the appearance of the dedicated anti-tank gun would do the same for the tank as the machine gun had done for cavalry. Usually, there is adaptation and counter adaptation in military affairs and the tank has adapted. Thicker armour, better counter measures so on and so forth. The fact remains that unless you get it to roll over an IED a 60 ton tank, kitted for urban warfare, is still quite hard to kill. If you have one, it might make the enemy think twice about attacking you. It worked really quite well in Kosovo or Bosnia, I don't remember which, when MBTs were simply parked up outside targets that had regularly been attacked. In the face of a tank, the attacks stopped.

First, I agree the movie's really good. Probably one of very few war films that tries to tell the story of the battle, rather than some stupid romance. Too bad it's not on YouTube.

I think you have a point. It's pretty hard to tell the fate of the tank, though jamming systems might be a better deterrent than armor.

That's probably the best way to put it. Right now it could go both ways...

I still maintain that the tank is basically obsolete in a modern army. But if, for example, ISIS managed to establish itself as a semi-stable "country" capable of maintaining armoured assets and possibly even a small airforce... Then I'll happily eat my own words again and admit that both the MBT and the dogfighter just got their jobs back.

And all of that is needed where? That's right... Nowhere...

Tanks have no place in asymmetric warfare. Too vulnerable to IEDs and not enough targets to fire their main gun at. Machine gun armed APCs might serve you just as well, and they can carry their own infantry support too.

And that's the whole point of my argument.

Going back to world war 2, if it had ended up being a stalemate with trenches stretching across France, then the British infantry tanks would have been excellent designs as slow and heavy line breakers. But with the Germans opting for fast mobile warfare, that sort of tanks quickly became obsolete.

The Germans then opted for heavy tanks, while still trying to keep mobility up. But with advances in weapons, that sort of tanks became obsolete in turn.

What emerge then was the prototype for the MBT - a reasonably fast tank with a good gun. The tanks got faster and the guns got better, but the basic design has remained fairly unchanged since then. Just consider the Abrams, a design going back over 30 years. Constantly upgraded, yes. But basically the same tank with the same role.

However, that role is now gone. The main target for the tank, namely other tanks, is no longer there. Instead the tanks are being used against guerrillas and insurgents. And when a single insurgent with a home-made IED can kill an Abrams... Well... Then you got to consider if it's actually worth using that kind of machine anymore.

Sure, you might argue that the moral boost it gives infantry is enough reason to keep tanks in the field against that sort of enemy. But then again, being able to call in supporting fire from a battleship lying off the coast would also be a huge boost, but we don't see battleships sailing around anymore.

Mind you, should the cold war suddenly flare up again (let's hope not), then the MBT might find a role in a modern army again (though it would still be quite vulnerable to infantry and ground attack aircraft). But given the asymmetric fighting the west is engaged in now, I consider them a huge waste of resources.

you do realize the ied's needed to take out an abrams is the equivalent of burying two JADMS, and its about as practical as doing so. These things regularly report taking 30 plus rpg hits without any major damage.

Yeah, I am aware of that. The modern MBT is a tough bugger, I'll grant you that. But the point still stands that it's not a big enough deterrent to stop attacks completely, and that it can be taken out. It might take a lucky hit, I'll grant you that, but it can happen.

Anyway... While interesting we're getting further and further away from the topic...

Yeah, I know... My fault... Sorry...

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

Mine would have to the Bazooka / Panzerschreck. They marked a turning point in history, a point where the infantry could now carry enough firepower to kill a tank at range.

[The Two Jerseys]

I take it you're also against airstrike usage in asymmetrical warfare considering a 1000 lb bomb from an F-18 to kill 4 guys in a little hut is overkill.

Indeed I am. Although I have to add that in this case we're not only talking massive overkill, we're also talking about a very high risk of collateral damage.

In a previous life, you must have been one of those people who said that the F-4 Phantom didn't need a gun because missiles made dogfighting obsolete.

Well, if I did say that in a previous life I sure don't remember it...

However, I can see where they were coming from.

Still, there is a difference. Back then fighters still had a role as dogfighters. Today though...? Taken to the extreme, you could say that today you need neither guns nor missiles as aircrafts spend most of the time attacking ground targets rather than fighting other aircrafts.

Firstly, let me wish everyone a happy Battle of Britain day. You should all go and watch that most glorious 1968 film right now, if you haven't already. If you have, watch it again.

Secondly, tanks are not useless in modern combat. They might have been designed for the Cold War, and even in 1991 and 2003 they were utilised as tank killers only. But military forces do adapt. They learn to eat soup with a knife, to quote a chap who's name I've forgotten. And the same has happened with armoured forces. Are they the Queen of the Battlefield any more? No, probably not. That title, at least in asymmetrical combat goes to the poor bloody infantry. Of course there is a limit to where and how you use them - urban areas are not ideal but that doesn't mean the tank is useless. If properly protected by infantry or lighter vehicles the MBT basically becomes a mobile close support platform with a bloody huge gun. They don't lead the assault, rather they support it. That's what they're good for today.

What's more, they act as quite a useful deterrent. Infantry anti-tank hasn't come along recently, and suggesting that things like RPGs make the tank obsolete is much the same as the Officers in the 1930's that believed the appearance of the dedicated anti-tank gun would do the same for the tank as the machine gun had done for cavalry. Usually, there is adaptation and counter adaptation in military affairs and the tank has adapted. Thicker armour, better counter measures so on and so forth. The fact remains that unless you get it to roll over an IED a 60 ton tank, kitted for urban warfare, is still quite hard to kill. If you have one, it might make the enemy think twice about attacking you. It worked really quite well in Kosovo or Bosnia, I don't remember which, when MBTs were simply parked up outside targets that had regularly been attacked. In the face of a tank, the attacks stopped.

Reminds me of a story I heard from the Vietnam war. a US field hospital close to the coast had issues with sporadic enemy attacks, so the Americans parked one of their battleships off the coast and started randomly lobbing a few shells into the jungle beyond the hospital every now and again. After that there were no more attacks...

Don't know if it's true, but it does make for a good story.

Anyway, I'll go back to the cavalry. If the cavalry was properly supported, then they could still be a major threat against infantry. But they're still not used because it's more bother than it's worth.

Tanks are much the same. Yes, they can work, even in an urban environment. But, as you say, they're relegated to support duty then, and they still require plenty of infantry to support and shield them. They've had extra armour fitted. They've had "urban fighting kits" added to them. And still they require massive support. They're fish out of water, shoehorned into a role they were never intended to be used in.

You might say that the Israeli Merkava class tanks are some of the closest we have to an successful "urban tank". But I still claim that, given the resources needed to keep a single Abrams in combat, you'd be much better off looking at alternatives.

First, I agree the movie's really good. Probably one of very few war films that tries to tell the story of the battle, rather than some stupid romance. Too bad it's not on YouTube.

I think you have a point. It's pretty hard to tell the fate of the tank, though jamming systems might be a better deterrent than armor.

That's probably the best way to put it. Right now it could go both ways...

I still maintain that the tank is basically obsolete in a modern army. But if, for example, ISIS managed to establish itself as a semi-stable "country" capable of maintaining armoured assets and possibly even a small airforce... Then I'll happily eat my own words again and admit that both the MBT and the dogfighter just got their jobs back.

you do realize the ied's needed to take out an abrams is the equivalent of burying two JADMS, and its about as practical as doing so. These things regularly report taking 30 plus rpg hits without any major damage.

Yeah, I am aware of that. The modern MBT is a tough bugger, I'll grant you that. But the point still stands that it's not a big enough deterrent to stop attacks completely, and that it can be taken out. It might take a lucky hit, I'll grant you that, but it can happen.

Anyway... While interesting we're getting further and further away from the topic...

Yeah, I know... My fault... Sorry...

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

Mine would have to the Bazooka / Panzerschreck. They marked a turning point in history, a point where the infantry could now carry enough firepower to kill a tank at range.

Everything you've just said is the kind of thinking that gets people killed when the next war turns out to be not like the last war.

[Goram]

You're aware that the range on the bazooka and the panzerfaust is tiny, right? Like, less than 100 yards for any sort of accuracy. The Panzerfaust especially, you had to get in within 60 yards to have the range to get a hit, and get a damn sight closer than that to have a good chance at one. Obviously things like the Panzerfaust did work, but lets not pretend that infantry anti-tank makes tanks obsolete. The same line of thinking, as I've said, was taken up in the thirties with the advent of the anti-tank gun. Guess what? Tanks are still around and, I'm sure you'll agree, they were quite important in the Second World War.

As for infantry supporting tanks? Well, yeah. Kind of been that way since tanks first appeared. The fact of it is there's no one wonder weapon on the battlefield. Everything and every one needs support. Aircraft need to be vectored onto target. Infantry need heavy vehicles to provide them with fire support. Heavy vehicles need infantry or lighter vehicles to protect them from threats they simply can't turn or elevate the gun to reach. At the risk of off topicing, but I don't think anyone here will complain, this is what happened in Fallujah. M1's supported by M2's with embarked infantry turned out to be able to effectively destroy anything they came up against. The lighter guns, that could turn and elevate, and the troops protected the tanks. The tanks handled anything that the rest couldn't. Effective combo, that. Just because tanks need support, as they have always done, as everything always has done, doesn't mean they're obsolete.

Just because the current enemy doesn't have tanks (and IS probably does have some), doesn't mean the next enemy won't.

[Goram]

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

Bren gun. That thing kicked around forever.

[Redsection]

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

Bren gun. That thing kicked around forever.

At least you didn say the sten. That piece of crap jammed all the time from what i hear. The stug however led to the development of the ak47

[Redsection]

Lets talk about the best infantry weapons. My favourite is the Sturmgewehr 44

I think the M1 Garand is a fine piece of military rifle. It's not the fanciest piece of weaponry like the Stg 44 but its semi-automatic nature + its widespread ability means the average US soldier out fires the average German/Russian soldier armed with their equivalent rifle (bolt action rifles in this case).

What about sidearms,what do you like?

[Brickistan]

You're aware that the range on the bazooka and the panzerfaust is tiny, right? Like, less than 100 yards for any sort of accuracy. The Panzerfaust especially, you had to get in within 60 yards to have the range to get a hit, and get a damn sight closer than that to have a good chance at one. Obviously things like the Panzerfaust did work, but lets not pretend that infantry anti-tank makes tanks obsolete. The same line of thinking, as I've said, was taken up in the thirties with the advent of the anti-tank gun. Guess what? Tanks are still around and, I'm sure you'll agree, they were quite important in the Second World War.

As for infantry supporting tanks? Well, yeah. Kind of been that way since tanks first appeared. The fact of it is there's no one wonder weapon on the battlefield. Everything and every one needs support. Aircraft need to be vectored onto target. Infantry need heavy vehicles to provide them with fire support. Heavy vehicles need infantry or lighter vehicles to protect them from threats they simply can't turn or elevate the gun to reach. At the risk of off topicing, but I don't think anyone here will complain, this is what happened in Fallujah. M1's supported by M2's with embarked infantry turned out to be able to effectively destroy anything they came up against. The lighter guns, that could turn and elevate, and the troops protected the tanks. The tanks handled anything that the rest couldn't. Effective combo, that. Just because tanks need support, as they have always done, as everything always has done, doesn't mean they're obsolete.

Just because the current enemy doesn't have tanks (and IS probably does have some), doesn't mean the next enemy won't.

I am aware of their limited range, yes. Still a heck of a lot better than having to run up to the tank and drop a Molotov on top of it.

As for infantry supporting tanks, that wasn't actually always the case. The Germans, in particular, experimented with thrusting pure armoured forces into the enemy line. Indeed, that's the whole idea behind Blitzkrieg.

Of course, once the tanks have punched through the enemy lines, you need to move the infantry up fairly quickly, otherwise the enemy might close the gap again, isolating the tanks behind enemy lines. But hey, that's the risk you run when you willfully overextend yourself, leaving your flanks open.

As for the next enemy... I take you point, but where does it lead us?

In fact, it leads us straight to the Military Industrial Complex we see in America. Always going what-if, what-if, what-if... You can always imagine an enemy having a pistol, a rifle, a machine gun, a grenade, a cannon, a tank, a nuke... Where does it end?

Today's reality is one of asymmetrical warfare. Does that mean that we'll never see a full scale conflict again? Well... No... I hope not, but there're no guarantees. But is that enough to justify keeping a huge military machine running? Is it enough to justify all the money spend?

I don't think so. Indeed, I'd much rather see those money spend on better things such as helping the poor or providing universal healthcare.

See, the problem with the we-might-need-it-at-some-point argument is that it never ends. You'll never downsize your army as you're always ready to fight another war. You'll never go to a peace footing as you're expecting to be forced into war any moment now.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't look to the future. But I am saying that you should be making practical policies based on the present.