Are tanks worth it?

[Dooom35796821595]

Didn’t you watch wargames? There’s no winning move.

Wrong. The only winning move is not to play.

That might be the line from the movie, but they both mean the same thing,(more or less) except mine is more logical.

[Fartsniffage]

Wrong. The only winning move is not to play.

That might be the line from the movie, but they both mean the same thing,(more or less) except mine is more logical.

Would you like a game of tic-tac-toe?

[Adidasia]

That might be the line from the movie, but they both mean the same thing,(more or less) except mine is more logical.

Would you like a game of tic-tac-toe?

How about a nice game of kvass chess?

[Costa Fierro]

Didn’t achieve much? Look at some of the battles of Vietnam where the concept of aireal support was both conceived and held to be decisive at some engagements. It’s not entirely about seizing territory anymore the role has shifted to raising as per US Army doctrine.

Aerial support was used well before Vietnam occurred, so Vietnam wasn't that special in terms of development or conception. And yes, one of the key issues that the Americans had there was the lack of territorial occupation. Search and destroy was primarily about attrition, not occupation.

[Costa Fierro]

Urban warfare, direct infantry support as both cover and a mobile bunker, etc.

It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.

[Fartsniffage]

Urban warfare, direct infantry support as both cover and a mobile bunker, etc.

It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.

In the wars we're currently fighting it really is. It's a mobile bunker.

[Costa Fierro]

It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.

In the wars we're currently fighting it really is. It's a mobile bunker.

It's not. Tanks are not "mobile bunkers", they're actually pretty vulnerable in urban environments. Hence why there's a bunch of added armour packages for the M1 Abrams in order to provide improved protection. Many of the older Abrams variants for example are vulnerable to well-placed RPG warheads, especially ones which have tandem-charges.

[Fartsniffage]

In the wars we're currently fighting it really is. It's a mobile bunker.

It's not. Tanks are not "mobile bunkers", they're actually pretty vulnerable in urban environments. Hence why there's a bunch of added armour packages for the M1 Abrams in order to provide improved protection. Many of the older Abrams variants for example are vulnerable to well-placed RPG warheads, especially ones which have tandem-charges.

Well all the evidence from Iraq proves otherwise.

[Costa Fierro]

It's not. Tanks are not "mobile bunkers", they're actually pretty vulnerable in urban environments. Hence why there's a bunch of added armour packages for the M1 Abrams in order to provide improved protection. Many of the older Abrams variants for example are vulnerable to well-placed RPG warheads, especially ones which have tandem-charges.

Well all the evidence from Iraq proves otherwise.

Iraq proved that most Western MBT's are reasonably well protected against basic warheads, but have demonstrated vulnerabilities. Better warheads have up to 650mm of penetration, which is more that enough to penetrate the glacis plate of the Abrams and kill or maim crew members. Not all nations have modern MBT's that are well protected, and even the US introduced armour packages to improve protection.

[Gig em Aggies]

Well all the evidence from Iraq proves otherwise.

Iraq proved that most Western MBT's are reasonably well protected against basic warheads, but have demonstrated vulnerabilities. Better warheads have up to 650mm of penetration, which is more that enough to penetrate the glacis plate of the Abrams and kill or maim crew members. Not all nations have modern MBT's that are well protected, and even the US introduced armour packages to improve protection.

Yes but you forget if it already hasn't been said Iraq received Abrams of a different model not the advanced ones the US Army or USMC uses today speaking of tanks what is the comparison yours I feel you have one of the claims that the Armata can go toe to toe with the latest iterations of the Abrams M1A2SEPV4 or the M1A3, really any Wetsern tank or even the Chinese VT-4.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes but you forget if it already hasn't been said Iraq received Abrams of a different model not the advanced ones the US Army or USMC uses today speaking of tanks what is the comparison yours I feel you have one of the claims that the Armata can go toe to toe with the latest iterations of the Abrams M1A2SEPV4 or the M1A3, really any Wetsern tank or even the Chinese VT-4.

I'm talking about when the US was invading and fighting in Iraq, not the export models the Iraqis received.

[Gig em Aggies]

Yes but you forget if it already hasn't been said Iraq received Abrams of a different model not the advanced ones the US Army or USMC uses today speaking of tanks what is the comparison yours I feel you have one of the claims that the Armata can go toe to toe with the latest iterations of the Abrams M1A2SEPV4 or the M1A3, really any Wetsern tank or even the Chinese VT-4.

I'm talking about when the US was invading and fighting in Iraq, not the export models the Iraqis received.

Really in the early part of the invasion and the first few years of the war most Abrams were disabled by an unknown weapon, a lucky rpg shot into the engine, an anti aircraft gun, and recoiled rifle none of those were destroyed by enemy fire most were destroyed by US forces after they were disabled to prevent the capture of the tank and any sensitive tech inside them.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm talking about when the US was invading and fighting in Iraq, not the export models the Iraqis received.

Really in the early part of the invasion and the first few years of the war most Abrams were disabled by an unknown weapon, a lucky rpg shot into the engine, an anti aircraft gun, and recoiled rifle none of those were destroyed by enemy fire most were destroyed by US forces after they were disabled to prevent the capture of the tank and any sensitive tech inside them.

Which proved the tank had vulnerabilities and so armour packages were devised and installed to protect vulnerable parts such as the engine, but principally the tracks.

[Hurdergaryp]

Really in the early part of the invasion and the first few years of the war most Abrams were disabled by an unknown weapon, a lucky rpg shot into the engine, an anti aircraft gun, and recoiled rifle none of those were destroyed by enemy fire most were destroyed by US forces after they were disabled to prevent the capture of the tank and any sensitive tech inside them.

Which proved the tank had vulnerabilities and so armour packages were devised and installed to protect vulnerable parts such as the engine, but principally the tracks.

When the tracks are thrown off, any tank is just a sitting duck. Or an unintentional improvised pillbox, if you like. Mobility has always been an integral part of tanks being a successful weapons system, so it is logical to protect that aspect of those combat machines as best as possible.

[Empire of Narnia]

Tanks are still the toughest armored vehicles, so yes. They aren't indestructible but nothing is.

[Phoenicaea]

not always

[FutureAmerica]

Yes, very much so. Tanks are still very useful in combat.

[Risottia]

Urban warfare, direct infantry support as both cover and a mobile bunker, etc.

It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.

Depends on how the tank is outfitted and supported.

When Yeltsin sent T-90s straight into Grozny, with 1 support IFV every 2 MBTs, they were massacred by AT rockets.
When the Russians switched to 2 IFVs per MBT, and implemented defence system such as the Shtora and liberal amounts of reactive armour, things changed.

[Hurdergaryp]

It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.

Depends on how the tank is outfitted and supported.
When Yeltsin sent T-90s straight into Grozny, with 1 support IFV every 2 MBTs, they were massacred by AT rockets.
When the Russians switched to 2 IFVs per MBT, and implemented defence system such as the Shtora and liberal amounts of reactive armour, things changed.

It is important to adapt your mechanized forces to the environment they will do combat in, but that's a given. Circumstances may change with the times and technology, the need for armies to be prepared properly for the places they are to be employed remains the same.

[Costa Fierro]

Depends on how the tank is outfitted and supported.

Not really, unless you happen to have depleted uranium armour like the Abrams or the Challenger 2 does. And even then, the former still had to be outfitted with special armour packages to protect the tank tracks and engine.

When Yeltsin sent T-90s straight into Grozny, with 1 support IFV every 2 MBTs, they were massacred by AT rockets.

Largely because the Russian Federation at that time inherited the majority of the former Red Army's second-rate units, something which wasn't addressed until after the 2008 war in Georgia in which the Russians suffered more casualties than they were expecting to. Second rate units generally aren't armed with the best equipment, which is largely why the Russian Army suffered substantial losses of MBT's and IFV's. Which, in turn, prompted the development of new, tank-based IFV's such as the BMP-T Terminator.

When the Russians switched to 2 IFVs per MBT, and implemented defence system such as the Shtora and liberal amounts of reactive armour, things changed.

Because they realised the value of armour packages that are designed to defeat shaped charges. The Israelis have largely done the same with their experiences in Lebanon in 1982 and Hezbollah in 2006. They've now fitted the latest variants of the Merkava with special electronics packages that essentially (if memory serves me correctly) detect incoming anti-tank guided missiles and destroy them with lasers.

[Hurdergaryp]

Also it should be noted that the Russians mainly employed T-80 tanks during their first attempt to retake Chechnya. Quoting Wikipedia:

T-80B and T-80BV MBTs were never used in Afghanistan in the 1980s to maintain the tank's characteristics secret, but they were first used during the First Chechen War. This first real combat experience for T-80 MBTs was unsuccessful, as the tanks were used for capturing cities, a task for which they were not very well suited. The biggest tank losses were suffered during the ill-fated assault on the city of Grozny. The forces selected to capture Grozny were not prepared for such an operation, while the city was defended by, among others, veterans of the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

The inexperienced crews had no knowledge of the layout of the city, while the tanks were attacked by RPG teams hidden in cellars and on top of high buildings. The anti-tank fire was directed at the least armoured points of the vehicles. Each destroyed tank received from three to six hits, and each tank was fired at by six or seven rocket-propelled grenades. A number of vehicles exploded when the autoloader, with vertically placed rounds, was hit: in theory it should have been protected by the road wheel, but, when the tanks got hit on their side armour, the ready-to-use ammunition exploded. Out of all armored vehicles that entered Grozny, 225 were destroyed in the first month alone, representing 10.23% of all the tanks committed to the campaign. The T-80 performed so poorly that General-Lieutenant A. Galkin, the head of the Armor Directorate, convinced the Minister of Defence after the conflict to never again procure tanks with gas-turbine engines. After that, T-80 MBTs were never again used to capture cities, and, instead, they supported infantry squads from a safe distance. Defenders of the T-80 point out that the T-72 performed just as badly in urban fighting in Grozny as the T-80 and that there were two mitigating factors: after the breakup of the Soviet Union, poor funding meant no training for new Russian tank crews, and the tank force entering the city had no infantry support, which is considered to be suicidal by many major military strategists of armored warfare.

[North Arkana]

When properly handled and supported with infantry, you could clear a modern city with WW2 era tanks if you had to. The tactics behind effective use of armor in an urban environment heavily outweigh any sort of claims of lacking top of the line equipment. Lack of training on the other hand is crippling.