NATION

PASSWORD

Are tanks worth it?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Adidasia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Adidasia » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:09 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Uxupox wrote:
Limited thermonuclear warfare is best.


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

Wrong. The only winning move is not to play.
Proud Ukrainian Slav!
||###############|
||###############|

||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

stay cheeki breeki. I speak Russian, Ukrainian, and English. I am heavy anti-Novorossiyan.
Yes, I am nationalist. Not radical nationalist (like the alt-right or Nazi), but nationalist for Ukraine to be free.

User avatar
Dooom35796821595
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8368
Founded: Sep 11, 2011
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Dooom35796821595 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:13 am

Adidasia wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
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. :)
When life gives you lemons, you BURN THEIR HOUSE DOWN!
Anything can be justified if it is cool. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all in your way.
"Your methods are stupid! Your progress has been stupid! Your intelligence is stupid! For the sake of the mission, you must be terminated!”

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29757
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:14 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Adidasia wrote: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?

User avatar
Adidasia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Jun 14, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Adidasia » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:44 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
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?
Proud Ukrainian Slav!
||###############|
||###############|

||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
||:::::::::::::::::::::::::::|

stay cheeki breeki. I speak Russian, Ukrainian, and English. I am heavy anti-Novorossiyan.
Yes, I am nationalist. Not radical nationalist (like the alt-right or Nazi), but nationalist for Ukraine to be free.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Uxupox wrote: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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:59 pm

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


It's not wise to send tanks into fight urban combat.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29757
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:16 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Torrocca wrote: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.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:29 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 29757
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:33 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
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.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:37 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Gig em Aggies
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6362
Founded: Aug 15, 2009
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Gig em Aggies » Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:30 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
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.
“One of the serious problems of planning against Aggie doctrine is that the Aggies do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine.”
“The reason that the Aggies does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the Aggies practices chaos on a daily basis.”
“If we don’t know what we are doing, the enemy certainly can’t anticipate our future actions!”

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:22 pm

Gig em Aggies wrote: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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Gig em Aggies
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6362
Founded: Aug 15, 2009
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Gig em Aggies » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:25 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Gig em Aggies wrote: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.
Last edited by Gig em Aggies on Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“One of the serious problems of planning against Aggie doctrine is that the Aggies do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine.”
“The reason that the Aggies does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the Aggies practices chaos on a daily basis.”
“If we don’t know what we are doing, the enemy certainly can’t anticipate our future actions!”

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:31 pm

Gig em Aggies wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28045
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Costa Fierro wrote:
Gig em Aggies wrote: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.

User avatar
Empire of Narnia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5577
Founded: Oct 18, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Empire of Narnia » Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:28 pm

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

User avatar
Phoenicaea
Diplomat
 
Posts: 870
Founded: May 24, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Phoenicaea » Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:07 am

not always

User avatar
FutureAmerica
Diplomat
 
Posts: 686
Founded: May 20, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby FutureAmerica » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:06 pm

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

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51316
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:39 am

Costa Fierro wrote:
Torrocca wrote: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.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28045
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:09 am

Risottia wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
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.

User avatar
Costa Fierro
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17620
Founded: Dec 09, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Costa Fierro » Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:37 am

Risottia wrote: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.
"Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist." - George Carlin

User avatar
Hurdergaryp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28045
Founded: Jul 10, 2016
Democratic Socialists

Postby Hurdergaryp » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:00 am

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.

User avatar
North Arkana
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8751
Founded: Dec 16, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby North Arkana » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:03 am

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.
"I don't know everything, just the things I know" Class N14: Tier 4, Type III, Superpower (Usually)
We Do Not Use NS Stats, Link Contains RP Stats
Progressivism 75
Socialism 56.25
Tenderness 40.625
You are an open-minded progressive; a profile associated with a journalist. You are skeptical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity.
Your attitudes towards economics appear neither capitalist nor socialist, someone who would be described as a liberal.
You appear to be, a sensible realistic egalitarian with few strong convictions.
/人 ‿‿ 人\ Just sign on the dotted line please...

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bienenhalde, Bombadil, Borovan3, Commerce Heights, Grinning Dragon, Internationalist Bastard, Kowani, Liriena, Loben, Minachia, Narvic, New Raffica, Ngelmish, Novus America, Shrillland, Stonok, The Confederate Soldier, The Greater Ohio Valley, Theodosiya, Tinfect, Tlaceceyaya, United Muscovite Nations, Yahoo [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads