Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:13 am
Would you like a game of tic-tac-toe?
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
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.
Torrocca wrote:Urban warfare, direct infantry support as both cover and a mobile bunker, etc.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Risottia wrote: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.