Ark3nubis | 05 Jul 2013 6:20 a.m. PST |
Might be of interest to some on here
link |
ancientsgamer | 05 Jul 2013 6:51 a.m. PST |
Interesting but flawed article. To state that the U.K. has sent no tanks to Afghanistan is non-sequitur. We didn't send tanks into mountainous terrain in WWII either. Most of Afghanistan is mountainous and the coalition didn't need additional armour there. Also, the number of tanks is not nearly as important as the quality of tanks as the first Gulf War showed. The U.S. tank numbers are worth multiples of most other country's tanks. War has always been a combined arm exercise when waged successfully. They used to say that the average tanker survivability was 2.5+- minutes on the modern battlefield. Well, this depends on how well your combined arms tactics are. The Iraqis certainly can attest to how poor tanks are in the face of air attacks and frankly being outclassed on the ground as well. Aircraft has been shown to be highly vulnerable too when faced with ground based attacks. We think that our air superiority was won solely in the air but we forget the ground troops that went in to help mark surface to air missile sites. Spec Ops forces on the ground helped ensure air superiority in this case as well. In modern warfare, air superiority also has to be tempered with ground forces to reduce collateral damage. No longer is it possible to indiscriminately bomb the hell out of targets for fear that non-combatants die and cause political problems for attackers. War on civilians is considered the last resort and usually in response to the enemy first conducting it. The SCUD launches during the first Gulf War were as much about causing political problems as they were about trying to draw other Arab countries into the conflict against the coalition forces. We still need ground forces. Tanks and armored vehicles not only provide surgical punch on the ground but protect ground forces from small arms fire. We need to think of armored vehicles as defensive arms rather than just offensive. As in the article, Bosnia became quite different as soon as tanks arrived. If nothing else, tanks provide psychological advantages against ground defenses, although they provide much more in reality as well. |
Cold Steel | 05 Jul 2013 6:54 a.m. PST |
Typical media myopic view of a complex subject. A tank is a weapon system that has specific capabilities and vulnerabilities, just like helicopters, artillery, electronic warfare, close air support and even the lowly grunt with a rifle and bayonet. The key is to use these systems in combination to maximize each system's capabilities while minimizing their vulnerabilities. Kursk was a classic example of how not to use tanks: both sides sent them charging into the enemy's strong defenses without close infantry and artillery support. BBC's idea of a massive tank battle in Korea is pure BS. The terrain won't permit it. I spent 2 tours there, including command of a tank outfit. There are very few places open enough to deploy a battalion task force, nevertheless a larger formation. Most of the time, we deployed on a 1-2 platoon frontage with infantry on the high ground to the flanks. Until someone comes up with a better way for the grunts to cross an open field swept by machine gun fire, there will always be a need for a tank. |
Uesugi Kenshin | 05 Jul 2013 8:34 a.m. PST |
|
Ark3nubis | 05 Jul 2013 9:26 a.m. PST |
"From a rivet counting point of view, can anyone see why the top picture in the article cannot possibly be from Kursk?" Hmm, would it be that the T34 is an 85 rather than a 76?
Best I can come up with. Ark3n |
charon | 05 Jul 2013 9:31 a.m. PST |
|
Last Hussar | 05 Jul 2013 10:18 a.m. PST |
"Typical media myopic view of a complex subject." Because it's a complex subject. It has to give a lay-person's overview. " Most of Afghanistan is mountainous" Sort of the point. We still build an army around tanks, yet the nature of warfare, where it will be fought, is changing. "BBC's idea of a massive tank battle in Korea is pure BS" Well its a good job they didn't talk a bout a massive tank battle then, really. I realise it follows the paragraphs about Massive Tank Battles, but it just says a tank battle, not a massive one. |
Cold Steel | 05 Jul 2013 12:19 p.m. PST |
The whole article was about the possibility of another large tank battle. Even the most cursory review of tank battles will very quickly demonstrate that large ones can only happen in open terrain, not in the mountains of Europe, Afghanistan or Korea. |
Sparker | 05 Jul 2013 2:19 p.m. PST |
Oh dear has the Beeb declared 'the tank is dead' yet again? I think the first time they declared this was in 1939, about 9 months before the Blitzkreig! Then the last time they declared this was after the Yom Kippur war! The Isrealis obviously didn't take much notice of them! Its not for nothing the Beeb is known as 'Auntie' in the UK. Frankly I'd rather take military advice from my maiden Aunt
|
Bangorstu | 05 Jul 2013 3:20 p.m. PST |
ancientsgamer – I think the Danes sent tanks to Afghanistan. They said it was easier (and more accurate) to knock someone's door in with a 120mm shell than an air-strike. |
spontoon | 05 Jul 2013 4:38 p.m. PST |
Canada sent tanks, too! Oh, yeah, so did the Soviets a few years ago. Still there, some of them. |
Hazza31B | 05 Jul 2013 8:36 p.m. PST |
A few countries sent over tanks to Ghan |
nickinsomerset | 06 Jul 2013 5:01 a.m. PST |
Danes and Canadians sent MBTs, did a god job where the terrain allowed. British Commanders asked for MBTs but given the usual wishy washy fight with one arm behind your back reply! There will always be a call for MBT on the modern battlefield which will remain whatever scenario – Asymmetric or Manouvre – a combined arms environment, Tally Ho! |
Patrick R | 06 Jul 2013 5:27 a.m. PST |
It seems to me that current military thinking regarding tanks is at best something like "Let's hang on to them just in case
" Interest in tanks is at an all time low in places like Europe, Belgium and the Netherlands got rid of their stocks of Leopard tanks and switching to those newfangled breeds of popular wheeled vehicles that are so much more air-transportable. Other Western nations still have tank stocks, but most are down from what they were in previous years and other than some upgrades, not many new designs on the horizon and unlike jets there is little talk of a next generation of MBT's with current designs expected to last a many more decades. The modern MBT is a specialist vehicle mainly designed to fight other MBT's, it doesn't perform as efficiently against other enemies. There have been attempts to get more diverse ammo and various add-on weapon sets. There are some projects that add extra anti-personnel weapons like grenade launchers, heavy machineguns and autocannons. The only ones who still invest in tanks are those countries with major rivals on their borders and have enough open space to use them en masse. Seems to me that interest in tanks in the West is low. There is higher demand in places like the Middle East and Asia. Tanks may not be dead yet, but they seem to be stuck in a particular niche (most NATO/Soviet tanks were designed for the big clash on the great Northern European plains) and are less that optimal for use in other situations without some modifications or extra support as well as being a pain to move overseas. It's easy to see why some people think that tanks are on their way out. |
Lion in the Stars | 06 Jul 2013 8:34 a.m. PST |
Tanks may not be dead yet, but they seem to be stuck in a particular niche (most NATO/Soviet tanks were designed for the big clash on the great Northern European plains) and are less that optimal for use in other situations without some modifications or extra support as well as being a pain to move overseas. That's what surprises me about the M8 Ridgway Armored Gun System. It was designed to use a lot of Bradley/M113 parts and be highly transportable. Intended to replace the M551 in the 82nd and 101st. I mean, just about perfect for the US's global policeman role. I think the US ordered 30 of them total. |
Hazza31B | 06 Jul 2013 12:09 p.m. PST |
@snowman The 1000 round ready bin was always good until it fell off the wall :p |
khurasanminiatures | 06 Jul 2013 1:21 p.m. PST |
The Marines also have tanks in Afghanistan (they may have been moved out in the drawdown, but they were there). |
Uesugi Kenshin | 06 Jul 2013 1:48 p.m. PST |
Tanks for posting the link :D |
Last Hussar | 07 Jul 2013 2:42 a.m. PST |
Oh dear has the Beeb declared 'the tank is dead' yet again? No. |
Etranger | 07 Jul 2013 6:25 p.m. PST |
Tim/Ditto – the Centauro doesn't have a 120mm, only a 105 in the service version. (there's a 120mm version under trial according to Wiki) Otherwise it goes close to a 'wheeled tank', albeit without that much armour
link |
Deadone | 07 Jul 2013 7:47 p.m. PST |
Also, the number of tanks is not nearly as important as the quality of tanks as the first Gulf War showed. The U.S. tank numbers are worth multiples of most other country's tanks. Number of tanks is important as you cannot have the same tank in more than 1 location. Of course European tanks are unlikely to be sent into harms way against a capable opponent any time soon due to benign strategic environment. But in Asia and Middle East where threat of conventional warfare between relative equals exists, tanks are still being fielded in their 1,000s. |
SouthernPhantom | 08 Jul 2013 10:00 a.m. PST |
Expect European tanks to be sent into harm's way against each other and domestic militants, whether Islamic/Communist/Neo-Nazi. The absence of opposing tanks in no way negates the utility of what is effectively a precise, direct-fire artillery strike immune to nearly all common man-portable weapons in the AO. |
Deadone | 08 Jul 2013 3:42 p.m. PST |
Expect European tanks to be sent into harm's way against each other and domestic militants, whether Islamic/Communist/Neo-Nazi.
By that stage Europe's tanks will have been turned into can openers and licence plates for scooters. |
mwnciboo | 06 Aug 2013 1:38 p.m. PST |
The only thing I got from it is that Mark Urban is Ex-RTR. It told a narrow story, but it had to due to time constraints. Aunty Beeb could do so much even with it's limited resources. It made the excellent Dunkirk programme about 8 or so years ago where they mixed actors in a live documentary style it was superb (and it had a young Benedict Cumberbatch in it too!) YouTube link YouTube link YouTube link I can only dream of what the BBC and HBO could do together and the global audience for a "Band of Brothers type" about Monte Cassino (NZ, AUS, US, CAN, BRIT, FREN) if it was done well and accurately with attention to detail it would be exceptional. But it won't happen
. This was exceptionally well done. |
Lord Flashheart | 06 Aug 2013 2:10 p.m. PST |
I can confirm the Danes had Armour there. They put on a nice display in capabilities at FOB Price while I was here for a couple of days giving a night attack some attention from their firing points on the base perimeter. |