"Worst war to be a tanker?" Topic

Which conflict would have been the worst for AFV crews?

The Russo-Ukraine War of 2022.

The First World War. The vehicles were barely bullet proof, and so awful to operate most crews were exhausted after a few hours.

Does this include "Special Military Operations"? Because if yes, I think we have a winner, at least for the Russian crews :-)

Thermopylae. Bad terrain for heavy vehicles, almost no maneuverability, difficult logistic resupply. Limited spotting opportunities and lanes of fire.

Surely depends which side you are on? Wouldn't fancy being a Syrian tank crew on the Golan heights in 1973. Wouldn't fancy being an Iraqi tank crew during the 1st gulf war either if I'm honest.

Every one since the invention of gasoline.

I have to agree that it depends on what side you are on – for the WWI tank crews there were no readily available anti-tank weapons while in the Gulf War the US and UK tankers had a pretty good ride – not so much on the Iraqi side

Yom Kippur, I think. As Prince Rupert points out, no joy being Syrians on the Golan--but things were pretty grim for the outnumbered Israelis, too. Early Sinai was rough for the IDF armor, and later on the Egyptians had some bad days.

That said, at least it was over quickly. Sign on for German armor in WWII, and it's six years unless you're crippled, captured or killed earlier. How many 1939 panzer crewmen do you suppose were still alive and healthy in May 1945?

This is why war should as much as possible be confined to tabletops.

The war "you" are in!

WW1 without question. They got off to a rough start. You couldn't pay me to work in one of those for a few hours even if no one was shooting at us.

Manning a T-26 in some of the Motti battles in the Winter War was no cake walk.

I agree with most, WW1 was awful for AFV's.

Consider alternatives, Herkybird and others. Would you rather be a WWI infantryman?

I'd rather be a WWI aviator. And I have no desire to be an aviator.

WW1

WW1 you could only last a few hours before cabon moxide poisening was so bad you had to get out regardless. That's even before the enemy started shooting.

The next one.

I'd have preferred being a WWI tanker than a soldier in the trenches.

Rats, filth, poison gas, disease, bombardments, snipers, walking across no mans land through machine gun bullets, etc.

When I enlisted I could have been a tanker but chose the infantry.

Wolfhag

Congratulations! You're driving around in an armored vehicle! Lucky you! Of course, that also makes you the biggest target on the battlefield, which every enemy soldier wants to brag about taking out, and every enemy officer wants taken out ASAP. Which means you are in a fire magnet for everyone and everything.

The only time you want to be a tanker is when the other side doesn't have effective weapons to stop you. Otherwise, I'd take a hard pass.

In WW1 your own take could kill you.

Does anyone have WWII data on US tank versus infantry causalities? I wonder which would have been safer.

Wolfhag

In the words of either Willie or Joe "a movin' foxhole attracts the eye."

Parzival
That is pretty much a word for word quote from my dad when I told him I was going armor branch
(dad was WWII airborne)

On the other hand, your dad was jumping out of perfectly good airplanes.

Seriously, my thanks to you both for your service.

Apparently, the worst tank to be in is a Russian one: link

The May 9 parade in Moscow should be pretty short this year.

Some people claim the T-34 was the worst tank in WWII because so many of them were destroyed.

I think until someone comes up with an effective kinetic energy counter to ATGM's the passive defenses on tanks will be inadequate.

Wolfhag

What happens when a T-90 meets a Swedish-made handheld grenade launcher: link