Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Tank Warfare Development
- Thread starter Maine
- Start date
The turret also serves to protect the gun and occupants from return fire.
Profile is essentially irrelevant. No guts, no glory... the objective is not to hide, but to destroy the enemy. If your barrel is too low to the ground, it's essentially useless, as you will be unable to effectively attack your opponent.
Profile is also irrelevant from the perspective that the US Combined Arms Doctrine uses airborne attack, which is not significantly affected by profile.
TTFN
Profile is essentially irrelevant. No guts, no glory... the objective is not to hide, but to destroy the enemy. If your barrel is too low to the ground, it's essentially useless, as you will be unable to effectively attack your opponent.
Profile is also irrelevant from the perspective that the US Combined Arms Doctrine uses airborne attack, which is not significantly affected by profile.
TTFN
- Thread starter
- #3
Armor profile is important because the primary threat to the tank is infantry and other tanks. Although the use of tanks as stationary firing platforms is not necessarily a good idea it is done if the situation requires it. Without a conventional turret, firing from concealment or cover would expose less of the vehicle to return fire.
War has always had the no guts no glory glamor to romanitc, but the equipment and strategy is designed to prevent significant losses (to our side). The objective is, you are right to win, but to be more specific, to win in the shortest amount of time possible with consideration to loss of human life.
Until recently, tanks have not had the ability to fire accurately while moving, either it was complete luck or exceptional skill that would a tank could engage on the move. With our military we enjoy the luxury of air superiority, this is not something that can be depended on in every battle. Tank tactics in battle have to based on that of the infantry in mind: Flexiblity; you cannot always be moving otherwise you will out run your support units.
Without a conventional turret, there would be no conventional barrel. I was thinking about a rail gun, the barrel in a circle so that the round would be spinning, a hatch opens along a 360 range of fire and the round released. Counter balance to make up for wobble and autoloading when fired.
I think I was unclear...
The Mainer...
War has always had the no guts no glory glamor to romanitc, but the equipment and strategy is designed to prevent significant losses (to our side). The objective is, you are right to win, but to be more specific, to win in the shortest amount of time possible with consideration to loss of human life.
Until recently, tanks have not had the ability to fire accurately while moving, either it was complete luck or exceptional skill that would a tank could engage on the move. With our military we enjoy the luxury of air superiority, this is not something that can be depended on in every battle. Tank tactics in battle have to based on that of the infantry in mind: Flexiblity; you cannot always be moving otherwise you will out run your support units.
Without a conventional turret, there would be no conventional barrel. I was thinking about a rail gun, the barrel in a circle so that the round would be spinning, a hatch opens along a 360 range of fire and the round released. Counter balance to make up for wobble and autoloading when fired.
I think I was unclear...
The Mainer...
You're kidding, right?
M735 105 mm APFSDS round has a muzzle velocity of something like 1500 m/s. Running that puppy around in a 4 m circle would result in 10^5 g's of centripetal force. A static counterbalance would be useless. The counterforce required to keep the round within the barrel would vibrate the tank at about 120 Hz, which would completely thrash any possibility of stable tracking or fire control. The EM field required to contain such a round would probably crash any electronics within 10 m of the turret.
Additionally, the APFSDS round has a dispersion of less than 0.5 mrad. You couldn't begin to get round to leave the circle with that kind of accuracy.
Firing from concealment was only a scenario for the Cold War Fulda Gap Soviet invasion of Europe, since it's a purely defensive approach. When you are trying to subjugate a foreign country, particularly like a Iraq, the tanks need to bring the battle to the opponent. The majority of US tank battles have been with the US advancing on an opponent. Kind of hard to advance if you have to fire from cnocelment. Additionally, the M1A1 has better firing accuracy moving at 30kt than a T-72 sitting still, in additional to having a longer effective range.
Even assuming that you could solve the problems, the turret would still need to be as heavy as it is now, since the barrel question does not eliminate the need for armor to protect the tank from ambush, RPG's, TOW's, etc.
TTFN
M735 105 mm APFSDS round has a muzzle velocity of something like 1500 m/s. Running that puppy around in a 4 m circle would result in 10^5 g's of centripetal force. A static counterbalance would be useless. The counterforce required to keep the round within the barrel would vibrate the tank at about 120 Hz, which would completely thrash any possibility of stable tracking or fire control. The EM field required to contain such a round would probably crash any electronics within 10 m of the turret.
Additionally, the APFSDS round has a dispersion of less than 0.5 mrad. You couldn't begin to get round to leave the circle with that kind of accuracy.
Firing from concealment was only a scenario for the Cold War Fulda Gap Soviet invasion of Europe, since it's a purely defensive approach. When you are trying to subjugate a foreign country, particularly like a Iraq, the tanks need to bring the battle to the opponent. The majority of US tank battles have been with the US advancing on an opponent. Kind of hard to advance if you have to fire from cnocelment. Additionally, the M1A1 has better firing accuracy moving at 30kt than a T-72 sitting still, in additional to having a longer effective range.
Even assuming that you could solve the problems, the turret would still need to be as heavy as it is now, since the barrel question does not eliminate the need for armor to protect the tank from ambush, RPG's, TOW's, etc.
TTFN
- Thread starter
- #5
I wouldn't think that this is a short term development project; it did start out as a sort of joke. The idea that started this was the introduction of the battle suit, that has been the wetdream for the military for years, to the arenal of an enemy. Imagine an individual soldier having the capasity to stop an Abram while engaging multiple other targets with indirect fire and at the same time providing real time information to a c3 center located in orbit for analysis and a short time, shifting logistics with the potential for orbital bombardment.
We will need a small bolo.
I was thinking about a whole new kind of rail gun. Not using the traditional round; something smaller, cheaper. Maybe like a football, hollow & spinning? like that nerf thing maybe. A static counterbalance is completely useless, I knew that and took it for granted, it would require a constant adjustment possibly having more than one round in the chamber at once for a continuing balance while not engaged and a variable counterbalance that engages at firing and lasts long enough to bring another round up to speed and to be chambered. The EM spill field might be able to be recycled or contained. Maybe the field itself could be used in a defensive capsity. I wonder if it could be used effectively against guided weapons? I shudder to think about the power plant for this.
Assuming the problems can be solved recessing the main weapon and maintaining the amount of elevation and allowing for a 360 line of fire, allows that the tanks have a greater operational capsity. Adding armor to make up the tonnage is not a disadvantage. Besides, our armor is as well armored top down, such as taking a RPG or TOW from a 5th story window.
Logisticly, the fewer types of equipment that have to be moved in to use in each battle spectrum, the easier. The more fluid lines, the more problems logistics are going to have. Keeping the chassis of the Abram, allows that exsisting support equipment will have a longer life, but as the Navy, Air Forces and the Army are cooperating better now we can expect or should expect a better logistical situation in the future when everything is completely mobile.
European terrain is not as advantagous to tank battles as is Iraq. In Iraq we dominate the set piece battle because we can bring more force to bear quicker (as there is less goegraphical strategic points) and is alot harder to hamper movement in Iraq. In the European Theater with the USSR, there is no way that we could have engaged directly. Our US based forces, being a reactionary force, acted primarily as a reserve against the USSR blunting itself against the exsisting European forces. To bring our forces to bear, prior to vietnam, would have taken at least three weeks. We would have not been able to penetrate deep and hold strategic positions much less the geographic tactical positions (necessary to dog supply lines and the counterattack) in the USSR. Iraq is an exception in that the terrain favors US mobility.
The Mainer...
We will need a small bolo.
I was thinking about a whole new kind of rail gun. Not using the traditional round; something smaller, cheaper. Maybe like a football, hollow & spinning? like that nerf thing maybe. A static counterbalance is completely useless, I knew that and took it for granted, it would require a constant adjustment possibly having more than one round in the chamber at once for a continuing balance while not engaged and a variable counterbalance that engages at firing and lasts long enough to bring another round up to speed and to be chambered. The EM spill field might be able to be recycled or contained. Maybe the field itself could be used in a defensive capsity. I wonder if it could be used effectively against guided weapons? I shudder to think about the power plant for this.
Assuming the problems can be solved recessing the main weapon and maintaining the amount of elevation and allowing for a 360 line of fire, allows that the tanks have a greater operational capsity. Adding armor to make up the tonnage is not a disadvantage. Besides, our armor is as well armored top down, such as taking a RPG or TOW from a 5th story window.
Logisticly, the fewer types of equipment that have to be moved in to use in each battle spectrum, the easier. The more fluid lines, the more problems logistics are going to have. Keeping the chassis of the Abram, allows that exsisting support equipment will have a longer life, but as the Navy, Air Forces and the Army are cooperating better now we can expect or should expect a better logistical situation in the future when everything is completely mobile.
European terrain is not as advantagous to tank battles as is Iraq. In Iraq we dominate the set piece battle because we can bring more force to bear quicker (as there is less goegraphical strategic points) and is alot harder to hamper movement in Iraq. In the European Theater with the USSR, there is no way that we could have engaged directly. Our US based forces, being a reactionary force, acted primarily as a reserve against the USSR blunting itself against the exsisting European forces. To bring our forces to bear, prior to vietnam, would have taken at least three weeks. We would have not been able to penetrate deep and hold strategic positions much less the geographic tactical positions (necessary to dog supply lines and the counterattack) in the USSR. Iraq is an exception in that the terrain favors US mobility.
The Mainer...
Well the turretless AFV has been around for quite some time. Nomenclature wise, isn't really called a tank. Self-propelled gun or tank destroyer. US really hasn't fielded (to my knowledge) many of this design. USMC used something similar, turretless AFV with six recoilless rifles mounted on it.
Germans during WW2 had some very effective designs. Allows you to keep a low profile (which is very important), and lots of armour at very nice angles. Not especially good for infantry support, but devastating nonetheless.
At this stage of the game though, you have to ask if its worth it. Training, armour, and fire control on the M1A2 is far superior to anything the OPFOR can throw at us. And with battles moving to more congested areas, or back to the ETO you really need to be able to swing around and engage targets rapidly, with a turret. Not to mention, if you have an SP and you're tracked you are effectively out of the battle.
With regard to a 'football' shaped projectile, and possibly hollow, I don't know about that. If you're going to just send it through a smoothbore barrel you'll need fin stabilisation at the very least. Ballistic co-efficient will be low with a hollow projectile I think, less crossectional density.
And then you have to consider impact dynamics. Need a tip that is going to bite into the armour. And I'd think that a hollow projectile would just squash up into a disk.
And then with railgun munitions travelling at such high speeds you might have to worry about shatter gap. Not sure. But with a lot of projectiles there exists a range of impact velocities at which the projectil will just shatter and break up on impact, rather than bite and dig through.
Germans during WW2 had some very effective designs. Allows you to keep a low profile (which is very important), and lots of armour at very nice angles. Not especially good for infantry support, but devastating nonetheless.
At this stage of the game though, you have to ask if its worth it. Training, armour, and fire control on the M1A2 is far superior to anything the OPFOR can throw at us. And with battles moving to more congested areas, or back to the ETO you really need to be able to swing around and engage targets rapidly, with a turret. Not to mention, if you have an SP and you're tracked you are effectively out of the battle.
With regard to a 'football' shaped projectile, and possibly hollow, I don't know about that. If you're going to just send it through a smoothbore barrel you'll need fin stabilisation at the very least. Ballistic co-efficient will be low with a hollow projectile I think, less crossectional density.
And then you have to consider impact dynamics. Need a tip that is going to bite into the armour. And I'd think that a hollow projectile would just squash up into a disk.
And then with railgun munitions travelling at such high speeds you might have to worry about shatter gap. Not sure. But with a lot of projectiles there exists a range of impact velocities at which the projectil will just shatter and break up on impact, rather than bite and dig through.
- Thread starter
- #9
Glad to see that there are some that don't consider the idea of cover outdated. Hull down is not too vague a term.
The circular rail gun that I'm thinking of is not too unsimilar to the slingatron from twenty years ago, only to fire smaller payloads. I see it as more similar to maglev than the slingatron though in principal.
Although I am a fan of the Bolo, bigger doesn't really work in cities and truth be told cities are for light infantry and some mechanized infantry. Heavy tanks can be too easily manipulated in built up areas with dedicated forces and although the punch may go some length to justifying its use in urban combat, it really is not a good idea in the long run. The ability to traverse, aquire and fire in restrictive areas is just one of the problems of tanks. It not a good idea to think that any product has been perfected, only improved from the earlier models.
The tank mounted circular railgun was an idea to remedy that one problem of time necessary to engage. The projectile spins would normally at an accerated and then released by the trigger to create the aiming vector. The firing ring would release the round to the target.
The problems with this are great and the need for this is little as many, myself included, do not see a big need to get rid of the smoothbores that we have now for at least ten years, but smaller, more heavily armored heavy tank should stay on the horizen.
-Mainer
The Mainer...
The circular rail gun that I'm thinking of is not too unsimilar to the slingatron from twenty years ago, only to fire smaller payloads. I see it as more similar to maglev than the slingatron though in principal.
Although I am a fan of the Bolo, bigger doesn't really work in cities and truth be told cities are for light infantry and some mechanized infantry. Heavy tanks can be too easily manipulated in built up areas with dedicated forces and although the punch may go some length to justifying its use in urban combat, it really is not a good idea in the long run. The ability to traverse, aquire and fire in restrictive areas is just one of the problems of tanks. It not a good idea to think that any product has been perfected, only improved from the earlier models.
The tank mounted circular railgun was an idea to remedy that one problem of time necessary to engage. The projectile spins would normally at an accerated and then released by the trigger to create the aiming vector. The firing ring would release the round to the target.
The problems with this are great and the need for this is little as many, myself included, do not see a big need to get rid of the smoothbores that we have now for at least ten years, but smaller, more heavily armored heavy tank should stay on the horizen.
-Mainer
The Mainer...
Turretless is a good concept - The Swedish S-tank was a moderately successful implementation in the 1970s. Never fired in anger, as far as I am aware. Szelag - even without a turret, it's still a tank (look back to 1916).
Operationally, the tank has another attribute that mustn't be overlooked; IT TAKES GROUND. On the way it may have to kill other tanks and engage other targets, but it's when your tanks roll down the High Street that you've taken the city. You can't do it with HUMMVs and helos - at least not so effectively and decisively. This is the only reason for hanging on to tanks - Nowadays, everything else can be done as well or better by other weapon systems.
Finally, don't get too focused exclusively on US armaments - US produces good kit and lots of it, but other countries do good stuff also - just not the huge quantities. M1 is a competent MBT but not flawless - equivalents from France, Germany, UK and Israel are also useful but all have their own shortcomings. Comparing M1 to T72 isn't quite fair - the USSR relied on huge numerical superiority over technical excellence - strategically, that's not a bad way to win a battle.
Interesting thread - thanks to all
John
Operationally, the tank has another attribute that mustn't be overlooked; IT TAKES GROUND. On the way it may have to kill other tanks and engage other targets, but it's when your tanks roll down the High Street that you've taken the city. You can't do it with HUMMVs and helos - at least not so effectively and decisively. This is the only reason for hanging on to tanks - Nowadays, everything else can be done as well or better by other weapon systems.
Finally, don't get too focused exclusively on US armaments - US produces good kit and lots of it, but other countries do good stuff also - just not the huge quantities. M1 is a competent MBT but not flawless - equivalents from France, Germany, UK and Israel are also useful but all have their own shortcomings. Comparing M1 to T72 isn't quite fair - the USSR relied on huge numerical superiority over technical excellence - strategically, that's not a bad way to win a battle.
Interesting thread - thanks to all
John
- Thread starter
- #11
God loves large Brigades
Tanks take ground. That was the mission back in WW1 and still now and they do that when they are used correctly. The absolute worse place for a tank is high street. It's impressive sure, but wrong because for many reasons. It will only scare the civilians and look good on TV.
Taking cities are for infantry. House to house, door to door; systematic lock downs are done with people, not machines. Hummves & gunships with tanks can be used as support, but taking a city is an infantry job.
I liked the US models because they might be easier to get (later on) than foreign models. Odds are more likely that I would have to build everything from the ground up. Would be nice to use existing track systems. Not that it matters...
Anyways, I think discribing it as turretless is not accurate on my part. More like a regressed turret, as flush as possible to hull. Mounted with two axis in mind, but keep the full rotation.
...
Mainer
The Mainer...
Tanks take ground. That was the mission back in WW1 and still now and they do that when they are used correctly. The absolute worse place for a tank is high street. It's impressive sure, but wrong because for many reasons. It will only scare the civilians and look good on TV.
Taking cities are for infantry. House to house, door to door; systematic lock downs are done with people, not machines. Hummves & gunships with tanks can be used as support, but taking a city is an infantry job.
I liked the US models because they might be easier to get (later on) than foreign models. Odds are more likely that I would have to build everything from the ground up. Would be nice to use existing track systems. Not that it matters...
Anyways, I think discribing it as turretless is not accurate on my part. More like a regressed turret, as flush as possible to hull. Mounted with two axis in mind, but keep the full rotation.
...
Mainer
The Mainer...
So far, Irag has proven the exact opposite. When the M1's rolled through, fired a few shots, people calmed down quickly. When the Marine infantry attempted to shoot it out, they suffered high casualties. Tanks and APCs provde power leverage, otherwise, it's AK-47 vs M-16, which does not have a significant multiplication factor.
Even the M2's gun comes with more firepower and penetration than the infantry it carries
TTFN
Even the M2's gun comes with more firepower and penetration than the infantry it carries
TTFN
- Thread starter
- #13
Exactly.
This is guerrilla war now. We have to engage. The enemey will not engage without surprise, will not carry through beyond inital contact. They are more likely to engage our softer targets like our um... organic weapons systems.
There are going to be casualties, there is no way around that. It is war, and it is not over. Not for them, nor for us; regardless of what the Boss thinks.
To engage and win in Iraq we have to repeatly give them targets to waste themselves against. Give them so many seemingly easy targets that they are trying to hit them all, encourage mistakes. Gather intel. Sun Tzu comes to mind.
Sooner or later, either they'll run out of troops or we'll move basic training groups there for some advanced security training as part of AIT.
I shouldn't joke about it even when I am being half serious. This war is one of unorthadox tactics, the use of light arms is not going to be a deciding factor at all, as said it is not a significant force multiplier in this case.
This will be like a huge psi-ops. Destroy the army, re-educate the masses, wait three generations and start pulling out. Not a fast process.
Sounds pretty; need more intel, need to be there to be more accurate.
The Mainer...
This is guerrilla war now. We have to engage. The enemey will not engage without surprise, will not carry through beyond inital contact. They are more likely to engage our softer targets like our um... organic weapons systems.
There are going to be casualties, there is no way around that. It is war, and it is not over. Not for them, nor for us; regardless of what the Boss thinks.
To engage and win in Iraq we have to repeatly give them targets to waste themselves against. Give them so many seemingly easy targets that they are trying to hit them all, encourage mistakes. Gather intel. Sun Tzu comes to mind.
Sooner or later, either they'll run out of troops or we'll move basic training groups there for some advanced security training as part of AIT.
I shouldn't joke about it even when I am being half serious. This war is one of unorthadox tactics, the use of light arms is not going to be a deciding factor at all, as said it is not a significant force multiplier in this case.
This will be like a huge psi-ops. Destroy the army, re-educate the masses, wait three generations and start pulling out. Not a fast process.
Sounds pretty; need more intel, need to be there to be more accurate.
The Mainer...
ChrisMcLean
Geotechnical
it is interesting how blue-on-blue (the so-called friendly fire) seems to dog the US whilst being only a minor factor for other nations. Granted, the Brits have suffered a few issues but no where near as many casualties as they have sustained from the Americans over the two gulf wars.
Is there a fault in the intelligence levels of the recruits (do they have a basic intelligence requirement?) or is it faulty command and control systems (shooting down a UK aircraft of a package of 6 returning from an area where there were no enemy aircraft operating (Iraq!).
Is there a fault in the intelligence levels of the recruits (do they have a basic intelligence requirement?) or is it faulty command and control systems (shooting down a UK aircraft of a package of 6 returning from an area where there were no enemy aircraft operating (Iraq!).
- Thread starter
- #16
More fire power, more people, more reliance on systems previously untried outside training, different people not used to working together. There are alot of reasons. I'm sure that there are even friendly fire incidents that are not actually friendly fire... I doubt if everything is as secure as they think it is.
There is a basic intelligence level. It goes with or toward job skill for primary and secondary MOS. I found that either you had the exceptional competent & incompetent with degrees of the ablity of hiding it. Same as every where else...
The Mainer...
There is a basic intelligence level. It goes with or toward job skill for primary and secondary MOS. I found that either you had the exceptional competent & incompetent with degrees of the ablity of hiding it. Same as every where else...
The Mainer...
Finally a kindred spirit! thankyou Chris McLean.
I must admit IRstuff nearly got it right with
5 to 10 times more US troops in theater than anyone else
More firepower
More battles
More combined arms battles
But amazingly left out "More screw ups"
Then Maine tries to make excuses with
"I'm sure that there are even friendly fire incidents that are not actually friendly fire... I doubt if everything is as secure as they think it is".
How is it guys, that an obviously NATO APC with the correct recognition marks gets shot to smithereens by some whizz kid in a "state of the art" american aircraft. Like I said before try eliminating this before thinking up more uncontrollable killing methods.
I must admit IRstuff nearly got it right with
5 to 10 times more US troops in theater than anyone else
More firepower
More battles
More combined arms battles
But amazingly left out "More screw ups"
Then Maine tries to make excuses with
"I'm sure that there are even friendly fire incidents that are not actually friendly fire... I doubt if everything is as secure as they think it is".
How is it guys, that an obviously NATO APC with the correct recognition marks gets shot to smithereens by some whizz kid in a "state of the art" american aircraft. Like I said before try eliminating this before thinking up more uncontrollable killing methods.
ChrisMcLean
Geotechnical
I was serving with an American air force captain in 94 when that Blackhawk full of brass was shot down over Northern Iraq despite the fact that the type was only in service with the coalition and the F-15 that carried out the intercept was subject to AWACS control. As I recall, ROE required a visual ID prior to any engagement at that time and yet the incident still ocurred. Needless to say, it was not a topic he enjoyed discussing given earlier 'fratricide' issues in that theatre.
It is a worry that friends of mine who have participated in numerous multinational exercises expressed more concern about serving with the US in Iraq than about the Iraqi forces themselves...
Volume of forces accounts for a certain amount of the problem but coupled with gulf experiences, Apaches that didn't work in Kosovo, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to out of date maps and the Delta Force raid in Mogadishu on UN aid workers points towards a culture where mistakes are routinely ocurring, may even be tolerated, and attrition due to blue-on-blue incidents is a normal part of combat casualty forecasting. Serious lapses in military planning and intelligence also appear to be the norm - is this an indictment of incompetent political leadership over stretching resources and also overstating the ability of the forces concerned to carry out the prescribed role?
Given the recent experiences, and I mean no offence when I say this, but I hope the US armed forces aren't involved in security work for the Athens Olympics. Better perhaps to rely on other bodies, such as the British and Australian SAS who provided security for Sydney and other bodies such as GSG9 who learnt the hard way about anti-terrorist warfare.
It is a worry that friends of mine who have participated in numerous multinational exercises expressed more concern about serving with the US in Iraq than about the Iraqi forces themselves...
Volume of forces accounts for a certain amount of the problem but coupled with gulf experiences, Apaches that didn't work in Kosovo, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to out of date maps and the Delta Force raid in Mogadishu on UN aid workers points towards a culture where mistakes are routinely ocurring, may even be tolerated, and attrition due to blue-on-blue incidents is a normal part of combat casualty forecasting. Serious lapses in military planning and intelligence also appear to be the norm - is this an indictment of incompetent political leadership over stretching resources and also overstating the ability of the forces concerned to carry out the prescribed role?
Given the recent experiences, and I mean no offence when I say this, but I hope the US armed forces aren't involved in security work for the Athens Olympics. Better perhaps to rely on other bodies, such as the British and Australian SAS who provided security for Sydney and other bodies such as GSG9 who learnt the hard way about anti-terrorist warfare.
Guys:
This is very interesting but rather off-topic. We started on turretless tanks, and now we're into operational analysis, doctrine, and the cause and effect of fratricide.
A new thread on 'blue on blue' incidents may be appropriate, although it's not exactly an engineering issue ...... or is it?
John
This is very interesting but rather off-topic. We started on turretless tanks, and now we're into operational analysis, doctrine, and the cause and effect of fratricide.
A new thread on 'blue on blue' incidents may be appropriate, although it's not exactly an engineering issue ...... or is it?
John
ChrisMcLean
Geotechnical
Fair point, apologies for dragging the thread off line.
On a more relevant note, it's interesting to see how tank warfare is poised at the moment. It's somewhere between dying a death due to expense and terrain limitations, coupled with a somwhat reduced likelihood of the Red Army rolling through the Fulda Gap, and undergoing a resurgence as a place-holder in situations like Iraq.
My question is this - given that tank warfare against a similarly amoured foe is now unlikely, and the advent of increasingly smart anti-tank air-to-ground weaponry somewhat decreases the life expectancy of any armoured vehicle, is there any future for armoured warfare? Should more resources be applied towards developing better protection for what one of our learned colleagues describes as 'organic weapon systems' (a terrible euphemism by the way) rather than developing a mode of combat last at the forefront of conflicts fifty years ago? Better use of QRF and airmobile troops allows fast response to local problems, though this does cause difficulties in respect occupying an area.
Tanks: crap or not? Over to you gentlemen...
On a more relevant note, it's interesting to see how tank warfare is poised at the moment. It's somewhere between dying a death due to expense and terrain limitations, coupled with a somwhat reduced likelihood of the Red Army rolling through the Fulda Gap, and undergoing a resurgence as a place-holder in situations like Iraq.
My question is this - given that tank warfare against a similarly amoured foe is now unlikely, and the advent of increasingly smart anti-tank air-to-ground weaponry somewhat decreases the life expectancy of any armoured vehicle, is there any future for armoured warfare? Should more resources be applied towards developing better protection for what one of our learned colleagues describes as 'organic weapon systems' (a terrible euphemism by the way) rather than developing a mode of combat last at the forefront of conflicts fifty years ago? Better use of QRF and airmobile troops allows fast response to local problems, though this does cause difficulties in respect occupying an area.
Tanks: crap or not? Over to you gentlemen...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
