Don't write off the tank - drones can't do everything

[Damian]

My comment was a generic comment. The opening post of this thread is not exclusively about NATO. It is about tanks in general. Please read the opening post.

But in general aspect, example when analized side have obsolete vehicles and improper tactics, does not mean that a combat vehicle concept like main battle tank, or tank in general, is useless or obsolete.

And this is where generalizations bring us, to ridiculous comments from some people, that these types of vehicles, or armored fighting vehicles in general, are not needed, because they have other solutions, that in real world however are not so shiny, like they are on paper.

And there is a lot of such opinions in the internet, for example I laugh from some silly people imaging that tanks can be replaced by mechs, when in reality mechs is just completely idiotic idea, less mobile, more fragile than a good, old tank on tracks.

Same is about drones, every one is "ohhh, ahhh, they are so super duper weapons", and in reality for example, situational awareness of drone operators is smaller than troops on the ground, including vehicles crews. Effectiveness is also qiestionable (not usefullnes, drones are usefull).

Same goes for artillery, everyone is "ohhh, ahhh, artillery can fire at a range of 40km!", sure it can, it can even fire guided munitions, but even a guided 155mm round will do a much greater damage in city than a precize 120mm tank round.

As I said earlier, we do not even have a fight against tank as concept of fighting vehicle, he have here rather a fight with it's name, tank, that for some sounds obsolete, and in the end they will replace a tank with some "mounted combat systems" that in the end is just... a tank.

Same is with light tanks, if we would replace main battle tanks with light tanks, we would soon see how the cycle repeats itself, after some time someone would say, yeah, we need a little bit more armor on our light tank, engineers says ok, and we have a medium tank, later someones say, hey we need more armor, we got a heavy tank, later someones says, but we need something that is well protected, have good firepower and good mobility, and we came back to idea of main battle tank.

This is just insane, idiotic, purely stupid waste of time, materials, money, to just repeat the cycle, because some morons do not like a tank, and try to replace it with... a tank.

That's the problem. In my post I show that we do not need to do that, and there are far more rational ideas about how evolution of tanks will go in future.

Hopefully the point is clear for everyone.

 

[cloud]

This 100 tons tank will serve as object of jokes and proof of incompetence of persons that forced such idea in to reality.



Wet dream, nothing else. Grow up.



How old are you? You think that real world is like a computer game? Who for the common sense sake would want to have a 100+ tons heavy tank? Besides some ridiculous fanboys that do not even know how difficult is to design tank properly.

Do you even thinked how you would transport such pile of metal over longer distance? Even railroads have their limitations to the transported vehicles size.



You have absolutely no idea about AFV's designing it seems.



Oh, really, fascinating, so it seems that Soviet assault guns from WWII, and some of their tanks with such guns, weighting below 50 tons, were not going 5 meters back after every hit.

Soviets and later Russians had prototypes weighint below 60 tons, with such armament and there were also firing tests, no doubt, there is no problem with vehicle weight as you imagined.

Ukrainians developed a 140mm gun called Bagira, that can be fitted in to existing designs like BM Yatagan, that weights below 50 tons (approx 48), and still there will not be any problem with recoil.

I see you try to be smarter than engineers designing these things, do you?



Stupid idea, the same foolish concept of all or nothing, why do you want to replace soldiers carrying heavy weapons? And then what? You will force your pet project the allmighty mini tank to go through stairs to the building top to provide fire support to units below on streets?

Maybe start to think in reasonable way like adult, not like a child with it's computer games inspired, silly wet dream.

offcourse my numbers are a bit exaggerated.


There are 1.5 millions in army, building top support an all isn't an issue.

Anyway, can they design a 220 mm gun for a 50 ton mbt that easily too? but one could for a 100 ton one..

 

[Damian]

Anyway, can they design a 220 mm gun for a 50 ton mbt that easily too? but one could for a 100 ton one..

Why would anyone want to put a 220mm gun in a tank?!:shocked:

What is this? My dick is bigger than yours contest?

 

[cloud]

Why would anyone want to put a 220mm gun in a tank?!:shocked:

What is this? My dick is bigger than yours contest?

When the enemy is coming at your door with 140 mm guns MBTs, I would put my faith in a mbt having 220 mm gun to blow enemy armor into pieces.

Also you are too focused on 100 ton, today when we can transport 70 ton MBTs then why not 100 tons. Leaving the air transport option as it will still be limited for even 70 ton ones.

 

[Damian]

When the enemy is coming at your door with 140 mm guns MBTs, I would put my faith in a mbt having 220 mm gun to blow enemy armor into pieces.

140mm gun is more than enough, no need for childish ideas.

Also you are too focused on 100 ton, today when we can transport 70 ton MBTs then why not 100 tons. Leaving the air transport option as it will still be limited for even 70 ton ones.

Show me a modern MBT that weight 70 metric tons, there is none. Weight of 63 metric tons is exceeded only with additional armor kits, that are modular and can be taken off from tank when nececary for transportation. Also do not confuse weight provided in short tons.

And whole world is actually seeking how to reduce weight without sacrificing protection.

Americans for example initiated ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) modernization for M1 Abrams tanks, it focuses on redesigning on designing a new allmost all mechanical and electronic components of tank, making them smaller, lighter and more efficent, while in the same time, tanks will receive another armor upgrade (details unknown). So it shows that there are many efforts to reduce size and weight, without compromising survivability of vehicle and crew.

Think about this.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Why would anyone want to put a 220mm gun in a tank?!:shocked:

220mm is rocket launcher, is it not?


There is a 280 mm mortar.


Neither for mounting on a tank...

 

[JBH22]

@Damian,

If you see the experience of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, @Bhadra does have a point. The Soviet Army actually made the soldiers sit atop their BTRs, because that way, if it was hit, there were chances of some of the troops surviving. The same theory can be applied to tanks as well, especially in hilly or built up areas were only small and light tanks can be used, which have less armour. The same tactic was also used in Chechnya. It all depends upon where the tank operates, and what kind of armour it has.

The Chechens changed their tactics IED were put on top of trees to kill troops riding on APC.
The Russians reportedly tried the T-72 on Afghan terrain but its suspension would break down and also without much armour threat the T-62 and T-55 were deemed sufficient. It is worth mentioning that afghan insurgents were armed with MILAN AT and no tank at that could have sustained the hit.
Let's compare with the M113 which equipped the majority of western armed forces at that time well it also would have been reduced to dust like BTR.
The BTR however gave troops mobility and serious firepower the bronegruppa concept was developped hence to say Russians did not adapt would be inaccurate.

 

[JBH22]

I read, and I wonder, why you compare Soviet unions obsolete equipment and improper tactics to the much more effective NATO solutions in Afghanistan?

How can you say Russians tactics are obsolete please elaborate yourself.
NATO are rather copying or modifying Russian tactics.

 

[pmaitra]

The Chechens changed their tactics IED were put on top of trees to kill troops riding on APC.
The Russians reportedly tried the T-72 on Afghan terrain but its suspension would break down and also without much armour threat the T-62 and T-55 were deemed sufficient. It is worth mentioning that afghan insurgents were armed with MILAN AT and no tank at that could have sustained the hit.
Let's compare with the M113 which equipped the majority of western armed forces at that time well it also would have been reduced to dust like BTR.
The BTR however gave troops mobility and serious firepower the bronegruppa concept was developped hence to say Russians did not adapt would be inaccurate.

Good post. Thanks.

Here is BroneGruppa for everyone:

[PDF]http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/brmsrr/2008/BRMP07010802.pdf[/PDF]

 

[Damian]

The Russians reportedly tried the T-72 on Afghan terrain but its suspension would break down

Oh, so they decided to use T-62 from which, T-72 suspension evolved, and was actually an improved T-62 suspension. You see here any logic?

It is worth mentioning that afghan insurgents were armed with MILAN AT and no tank at that could have sustained the hit.

Another stupid myth, front composite armor could withstand it, not to mention that at that time, Soviets had dynamic protection for tanks. Think twice before you repeat such bollocks.

How can you say Russians tactics are obsolete please elaborate yourself.
NATO are rather copying or modifying Russian tactics.

Maybe read NATO analizis before you say something. Soviet and Russian tactics to use AFV's in assymetric conflicts were ineffective. Instead of fire and manouver tactics, they used these vehicles as pillboxes.

Example, when convoy was hit, Soviets stopped and fired in a place from where enemy attacked, and then they moved further the same road, causing minimal or none casualties to insurgents, NATO do it different, both vehicles and infantry manouver and provide supressive fire, to encircle and destroy insurgents.

I don't have tiome to seek again links to these analizis documents, but you can search them in my posts.

 

[cloud]

140mm gun is more than enough, no need for childish ideas.



Show me a modern MBT that weight 70 metric tons, there is none. Weight of 63 metric tons is exceeded only with additional armor kits, that are modular and can be taken off from tank when nececary for transportation. Also do not confuse weight provided in short tons.

And whole world is actually seeking how to reduce weight without sacrificing protection.

Americans for example initiated ECP (Engineering Change Proposal) modernization for M1 Abrams tanks, it focuses on redesigning on designing a new allmost all mechanical and electronic components of tank, making them smaller, lighter and more efficent, while in the same time, tanks will receive another armor upgrade (details unknown). So it shows that there are many efforts to reduce size and weight, without compromising survivability of vehicle and crew.

Think about this.

Ok. lets say after a little study it was found that 90% of the Indian bridges(big ones) can take the load of 80-90 tons. C17 can take around 77 tons MAX. So We made an MBT having around 70-75 tons of basic structure (modular), such that many other systems, i. e. CIWS/Missiles/ERA or if possibly some other heavy components (Note that, since it is a heavy category, focus will also be more on modularity, may be some part of body armor could be stored in BOX like structure, which can be removed to do the air transport) and all of this can be assembled with a day, taking the tanks overall weight near 90-95 tons. Now I don't see the problem of transportation to almost any place, for any other exception we would have 50 tons ones in much large number in the inventory. have you seen how the tanks & gun evolved rapidly during the war, french started with 40mm gun tank and at the end of the war in just 5 years, tank were easily having 120-155 mm guns. How can you be sure that 140 mm will be enough with the rapid advancement in armor techs as you explained yourself?

 

[Damian]

Ok. lets say after a little study it was found that 90% of the Indian bridges(big ones) can take the load of 80-90 tons. C17 can take around 77 tons MAX. So We made an MBT having around 70-75 tons of basic structure (modular), such that many other systems, i. e. CIWS/Missiles/ERA or if possibly some other heavy components (Note that, since it is a heavy category, focus will also be more on modularity, may be some part of body armor could be stored in BOX like structure, which can be removed to do the air transport) and all of this can be assembled with a day, taking the tanks overall weight near 90-95 tons. Now I don't see the problem of transportation to almost any place, for any other exception we would have 50 tons ones in much large number in the inventory. have you seen how the tanks & gun evolved rapidly during the war, french started with 40mm gun tank and at the end of the war in just 5 years, tank were easily having 120-155 mm guns. How can you be sure that 140 mm will be enough with the rapid advancement in armor techs as you explained yourself?

You have ridiculous obsession with weight.

How many times I will need to repeat untill it finally find a way to your brain - You do not need such heavy vehicle, lighter, more compact vehicle can be as same or even better protected, as good or better armed and will be more mobile, more troops friendly, more lethal to enemy!

As for gun effectiveness, how can you be sure that a 220mm gun will be efficent? Perhaps you should start your own research and development program for lasers?

You see how ridiculous are your ideas?

Purchase some good books about tanks, read what people with greater knowledge than you say about tanks, and learn before you will create another "briliant" idea.

 

[cloud]

You have ridiculous obsession with weight.

How many times I will need to repeat untill it finally find a way to your brain - You do not need such heavy vehicle, lighter, more compact vehicle can be as same or even better protected, as good or better armed and will be more mobile, more troops friendly, more lethal to enemy!

How when you use the same tech to make the heavy one with double armor thickness(same empty space as inside, as compact)? It is against common sense.

You have ridiculous obsession with only one type. I just find it hard to digest that when a 50 tons tank is hit by a good 220 mm tank gun, even if the armor is so good that it doesn't make a hole in it, then probably it will blow off the whole tank in air, with so much momentum of incoming shot.

I understand the what you are telling about the light weight, that is why they are in number in my scenario. But if you can afford/make the heavy ones properly/and include them in your doctrine, then they are also good.

 

[Damian]

How when you use the same tech to make the heavy one with double armor thickness(same empty space as inside, as compact)? It is against common sense.

You have ridiculous obsession with only one type. I just find it hard to digest that when a 50 tons tank is hit by a good 220 mm tank gun, even if the armor is so good that it doesn't make a hole in it, then probably it will blow off the whole tank in air, with so much momentum of incoming shot.

I understand the what you are telling about the light weight, that is why they are in number in my scenario. But if you can afford/make the heavy ones properly/and include them in your doctrine, then they are also good.

What 220mm tank gun, can't understand that such big gun makes problems? With recoil, with it's own weight, with ammunition size and weight, not to mention that you create so many problems.

Just accept that your idea is stupid, and is just a wet dream.

Sweet Loise!

 

[JBH22]

Oh, so they decided to use T-62 from which, T-72 suspension evolved, and was actually an improved T-62 suspension. You see here any logic?

I can give you on that
But still no point in sending the T-72 in a situation where there was no armour threat (tank vs tank)

Another stupid myth, front composite armor could withstand it, not to mention that at that time, Soviets had dynamic protection for tanks. Think twice before you repeat such bollocks.

Applique armour or reactive you meant because if you compare with the M-60 which was the USA had at that time the result would have been same.
Btw am being polite why are you using words like bollocks note that I can start on this tone also

Maybe read NATO analizis before you say something. Soviet and Russian tactics to use AFV's in assymetric conflicts were ineffective. Instead of fire and manouver tactics, they used these vehicles as pillboxes.

Example, when convoy was hit, Soviets stopped and fired in a place from where enemy attacked, and then they moved further the same road, causing minimal or none casualties to insurgents, NATO do it different, both vehicles and infantry manouver and provide supressive fire, to encircle and destroy insurgents.

I don't have tiome to seek again links to these analizis documents, but you can search them in my posts.

Why not read Bronegruppa

Give me a present situation where afghan insurgents are armed with guided anti tank missile all they are fielding are IEDs and RPG-7.

Hence the "superiority" of NATO Tactics is yet to be proven

 

[Damian]

I can give you on that
But still no point in sending the T-72 in a situation where there was no armour threat (tank vs tank)

There is a point, higher survivability vs infantry anti-tank weapons, simple?

Applique armour or reactive you meant because if you compare with the M-60 which was the USA had at that time the result would have been same.
Btw am being polite why are you using words like bollocks note that I can start on this tone also

I talk about modern tanks used at that time, that have composite armor, Milan ATGM as most or all ATGM's at that time, would be completely ineffective against frontal protection of such kind of modern MBT's.

BTW It is M60 not M-60, because in US nomenclature, ground vehicle do not have "-" in their designation codes.

Why not read Bronegruppa

Why should I? When there are more recent documents?

Give me a present situation where afghan insurgents are armed with guided anti tank missile all they are fielding are IEDs and RPG-7.

Insurgents had ATGM's in Iraq, their effectiveness should be disputed.

Hence the "superiority" of NATO Tactics is yet to be proven

Consider that I live in a former Warsaw Pact state, our Army know the soviet tactics and training, as they were trained by Soviet advisors, and we also know NATO tactics and training, our soldiers that were trained in both are very clear about which tactics are superior. Recent analizis support their experiences.

 

[JBH22]

There is a point, higher survivability vs infantry anti-tank weapons, simple?

I guess the Soviets had better insight on what to deploy at that time in A-stan and its not you sitting on your comfty chair to tell whether the T-72 or T-80 should have been sent there

I talk about modern tanks used at that time, that have composite armor, Milan ATGM as most or all ATGM's at that time, would be completely ineffective against frontal protection of such kind of modern MBT's.

BTW It is M60 not M-60, because in US nomenclature, ground vehicle do not have "-" in their designation codes

Point is that you got which tank I was referring to getting into debate about M60 or M-60 is pretty ridiculous.

Second thing since we are comparing about A-stan in the 1980s lets stick to what was available to Nato at that time.
The M-113 or M60 would have met similar fate that the BTR-70 or T-55 met there.

Why should I? When there are more recent documents?

Then how do you compare tactics???
Instead of usual Russian bashing agenda better take a constructive stand.

Insurgents had ATGM's in Iraq, their effectiveness should be disputed.

So to avoid A-stan you go to Iraq now. Tell me how many Afghans or Iraqis had access to Kornet or Metis-M except the one reported case of RPG-29 penetrating the challenger 2. It was mostly a one side battle in Iraq in majority cases attacks were done with IED's or RPG-7

Consider that I live in a former Warsaw Pact state, our Army know the soviet tactics and training, as they were trained by Soviet advisors, and we also know NATO tactics and training, our soldiers that were trained in both are very clear about which tactics are superior. Recent analizis support their experiences.

Would you please elaborate on how superior it is?
Also more than 2 decades have passed by since end of cold war so your idea that Russkies tactics remained same is to be taken with a bucket of salt.

 

[Damian]

I guess the Soviets had better insight on what to deploy at that time in A-stan and its not you sitting on your comfty chair to tell whether the T-72 or T-80 should have been sent there

It was all about economics, it was cheaper to send obsolete vehicles, also their losses were more acceptable, and do not forget it was still cold war, they preffered to keep better vehicles on borders with NATO countries.

Point is that you got which tank I was referring to getting into debate about M60 or M-60 is pretty ridiculous.

Second thing since we are comparing about A-stan in the 1980s lets stick to what was available to Nato at that time.
The M-113 or M60 would have met similar fate that the BTR-70 or T-55 met there.

M113 (again, stop this silly mistakes with writing designation codes) and M60 were obsolete in 1980's, and were back then slowly withdraw to reserve units, NATO would most probably send there more modern equipment.

Though I agree that M113 or M60 would be vurnable to RPG's and ATGM's.

Then how do you compare tactics???
Instead of usual Russian bashing agenda better take a constructive stand.

By reading documents that include review of Soviet tactics.

And remember a fact that on this forum, I am the one that mostly defend Russians, contrary to most of you, I actually talk with Russians on russian language military forums and have much better contacts with them, than most people that are not from slavic countries.

So to avoid A-stan you go to Iraq now. Tell me how many Afghans or Iraqis had access to Kornet or Metis-M except the one reported case of RPG-29 penetrating the challenger 2. It was mostly a one side battle in Iraq in majority cases attacks were done with IED's or RPG-7

You know very little about what happened there.

ATGM to be dangerous does not need to be modern, even obsolete 9M14 is dangerous if properly used. RPG-7 can also be dangerous.

Would you please elaborate on how superior it is?
Also more than 2 decades have passed by since end of cold war so your idea that Russkies tactics remained same is to be taken with a bucket of salt.

Our officers are very clear, they calculated that avarage life of officer in army trained by soviets, was more or less 15 minutes during single battle, this was only for officer, regular soldiers were less lucky.

Armor mechanized forces also calculated that both in offensive and deffensive operations losses would be grater than in case of NATO forces, I do not remember exactly by how much, but it was significant.

Currently our army is training within NATO standards, and soldiers that were trained in both systems, clearly say about superiority of NATO methods. I can give you one example, in soviet training model, there is no place for individual initiative, NATO had different method and give grater flexibility to soldiers, thus giving them better chances to adapt and survive, and mostly win.

I think Militarysta could say more about this, he have close friends among our army soldiers, and grater access to their knowledge.

 

[JBH22]

It was all about economics, it was cheaper to send obsolete vehicles, also their losses were more acceptable, and do not forget it was still cold war, they preffered to keep better vehicles on borders with NATO countries.

Add to the fact that these 2 tanks were in their "stage" and if I'm not mistaken only elite units in Germany got hand on these tanks by 1985.

M113 (again, stop this silly mistakes with writing designation codes) and M60 were obsolete in 1980's, and were back then slowly withdraw to reserve units, NATO would most probably send there more modern equipment.

Though I agree that M113 or M60 would be vurnable to RPG's and ATGM's.

Back in the 1980's NATO had these equipment only hence compared to what Russians had in A-stan it matched.

Don't compare an M1A2 operating with UAV and all sorts of modern equipment to the T-62 operated in 1980s.

By reading documents that include review of Soviet tactics.

And remember a fact that on this forum, I am the one that mostly defend Russians, contrary to most of you, I actually talk with Russians on russian language military forums and have much better contacts with them, than most people that are not from slavic countries.

Then how can you expect Russians to maneuvre on confined stretch roads??
It is known that this country is not good for tank warfare..

Russians took initiatives their Bronegruppa concept is one of them, however this conflict was doomed to fail just like NATO adventure presently.

You know very little about what happened there.

ATGM to be dangerous does not need to be modern, even obsolete 9M14 is dangerous if properly used. RPG-7 can also be dangerous.

You did not answer my question. Compare with the 1980s when millions of dollars were poured for acquisition of anti tank weapons to take on Russians is nato facing similar situation?? ANSWER IS NO

NATO tanks have not face serious threat.

Our officers are very clear, they calculated that avarage life of officer in army trained by soviets, was more or less 15 minutes during single battle, this was only for officer, regular soldiers were less lucky.

Armor mechanized forces also calculated that both in offensive and defensive operations losses would be grater than in case of NATO forces, I do not remember exactly by how much, but it was significant.

Currently our army is training within NATO standards, and soldiers that were trained in both systems, clearly say about superiority of NATO methods. I can give you one example, in soviet training model, there is no place for individual initiative, NATO had different method and give grater flexibility to soldiers, thus giving them better chances to adapt and survive, and mostly win.

I think Militarysta could say more about this, he have close friends among our army soldiers, and grater access to their knowledge.

In war soldiers will inevitably take initiative to save their lives.

Soviet doctrine back then laid less emphasis on quality and more on quantity in that perspective one could argue that Warsaw pact with thousands of tanks would have overcome NATO Defenses.

 

[pmaitra]

Maybe read NATO analizis before you say something. Soviet and Russian tactics to use AFV's in assymetric conflicts were ineffective. Instead of fire and manouver tactics, they used these vehicles as pillboxes.

What you are saying is only part of the story, not the complete truth.

The Mujahideen strategy was to ambush Soviet convoys. They would target the first and the last vehicle and disable them, thus halting the convoy. Thereafter, they would attack the rest of the convoy. This was the single most effective tactic used by the Mujahideen. So, yes, in such a scenario, the Soviets had to use their tanks as mobile (but stationary) pillboxes. There is very little opportunity to maneouvre tanks in a hilly terrain. I would like you to share some major battles where NATO used 'maneouvre' tactics in Afghanistan. Sure, there may be a few - but they are just few and far between.

Then how can you expect Russians to maneuvre on confined stretch roads??
It is known that this country is not good for tank warfare.

Correct. There is limited scope of 'maneouvre' tactics in Afghanistan. The analysis @Damian is referring to is either poorly understood, or simply flawed.