DivineHeretic
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,153
- Likes
- 1,897
The M1 beginning service in early 80s was deployed to Pak for demonstration. Result the tank failed to hit even one stationary target, even while being stationary.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
So this tank would be superior to the Soviet ones just across the border?
Damian imagines the situation on the ground then and now is the same, with better Tanks making the difference. He conviniently omits the fact that the INSAF forces have far better Situational awareness than the Soviet ones. Courtsey the UAVs attached to battalion level
Then there is the boomerang projectile locator installed onboard a large number of vehicles. It has literally taken away the element of confusion about direction of fire in an ambush. The Soviets didnt have such electronic support.
Then there come the thermal imagers attached to the assault rifles of several soldiers, not to mention on the foghting vehicles.
The modern NATO soldier can see better, locate faster, identify much more accurately the source, has better CAS support then the Soviet army of the time, and the NATO troops of the time. Not to mention the armor protection has gone up several levels. In the mean time the insurgents have decreased in quality, reduced access to modern inventory, no superpower backing. Note the difference.
The Indian Army, a veteran of 60+ years of counter insurgency, the longest in the world, never found it necessary to introduce tanks in CI ops, even in urban areas. That too when the whole Kashmir valley was burning, and troops were being ambushed multiple times on a daily basis.
Note that this was not a small insurgency, nor were they ill trained as the Taliban,especially with hostile local population and massive support of PA. 40-60,000 terrorists have been killed till now, similar to Afg.
Note that IA was never burdened by logistics or costs of maintaining tanks there. There are tanks in bases in Kashmir even now, but never left the base for COIN ops.
Does @Damian mean to say that the IA is stupid and idiot for not charging tanks onto insurgents.
CI is a infantry led warfare, with uavs palying support role. Tanks and artillery or CAS should have no role in it. They only serve to alienate the local population. We realised this 50 years back.
Last edited by a moderator: