Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Ray]

IPKF and India both were ill prepared when this operation was undertaken.

Infantry has its uses and airpower has its uses. No single weapon is effective in all situations.

When you went into Sri Lanka, India should have used air power but India did not have proper aircrafts.

Also the IPKF mission went completely haywire as it got into active hostilities rather than "peace-keeping". I think IPKF only strengthened the hands of Sri Lanka against Tamils, which was not the original intention.

Could you give the details of the policy evolved politically by Rajiv Gandhi as also the military policy that was to back the political policy?

That would help.

 

[Akim]

War in Ukraine proved once again. without tanks you can not offensive nor defence.

 

[sgarg]

Could you give the details of the policy evolved politically by Rajiv Gandhi as also the military policy that was to back the political policy?

That would help.

Yes I agree that IPKF was not properly thought through both in terms of political as well military terms.

Rajiv Gandhi did not have patience to sit through any long discussion. This is what I have been told. Digging it up does not serve any purpose now, but the gist is he worked on advice of select advisers.

 

[sgarg]

@Bhadra, you are correct about importance of infantry, however mobility and safety of infantry can be increased by APCs.

 

[Bhadra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Infantry cannot win wars with bare-hands , Tanks, APC and Aircraft and big guns of artillery and every other element are essentially supplementing Infantry firepower , I would be much happier if a tank far away taking out a enemy post before enemy start taking on our troops ..

So your perception of Infantry is "bare hands" ... Good. Then you do not know any thing about Infantry..... the only Arm capable of and being tasked to undertake operations for all kinds of operations, in all terrains and under any condition including NBC warfare..

That is what Infantry is all about.. self sufficient for all things for a limited period and for their area of influence.. including mortars, machine Guns, radars, communications, engineer support, Recce and Surveillance, intelligence, missiles, explosives and boots on the ground.

What is the range / maximum effective range of T-72 ?

Maximum Aimed Range (m) 2,000
Max Effective Range (m)
Day 1,000
Night 800

of Tt-90 :
Gun - Max 2000 (day night same as above)
Missile Max - 4000

Now, those ranges are achievable with Artillery as also missiles : infantry missiles like Concurs or missiles to be fired by Namika or aviation. ( here do not separate Mechanised Infantry from Infantry)

Provision of supporting fire power is not the role of armour ! That is a very secondary and incidental task even for an area like Ladakh.

That job is reserved for others and can be undertaken by others at 1/10th of the cost.

Role of the Armour primarily is offensive actions even in Defensive Operations. If they exist in Ladakh their job would be offensive in offensive or defensive operations.


Only "Shooting in the Infantry" at the cost of billions of dollars when that can be done by only few thousand dollars of missiles and artillery is not a wise method of conducting battles or wars !! Missile fired by tanks is not more effective than missile fired by an infantryman !!

 

[Bhadra]

War in Ukraine proved once again. without tanks you can not offensive nor defence.

I agree with you...
However, It is also true that the Ukrainians tanks can not quell the rebellion by themselves..

And what about Ukrainian tanks getting hit by a dime and dozens ??

Can you estimate the loss in terms of monetary value ??

 

[asianobserve]

Battlefields are theaters of improvisation, tactical dexterity. Of the heavy weapons known to soldiers nothing can compare to the flexibility offered by MBTs. It can operate in direct and indirect fire modes. Continued improvements on MBT armors mean that it is increasingly safe even in urban battles.

 

[Akim]

I agree with you...
However, It is also true that the Ukrainians tanks can not quell the rebellion by themselves..

And what about Ukrainian tanks getting hit by a dime and dozens ??

Can you estimate the loss in terms of monetary value ??

Now it is impossible to estimate the loss of tanks nor Ukrainian army, neither militants nor the Russian army. The fighting is still ongoing. Yesterday was destroyed 4 tanks militants, the day before yesterday two tanks militants and one tank of the Russian army. The Ukrainian army for the week lost two tanks. It is difficult to give even an approximate figure.

 

[Bhadra]

Battlefields are theaters of improvisation, tactical dexterity.

Angreji ...

Of the heavy weapons known to soldiers nothing can compare to the flexibility offered by MBTs. It can operate in direct and indirect fire modes.

the discussion centres around on Comparisons for areas of universal applications. You mean MBTs have better flexibility and dexterity than Infantry or Aviation. Infantry can conduct operations in all those terrains where tanks have " No Go No Go", it can hold ground which is out of MBTs... it can take ground ,,,, many other things which is out of the preview of the discussion.

Continued improvements on MBT armors mean that it is increasingly safe even in urban battles.

if a tank is required to fight at 100m range ( Urban environment) then why design a tank... ?? We might as well have a moving concrete pill box ??

What happened in Stalingrad and battle of Berlin?? Tanks in urban environment got buried there for ever. What ever we see today around us is only silly improvisation and use of tanks. The day tanks are used as pill boxes that day is the death of tanks.


No tank commander worth his salt, if within his ability , may ever try banging his head into an urban shithole however heavy and elephant an tank he has !! Try taking a tank into Lahore.

 

[Akim]

if a tank is required to fight at 100m range ( Urban environment) then why design a tank... ?? We might as well have a moving concrete pill box ??

What happened in Stalingrad and battle of Berlin?? Tanks in urban environment got buried there for ever. What ever we see today around us is only silly improvisation and use of tanks. The day tanks are used as pill boxes that day is the death of tanks.


No tank commander worth his salt, if within his ability , may ever try banging his head into an urban shithole however heavy and elephant an tank he has !! Try taking a tank into Lahore.

A tank in an urban environment is not used. There's a large number of anti-tank funds. In the city use the LAV, which have greater maneuverability and speed (up to 100 km\h)

 

[Damian]

Funny, when people talk that tanks are useless in urban environment. US Army and British Army laugh from you.

Both US Army (and also USMC) and British Army used tanks in urban enviroment with great success. It is a myth spread by complete idiots, that tanks are useless in city, proffesionals known that they are usefull if used properly. However most users of tanks are complete morons, good example is Russian army from early 90's in Grozny, these idiots had no idea how properly use tanks in city.

Another myth spread around by amateurs like Bhadra is that tanks can't go somewhere, oh they can, even more than infantry. In fact if not idiotic ROE's, we would not seen urban battles at all, in normal situation army that siege a city, destroys this city by using fore from artillery and tanks to destroy buildings, and this should be a way how to defeat city defenders.

 

[Akim]

Funny, when people talk that tanks are useless in urban environment. US Army and British Army laugh from you.

Both US Army (and also USMC) and British Army used tanks in urban enviroment with great success. It is a myth spread by complete idiots, that tanks are useless in city, proffesionals known that they are usefull if used properly. However most users of tanks are complete morons, good example is Russian army from early 90's in Grozny, these idiots had no idea how properly use tanks in city.

Another myth spread around by amateurs like Bhadra is that tanks can't go somewhere, oh they can, even more than infantry. In fact if not idiotic ROE's, we would not seen urban battles at all, in normal situation army that siege a city, destroys this city by using fore from artillery and tanks to destroy buildings, and this should be a way how to defeat city defenders.

The U.S. army did not face a well-organized defense when the opponent uses a large range of anti-tank. The Russian army in Chechnya suffered heavy losses in tanks, Yugoslavia, Israel, too. Now in the East of Ukraine militants have established a well-organized anti-tank defence in cities. Massively used ATGM and RPG (all versions), RKG-3, sniper point . Tank in the city is a "condemned man".

The city shall apply only light AV with great firepower.

 

[Damian]

The U.S. army did not face a well-organized defense when the opponent uses a large range of anti-tank. The Russian army in Chechnya suffered heavy losses in tanks, Yugoslavia, Israel, too. Now in the East of Ukraine militants have established a well-organized anti-tank defence in cities. Massively used ATGM and RPG (all versions), RKG-3, sniper point . Tank in the city is a "condemned man".

The city shall apply only light AV with great firepower.

Wrong!

US Army/USMC/British Army faced a well organized defences in city, be it Baghdad, Basra or Fallujah for example.

There are tons of analysis, books and other sources of informations about military operations in Iraq and how coalition forces used tanks.

Properly used tank is great asset in urban warfare, it provides protection and fire support for infantry.

Western conclusions are simple - lightweight vehicles with no armor are useless, piece of junk and death traps for their crews and infantry supporting them. This is why allmost all NATO armies, are investing in increasing protection of all armored fighting vehicles, be it wheeled APC's, tracked IFV's or MBT's. Even armored cars become heavier and heavier each years because more armor is nececary to keep required levels of survivability.

Lightweight = no armor = you are dead.

 

[Akim]

Wrong!

US Army/USMC/British Army faced a well organized defences in city, be it Baghdad, Basra or Fallujah for example.

There are tons of analysis, books and other sources of informations about military operations in Iraq and how coalition forces used tanks.

Properly used tank is great asset in urban warfare, it provides protection and fire support for infantry.

Western conclusions are simple - lightweight vehicles with no armor are useless, piece of junk and death traps for their crews and infantry supporting them. This is why allmost all NATO armies, are investing in increasing protection of all armored fighting vehicles, be it wheeled APC's, tracked IFV's or MBT's. Even armored cars become heavier and heavier each years because more armor is nececary to keep required levels of survivability.

Lightweight = no armor = you are dead.

Can you briefly give the conclusions, as they managed to overcome antitank defense? Apparently they, the Israelis did not read. For fighting in the city need only light armor with an armor against bullets 7,62x51/54. War in the city - it is the war of special forces. Or you can have to wipe the city, as did the Russians.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Actually its not me, Its you sound like , Let it be tanks or artillery, Nothing is required and all are obsolete and useless according to you, From various threads including this either you are not able to convey your point or mixed up all ..

=========

In that case what are the use of RL as well as ATGM in similar terrain under same operations ? , Even Mortar can be counted ..

If that is the case then why deploying Armour over these terrain on first place ? !

What kind of offensive roles tanks can archive in Ladakh against what kind of targerts ?

I do not understand your last point ..

So your perception of Infantry is "bare hands" ... Good. Then you do not know any thing about Infantry.....

Now, those ranges are achievable with Artillery as also missiles : infantry missiles like Concurs or missiles to be fired by Namika or aviation. ( here do not separate Mechanised Infantry from Infantry)

Provision of supporting fire power is not the role of armour ! That is a very secondary and incidental task even for an area like Ladakh.

Role of the Armour primarily is offensive actions even in Defensive Operations. If they exist in Ladakh their job would be offensive in offensive or defensive operations.

Only "Shooting in the Infantry" at the cost of billions of dollars when that can be done by only few thousand dollars of missiles and artillery is not a wise method of conducting battles or wars !! Missile fired by tanks is not more effective than missile fired by an infantryman !!

 

[Bhadra]

Re: MSPO 2012 Military Exhibition in Kielce.

Actually its not me, Its you sound like , Let it be tanks or artillery, Nothing is required and all are obsolete and useless according to you, From various threads including this either you are not able to convey your point or mixed up all ..

=========

In that case what are the use of RL as well as ATGM in similar terrain under same operations ? , Even Mortar can be counted ..

If that is the case then why deploying Armour over these terrain on first place ? !

What kind of offensive roles tanks can archive in Ladakh against what kind of targerts ?

I do not understand your last point ..

Firstly, Armour or Mechanised forces are required in Ladakh because some portion of terrain permit their use on both sides of the border.
Secondly, because the other side, that is Chinese, have deployed their mechanised elements which they may use for carrying out deep offensive through the vallies and avenues of ingress..

Armour or mechanised elements would be employed there to launch a limited or meaningful offensives across the border through the avenues which permit use of armour.
mechanised elements would be used to block Chinese armour in counter penetration positions.

Armour will be used to launch counter attacks where ever terrain permits.

Armour will further be used to outflank or threaten the flanks of the Chinese forces.

Suffice it to remind you that the formation there deployed is named as Infantry division and not mountain division !!

Last point "Shooting In Infantry" is a term used when Armour is completely in support rule and shoots on the objective to provide fire support to facilitate approach of infantry to the objective.

 

[Akim]

On the battlefield, the tank is an indispensable means of fire support. To hit the tank can only guns with APFSDS. Front projection of the tank can withstand up to 8 hits from the shaped charge. However, as far as the tank is strong on rough terrain, as it is weak in the city.

 

[Bhadra]

Wrong!

US Army/USMC/British Army faced a well organized defences in city, be it Baghdad, Basra or Fallujah for example.

There are tons of analysis, books and other sources of informations about military operations in Iraq and how coalition forces used tanks.

Properly used tank is great asset in urban warfare, it provides protection and fire support for infantry.

Western conclusions are simple - lightweight vehicles with no armor are useless, piece of junk and death traps for their crews and infantry supporting them. This is why allmost all NATO armies, are investing in increasing protection of all armored fighting vehicles, be it wheeled APC's, tracked IFV's or MBT's. Even armored cars become heavier and heavier each years because more armor is nececary to keep required levels of survivability.

Lightweight = no armor = you are dead.

You are right may be but consider this :

LICO is not what tank were created and designed for !

If Tanks were to be used for Capture of Cities there would be great structural and design changes to be carried out as you have been pointing out. In that case, tank will be reduced down to an Urban fighting pill box and would cease to be utilised in classical blitzkrieg role.

Tank in Urban environment would rarely be able to carry out manoeuvres on their own.

Besides Consider following :-

* Tanks and other armored vehicles are not invincible, especially in urban terrain, where they are vulnerable to attacks from close range by man-portable anti-tank weapons such as RPGs.
* Since the urban scenario has no "frontline", attacks can come not only from the front, where the tanks are heavily protected, but also from above, and from the flanks or the rear, aiming at the vehicle's weak spots.

* Attacks by IEDs and mines can also come from below the surface.


Although urban warfare is not exactly the tanker's dream, a significant number of future battles will inevitably take place in this environment. The value of tank support cannot be underestimated in this high-risk environment, in which a commander wishes to use all available combat elements in order to reduce casualties. Modifications to tanks for use in urban combat conditions will continue to make them indispensable partners in the future war fighting team. However that is what exactly will bring in the demise of tanks as classical maneuver weapon.

Tank will be a walking pillbox in the cities. In that case let us not call it a tank. May be you can call it a City Bank.

 

[Akim]

Tank will be a walking pillbox in the cities. In that case let us not call it a tank. May be you can call it a City Bank.

Tank in the city has always been vulnerable. Even with WW I.

 

[Bhadra]

You cannot use tanks as APCs. A tank is a form of artillery and must be used as artillery.

The latest trend in tank designing and applications is to use it as Infantry Vehicles. Markava and Strykers are examples. If tanks are to be used for LICO and in cities, there is no choice but to use tanks as infantry carriers.

Though it is better to use buildings in Urban environment rather be sitting inside a steel coffin !