re: British Army admits Russia could destroy their only remaining fighting unit...

quote:

---

Tanks are outdated. Military aircraft rule the battlefield. Tanks seem like a massive death trap

---

When every body has IR technology camouflage isn't good for much. So yeah, tanks look vulnerable. And they need a big soft vehicle support train.

Back when Rummy the Dummy was SecDef it was discussed about getting away from main battle tanks altogether and using Stryker type vehicles.

It is hard to say what would work in the real world.

quote:

---

Tanks are still bad arse.

In Sadr, they roamed freely which made everyone feel safer.

---

That is a low threat environment for tanks. Last time the Israelis incurred into Lebanon they had a bad time with ATGM's.



Merkava IV

Hezbollah anti-amour
Tactics and weapons

Assessment of the Second Lebanon War By Col. David Eshel


"Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29.

RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV. The least used were AT-3 Sagger and, to a limited extent, the TOW as well as non tandem RPGs, were considered obsolete against tanks, but proved quite lethal against troops seeking cover in buildings.

Overall, almost 90% of the tanks hit were by tandem warheads. In general, Hezbollah militants prioritized Merkava Mk 4 over Merkava Mk 2 and 3, and in general, targeted tanks over AIFV. At the beginning of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the main Israeli concern was a report that Hezbollah possessed Russian Kornet antitank missiles. However, it also saw the RPG-29 Vampir with a tandem HEAT that had stolen the show. There were even rumors that Hezbollah had received the notorious TBG-29V thermobaric rounds, but these could not be confirmed in action.

Hezbollah deployed their tank-killer teams in a thin but effective defensive scheme, protecting the villages where the organization's Shiite members reside; villages where their short range rockets were positioned and where command infrastructure and logistics support was set up. An estimated 500 to 600 members of their roughly 4,000-strong Hezbollah fighting strength in South Lebanon were divided into tank-killer teams of 5 or 6, each armed with 5-8 anti-tank missiles, with further supplies stored in small fortified well camouflaged bunkers and fortified basements, built to withstand Israeli air attacks.

Due to mountainous area, engagements were encountered at ranges below 3000 meters. Hezbollah tank-killer teams would lay in wait in camouflaged bunkers or houses, having planted large IEDs on known approach routes. Once an Israeli tank would detonate one of these, Hezbollah would start lobbing mortar shells onto the scene to prevent rescue teams rushing forward, also firing at outflanking Merkava tanks by targeting the more vulnerable rear zone with RPGs. In general, Hezbollah demonstrated rather slow regrouping and response rate, since their mobility and command links were severely restricted by the IDF dominating the open areas. However, even this slow pace was fast enough to match the slow and indecisive movements of the Israelis forces."

LINK

More at the link.



Merkava 4 penetrated by AT-14 Kornet

this tactic works if the invader is concerned about civilian deaths........i have a feeling if Israel is forced to do this again they will be a great deal less concerned.

Again, the fact you can kill tanks with ATGMs is no different than the fact you can kill fighters and bombers with SAMs. There has never in the history of armored warfare been a time where tanks had zero worries about antitank weapons facing them on the battlefield. The same is true of fighters and bombers as well. Just because a weapons system can be destroyed does not mean it's obsolete. If that were true, then every weapon system is now and has been obsolete since the day it was introduced. Infantry is obsolete because men can die. Artillery is obsolete because cannons, howitzers, and missile launchers can be destroyed.

The fact is tanks are as important today as they have ever been. They are an integral part of any combined arms operation. Any Force facing another modern force has to have armor for them to have any prayer of success.

As I've already pointed out, there are capabilities armor gives that no other weapons system can provide. If armies tried going to war without armor and fight each other with just infantry, artillery, and air power all they will do is recreate the trench warfare phase of WWI because neither side will be able to breach the other's defenses. That's the main thing armor does that no other force, on ground or in the air, can ever hope to achieve. Armor gives you the "breakthrough". Armor gives you the ability to take advantage of the breakthrough be striking deep and fast in the enemy's rear area taking out reserve forces, supply lines, and command and control centers. Infantry and artillery can and do support armor in doing this but infantry and artillery can't in and of themselves do this job. Air power can and does support armor in doing this but air power can't in and of itself do this job. It takes all these elements working together to win on a modern battlefield.

I think the reason many here have fallen for the lie that tanks are obsolete is they think the "low intensity conflicts" we've had in the Middle East the past 15 or so years actually represent the future of warfare. This is a huge mistake on their part. Yes, there will be these types of conflicts and there does need to be a force trained to fight such a conflict because it is very different from a conventional war. But as long as there are things such as countries, there will be wars between them. And in those wars a force equipped and trained primarily to fight a counterinsurgency low intensity conflict is virtually worthless.

quote:

---

Is that why you like tanks so much

---

Who doesn't like butt stuff?

quote:

---

I think the reason many here have fallen for the lie that tanks are obsolete is they think the "low intensity conflicts" we've had in the Middle East the past 15 or so years actually represent the future of warfare. This is a huge mistake on their part. Yes, there will be these types of conflicts and there does need to be a force trained to fight such a conflict because it is very different from a conventional war. But as long as there are things such as countries, there will be wars between them. And in those wars a force equipped and trained primarily to fight a counterinsurgency low intensity conflict is virtually worthless.

---

Maybe. With globalization there is only one economic system now. State actors won't go to war because Wal-Mart won't let them.

That is somewhat facetious of course but there is some truth to it now.

quote:

---

Maybe. With globalization there is only one economic system now. State actors won't go to war because Wal-Mart won't let them.

That is somewhat facetious of course but there is some truth to it now.

---

Many thought the same thing a century ago in the days before WWI. There was no way there could be a general European War because all the major powers were so economically tied together. Plus there had not been a large "general" European war since the days of Napoleon 100 years before. Yeah there had been small conflicts like the Crimea and the Franco-Prussian War. But nothing truest significant. Those large scale multi-power wars were now impossible.

That line of thinking, which at the time was the prevailing view of most experts, was proven wrong in the summer of 1914.

quote:

---

That is somewhat facetious of course but there is some truth to it now. Many thought the same thing a century ago in the days before WWI. There was no way there could be a general European War because all the major powers were so economically tied together.

---

The Germans didn't think that. They were being denied their place in the Sun.

And the Frogs couldn't wait to go MMA over Alsace and Lorraine again.

quote:

---

The Germans didn't think that. They were being denied their place in the Sun.

And the Frogs couldn't wait to go MMA over Alsace and Lorraine again.

---

True. But many, especially the those in diplomatic circles of the all major powers, thought such an European war like what WWI became was impossible.