Agiel Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) delete Edited May 17, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) That reminds me of an old saying: All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers. Can't beat a classic: Q: What is a civil war? A: A contradiction of terms. Edited May 17, 2014 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tagaziel Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 A loss for words when confronted with cited evidence that it's no more vulnerable than the T-72S, huh? Oh wow, did someone suggest that modified T-72s are equal to a modern-day Abrams? Oh wow. Wow. Just... Wow. Your tanker friend is correct. 'course, you could always just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams#Operatorslook up Wikipedia. Not that staying in contact with friends is bad. Iraq – Iraqi Army: 140 M1A1Ms (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor). Iraq was leasing 22 U.S. Army M1A1s for training in 2008.%5B74%5D%5B90%5D%5B91%5D%5B92%5D The first 11 tanks were delivered to the Iraqi Army in August 2010.%5B93%5D All were delivered by August 2011.%5B94%5D In October 2012, it was reported that six more tanks were being delivered.%5B95%5D HMIC for: [ The Wasteland Wiki ] [ Pillars of Eternity Wiki ] [ Tyranny Wiki ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obyknven Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 A loss for words when confronted with cited evidence that it's no more vulnerable than the T-72S, huh? Oh wow, did someone suggest that modified T-72s are equal to a modern-day Abrams? Oh wow. Wow. Just... Wow. Your tanker friend is correct. 'course, you could always just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams#Operatorslook up Wikipedia. Not that staying in contact with friends is bad. Iraq – Iraqi Army: 140 M1A1Ms (downgraded, without depleted uranium layers in armor). Iraq was leasing 22 U.S. Army M1A1s for training in 2008.%5B74%5D%5B90%5D%5B91%5D%5B92%5D The first 11 tanks were delivered to the Iraqi Army in August 2010.%5B93%5D All were delivered by August 2011.%5B94%5D In October 2012, it was reported that six more tanks were being delivered.%5B95%5D Ok, you win. Firstly i think US sell to them fully functional M1A1SA with dU armor, http://iraqimilitary.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=140 but IRL US sell to all own slaves "allies" only monkey versions of arms without many cool things. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?205733-Australia-upgrades-it-s-M1A1SA-s Obviously you know such US rules better ( as experienced US gastarbeiter-servant ), it's my fault, i too idealize America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obyknven Posted June 2, 2014 Author Share Posted June 2, 2014 Nice example from times when propaganda yet not brainwash americans about their (and Western) military forces. Life magazine about WW2 tanks. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L1MEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA42&ots=7byXRuOTGj&dq=Joseph%20Kotin&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false Compare this with modern (actually created in 70-s myth) blah-blah about these tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 And before that the KV1 and then T34 which most people still call the best tank of WW2 from a cost-benefit perspective. It's not only what you have, but how you use it. Fortunately the russians were able to turn things around but for the first season on the eastern front they were outclassed in every engangement. As much we hate to admit it, the Nazis were the better soldiers. It only took an SS panzer corps to delay the entire Normandy invasion despite being massively outnumbered and without aircover. Case in point, one tank fends off an allied flanking move, alone for the most part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It's not only what you have, but how you use it. Fortunately the russians were able to turn things around but for the first season on the eastern front they were outclassed in every engangement. As much we hate to admit it, the Nazis were the better soldiers. It only took an SS panzer corps to hold up the entire Normandy invasion despite being massively outnumbered and without aircover. Yes but its also easier to defend an entrenched, secure position than to attack it. I am referring to Normandy "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woldan Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I've read many books about the war on the East, diaries from German soldiers. It was a war were sheer mass was more important than quality. I remember one report where a Tiger tank and if I remember correctly two Sturmgeschütze positioned on a hill shot ~ 70 T-34's and a couple of lighter Russian tanks in just one day and they still had to give up their position because they kept coming no matter how many the shot.... Also in all the books I've read it seemed that the Russians didn't employ tactics very often, there is that story where the Germans were attacked by a Russian tank platoon. To reach the German position said tanks had to climb a hill so steep that at the top the 88 Flak shot them in the ''belly'' destroying them instantly, one after another, for hours. The tanks couldn't hit the 88 because of the extreme angle but they kept attacking regardless. Two mg42's and a mortar took care of the escaping tank crews and the soldiers on sleds that were pulled by the tanks. According to the German soldiers diary their whole platoon was completely wiped out at the end of the day and the Germans suffered no losses. They had to give up their position though because of the sheer mass of tanks and troops that kept coming the next day. And those books weren't glorified war stories, later in the book / war the Germans got their asses kicked just as hard. Edited June 2, 2014 by Woldan I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Modern understanding makes the penetration charts rather laughably anachronistic (though one might draw that conclusion given how inaccurate some of those drawings are). What is now known of KE-based anti-tank armaments and munitions dictate that the length of the gun and barrel pressure are more important in penetration performance rather than the mass of the round (the 88mm gun with 71 caliber lengths was longer than the 122mm gun with a mere 43 caliber lengths). This paradigm is even more pronounced today, as modern penetrators rely upon the principle of armour erosion rather than armour displacement of anti-tank rounds of yesteryear. In addition, one of the big flaws of Soviet tank design was that though the tanks touched upon the "Big 3" points of speed, firepower, and maneuverability, they showed little attention to the finer details that made a complete weapons system: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html In the case of the IS-2, the 122mm gun had impressive firepower against other tanks, infantry formations, and fortifications. However, the round had to be loaded in two separate parts (the penetrator or the warhead, then the propellant). This had a tremendous impact on rate of fire, of which even a very well-trained crew could only manage three shots per minute at most (not even counting the time to identify and prosecute targets). In addition, after firing, the IS-2's barrel had to be raised in order for the gun to be loaded. In ye olden days of armoured warfare, the gunner's sight was hinged onto the gun barrel*. What that meant was that the gunner could not observe the round after firing, and if he missed he would briefly lose track of the target and the commander had to give him vague instructions to correct the shot (in the heat of battle, it's difficult to compute in your head things like "Short 200 meters, adjust lead 3 degrees right!" especially when those instructions are so imprecise). *In fairness, many tanks still retain a gunner's sight attached to the barrel and many of them do have to be raised after the gun is fired. However, those are the analog gunner's auxiliary sight and is used in emergencies when the electronic Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) generally located atop of the turret and the ballistics computer is out of commission, or to ensure that the gun and aimline is clear of any obstructions to where the gunner has aimed using the GPS. Edited June 2, 2014 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 On the Second World War, the Battle of Midway is happening on World War II on Twitter as we speak: https://mobile.twitter.com/RealTimeWWII Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Snazzy (if somewhat simplified) CGI demo of LockMart's Missile and Fire Control Systems: Though the change in music was... abrupt. Edited June 10, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Also in all the books I've read it seemed that the Russians didn't employ tactics very often... To be fair to the Red Army, most military historians tend to view WW2 as a game of two halves. That is to say pre and post Stalingrad. By 1943 the Soviet army had got it's sh1t together in terms of doctrine and equipment and wasn't as suicidally wasteful as it had been. It was audacious, even reckless because (a) it was led by a dictatorship with scant regard for human life (although even that disregard began to lessen after 1943) and (b) Soviet war production and lend-lease gave them astonishing manpower and equipment superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The IS-2 was a breakthrough tank. It was expected to punch holes in defensive positions. The 122mm gun was for strongpoints first and foremost. Not primarily for engaging other tanks, although obviously it could. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The Soviet concept of the tank was closer to assault gun than tank destroyer as other armies (i.e. those who would be on the other side of Soviet tanks) considered them. This is reflected by the fact that Soviet tanks in the Cold War-era carried an even proportion of anti-personnel, HEAT, and kinetic-energy penetrator rounds where their counterparts in the same period who were guarding the North German Plain, the Fulda Gap, and the Danube Line generally carried 2/3 sabot and 1/3 HEAT or multi-purpose warheads. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 The real question we should be asking is about how urban fighting will change designs. I'm not at all connvinced that tanks are redundant. I just think the Merkava approach, with troops on board, and maybe a larger lower velocity high angle gun would be the way to go. 1 "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Which is why there's been development of canister rounds and the gradual replacement of current stocks of the M-830 HEAT rounds with the M-830A1 MPAT, which has a proximity fuse giving it an airburst capability (which can also be used against helicopters in a pinch). My US Army tanker contact has relayed to me that there is some reservation in the brass to have the entire prospective M1A3 fleet use a license-built version of the German Rheinmetall L/55 (the Abrams currently uses a variation of the Rheinmetall L/44 that is equipped ba all Leopard 2s up to the -A5 model), as a longer gun means it will be harder to manuever in tight streets. Nils "Ssnake" Hinrichsen of the Steel Beasts team had this to say about the tanks becoming obsolete, though as a former tanker for the Bundeswehr and treadhead, his viewpoint might be a bit biased: I still don't see anything technology-wise that could truly replace the MBT's combination of its armor protection, its mobility, and its high firepower (in direct, precision fire mode). It may be possible to defeat a tank, but pretty much anything else would be defeated just as well by the same means. Of all the typical tools in the box of military force, MBTs are probably the most discriminating weapon which also have a serious pacifying effect (through psychological deterrence).All the pundits who repeatedly declared the tank dead since 1918 have actually been short-sighted fools who either didn't understand the development potential of the MBT as a weapon system, or they were clueless about the nature of combined-arms warfare. And it seems like they never learn from the discrepancy between their predictions and reality. And why would they - just because reality refuses to obey their masterful rhetorics? Hah!Turkey, Pakistan, India, China - they all seem to have a different idea about the necessity for a strong armored force, and the development of their own defense industry in the MBT sector. It is questionable that European nations will stay at the top of tank development, we're just administrating the results of past efforts and hoping to mitigate the velocity of our capability decay. But that's to be attributed purely to political will (or the lack of it) and a changed assessment of the strategic situation of European nations; it has nothing to do with an actual obsolescence of the MBT as a concept. Also for those interested, the second FREMM frigate for the French Navy has been commissioned. The name: "Normandie". A video of its shakedown cruise: Edited June 16, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 And before that the KV1 and then T34 which most people still call the best tank of WW2 from a cost-benefit perspective. It's not only what you have, but how you use it. Fortunately the russians were able to turn things around but for the first season on the eastern front they were outclassed in every engangement. As much we hate to admit it, the Nazis were the better soldiers. It only took an SS panzer corps to delay the entire Normandy invasion despite being massively outnumbered and without aircover. Case in point, one tank fends off an allied flanking move, alone for the most part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann While I agree that the Germans did halt the advance quite fast, are you certain it wasn't as mcuh to do with it being an amphibiouis landing? Anzio also came to a startling halt. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woldan Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) The real question we should be asking is about how urban fighting will change designs. I'm not at all connvinced that tanks are redundant. I just think the Merkava approach, with troops on board, and maybe a larger lower velocity high angle gun would be the way to go. I'd say the best way to go is the other way around, to penetrate light and medium armor and walls and concrete which are typically found in urban environments you need hard and FAST projectiles. Instead of decreasing the velocity thus decreasing their ability to penetrate and increasing the projectile size making ammo heavier and even larger I'd recommend downsizing a existing 140mm gun by at least 50% or so, keeping its sectional density and velocity so it can still be of great use against buildings and reinforced concrete. This way you can also carry more ammunition so the vehicle can stay in the fight longer, you can also design a gun that is able of burst fire to increase the probability of hitting targets/several targets at once. I'm a fan of the 40mm gun in the CV90. A 140mm main battle tank is like a larger sniper rifle, slow to reload, cumbersome, heavy, extremely powerful, very long range. But you wouldn't want that kind of weapon system in close quarter combat zones like the center of a city. Edited June 16, 2014 by Woldan I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Well part of the reason why the tank armies of the worlds stuck with the 120/125mm guns was because the increase in caliber size decreased the number of rounds a tank could carry. In my experience with Steel Beasts even with the 22 ready rounds available to the M1A1+ and the 18 for the Leo 2s you had to make every shot count, especially against a numerically superior foe (and in the case of the Central Front of the notional Cold War gone Hot, that the Warsaw Pact forces boasted superior numbers is a masterpiece of understatement). Though prototypes were developed for the Abrams CATTB and the Leopard 3 using the new 140mm gun, since the NATO forces had only just began fielding the 120mm in wide numbers it was decided it was better to improve the ammunition for these guns rather than seeking increased firepower through an increase in caliber. Another reason was that 140mm rounds would put more stress upon the human loader (for western tanks), and though the Soviets experimented with upguns for their own tanks it was determined that the cost and technical constraints were too great, as the new round meant newer and sturdier autoloaders, dramatically re-designed turrets to accommodate them, and even newer hulls and engines to retain the same mobility previous designs of tanks had. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarex Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-disaster-2014-7# "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 One of five PAK-FA prototypes has had its own bout with extensive fire damage and the Indians have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with its underpowered engines, large radar cross section (for a supposed 5th generation fighter), and outdated sensors, armaments, and avionics. If the F-35 even close to the lemon that some pundits are claiming, then it doesn't explain why some of the most storied (and informed) air forces in the world like the IAF and the ROKAF have expressed a desire to buy it despite not being original partners in the program in the first place. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The main reason the armies of the world use and invest in tanks... is because there are so many bloody tanks. I agree that armoured, mobile weapon platforms aren't going out of fashion any time soon, the question is do they need to be what we know as 'tanks?' In Iraq tanks were a mixed blessing - a strangely vulnerable force multiplier (for example, insurgents in urban warfare don't need to destroy a tank, simply damage it. I refer you to the endless YouTube videos from Syria where tanks are easily marooned after a lucky RPG strike FUBARs a track). Most people agree that next generation armour will be light, extremely fast and use smart weaponry. But I refer you to my opening sentence - none of that changes the fact that tanks exist in epic numbers and will remain in the armouries of world armies for another fifty-plus years. Only the Russians and Chinese are developing new main battle tank prototypes. The US think that, with the most modern iteration of the Abrams, they have armoured supremacy for the forseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 In Iraq tanks were a mixed blessing - a strangely vulnerable force multiplier (for example, insurgents in urban warfare don't need to destroy a tank, simply damage it. I refer you to the endless YouTube videos from Syria where tanks are easily marooned after a lucky RPG strike FUBARs a track). But in real terms, the insurgents accomplish very little with a "mission kill". A trained crew is not so easily replaced as compared to a tank (of which many western tanks are very good at preserving). Hell, during the 1982 war the Israelis lost somewhere to the order of 300 tanks, of which only about 75 were deemed complete write-offs. From what I've seen in spite of the Iraqis lack of combined arms warfare nous, they've proven quite able to recover their armour, as I haven't even seen propagandist claims that ISIL has been able to take one for a spin. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 There are plenty of pictures of current phase insurgents/ rebels with tanks in both Syria and Iraq- not many tanks, but that's what would be expected since they aren't buying them. They're most likely out and out prizes from captured bases rather than refurbs, but in both cases (and Ukraine for that matter) there have been significant defections from the formal armed forces so there will be people with repair and maintenance experience. ISIS in Iraq wasn't using tanks much because they were moving so fast and that is their main advantage, apart from the general incompetence of the Iraqi Army. For genuine insurgents knocking out tanks is more psychological than anything, they aren't looking to win in a conventional 'destroy the enemies army' sense, they're aiming to make the whole process too expensive in all senses for it to be maintained. Taking a tank or a plane out is saying that no one is safe despite any technological advantages, to both the enemy and to your own side. The 'Invulnerable Abrams' myth being dispelled on live TV was a great fillip for insurgent morale in Iraq, even if realists on both sides knew the Abrams was never invulnerable and militarily it meant little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agiel Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) In other news, KMW and Nexter announce plans to merge, with encapsulates just about all of western continental Europe's armour production capacity. http://online.wsj.com/articles/nexter-systems-krauss-maffei-wegman-plan-to-merge-1404238891 Guess we're looking at the "Eurokampfpanzer Leo-clerc." Edited July 7, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts