In WWII, tanks often carried more HE than AP ammo. To get 120mm HE quickly on direct target with minimal threat to crew is not bad.Originally Posted by para944
I'm sure there would be many veterans who fought with StugIII's in direct support that would disagree.
Yes I know the Stug was an 'assault gun', but that effectively means to me that a tank is even more capable.
Also in the Falklands War the para's used light tanks in support to extremely good effect.
Exactly. So long as you can get them into a good supporting position I think a tank with modern day optics will be very effective, without the limited loiter time of air support. The only major drawback I can think of is getting them around though.
It is rather a side effect of design, if You took infantry You need to left about 90% of main gun ammo. But of course in LIC/COIN let's say one, maybe two tanks in platoon can take infantry or strechers, rest would act like a normal MBT.further more, the Merkava ability to transfer troops means that you can also use it in a pinch for medevac and insertion ops.
As for tanks in LIC/COIN, modern wars, good books are Marines on the ground, Operation Iraqi Freedom part 1 & 2, Thunder Run, 3rd Infantry Division's Drive to Baghdad, and also Heavy Metal I don't remember the rest of the title, must search that book later in my collection.
I hope that there will be book about using M1's in Afghanistan.
Oh one more thing, to understand why soviets with their extensive use of tanks, have so many casualties, firstly they used older generations of tanks, worser optics, performance, armor etc. second their tactics and how they see a tank, it's role in army, good book is Pancerna Potęga ZSRR 1945-1991 (IRCC), I have it in my collection, when I have time I also check the title, book is in Polish and English.
Last edited by Damian90; 11-26-2010 at 05:14 AM.
Agreed, PrivatePyle.
Ultimately, when it comes down to it, everything supports the infantry.
Tanks are made for both. If the only purpose of tanks, was to kill other tanks then why did we bother creating them in the first place? A tank is a brilliant tool, in some situations, for supporting the infantry, whether facing enemy infantry or mixed forces
A pfc with a SMAW is not bulletproof. An Abrams is.
A pfc with a SMAW has a 500 metre range. An Abrams has 4000+ metre range
We do. But what if one gets taken down by DShK fire? We nearly lost a chinook to that already. We lost another few helicopters for varying reasons. Should we stop using Rotary assets? Nothing in war is 100% survivable, or 100% perfect for all tasks.
QFT
Will Tanks prevent all casualties and win the war by Christmas? **** No
Are Tanks a useful addition to the commanders repetoire of assets? Yes
I don't understand why even you arguing about this . İf there is a rule about not using it's guns, it's optics and armour and mobility is enough for using them . But i am suprised why US didn't deploy them already.
As i saw in the video if some one uses them as a convoy , infantry had no chance about it. If iraq couldn't stop them with it's professionel army, i don't give afgans a chance .
Last edited by cem40; 11-26-2010 at 08:16 AM.
I just look at this as pure logistics vs force projection. Astan is one of our military's most difficult conflicts when it comes to logistics and cost per ton of supplies. M1s EAT fuel fuel is EXTREMELY expensive in this conflict. After the M1 losses in Iraq I am curious if the costs are justifiable. I know that may sound ludicrous to some but we really need to start thinking about cost vs return in our conflicts. After the recent delays in along the few over road supply routes I look at the M1 deployment as an enabler for having to continue to rely on the Pakis as an "ally". Yeah, they may make an impact on the ground, but if I was a farmer and I had one of those beasts roll through my property leaving ruts through crops I might be a little less supportive. In the end, I'd really to see more on the fuel consumption and strain on logistics.
There are some solutions allready impelemented in to M1 series for fuel savings.
First in HC variant it was first introduced digital engine controler so fuel efficency is better, second EAPU that also bring fuel consumption to acceptabale levels, third Marines are sending FEP variant with rear hull plug nest for outer power source, so You can put a tank in to a tank "trench", put some power generators in base, some cables and voila!
And Marines used some interesting tactic in Iraq, if tanks were short on supplies, supplies were bring to them by choppers, ammo, fuel, food for crews.
So actually many problems are demonized.
Losses were extremely low, only fully burned vehicles counts as written off, cut and go to be melted, so these much were under 80-100 tanks.After the M1 losses in Iraq
USMC CH-53 lifting of after resupplying Danish tanks during an operation in Helmand
Yeah, they just get the same conclusion and use the same solution. US.Army probably do the same, but from Iraq I saw only pics of USMC M1A1's refueled from choppers in the middle of desert.
Ohh Durandal is back. Good to see u posting again. Is para944 some kind of armour expert? Did he serve with Bundeswehr panzers?
Logistics are a massive issue and the fuel supply is finite and tanks idling at 10 gallons per hour stress that supply. Helicopters cannot sustain, long term, tanks, period. You do not want them to. The strain on pilots and aircraft is amazing. You want trucks and ships moving fuel, not aircraft and a bulk of our supplies comes at (an uncalculated cost ) the pleasure of the Pakis.
Dog, losses cost. Cost a lot. The tank needs to be claimed, trucked to a port or airlift, then shipped overseas, then refurbed at two separate locations (this may have changed, I think they are still doing hull and turret work independently, but could be wrong).Losses were extremely low, only fully burned vehicles counts as written off, cut and go to be melted, so these much were under 80-100 tanks.
In the end, we are placing our most costly heavy ground vehicle in a place it is not designed to operate effectively in a theater of operations that is weak because of logistics. I am not saying do NOT use them, but I question the net gain in the end (remains to be seen). Its a cold hard reality, the US military is a money sponge. Its the best but it costs and right now the most expensive military in the world is operating in the most expensive theater to operate in and it our major weakness right now.
I personally am thinking that it would be better to simply buy up poppy crops with the money we used to send and operate just the tanks and logistics to support them.
That wont help the boys in Sangin much..
"Tanks are made to fight other armoured vehicles, not to support infantry [in breaking through enemies positions]"Just ignore the fool.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
