Tanks

[Tonci87 163]

Biggest Tank battle...... This wasn't a battle, this was a beatup. Some of the enemy tanks were almost 50 years old!

[Baff1 0]

Well, if we're discussing a MBT, which is the main weapon in a conventional war (against other tanks and armour).

But is it?

In Lebanon the main weapons against tanks and armour were man launched AT missiles.

In Iraq IED's, RPG's and mines.

In the Gulf War, air strikes.

Even in those large pitched tank battles in the Gulf War the enemy tanks were hit by so many different weapon systems that they were not able to discern which ones killed them. MBT's were present and engaged in those fights, but not necessarily the main weapons being employed.

[cr2142 10]

Meh, I like old WW2 tanks, Jagdpanther, King tiger's, Panzer's, Shermans, Churchill, The good old tank's

[Ulanthorn 10]

It's a simple fact that MBTs are not the ruling Weapons system anymore. This type of warfare was already abandoned in the 90's and since this decade there is a tendency back to mobile infantry and more powerfull IFV...some of them that powerfull that they can fullfill the tank hunter role.

IFV are more versatile and fit the needs of a army with global force projection to empower national interest wherever needed much better as 60+ MBTs.

[eble 3]

Hey a lot is to be said for old T55 with extra armour :)

T-55 Enigma - T-55, Type 59, and Type 69 tanks used by Iraqi Brigade commanders had appliqué armour on turrets and hulls composed of several layers of spaced armour (the technique of choice for the Iraqi Engineers) plates enclosed in steel boxes. It was successful at defeating shaped charge warheads during the battle of Khafji, where one unit is reported to have survived several hits from MILAN missiles before being dispatched by a helicopter.[109]

To cover the withdrawal, the company's platoon of LAV-25s and LAV-ATs (anti-tank variants) moved to engage the Iraqi force. One of the anti-tank vehicles opened fire, after receiving permission, at what it believed was an Iraqi tank. Instead, the missile destroyed a friendly LAV-AT a few hundred meters in front of it. Despite this loss, the platoon continued forward and soon opened fire on the Iraqi tanks with the LAV-25's autocannons. The fire could not penetrate the tanks' armor, but did disorient their tank commanders.[60]

An additional Iraqi column crossed the Saudi border to the East, although still along the coast, towards the city of Khafji.[67] These Iraqi tanks were screened by the 5th Mechanized Battalion of the 2nd Saudi Arabian National Guard Brigade. This battalion withdrew when it came under heavy fire, as it had been ordered to not engage the Iraqi column. Elements of the 8th and 10th Saudi Arabian National Guard Brigades also conducted similar screening operations. Due to the order to not engage, the road to Al-Khafji was left open.[68] At one point, Iraqi T-55s of another column rolled up to the Saudi border, signaling that they intended to surrender. As they were approached by Saudi Arabian troops, they reversed their turrets and opened fire. This prompted air support from a nearby AC-130, destroying 13 vehicles.[69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji

[Pathy 0]

The Abrams is the best because, as clearly stated under chapter 7.1, paragraph 3, line 10 of the Handbook of Internet Argument: "If it's American, it must be the best."

As the next chapter on Unbridled Patriotism goes on to further explain, nothing is able to trump the "American Factor", no matter what attempts are made to provide facts, statistics or any other arguments contrary.

For related discussion, see the topics "F22 vs <aircraft of choice>", "M16 vs <weapon of choice>", or "USA vs <country of choice>"

[Tonci87 163]

So true Pathy...

[spooky lynx 73]

Despite this loss, the platoon continued forward and soon opened fire on the Iraqi tanks with the LAV-25's autocannons. The fire could not penetrate the tanks' armor, but did disorient their tank commanders.[60]

Those marines must thank God that they faced not well trained Iraqis.

[maturin 12]

I know, I can't imagine sitting in what amounts to a tinfoil taxi cab and shooting at a tank that is a split second of flight time away from annihilating you.

[Sertorius21 10]

The Abrams is the best because, as clearly stated under chapter 7.1, paragraph 3, line 10 of the Handbook of Internet Argument: "If it's American, it must be the best."

In my experience from trawling the web, the most common variant of that is "If it's Russian, it must be the best." Goofy in both cases, as both Russia and America have not been in a full, balls-to-the-wall war against a roughly equivalent foe since the 1940s. Notably, during that war, both the Russians and the Americans effectively practiced tank spam, pumping out enormous quantities of mediocre tanks. The US produced almost 50,000 Shermans, the Soviets knocked out over 57,000 T-34s, while the Germans managed to produce 9000 Panzer IVs, perhaps 6000 Panthers, 1500 Tiger 1s, and 500 Tiger 2s.The Germans made some of the best tanks of that period, particularly the Panzer V, and a fat lot of good it did them. Factors such as ease of mass production, unit cost, fuel consumption, or maintenance cost per unit aren't exciting, and aren't likely to appear in nationalistic dick-waving arguments, but they are probably more relevant to evaluating a tank's hypothetical performance in a major industrial war.

[Beagle 684]

In my experience from trawling the web, the most common variant of that is "If it's Russian, it must be the best." Goofy in both cases, as both Russia and America have not been in a full, balls-to-the-wall war against a roughly equivalent foe since the 1940s. Notably, during that war, both the Russians and the Americans effectively practiced tank spam, pumping out enormous quantities of mediocre tanks. The US produced almost 50,000 Shermans, the Soviets knocked out over 57,000 T-34s, while the Germans managed to produce 9000 Panzer IVs, perhaps 6000 Panthers, 1500 Tiger 1s, and 500 Tiger 2s.The Germans made some of the best tanks of that period, particularly the Panzer V, and a fat lot of good it did them. Factors such as ease of mass production, unit cost, fuel consumption, or maintenance cost per unit aren't exciting, and aren't likely to appear in nationalistic dick-waving arguments, but they are probably more relevant to evaluating a tank's hypothetical performance in a major industrial war.

Such an industrial mass production war beetween industrial states does not bring any profit in the globalized world of the 21. century...since the invention of mass destruction by nucelar fission this kind of war is obsolete, and non profitable...and non profitable wars don't happen anymore since all military "major" powers, excluding China, in the world are quite broke nowadays. Full scale war is a very expensive enterprise you need to borrow money from the chinese first.

[Daddl 10]

I guess with all that 'mine's better than yours' going around we should stand back for a moment and be very, very happy that this discussion actually is hypothetical.

[spooky lynx 73]

Why hypothetical? Actually there were some situations that can provide rather good information for such discussions. I mean some conflicts in which eastern and western hardware was used by nearly equally trained and motivated personnel.

[Sertorius21 10]

Such an industrial mass production war beetween industrial states does not bring any profit in the globalized world of the 21. century...since the invention of mass destruction by nucelar fission this kind of war is obsolete, and non profitable...and non profitable wars don't happen anymore since all military "major" powers, excluding China, in the world are quite broke nowadays. Full scale war is a very expensive enterprise you need to borrow money from the chinese first.

More reasons that the "My tank is better" internet arguments are so silly. It doesn't matter if Country X has the "best" tank if Country X is too broke to field that tank in appreciable numbers, or if it can't afford to replace battle losses.

[Baff1 0]

Aren't they proposing to cut down the Challenger 2 fleet to just 40 tanks?

[Rovka 14]

Quantity has a quality of its own. All military should apply that to their doctrine/principal policy. If they want to save the Netherlands, they should reïnstitute draft again. Good for youth teaching them respect, and manners, and good for defence against EU governing madman, selling our nations to OPEC behind our backs.

[concurssi 11]

...or, the same thing would happen as in Finland: all you hear is people complaining how much it sucks to be in the army and how much they hate everyone for making them do it.

"Craaawling in my skiiinnn", the emo bastards.

Granted, there are some people that take it like a man, and some even enjoy it. But they are easily eclipsed by the whiners.

[Rovka 14]

Hmn.. How come this reminds me of Hitler's expansion politics? First he took this, then he took that, then a threat was made, he ignored, and then boom! war! A war he lost, because of wrong focus. Initially too light tanks being operational, eventually too heavy types build too slowly, to get timely build-up of force.

And the EU is doing the same, albeit differently, for it focusses on too light mobile armies, and not going for the middle-route straight ahead instead of choosing left or right.. upgunned APC's are not going to cut it, undermanned armies neither. If people wish to see their current level of freedom kept intact, they should realize they're serving their own ánd their own/other people's kids' future well being!

All that yah-blah I don't wanna serve, bullshit! Pacifist crap talk! We've seen that in Netherlands before WWII, and we had no chance. After week it was all over! That was then in may 1940.. Imagine that if it was done in current times, it would have been all over within 2 days at large.. We ain't such a big nation, and we've cut too much on defence, keep on focussing on wrong elements!

That stupid damn Joint Strike Fighter being chosen over a good scandinavian build Saab latest. (don't know excactly which type.) A cheaper option, and now because of JSF they kick out active volunteer military personnel! Well keep the personnel, and scrap Fail-Strike Fighter instead, and kick out those over paid heap of near-retired Generals too. Thát saves alot of money, able to flow to replacing worn down IFV's and aging tanks able to upgun those.. No we've sold about 850 of our tanks to potential enemies... What you got, is what you need to keep close, as it might save you another day.

I do not say Finland is an enemy of Netherlands, but what if your 2a4 tanks got in Russian hands when war breaks out? They'll eventually modify their own tanks to first-hand look at western high-tech machines, to become par again.. Nasty side-effect for when enemy vehicles get captured. Yet if one would not have such high-tech small amount of tanks, nothing interesting can be found, other then the sheer numbers rolling at them enemies.. Something they feel themselves far too superior too, to be of use, and failing to take note of the lesson of the masses..

Just like the Tunesian people, masses can throw over governments if applied correctly, and willfully. The will to win, the will to fight for the cause of freedom of their nation, the will to make sacrifices for your homefront, your loved ones etc. If you sit at home, seeing your nation invaded live on TV.. Would you blame the military, or the government that is said and pledged to represent you? If they represent you, would you sell your family at the gas-station, in order to get your car filled up again?

Oh btw: Those mass-tactics, are used by honeybees against the most feared hornet of all: The Japanese giant Hornet. Even Japanese people fear these creatures, for they are certainly deadly to humans aswell, due to their amount of venom released, and highly aggressive nature.. A foe to keep watch at..

These creatures are like the High-tech tanks 'First World' and perhaps 'Second World' nations use.. a hunting-group of those Hornets can kill 20.000 bees in period of 3 hours! That is, defenseless bees. Yet there are bees that fight back, by means of number, swarming them, litterally cooking them alive by massing onto them, no matter who dies, how many lives are lost, the bees win the war everytime! See the comparisation to the modern-day battlefield?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Thani '82

[concurssi 11]

No, they complain because they have to be there themselves. If they didn't have to actually drag their own asses in there then they'd probably support the whole thing.

As far as I can tell the Finnish military is not reducing anything. The latest news I heard was we're upgrading our Hornets.

Edit: but how is it the EU's fault? Isn't it more because running a military is just damn expensive? Just a proper fleet of tanks costs a quartzillion euros to buy, and probably half that again every couple of years for upkeep.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Concurssi

[maturin 12]

*snip*

Not since the dark days of the Polish plumber have we faced such a threat.

[Rovka 14]

Edit: but how is it the EU's fault? Isn't it more because running a military is just damn expensive? Just a proper fleet of tanks costs a quartzillion euros to buy, and probably half that again every couple of years for upkeep.

About values:

What is more worth to you? A zillion Euro's or a life spared due to wise politics? You know expansion isn't always the best option...

About failing systems having been implemented:

Soviets experienced such fail before, Hitler's expansionism dreams failed too.

Capitalism will eventually give way too, as the poor-class is ever growing, and the rich-top is ever enriching themselves over our backs..

As for people world-wide, dealing with problems:

There is only one thing that is absolute: The will of a people who are dealing with the threat the level maximum to that as a singleminded nation.

Regarding the Afghanistan War:

Right now all we're doing on the long term, is creating animosity and hatred against us. They see us as invaders, and want us out. Rightfully so! Hypothetically speaking: I don't wish to see corrupt Karzai run my home turf either, whilst the ANA guards every streetcorner. How would you feel, if that was to happen, if they suspect a terrorist hid at your house, bombing your home into oblivion??

[maturin 12]

So all systems are doomed to fail but the militarized, nationalistic autarchy is forever? Don't count on it. Sparta falls first when the chips are really down.

And regarding Afghanistan, the only reason so many countries are participating in the occupation is that a majority of Afghans still want us there, no matter how fast those numbers may be slipping. They accepted the Taliban because they brought an end to chaos and war. They welcomed us for the same reason.

[Rovka 14]

So all systems are doomed to fail but the militarized, nationalistic autarchy is forever? Don't count on it. Sparta falls first when the chips are really down.

And regarding Afghanistan, the only reason so many countries are participating in the occupation is that a majority of Afghans still want us there, no matter how fast those numbers may be slipping. They accepted the Taliban because they brought an end to chaos and war. They welcomed us for the same reason.

You're correct on the former, as for the latter would you suggest there is peace in Afghanistan now that the International coalition rests its ass in A'stan? You know that foreign violent weapon-toting isn't going to solve any issues in any foreign sovereign nation.

But this topic was about tanks, and I will shut up because I brought this topic too much off-topic already.. My apology to the Original Posting person, and the moderators..

But military cannot be seen lose from politics for these two are ever bonded with one another.. All I want to conclude with is that I am worried on all what I see happening around me.. Too many people, causing to many problems.

The very best tank truly shows itself in a globe-wide war tank vs tank vs urban fighting. Ofcourse, without nukes used. But every nation's tank is selected/build to suite that nation's needs indeed. So an Abrams might do well in Iraq, but is butt in the dense jungles of Vietnam per example.

With that said, i'll conclude my part of this discussion for now..

[maturin 12]

You're correct on the former' date=' as for the latter would you suggest there is peace in Afghanistan now that the International coalition rests its ass in A'stan? [/quote']

No I wouldn't, as evidence by the fact that, speaking of which, we're sending tanks there now. Was just one factual correction.

The very best tank truly shows itself in a globe-wide war tank vs tank vs urban fighting. Ofcourse, without nukes used. But every nation's tank is selected/build to suite that nation's needs indeed. So an Abrams might do well in Iraq, but is butt in the dense jungles of Vietnam per example.

What tank would do well in the jungle, anyway?

[Rovka 14]

"Soviet Syndrome" coming down the pipeline I suppose.. Perhaps that is why US was so reluctant to send in their own tanks to A'stan..

As for tanks in the jungle: I don't know.. Sitting idle being pretty? :-P