Tactics beat Technology

[th3flyboy 0]

Just so EVERYONE knows, desert storm only solved part of the debate, in ODS, the T-72s were using 1960s ammo, where the M1 ammo was much more modern... tank armor is 1 part of the equation, tactics is another part, and ammo is another part... a T-72 can be a major threat to M1A1s with modern ammo....

[bogdanm 0]

Besides, I'm talking about technology vs training. Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own". Which is only somewhat true, which is proven in the Gulf War.

If you want to get into why the US, UK, Aussies and Western Europe are better I would gladly like to talk about that. I have no problem with being proven wrong, I like to learn. But I want facts!

Read everything I said in the thread until now(except the ones for my little argue) and you will find your answers.

[Baff1 0]

Well, that's not true. Every single Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the Army has a 2 shot TOW launcher on them and even newer, the ATGM version of the Stryker is a dedicated TOW launcher, so I'm not sure why you thought they were gone. Additionally, new versions of the TOW (bunker busting) have been widely issued since the OIF started.

We don't have any Bradleys or Strykers in our army matey.

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

Besides, I'm talking about technology vs training. Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own". Which is only somewhat true, which is proven in the Gulf War.

How so? We outnumbered the Iraqi forces massively in every single engagement.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Baff1

[TangoRomeo 10]

Besides, I'm talking about technology vs training. Stalin once said, "Quantity has a quality of it's own". Which is only somewhat true, which is proven in the Gulf War.

The iraqys had neither the technology, nor the training, nor the numbers in men and material that would make Stalin's quote applicable.

What turned ODS into a turkey shoot since end of january 1991 was total air supremacy - supremacy, as the US had air superiority even before the war had begun, having the hardware, intelligence and training to achieve it, not only with a high probability, but almost with a certainty. That's what CentCom AF Commander Gen. C. Horner basically replied when asked when air superiority had been achieved. A loss rate of 1 fixed wing AC per 1800 combat sorties appears to reinforce this assessment.

The air campaign basically pinned iraqy forces in place, denied them mobility, destroyed their C³ and essentially robbed them of any opportunity to pursue any significant military war goals of their own. As the ground forces came into play, it was a matter of rounding up the remains, and that wasn't much in terms of a combat effective force. A tank robbed of it's mobility, is just a sitting duck. Even if the iraqys had been equipped with M1`s or Leo 2`s instead of T-72`s, the impact on the military outcome of the campaign would, by all odds, probably be the same.

[19Kilo30K4 10]

I really don’t understand why are we talking about different things. I will quote what I said before because you derayled so much from the main idea.

I admit the the word „everything†was misplaced and the entire sentense come out in a different way that I intended. I will never claim to know everything, or that I know more then you. Why do you keep saying that? Show me where I said that I know more than you about the Abrams(or other tanks), I'm just giving my opinion. But are you willing to say that you are absolutely possitive that there can’t be one civilian in the world that may know more than you?

Everything said in the last 3-4 pages has nothing to do with the initial purpose of this thread. Say what you want about tactics and drills if its related to the OP but than don’t reply to me.

I still don’t see how those manuals change that specs of the tanks in question(this is the discussion that I got involved into).

Is it too late to appologize? I think I misread some of your statements and I appologize. I never meant to offend or try to make myself seem more knowledgeble than I am. I'm sorry if I came off arrogant or anything, it was not my intent to attack your point of view.

[Second 0]

I thought they scrapped TOW for Javelin because it couldn't cut the mustard vs improved Russian armour?

Well that is not exact reason. As said TOW has various competent warheads, Tandem warhead isn't that bad, sure it's not 100% sure that hit would cause even severe damage to tank but it has it's changes and atleast we believe that we are able to mostly engage armors from their flanks. Top-attacking warhead for TOW is up-to today's standarts etc.

There are other more important reasons which favors systems like Javelin. Fire-and-forget, ease of use and training, less expensive missiles (yup that is true!), operating it on foot is much easier: US Army and Marines doesn't seem to even bother to use TOW on foot as they don't have manpower for it in their AT-units, so it's basically bound to be used on vehicle. We tie 7 guys for each TOWs to make it able to use TOW on foot... As comparsion Euro Spike requires three and is much faster to get into firing position and evade from firing positions (affecting directly to survival of missile system and it's crew if they get spotted and shot at). Back in my time of service we still had Soviet AT-4 as another ATGM-system along with TOW and it was the same, they were much faster to move around. But back then TOW had clear edge on warhead and resistance against enemies countermeasures.

Basically only thing favoring TOW nowdays is it's range. Twice as much as Javelin or Euro Spike has (Spike MR)... In my country engagement distances are usually 500 meters, rarely stretching out to 1 kilometer. Then again if i remember it correctly Spike has longer minimal effective range than TOW has, atleast in top-attack mode and direct mode isn't effective enough against MBTs... Few times in exercises i've had to order my squad to put TOW into positions from where opponents tanks would be just out side out minimal range if we would face them, simply because there weren't more open areas available :D

So there's few things which springs to my mind.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Second