Tanks in Cities
- Thread starter Bobithy
- Start date
Here it is .
No problem, I had linked to the Namer in the post before yours, so I thought you were thinking that the it is also based on the older captured tanks.
Firn
The thing is, air defence has evolved as well. Yes, tanks are vulnerable to an Apache or Ka-50 attack, however, they have support of their own from MANPADs, friendly air cover, and tactical SAMs and AAA.
Besides, I'll refer you to the tank losses in the Battle of Kursk. The tank casualties there were immense on both sides. Even then armor hardly was the inexorable juggernaut you seem to infer it was.
World War II was not the "end of the tank's usefulness." For starters, not all tanks in that conflict performed equally well, so making sweeping generalizations about the time period doesn't help much. German Tigers were incredibly potent weapons; but on the opposite end of the spectrum, Japanese tankettes were woefully inadequate under serious opposition.
Secondly, look at the US Army's experience in Desert Storm. Abrams tanks and Coalition aviation destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks for no losses. (Of, course, you could make an argument that this war shows that tanks really are vulnerable hunks of tin. My reply would be to focus on combined arms and to note how successful the Coalition armor was when it had the advantages of supporting and being supported by other combat arms)
I'm not making an ironclad assertion that armor is an end-all. Much of its effectiveness comes down to how well it is employed and supported; but modern examples do strongly support the idea that the tank, if used properly, is still a very potent weapon.
Welcome to DT. Please read a little and think about the quality of your posts before trying to post again, as the Mod team has had to delete some of your spam like, one-liner posts that have been reported by other members (one-liner posts are against Forum Rules - so please read the rules carefully). As Kilo 2-3 has suggested, kindly also read up on combined arms warfare and the issue of balanced force structure development (link), so that you can acquire some background info.
If you look at it more carefully, the purchasing of weapons systems is almost never about buying tank killers in place of tanks. In the modern battlefield, for every measure there is usually a counter measure - so I would appreciate it if you do not over-simplify the employment of tank counter measures, in complex terrain, in the above fashion, the way some blogs are apt to do.
A common issue for all modern armies is the management of complexity in a constantly shifting, subtle and nuanced urban battlefield that is the subject of this discussion. You will also need to read up on the complementary role of artillery and air power - which is really much more complex than your current understanding. In many ways combined arms warfare is a team sport and needs trained people to operate sympathetic systems to overcome enemy counter measures. The simplest way I can think of to explain is to tell you two main reasons why your idea, as currently expressed needs refinement or rework:
One, tanks do not operate alone. In combined arms warfare, troops carried in infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) will typically operate with tanks as part of an armoured force. This is why deployment of small teams of infantry with anti-tank missiles by and of themselves would not work due to the force structure they would encounter in the modern battlefield - regardless of whether the anti-tank team is operating in a conventional setting or in asymmetrical warfare. As a former infantry guy, I can tell you that anti-tank teams would make the maximum use of terrain and also operate with a sophistical obstacle plan to channel tanks and IFVs into killing areas to maximise our chance of survival (amongst other tools). I assure you that infantry love to have tank support, where possible.
Two, air power, as represented by Apache helicopters can only attack and destroy but has little ability to physically occupy ground (compared to infantry or tanks), therefore we still need numbers (infantry and tanks) to hold ground - that is why serious minded countries (like Israel and S. Korea) that can attain air superiority against immediate regional threats continue to maintain fairly large armies and large numbers of tanks. However what is obsolete is the thinking, especially the thinking of those who claim that tanks are obsolete. Tanks are in no way obsolete. It's just that the method of tank employment and it's relevance to a complex battlespace has evolved.
Last edited:
I think the use of tanks in an urban environment depends a lot on factors outside of the military's (the one using the tanks) control. I think it depends on the strength of the enemy and the density of the city.
Tanks in sparse urban environments with fewer buildings can very effective, as tanks are most mobile vehicles. If a city is crowded, with many tight lanes and alleys, I think they are much less effective and easily open to ambush.
Which comes to my point about the capabilities of the enemy. If the enemy is disciplined and armed with the right equipment, tanks are very vulnerable. In the First Battle of Fallujah, the insurgents adapted to the usage of M1A1 tanks against them, and there were numerous examples of insurgents ambushing tanks with a combination of small-arms fire and RPG rounds. On the other hand, Georgian tanks in the Battle of Tshkinvali had their way initially with Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetian militia, who were mostly armed with AK-47s only. It was only after a Russian counterattack with tanks of their own and air support that the Georgian tanks became "useless".
That's just my opinion though. I could totally be wrong.
edit: sorry, I could really be wrong. I'm just reading the Wikipedia entry about the Battle of Tshkinvali, and apparently Georgian morale was broken by the Ossetian militia and Russian peacekeepers ferociously fighting in the urban environment.
Maybe someone who is more experienced about this can corroborate this or correct me.
Tanks in sparse urban environments with fewer buildings can very effective, as tanks are most mobile vehicles. If a city is crowded, with many tight lanes and alleys, I think they are much less effective and easily open to ambush.
Which comes to my point about the capabilities of the enemy. If the enemy is disciplined and armed with the right equipment, tanks are very vulnerable. In the First Battle of Fallujah, the insurgents adapted to the usage of M1A1 tanks against them, and there were numerous examples of insurgents ambushing tanks with a combination of small-arms fire and RPG rounds. On the other hand, Georgian tanks in the Battle of Tshkinvali had their way initially with Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetian militia, who were mostly armed with AK-47s only. It was only after a Russian counterattack with tanks of their own and air support that the Georgian tanks became "useless".
That's just my opinion though. I could totally be wrong.
edit: sorry, I could really be wrong. I'm just reading the Wikipedia entry about the Battle of Tshkinvali, and apparently Georgian morale was broken by the Ossetian militia and Russian peacekeepers ferociously fighting in the urban environment.
Maybe someone who is more experienced about this can corroborate this or correct me.
Last edited:
Mutatio Nomenis
New Member
Tanks in the city is not a good idea because of the ease with which an enemy counterattack can suround and disable them. an APC with mounted machine guns on the turret is a much better bet.
I'd disagree with you on that point. As OPSSG has noted previous, tanks in urban environments will likely be supported by some form of infantry, ideally mechanized infantry riding in protected APCs.
The infantry cover the tanks, clear buildings, and check areas inaccessible to the armor, while the armor provides rolling cover and direct fire support for the men on foot. Basically, the mutual benefits of combined arms at work.
This obviously isn't a perfect or particularly safe solution, the very nature of urban warfare dictates this. Even with close infantry-armor co-operation, USMC infantry and armor suffered terrible losses during the Battle of Hue.
As for using APC instead of tanks, there are a few problems with this argument. Tanks have a massive psychological, armor, and firepower advantage over APCs or IFVs.
Main battle tanks are vastly better protected than a light armor vehicles, and while this extra armor adds weight, complexity and can negatively affect agility, it allows tanks to better survive the array of man-portable AT weapons urban warriors are likely to bring to the fight.
Secondly, the main guns of a tank can level buildings, blast bunkers, and pillboxes, something that an HMG or chaingun mounted on an APC simply cannot do. In order to gain a similar level of firepower with a lighter vehicle, you'd need to fit guided anti-armor weapons. And even then such a fit is not a perfect solution simply because you run into cost, reload and vulnerability issues (if you opt for externally-carried missiles, you run the risk of crew-served or possibly small arms fire disabling or damaging them).
APCs and armor play complementary roles in urban warfare, cooperating and working together. Their fundamental roles are different, and they do not and should not be used to replace one another.
butterknuckles
New Member
Specific scenario.....?
In order for me to answer the question there must be a clarification on the scenario.
Now if it was a conventional urban scenario, Where two major armies are fighting between each other in order to conquer the city the problem would be that so many factors depend on the outcome or success of the operation for both sides. It must be understood that tanks are not
made for urban conditions. Tanks can be adapted for those situations but they still wouldn't be able to conduct the operations adequately then other armored vehicles. Tanks in the modern age shouldn't be put in MOUT without proper reinforcing from mechanized infantry and mobile logistics.
Conventional armies battling each other in urban enviornments in the 21st century need to be aware of the ever growing threat of advanced missiles that can be shoulder-fired from infantry who then can easily escape the scene and regroup, resupply, and then scout for other armored vehicles immobilize them and repeat the process. Tanks Vs. tanks is an easy scenario. The tank with the best protection, payload, and capabilities win. When it comes to other scenarios the outcome drastically changes and variables become more unstable. A soldier with a shoulder fired missile can destroy an armored vehicle then escape and hide in a building. A vehicle just can't do that. Tanks in urban territory in a conventional army vs. army scenario are more susceptiable to shoulder-launched missiles then other tanks themselves.
On the other hand if the scenario was irregular warfare in an urban enviorments with tanks inducted into the situation at hand then that is different story.
In order for me to answer the question there must be a clarification on the scenario.
Now if it was a conventional urban scenario, Where two major armies are fighting between each other in order to conquer the city the problem would be that so many factors depend on the outcome or success of the operation for both sides. It must be understood that tanks are not
made for urban conditions. Tanks can be adapted for those situations but they still wouldn't be able to conduct the operations adequately then other armored vehicles. Tanks in the modern age shouldn't be put in MOUT without proper reinforcing from mechanized infantry and mobile logistics.
Conventional armies battling each other in urban enviornments in the 21st century need to be aware of the ever growing threat of advanced missiles that can be shoulder-fired from infantry who then can easily escape the scene and regroup, resupply, and then scout for other armored vehicles immobilize them and repeat the process. Tanks Vs. tanks is an easy scenario. The tank with the best protection, payload, and capabilities win. When it comes to other scenarios the outcome drastically changes and variables become more unstable. A soldier with a shoulder fired missile can destroy an armored vehicle then escape and hide in a building. A vehicle just can't do that. Tanks in urban territory in a conventional army vs. army scenario are more susceptiable to shoulder-launched missiles then other tanks themselves.
On the other hand if the scenario was irregular warfare in an urban enviorments with tanks inducted into the situation at hand then that is different story.
hey Feanor Bangladesh also uses an IFV with a tank hull. It was indigenously built in the Army's heavy factories. Its based on the Type 62 Chinese light tank.
Type 62 Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Bangladesh Military Forces | BDMilitary.com - The voice of the Bangladesh Armed Forces
Interesting. The Type-62 is a light tank however, which leads me to wonder whether it has decreased protection levels compared to the baseline T-54A from which it's derived.
In both the Bangladesh and Israeli case what is striking is that this is not a specific and dedicated development, but rather an adaptation to the resources available on hand. (existing tank hulls) I'm waiting to see new-built heavy apcs from scratch.
In both the Bangladesh and Israeli case what is striking is that this is not a specific and dedicated development, but rather an adaptation to the resources available on hand. (existing tank hulls) I'm waiting to see new-built heavy apcs from scratch.