who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
- Status
I would never claim Operation Desert Storm as an example that western tanks are superior to eastern designs.
If I look at some simulations and the numerical advantages of WarPac forces, not only in tanks and men but much more in terms of artillery, I would not bet on NATO being able to hold the position.
Retreating while under constant pressure and fire and maintain cohesion while doing so is one of the most difficult tasks for mechanized forces and ones the red forces managed to close the gap between their leading elements and the retreating force they would have begun to crush their way through NATO lines with no technical advantage could have saved NATO.
These AT-missiles are nearly not usefull at 5000m if the optic of a T is not upgraded dramatically. Not to talk of the difficulties finding a direct line of sight at 5000m. (As said before deserts and open planes are something special.)
If I look at some simulations and the numerical advantages of WarPac forces, not only in tanks and men but much more in terms of artillery, I would not bet on NATO being able to hold the position.
Retreating while under constant pressure and fire and maintain cohesion while doing so is one of the most difficult tasks for mechanized forces and ones the red forces managed to close the gap between their leading elements and the retreating force they would have begun to crush their way through NATO lines with no technical advantage could have saved NATO.
These AT-missiles are nearly not usefull at 5000m if the optic of a T is not upgraded dramatically. Not to talk of the difficulties finding a direct line of sight at 5000m. (As said before deserts and open planes are something special.)
That is one battle that would have been incredible to have lived through.
My point was more that the different tactical doctrines employed by the warsaw pact and NATO make it difficult to compare the MBT's on a like for like bases.
I know, but a lot of people do!
does anybody know, as a matter of interest, what the reletive tank strenghts would have been on the north german plane?
I don't know definite numbers but the percentage would have been min. 1:3 to 1:5. Not very nice if you are sitting in a NATO tank. We had problems to counter a 1:2 advantage during some maneuvers and we had more mechanized infantry. During WWIII we would have had nothing more of anything.
And the north german plane might be good tank ground but also there the normal fighting range is within 1,5-2 km and less.
So much about sniping NATO tanks with tube launched ATGMs.
Looks like this. It's a picture of Bergen training area.
And the north german plane might be good tank ground but also there the normal fighting range is within 1,5-2 km and less.
So much about sniping NATO tanks with tube launched ATGMs.
Looks like this. It's a picture of Bergen training area.
That's right.
And much more concerning (As if more than 40000 sovjet tanks were not concerning enough
) was their numerical advantage in tube artillery (traditional and self propelled) and MLRS which was if I remember correctly round about 1:8.
One of the key points during the simulated attacks was that if the reds were able to pinpoint your first line correctly they were able to direct the firewall directly upon you. Covered by this the sovjet forces were able to close the gap very fast and go into the infight which is horrible for every defender because technic is not very important but just pure numbers. And the kill'o'meter is going through the skye.
On the other hand if you are able to fool the attacker and he directs his fire onto the wrong position it could result in a turkey shooting.
And much more concerning (As if more than 40000 sovjet tanks were not concerning enough
) was their numerical advantage in tube artillery (traditional and self propelled) and MLRS which was if I remember correctly round about 1:8.One of the key points during the simulated attacks was that if the reds were able to pinpoint your first line correctly they were able to direct the firewall directly upon you. Covered by this the sovjet forces were able to close the gap very fast and go into the infight which is horrible for every defender because technic is not very important but just pure numbers. And the kill'o'meter is going through the skye.
On the other hand if you are able to fool the attacker and he directs his fire onto the wrong position it could result in a turkey shooting.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The Danish Defence Intelligence Service declassified their Threat Assessment Reports for the period 1965-1991 and put them on the internet.
They cover the areas Denmark was expected to fight in ie Schleswig-Holstein, Baltic Sea, Denmark and the North Atlantic. They contain just about everything from force numbers, tentative evaluation of new WARPAC systems, expected mobilisation schedules (NATO+WARPAC), doctrine, fifth column activity and whatnot. It's pretty awesome reading, especially when compared with the opened archives in the former Eastern Block countries.
They say pretty much the same as Waylander. 1:5 to 1:3 in tanks, almost parity in infantry and air power (in this sector).
They cover the areas Denmark was expected to fight in ie Schleswig-Holstein, Baltic Sea, Denmark and the North Atlantic. They contain just about everything from force numbers, tentative evaluation of new WARPAC systems, expected mobilisation schedules (NATO+WARPAC), doctrine, fifth column activity and whatnot. It's pretty awesome reading, especially when compared with the opened archives in the former Eastern Block countries.
They say pretty much the same as Waylander. 1:5 to 1:3 in tanks, almost parity in infantry and air power (in this sector).
I know you hate this guy but this is a good article on the soviet tank armies
http://www.exile.ru/2005-April-08/war_nerd.html
http://www.exile.ru/2005-April-08/war_nerd.html
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It's quite hard to figure out what is going on these days.Waylander said:It is still planned that a danish mechanized brigade should work together with my old brigade (PzBrig 18 "Holstein") in case of war, even if it is not very likely to happen.
Was the Danish-German Corps (2-3 divs) from the Cold War days changed to Danish-Polish-German Corps now? And Danske Division has now gotten a Lithuanian Brigade formally attached to it. How is that going to work out...
Nothing more than I had written above. Even in our forums where some serious specialists are talking about new weapons. All that we know is that UVZ has already been working on tests. It means the structure is clear and some new information will appear soon.merocaine said:
Cost rising may kill any modern tank
Merkava tank production
to stop within four years.
Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
Amnon Barzilai 28 Sep 06 16:21
The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.
Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.
The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000137768&fid=942
Merkava tank production
to stop within four years.
Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
Amnon Barzilai 28 Sep 06 16:21
The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.
Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.
The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000137768&fid=942
Great.
Their Chief of Staff (Former Pilot) thought that an air campaign would solve all their problems and after this didn't work they send some lonely tank packs and bad trained reservists into the arms of a well prepared and equipped militia.
And now they think the tank worked not like it should? :dodgy
Their Chief of Staff (Former Pilot) thought that an air campaign would solve all their problems and after this didn't work they send some lonely tank packs and bad trained reservists into the arms of a well prepared and equipped militia.
And now they think the tank worked not like it should? :dodgy
If i understand the article right, they already made that decision before the Lebanon war.
It indeed is questionable whether a small country like that needs it's own tank industry. It's not like Israel would be isolated from the rest of the world and would really depend on producing everything on their own, like South Africa was.
Nevertheless it is a pity, because the Merkava was quite extraordinary among modern MBTs.
It indeed is questionable whether a small country like that needs it's own tank industry. It's not like Israel would be isolated from the rest of the world and would really depend on producing everything on their own, like South Africa was.
Nevertheless it is a pity, because the Merkava was quite extraordinary among modern MBTs.
Ah, bad reading of me.
Nevertheless the criticism of the Merkava seems too much to me.
I agree that a small country like Israel might not need to have an own tank program.
But in the end the development costs of the Merk program till now are sunk costs.
Nevertheless the criticism of the Merkava seems too much to me.
I agree that a small country like Israel might not need to have an own tank program.
But in the end the development costs of the Merk program till now are sunk costs.
I think as always money is the big player in here.
The Lebanon operation is just a good excuse for them to save it.
Or do you think that Canada, Belgium, etc. thought really about military needs before they decided to eliminate their heavy armor? (And as you said in the case of Canada changed their mind)
Heavy armor is just expensive to operate.
It is the same here in the bigger european countrys. The politicians look for ways to save money in their armed forces and because the tanks are not involved in constant operations like the light infantry they think they don't need them.
The Lebanon operation is just a good excuse for them to save it.
Or do you think that Canada, Belgium, etc. thought really about military needs before they decided to eliminate their heavy armor? (And as you said in the case of Canada changed their mind)
Heavy armor is just expensive to operate.
It is the same here in the bigger european countrys. The politicians look for ways to save money in their armed forces and because the tanks are not involved in constant operations like the light infantry they think they don't need them.
I haven't had time to look at it in detail, but I would tend to agree. Israel is one nation that shouldn't drop its tank fleet. And canning the Merkava when it has finally reached the stage that its designer intended 30 years ago??Waylander said:
Which also brings up the point that the merkava was designed to be improved in increments. Going about making a vehicle that way is expensive on paper (but less expensive then replacing your tank fleet with new every 10 years to match the planned upgrade process).
I'm not Israeli, but it would appear to be a foolish decision.
cheers
W
If Israel only had to worry about terrorists, MBT's wouldn't really be needed. Israel instead still has to worry about Syria, Iran, and is still technically at war with Saudi Arabia. The need for MBT's will continue for a number of years until a solid peace comes to the Middle East.
- Status