Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

The Highway of Death

Read that report and tell me how the Tank was key to that slaughter, then tell me:

What Ever Happened to the Republican Guard?

So what has made the modern tank obsolete? Fuel. Shells. Food. Time. The Tank can be even automated, and robots are to be deployed but even robots need parts and ammo. An attacker can attack at any time and clearly the US is on the defensive. Having freedom goosetep on the march only creates more attackers. Tanks are to be used on the offense. On the defence they are not in their element.

   

Hi scape,
the Highway of death occured after the door was kicked in by armoured combat teams. The border was defended by berms ,minefields qhich were breached by combat engineers. then combined Bradley and Abrams teams raced through and the liberation of Kuwait was on. The M1 Abrams killed more iraqi tanks then any other weapons system period.
Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics. Supplying tanks in the battlefield is done by second echelon in vehicles that can literally run right up to the edge of the battlefield. For a description of how tanks worked in PG1 try googling the battle of 73 easting.
Tanks do quite well on the defensive. In a hull down position with good camoflage they can start cracking the enemy kilometers away depending on the terrain. With well prepared alternate positions they can shoot and move with tremendous accuracy. Tanks form a key part of the force mixture on a modern battlefield. Used intelligently with their other arms ,infantry arty and combat engineers they are incredible asset providing the equivalent of a company of infantry in one tank. The best defence against a tank is simply another tank.
robot tanks won't be coming for a while yet. the ground environment is simply too complex unlike say an RPV. i have a good deal of respect for the brothers in blue but quite frankly they miss a lot. It still takes soldiers well motivated and trained with the proper equipment to take and hold ground against a determined enemy.
Cheers
fred

   

You forgot to mention total air superiority as well. You mention hull down. How is that useful when there is no front line? Once major combat operations have ended the eneny was still there. They are well armed. And only taking out a few and allowing them to regroup and operate in protected areas

leaves a tank to be outflanked.

   

Hi scape,
total air superiority over the Iraqi's still left lots of Iraqi tanks on the ground after months of bombardment in PG1. Thats just a fact.If you are talking about PG2 then armour becomes just as valuable after the fact. In counterinsurgency warfare armour provides valuable protection for troops paticularily if one is sensitive to casualities as the Americans are. The Americans have only lost one M1 abrams to a handheld RPG7 and that was on the run in to Bagdad not after the fact. Tanks enable one to hold secure locations against lightly armed guerillas very easily. They provide prcision direct fire. for example rather then airstrike a whole block of apartments buidings use a tank to lob one shell through one window and collateral casualities are kept way below what air does or arty. the politics of the thing are important though and all the tanks,choppers,aircraft and spec ops troops cannot change the fact that
1.) Lots of iraqis are not wanting them there and dying in heaps to prove it.
2.the americans seem to be applying firepower to keep their own casualities down but in so doing are further alienating the locals by killing quite a few noncombatants
3.) The only one besides King George and the neocons who want the Americans there are the cliques they are trying to put into power.
4.) political will has to be considerred irregardless of wepaons systems. American rank and file soldiers do not wish to kill noncombatants but given the wepons used and the tactics it is unavoidable. Civilian losses are only acceptable when the cause is just. Setting up pax Americana does not fit the bill in my opinion.
Cheers
fred

   

Fred in reading your posts im sure i know you.. LMAO have you ever used the name with initials FF?? You posts have that ring that some one I know used to have when he posted.. and he used the name fred too LOL

   

There is a fundamental error in your post WRT the defense. Simply put, defense is not linear (i.e. WW1/WW2) anymore. Manouevre warfare prohibits it. When units take up a defensive posture it is "all round defense" with the emphasis on the most likely avenues of approach. Proper terrain/threat analysis makes these postures obvious. Sound tactical doctrine dictates that armoured units(do not confuse these units with Recce or Cavalry units) provide the counter attack force necessary to repel an attacker. That is a defensive phase of battle and yet the tank is still in its element.

I am no expert on this, being a thumperhead. An armoured trooper would be able to explain this way better. Anyone out there a zipperhead?

   

Hi Fred,

I think we all can agree that the US can win vs any nation in the world on a conventional battlefield. That is exactly the type of battle they have trained and equipped for. The reason why the tank is obsolescent is exactly the same as why the big battleships are obsolescent as well, cost vs effectiveness and the type of enemy they will face. Now a tank can be a bunker and in theory can secure locations against lightly armed guerrillas very easily but they can never hold them. Only infantry can truly do that vs conventional guerrilla tactics. It could be argued that the tank is in fact too good and that it has forced the enemy to evolve tactics to change the face of the battlefield. This is why the tank is obsolescent. Too much is now invested into mechanized warfare and not enough is invested into counter insurgency and urban warfare. Turkey shoots will give empty victories if the road to the airport a year later is still riddled with IED's and RPG's.

   

When considering tank warfare i think the two biggest points have been mentioned:

1) the best way to kill a tank is with another tank. And
2) tanks take ground, infantry hold it.

Now, what happens when the enemy doesn't have any tanks? I think that is at the core of this argument. Infantry are very good against other infantry, and in the open, poorly against tanks. But in urban warfare, tanks are out of their element. That was proven to everyone in WWII, the Americans, Germans, British, and Russianians all had many tanks destroyed in the cities. Of course the war in Iraq is far different from the battles of WWII, but the ideas of urban tank warfare are relatively unchanged. Improved armour helps but they are still not the best tool for the job.

   

I disagree with the original post about the new military, Canada's military should not be a war military, what war do we have to fight? Our military should be used for peacekeeping, disaster relief.

also 12billion, is that the total spending or just the amount it was raised by in the new budget?

   

Prudence dictates that a nation should always be prepared for total war.

   

Added to the total. 20 Billion is the target over the next five years. $9,801.7 million (2003) I disagree that the army's primary objective being peacekeeping and disaster relief. It should be able to respond to that but the 1st and only reason to have a military should be to kill. It is the civilian leadership that tells the dogs of war who to remove from the food chain but the choice of when to commit should never be left to an organization that is despotic in command by design. Solders don't get to show dissent, that is the civvies job therefor the army must never making job opportunities for itself to justify its existence.

   

Hi folks,
i stopped getting emails about this thread. curious,
Tanks are a component of an armies tool box. they could actually be compared to drill quite nicley with a rather large bit. The are no more obsolete then any other componet of the combined arms team. All have a vital role to play in most actions including counter insurgancy operations. In Iraq the problem is not the gear or the men. American forces in Iraq are well equipped and trained. The problem is the potical objectives. Iraq was invaded not to get WMD's or get Saddam. Oil is not the motivation either as it is simply cheaper to buy it. The overall objective was to show the rest of the world fuck with the bull and you get the horns. It is an attempt to make a point we (America) runs the show and if you don't like it we will mash you. The problem is the iraqis are (cerrtian elements) are not cooperating and Americans are beginning to die in larger numbers and the Iraqi's just won't quit. No amount of kit or doctrine will change the fact if your basic objectives are fucked and your apreciation of the situation equally bad you have lost before you began.
Canada's military is there as our ultimate insurance policy against our enemies. Peacekeeping can provide useful experiance but too much of it can strain the resources of our military so it cannot fulfill it's most basic role which is defending our country in concert with our allies. Our lack of strength has lessened our voices with our major allies as they say we like to go to lunch but head for the bathroom when the check comes. If we allow the Americans to fend us totally they will own us more then they already do. In other words if my neighbour paints my house and mows my lawn all the time it becomes his. The world of the 21st century was becoming a less scary place with the end of the Cold war but the advent of the new imerialists in Washington means the rest of the world will ramp up their militaries to defend themselves. This means the large defence interest in sthe states can start maing 1000 dollar ashtrays again and the Americans percieve themselves as being powerful. the problem is this stupidity wastes lives and it's ruinous spending will bankrupt their country.
Cheers
fred
Oh Highlander possible as I have used this nick on the history board a long time ago and on the more recent one as well.

   

BUT WHY does our military have to be a war military ready for total war, so what if thats the way things were done. Canada should be a leader.

Who do we have to goto war with, who would attack Canada.

I agree more money should be spent on military, but not an old military, with old ways. but on peacekeeping and special ops like JTF2 when there needs to be a little dirty work done.

I just dont see it logical anymore for Canada to try and maintain a full army, navy and air force, then i disgree with spending the money, we have more important things that need fixing within the country, or just send the money as direct aid to the places that need it, or even raise the amount of Canadian soldiers in the UN.

   

Peacekeeping operations are not comparable to high intensity warfare. It is nearly impossible to ramp up a force that is designed, trained, and equipped for peacekeeping to fight in a war effectively. Conversly, you can deploy a traditionally trained (for high intensity combat) and equipped unit on peacekeeping ops. This was the main source of our effectiveness overseas. When 4 CMBG was tasked to provide units for FRY in '92, their effectiveness was due, in a large part, to the training conducted to fight the Warsaw Pact. Since then, due to manpower shortages and frequent unit rotations to various operations, our war fighting skills have seriously deteriorated. This has been recognized by Land force Command and the Brigades will once again train collectively. Any soldier who joined after say, '94, has no true idea of what is involved in fighting or training for a major war. The days of summer concentrations lasting 2 months and winter warfare lasting a month were scarificed due to cost and the limited amount of time in the training cycle due to UN ops. Those exercises were never ending bag drives and I think we'll see them again starting this fall.

   

No nation on earth has an army that is made just for peacekeeping and disaster relief. The role of Armed Forces around the world are to protect its citizens and the countries soverignty. Who knows what the future holds.... Armies train for war not for peace, what happens if 10-30-50 years down the road our nation is thrust into war (could be sooner with the China Taiwan) and our nation has been training just to hold the peace or distaster response....

The 12 billion is extra funds spread over 5 years (if the current government holds).

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next