08 Apr 05
1 edit
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to moscow.
when germany eventually equalised by developing their panthers and tigers ... they got pushed back to berlin.
in Korea: see No1Marauder's post in the "finest infantry" thread ... the best ground forces team had 0 tanks!!!!!!
in Vietnam: mmmm
in Iraq: the history books will only settle as time goes by, the truth at present is still covered by propaganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreYou may want to look at the 1st Iraq war ... while USAF bombing took the heart out of the Elites the 2nd AD ended it with some pretty amazing manuvering thanks to Stormin Norman
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to moscow.
when germany eventually equalised by developing their panthers and tigers ... they got pushed back to berlin.
...[text shortened]... resent is still covered by propaganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
WWII
also Rommel in North Africa
The Battle of the Bulge
and the pinnical in Tank Tactics
[b]Patton[b]
08 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by Mangy Mooosemmm your point?
You may want to look at the 1st Iraq war ... while USAF bombing took the heart out of the Elites the 2nd AD ended it with some pretty amazing manuvering thanks to Stormin Norman
WWII
also Rommel in North Africa
The Battle of the Bulge
and the pinnical in Tank Tactics
Patton
iraq1 ... did it matter if there were tanks or not? they destroyed many of their own, the airforce probly would not have.
as for
" Rommel in North Africa
The Battle of the Bulge"
you seem to supprt my point, the better tanks suffered defeat.
08 Apr 05
it'd surprise me if tanks were found to historically have no value. For a start, even though they lost much of the Germans ability to hold out was attributed to their tanks. I don't think Tigers would be remembered as one of their most feared weapons if it was of no use. Tanks, as with all other weapon systems, are of no use without infantry support - when this is forgotten you get mistakes like the Russians in Chechnia
Modern day warefare might show a different picture for tanks. Man portable (a joke term if you've ever been the porter) anti tank systems are overtaking the tanks ability ot defend itself and still move, and helecopters have the nasty ability to pop up from behind a hill, launch a few missiles at tanks then disappear behind the hill again that may make the future of the tank dubious.
08 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by belgianfreaka bucket of petrol and a match has been around for a long time ... this is nothing new that infantry can find a way.
it'd surprise me if tanks were found to historically have no value. For a start, even though they lost much of the Germans ability to hold out was attributed to their tanks. I don't think Tigers would be remembered as one of their mo ...[text shortened]... ehind the hill again that may make the future of the tank dubious.
i think the 'tiger myth' on the western front was related to the ability of the tiger to wipe out any western tanks.
those tanks had been built up as being powerful in the people's minds.
but they were useless against a tiger.
but the tiger was a silly weapon against anything except tanks.
08 Apr 05
I guess the question is: what good do tanks do on the battelfield except taking outother tanks? As tanks are basically moterised artilary with armour to protect the operators I'd guess at:
give infantry something mobile to hide behind
take out other vehicles, such as trucks and armoured personel carriers
take out buildings and armoured emplacements
overrun infantry positions with no AT capabilities
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreHi Flex!
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to moscow.
when germany eventually equalised by developing their panthers and tigers ... they got pushed back to berlin.
...[text shortened]... resent is still covered by propaganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
Russia didn't actually begin WWII with the T34. That came later, around 42 I believe. The Russian tanks were small, underpowered, and no match for the Germans when they first invaded. The KV1 was a monstrous thing that was slow and underpowered for it's size. It did have a good gun on it though. None of those tanks really mattered anyway since the Russians had no idea how to use them against the German tactics.
The German Panthers and Tigers were probably the best fighting tanks of the war. But Germany couldn't produce anywhere near as many tanks as the Russians could, so quality didn't beat quantity in that case. Plus the Tigers, and especially the Panthers, had serious maintenance issues.
As for the American tanks in the recent desert wars - they're the best in the business IMO. Tactics, technology, training, supplies, air cover, it's all there and being used to make American tanks the best in the world at what they do.
08 Apr 05
6 edits
Originally posted by wibwow!
Hi Flex!
Russia didn't actually begin WWII with the T34. That came later, around 42 I believe. The Russian tanks were small, underpowered, and no match for the Germans when they first invaded. The KV1 was a monstrous thing that was slow a ...[text shortened]... American tanks the best in the world at what they do.
you need a dose of reality!
the movies might make it look like that but ....
maybe you are right about the modern american tanks that is hard to tell .. the rest .. welll ..!!!!!!!
i do agree with you entirely when you say they were unable to deal with the german 'tactics'.
my view ... the t34 was a panther ... built in 1940 one year before germany attacked ... the ultimate tank of the time ... but without the mechanical problems of the first panthers.
the kv1 was a tiger .. just a great big slow heavy massively armoured huge gun.
and they did not matter.
early in the war germany had tiny little pathetic useless tanks, so the t34-76 was powerful enough ... in 1942 germany started the bigger tanks and russia dealt with this by by upgunning their t34's to a 85 mm gun.
and they did not matter.
at the end of the war germany produced the tiger 2 ... a little heavier and more powerful. russia produced the is2 and is3.
and they did not matter.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreYep, I was wrong about the T-34 date. I just read where the Germans first encountered them in June and July of 41. I was going off of memory on that one. I should have double checked first. If the Russians had the T-34 in 1940 they certainly didn't use them or at least use them effectively. Probably the latter.
wow!
you need a dose of reality!
the movies might make it look like that but ....
maybe you are right about the modern american tanks that is hard to tell .. the rest .. welll ..!!!!!!!
i do agree with you entirely when you say they were unable to deal with the german 'tactics'.
my view ... the t34 was a panther ... built in 1940 one year ...[text shortened]... . a little heavier and more powerful. russia produced the is2 and is3.
and they did not matter.
I still think the Panther was the best tank of that war. That is when the Germans could keep it running of course. The T-34 a close second (tied with the Tiger), but for different reasons. The simplicity, reliabilty, and huge quantity of T-34's was just too much for anyone to handle. The Americans and British would have been hard pressed to handle all of that Russian armor if those nations had ever squared off at that time.
It'll be interesting to see how history records American tank warfare for the last 20 years. Of course American history books will have a favorable slant, but I think overall the Americans have set the standard for tank warfare in the desert. Obviously the British aren't to be taken lightly either.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreTanks had a limited impact on WWI because of their limited use and because armored tactics were not properly developed at the time. At the battle of Cambrai tanks were initially used with great success, but the British learned that tanks are good at gaining ground but not holding it.
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to moscow.
when germany eventually equalised by developing their panthers and tigers ... they got pushed back to berlin.
...[text shortened]... resent is still covered by propaganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
At the beginning of WWII only 10% of Soviet tanks were T34s. The majority were the much weaker T26 and BT5, each of which had a 47mm main armament, compared to the T34's 76mm (some later versions were upgunned to 85mm). It wasn't until mid-1943 that Soviet production had upped the percentage of T34s to about 50% of the total. By that time the tide had begun to shift irrevocably toward the Soviets. The T34 played a huge role in that.
For the Germans, their getting pushed back to Berlin had nothing to do with any deficiencies of the Tiger or the Panther. It was simply a matter of not having enough Tigers and Panthers to stop the Soviet onslaught.
In Vietnam the use of tanks was extremely limited by the dense jungle. That's why there weren't any Kursk type battle in the Pacific theater of WWII. The terrain simply was not condusive to the use of tanks.
I don't know as much about the Korean War, but I suspect the sheer surprise value of the Chinese invasion was able to offset the US technological superiority for a while.
So yes, tanks were an integral part of 20th century warfare. But they were not some kind of military panacea. Their role had to be properly understood in order to be used effectively.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreWould you care to administer the treatment?
wow!
you need a dose of reality!
the movies might make it look like that but ....
maybe you are right about the modern american tanks that is hard to tell .. the rest .. welll ..!!!!!!!
Battles where 'the better tanks lost' aren't proof that tanks are irrelevant; for example in the D-Day campaign, German tanks didn't win the day because although tank-for-tank they did very well, they were vastly outnumbered by Allied armour. It's true that 'hunting tanks' were primarily designed to take out other tanks. But heavily armoured tracked vehicles served a wide variety of roles: some were basically artillery with better protection, others were APCs and others still were decked out with weapons to take out infantry or 'soft' vehicles (such as jeeps and trucks).
As I understand it the modern US army has two types of tank: one is primarily an APC, but has some fighting ability, and the other is a 'main battle tank' which is designed to be an all-round killing machine, but the MBT is largely a postwar invention. The British Army has a similar setup, as I suspect do most technologically advanced armies. Still, mechanised infantry (ie infantry with APCs) form the backbone of these armies, as infantry garrisons are still the only way to hold large amounts of territory, and tanks are pretty weak in an urban setting.
I suggest you read reports of individual engagements and battles, rather than just looking at the outcomes of wars, to judge the effectiveness of tanks on the battlefield. There are just too many factors to consider when trying to distill the effectiveness of tanks from, for example, the fact that the Axis lost WWII.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by flexmoreTanks play both the roles of heavy cavalry/knights and mobile artillery.
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to moscow.
when germany eventually equalised by developing their panthers and tigers ... they got pushed back to berlin.
...[text shortened]... resent is still covered by propaganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
In the heavy cavalry role, they can smash through infantry defensive positions when properly supported by their own infantry. Without tanks this would be much harder. They are great anti-personel tools.
Consider a situation which is likely to arise in the future - U.S. ground troops facing off against massive numbers of enemy infantry. How would we penetrate without tanks? Sure, anti tank infantry weapons exist, but that's why you need the combined arms approach using your own infantry as support.
08 Apr 05
Also, one might consider that even if many modern tanks are useless without enemy tanks to blow up, the same is true about fighter aircraft. Just as with aircraft, there exist armored vehicles which perform duties like supply and personnell transport, scouting, anti-personnel duties, etc, and heavier tanks are good at taking these out. Even heavier tanks take out these tanks, and you get an upward spiral that ends up with massive tanks that specialize in taking out other big tanks.
08 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by flexmoreHey Flex,
in WW1: tanks first appeared, while of great propaganda value many historical evaluations suggest they were of no military importance to the outcome.
in WW2: russia began the war with the super T34 and the KV1 and got pushed back to mo ...[text shortened]... paganda. ... i do not know the truth, but we will see in 15 years.
How are you sir?
I don't know, but terrain is perhaps the most telling point of armoured battle. Your Brittish Challenger II is perhaps the finest main battle tank on earth because of it's reacitive armouring. It is light and gives the same protection as 40 inches of steel.
"That being said, you only have to judge war as the ability to dominate the enemy. Guns and Rockets kill aircraft. Aircraft kill guns,missles and everything else."
<edit> I rather like that. Another famous old saying I just made up.
That being said... If I have air superiority, all I have to do is sik my tanks on the enemy, supported by my air power and I win every time. For now. In the future, I will be forced to ammend to "Whoever holds LEO (low earth orbit) "wins every time". Then to "Whoever holds NES (Near Earth Space). Then to "Whoever holds SolSys (Sol System)" ... ad infinitim.
08 Apr 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyTanks??? You're welcome!
Hey Flex,
How are you sir?
I don't know, but terrain is perhaps the most telling point of armoured battle. Your Brittish Challenger II is perhaps the finest main battle tank on earth because of it's reacitive armouring. It is light and gives the same protection as 40 inches of steel.
That being said, you only have to judge war as the ability ...[text shortened]... , all I have to do is sik my tanks on the enemy, supported by my air power and I win every time.