How effective are Heavy Tanks In conventional warfare ?




 
--
 
December 11th, 2004  
kotakk
 
 

Topic: How effective are Heavy Tanks In conventional warfare ?


I was wondering,as all of you guys are Military guys,in conventional warfare,with almost all types of armours being penetrateable
.How effective are heavy tanks like the T-90 etc.
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Very.
As proved by all conflicts in recent times.

If you say, "well, the armor is penetratable."
Then consider this:
-Every soldier is shootable
-Every plane is downable
-Every ship is sinkable
-Every missile is foolable

Truth is, tank armor isn't that easy to penetrate... and not to mention, the weapons to do so aren't flowing around like crazy. The RPG-7 is hardly sufficient enough to seriously take out a modern heavy tank like the M-1A1.
December 11th, 2004  
Xion
 
Quote:
If you say, "well, the armor is penetratable."
Then consider this:
-Every soldier is shootable
-Every plane is downable
-Every ship is sinkable
-Every missile is foolable
lol, but they have other means to defend themselves whereas the main defence mechanism of a tank is its armour.And i think you cannot compare these things in general.
--
December 11th, 2004  
MichaelO
 
I don't classify tanks like the T-90 as heavy.

Heavy tanks in my mind are tanks like the German Elefant of late WW2, King Tiger and KV-* Soviet Heavy Tanks.

I don't think 'Heavy' tank really applies to any tank currently in use.
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Well for all practical purposes, the M-1 series, Leopards etc. pretty much are heavy tanks. They're a chore to transport, they are pretty heavy and heck, there's nothing really heavy enough out there to put them in a higher weight class bracket.
As for the others having countermeasures etc. The tank can shoot smoke screens and flares.
But as in most situations, tanks will require good infantry support.
December 11th, 2004  
MadeInChina
 
m-1s are MBT, they dont weigh as much and seems lighter.

leopards, challenger 2 and t-90 are heavy, tehy weigh more than 60 tons, armed with 125-120mm guns, 1500+ engine

i miss the good ol days of kingtigers
December 11th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Flak88 wrote:

Quote:
m-1s are MBT, they dont weigh as much and seems lighter.

leopards, challenger 2 and t-90 are heavy, tehy weigh more than 60 tons, armed with 125-120mm guns, 1500+ engine

With respect, you are wrong. check your sources and find ut that the M1A2 are about the same weight as the rest of them(the M1A2 weighs 68 tonns, i believe). All of them are MBTs.
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Thank you Sherman, that was my point.

Also I'm not a big fan of the bigger and heavier etc etc etc. There's just so much more you need to consider.
What makes a tank practical? Well it depends on the mission it's designed for.
As for the weaknesses of the tank, well, there's a lot of weaknesses for everyone, except the stealth fighter it seems ... for now anyways.
December 12th, 2004  
rocco
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion

lol, but they have other means to defend themselves whereas the main defence mechanism of a tank is its armour.And i think you cannot compare these things in general.
tanks are never alone. they are always mixed. and im sure have protection other than armor at all times.
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Tanks have smoke screens, flares, maybe even chaff (though that I'm not sure of). Also it's got protection with its own infantry around it etc.