Will the battle tank become obsolete? - Page 10




 
--
 
December 22nd, 2007  
SHERMAN
 
 
Just dont sell the bugger to the egyptians...
December 22nd, 2007  
Pale Rider
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
Just dont sell the bugger to the egyptians...
I do not think the IDF has to worry about that, they are already upset that we will only give them some of the M1A2 electronic upgrades versus the whole setup. Also they wanted to upgrade their Tungsten penetrator rounds to what we are giving Australia and we gave them a big NYET on that also, they will continue to use the older version of that round.
January 5th, 2008  
Cdt Matteo
 
 
I'll take the Canadian Army as an example: At first, we only had troops over there (Afghanistan). Then, we wanted a something that would really make the war VERY unfair. The something was: Leopards C2! It was pretty much something to set us apart from the enemy who relied only on Guerrila Infantry (apart from IEDs, damn IEDs...). If your enemy doesn't have tanks, get some and watch them struggle to take them out. If your enemy has them, get better ones (it was either the first or second Gulph War where the American's destroyed all of Sadam's petty Russian tanks without loosing one).

Tanks are useful in urban combat situations believe it or not. If you look at videos on Youtube, pesky insurgent snipers in Iraq have been made short work of with the Abrams' Cannon. The ability of laying down a very large amount of firepower (one you would find on an Abrams' tank: .50 cal, 7.62, and another 7.62 co-axial) will very easily turn the tide of battle.

Tanks in an open environment? Even better.
--
January 5th, 2008  
Pale Rider
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdt Matteo
I'll take the Canadian Army as an example: At first, we only had troops over there (Afghanistan). Then, we wanted a something that would really make the war VERY unfair. The something was: Leopards C2! It was pretty much something to set us apart from the enemy who relied only on Guerrila Infantry (apart from IEDs, damn IEDs...). If your enemy doesn't have tanks, get some and watch them struggle to take them out. If your enemy has them, get better ones (it was either the first or second Gulph War where the American's destroyed all of Sadam's petty Russian tanks without loosing one).

Tanks are useful in urban combat situations believe it or not. If you look at videos on Youtube, pesky insurgent snipers in Iraq have been made short work of with the Abrams' Cannon. The ability of laying down a very large amount of firepower (one you would find on an Abrams' tank: .50 cal, 7.62, and another 7.62 co-axial) will very easily turn the tide of battle.

Tanks in an open environment? Even better.
You are looking at two different theater of operations where tanks are being used, tanks are not having to fight in urban environments in Afghanistan and no they are not the perfect answer for every encounter in Iraq either regardless of what you are watching on the tube.
September 24th, 2008  
LeMask
 
I was in Paris the 14 July... and I saw the military parade. I remember some armored vehicules with some big guns on their top...

It was some AA guns I think... 30mm or something of this kind... you know,with 4 barrels... and I saw these guns idly aimed at the skies... and I thought that it was the perfect weapon to fire on someone hiding in a moutain.

4 high caliber machine guns... If a Taliban is hiding in a hole on a moutain and firing at you... It would be the PERFECt gun to return fire.
I dont think that a normal tank can fire at such angles...
September 25th, 2008  
SHERMAN
 
 
AA guns were used by many countries to hit infantry in diffrent situations. Israel used the Vulcan SPAA against infantry in lebanon in the 80s and 90s. We also used 203mm SPA to fire directly at buildings. If you know your gear well, you can find surprising uses for some of it
September 25th, 2008  
LeMask
 
Or even against tanks ^^

I remember a documentary about WWII. they said that the Germans used some AA guns to hit tanks... and that the high velocity rounds were perfect to tear through armor.
September 25th, 2008  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
I remember a documentary about WWII. they said that the Germans used some AA guns to hit tanks... and that the high velocity rounds were perfect to tear through armor.
Well they used the 88mm Flak that was bigger than most tank guns of the day. And later on it was used as a tank gun on the Tiger and King Tiger tanks. I dont think a 20 or even 40 mm AA gun could penetrate a modern MBT, but than again, who knows...Israel Marketed the 60mm high valocity gun as a T-55 killer, and indeed it was, so i guess anything is possible.
October 18th, 2008  
senojekips
 
 
Continued from other thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacara
that A-10, can be killed more easily than a tank, just a SAM, and they cost 40 million dollars plus all the weapons abroad. Also you can add reactive or active armor to make the javelin not work, plus those are also almost a million dollars a missle.
I believe that there is already a missile that will overcome active/reactive armour with two spaced charges, the first just to detonate the reactive armour.

A pair of infantrymen with a missile cost nothing like what a tank does, they are smaller, cheaper, more flexible, easier to train and maintain, and far quicker to replace if needed.
October 18th, 2008  
Bacara
 
 
yes but active armor shoots the missle before it hits, also the missiles cost almost a million dollars!
 


Similar Topics
Main Battle Tank Battle
US main battle tank destroyed in southern Iraq
What's your MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)?
I want Redleg banned.
Yom Kippur war - Shmuel Askarov story