Will the battle tank become obsolete? - Page 15




 
--
 
December 2nd, 2008  
LeMask
 
Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...

But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...

How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...

I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.

These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
December 2nd, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...

But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...

How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...

I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.

These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
Wow, what we have here is an expert. I guess you should be instructing me and Sherman about how to go about doing our jobs. </sarcasm>


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rorke
You use them to clear buildings ofc, thats not what they're supposed to be used as or good at but you still do.
Exactly right.
December 2nd, 2008  
Rorke
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
Of course it's not easy...
takes skill and training...
And luck and proper enviroment and its generally a nightmare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
But even the Hezbollah managed to disable some Israeli modern tanks with ATGM in the Lebanon crysis...
Yes but Hezbollah has been doing nothing else than stocking up on ATGMs of various shapes and sizes for over a decade, for hundreds upon hundreds of rpgs and rockets shot they managed to destroy or disable about thirty tanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
How hard can it be? And they had no air support, no tank support...
They had an urban enviroment and used civilian population and structures as a shield, they also used incredible amounts of ATGM assets and their results were rather miserable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
I still have a hard time believing that a tank can be so hard to engage with modern weapons...

Take a Javelin missile against a modern tank. The soldier can shoot the damn missile from afar... The tank is easy to spot. It's big, noisy, and makes a lot of dust while moving...

They shoot the fire and forget missile, the missile lands on the top armor... End of story for the people inside.
First of all unless you're still confined to LOS which is rarely more than a mile, second of all your ATGM regardless of how powerfull it is needs to hit at a right angle or it will do squat, third of all the tank can pop smoke if it notices you or survives and since you just revelaed your position the escorting infantry will supress you and then you're seconds from meeting a 120mm round.

Also if the tank is in motion it can just move behind some obstacle, use sprays and laser disruption if its one of the modern ones.

A homing system does not guarantee a hit and a hit does not guarantee a kill in fact between the angle, distance, countermeasours and escorting personnel as well as the heavy armor its an absolute nightmare to take out the tank, it gets even more difficult if you're an unsupported infantry unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
These missiles arent made to miss or make minor damage...

I'm ready to take your word. I'm not a professional. But it's so simple in my mind. Maybe that I'm naive... but I dont see the problem.

The major risk is to be detected by the tank and engaged while aiming... But soldiers have training for that.
No they're not but still they require a specific situation to be effective, they need to hit the right section of the tank at a right angle all the time while the tank is moving, has countermeasures of its own and is heavily armoured, also because the tank has both the main gun, a couple of mgs and infantry support its also not as simple as just standing up and pushing a button.

You have to find a position where you wont get noticed and shot outright, then you have to fire when the tank presents the targeted part and hope that any of the afformentioned things do not come into play, a combat enviroment is a fluid one and just having or knowing how to use an ATGM is not enough.
--
December 2nd, 2008  
LeMask
 
Well, in this case, maybe that I give too much value to these ATGMs...
December 2nd, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Yes, to take out a tank is a nightmare if you're infantry and they've got supporting infantry and there's more than one tank, which is pretty much 99% of the time.
December 2nd, 2008  
johnnyQAMR
 
 

Topic: Trophy ADS


The tank has a few years yet with systems like the Trophy ADS ready for deployment. This system can defeat all current ATGW's including Jav and Kornet.
October 20th, 2009  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacara
yes but active armor shoots the missle before it hits, also the missiles cost almost a million dollars!
No the missiles does not cost a million dollars.

No one has yet been able to pimp up a tank with reactive armor all over.
There are missiles designed to hit the soft spots on the market now.
They can be handled by three people and WILL defeat any MBT.
How do you reckon it will be cost effective even if you managed to kill that Team with your second tank.
Behind the next bend in the road is another Team, then another, then another.

Your Tank force will wither away unless you get a decisive win during the first week of war.
And THAT is truly a thing of the past.

//KJ.
October 20th, 2009  
19kilo30K4
 
 
anti tank missiles don't fly at you every 5 seconds on the battle field. Tanks, have their own infantry supporting and clearing those teams. We are used to spearhead attacks and support infantry. People thought the tank was obolete in 2003 as well, right until we spearheaded an attack into a capital city with them. Not every infantryman is equipped with the means to kill a tank, while even the most basic tank can kill an infantryman. The arguments for tanks being inneffective are just not supported by history or factual accounts. Tanks can and do win battles.
If I said that during WW2 the Germans had a massive quantity of light, man-portable anti tank weapons that were capable of destroying our tanks I would be correct. If I said that because of this, tanks had no impact on the war, I would be incorrect. If you really think that with a high ATGM threat, we would just keep ramming one tank after another on these hypothetical teams you are talking about, then you have no concept of modern military strategy at all. As a person who has actually been around when tanks are in the fight, let me say this: When the enemy is effectively suppressing your infantry with small arms, tanks and the massive shock effect they bring can totaly change the tone of a firefight. Don't read some article online and think you know it all. What your saying would be like... I dunno, saying that because a lone sniper can kill multiple infantrymen at great distance, that the infantryman is obsolete. You blatantly have no idea what goes on in a firefight.
October 21st, 2009  
Zastava-Arms
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19kilo30K4
anti tank missiles don't fly at you every 5 seconds on the battle field. Tanks, have their own infantry supporting and clearing those teams. We are used to spearhead attacks and support infantry. People thought the tank was obolete in 2003 as well, right until we spearheaded an attack into a capital city with them. Not every infantryman is equipped with the means to kill a tank, while even the most basic tank can kill an infantryman. The arguments for tanks being inneffective are just not supported by history or factual accounts. Tanks can and do win battles.
If I said that during WW2 the Germans had a massive quantity of light, man-portable anti tank weapons that were capable of destroying our tanks I would be correct. If I said that because of this, tanks had no impact on the war, I would be incorrect. If you really think that with a high ATGM threat, we would just keep ramming one tank after another on these hypothetical teams you are talking about, then you have no concept of modern military strategy at all. As a person who has actually been around when tanks are in the fight, let me say this: When the enemy is effectively suppressing your infantry with small arms, tanks and the massive shock effect they bring can totaly change the tone of a firefight. Don't read some article online and think you know it all. What your saying would be like... I dunno, saying that because a lone sniper can kill multiple infantrymen at great distance, that the infantryman is obsolete. You blatantly have no idea what goes on in a firefight.
Yeah, from what I remember a single javelin missile is something around 80-120 thousand dollars. I dont think they would spend that much money just to give every single soldier the ability to take down a tank
October 21st, 2009  
19kilo30K4
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zastava-Arms
Yeah, from what I remember a single javelin missile is something around 80-120 thousand dollars. I dont think they would spend that much money just to give every single soldier the ability to take down a tank

Indeed. The launcher is $143,358 and each missile costs $86,014. It is not feasable for every single soldier to carry an item that freakin big when people still need to carry radios, batteries for the launcher, missiles, the launcher itself, machine guns, food, water, armor, rifle ammo, pistols, dismounted mortar systems, GPS, the list goes on. That is the reason why every single soldier is not an AT specialist, or a sniper, or a machine gunner, or a grenadier, or a radio operator, or a medic, or a rifleman...I'm stunned that someone would suggest that a javelin could be fielded to every soldier in an army.... just wow. If all of your soldiers had AT weapons, we would just attack with aviation and infantry. Surface to air missiles cost signifigantly less than attack helicopters, but oddly enough US attack helicopters are flying missions in hostile environments right now...so by the same argument, rotary wing aviation would also be obsolete due to the proliferation of man portable surface to air missiles. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a soldier to carry a javelin in case they see a tank, a SAM in case they see a helicopter and a machine gun in case they get attacked by infantry. Just a normal rifleman setup (I happen to be a grenadier currently) is heavy enough as it is. Infantry will never be able to match the maneuverability of armor, unless they are in confined spaces... which is why we don't put armor there. People who do not understand this should not even be posting about the subject.
 


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