Will the battle tank become obsolete? - Page 21




 
--
 
February 10th, 2010  
senojekips
 
 
It's hard enough to get relevant and sensible answers from some people in these threads, without introducing arty crafty "concepts" to take us off track.

I watched a documentary TV series several years ago that did just that, tracing the salt trade right through to space exploration. It was a very informative series, but not vaguely related to this subject... (I digress)
February 10th, 2010  
LeMask
 
In fact, I'm interested in the link between salt trade and space exploration.

And I dont think that I went too far. Tanks are "just" a way to use armor to be able to kill the enemy without being killed. or to resist the enemy's fire without losing your ability to kill.

It's the same idea or concept as in the use of plate armor versus arrows. And then, they introduced missile weapons capable of piercing this armor, crossbows and long bows...

And once again, it's the same idea or concept as in the use of anti tank weapons, that are supposed to pierce through the armor and kill the person inside rather than to destroy the whole armor.

So I can say pretty safely that the relation between a crossbow and plate armor is the same relation we find between anti tank weapons and tanks.

And then we push it a little further and say that there is a relation between the medieval plate armor and modern tanks.

And it's pretty simple ideas.

And dont tell me that it's stupid... The israelis named their tanks "Merkava". And I think it means "chariots".

Are you going to say that the Israelis are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a stupid medieval chariot with no god damn relation with the real thing?

Something is wrong with you guys.

Oh, you want straight answers?

Yes, the tank will be obsolete in the future, when mankind will be fighting with star trek like spaceships...

And then, some guy named "HolographicMask" will say "oh, we are using energy shields like our the primitive humans were using Shabom armor to protect their tanks. So in fact, our spaceships are just space tanks."

And then, some guy named "SpaceKangooroo" will tell him: "You drink too much space-wine and you have space-cheese in your datalink. You dont make any sense. There is no link between armored space ships and tanks. Look, we are in space."

And then some guy named "03SpaceMarine" will say :"You have to put that on your ship's hull LAOOO (laughing my a** out of orbit")."
February 10th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
In fact, I'm interested in the link between salt trade and space exploration.
And i'm interested in the link between my buttcrack and quantun physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
And I dont think that I went too far. Tanks are "just" a way to use armor to be able to kill the enemy without being killed. or to resist the enemy's fire without losing your ability to kill.
Captain Obvious is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
It's the same idea or concept as in the use of plate armor versus arrows. And then, they introduced missile weapons capable of piercing this armor, crossbows and long bows...
Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
And once again, it's the same idea or concept as in the use of anti tank weapons, that are supposed to pierce through the armor and kill the person inside rather than to destroy the whole armor.
That depends on how much money you have to burn, top attack ATGMs (ie designed to hit the upper side of the vehicle where its armor is weak) are designed to blow the hell out of a tank, killing the crew/partially disabling the vehicle is the economy version where you can't afford expensive guided asset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
So I can say pretty safely that the relation between a crossbow and plate armor is the same relation we find between anti tank weapons and tanks.
No you can't, crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
And then we push it a little further and .
And we enter imagination land where you fart when you burp and you burp when you fart!

-by Peter Griffin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
say that there is a relation between the medieval plate armor and modern tanks.
Yep, both are made of metal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
And dont tell me that it's stupid...
Apart from the obvious bits yeah its very stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
Are you going to say that the Israelis are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a stupid medieval chariot with no god damn relation with the real thing?
And Germans named their tank Leopard, are you going to tell me that Germans are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a cat with no god damn relation to the real thing?

The better question for XXI cent is how the tank will evolve since its not going away anytime soon, Yanks are leading here but as far as i know they havent developed even a technology demostrator.
--
February 10th, 2010  
Spaniard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
And i'm interested in the link between my buttcrack and quantun physics.

Captain Obvious is obvious.

Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.


That depends on how much money you have to burn, top attack ATGMs (ie designed to hit the upper side of the vehicle where its armor is weak) are designed to blow the hell out of a tank, killing the crew/partially disabling the vehicle is the economy version where you can't afford expensive guided asset.

No you can't, crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular.

And we enter imagination land where you fart when you burp and you burp when you fart!

-by Peter Griffin.

Yep, both are made of metal.


Apart from the obvious bits yeah its very stupid.


And Germans named their tank Leopard, are you going to tell me that Germans are total morons for naming the pride of their army after a cat with no god damn relation to the real thing?

The better question for XXI cent is how the tank will evolve since its not going away anytime soon, Yanks are leading here but as far as i know they havent developed even a technology demostrator.


LMAOOOoooooooooooooo Ok that was funny! But crack and quantum physics, hold on I think there's a link.

On a more serious not, I know US, Russia, Spain +++++++ are looking into the HoverCraft system they already have.
I remember seen on paper drawings of Tanks and APC.




February 10th, 2010  
rattler
 
 
Havenīt bee following all the pages, but Mr. Panzercracker got a few details wrong here (though I admit it is a nice rhetoric effort):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
-snip- Because plate armored knights were driving on caterpillars and shooting each other with 120mm main guns, totally the same concept.-snip-
While they were riding on horses and using lances, indeed it is the same *concept*. This is the key word here, the similarities related to the thechnology level are striking. If they were warping and shooting themselves up with photon torpedoes it would still be the same *concept*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panzercracker
-snip- ...crossbows were not anti-armor weapons and thats not a reason why they were so popular. -snip-
Here you are definitely factually wrong, crossbows *were* specifically designed as armor piercing weapons, and an improvement on the longbow. They would penetrate chain mail and plated armor, whereas the longbow would be held off about 50% of the cases and did his effect on the horses rather.

From RPG-forums:

Quote:
Regarding the armor piercing power of crossbows: they were so deadly that they were the only weapon ever banned by the Pope. I forget when (1139, Rattler), but somewhere in the 1300-1500 era, crossbows were banned as an unfair weapon. They were too powerful, had too long a range, and could be used by any idiot with less skill required than a bow.
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knights' armor
Rattler
February 10th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
Havenīt bee following all the pages, but Mr. Panzercracker got a few details wrong here (though I admit it is a nice rhetoric effort):


While they were riding on horses and using lances, indeed it is the same *concept*. This is the key word here, the similarities related to the thechnology level are striking. If they were warping and shooting themselves up with photon torpedoes it would still be the same *concept*.
Nope, the concept of a tank is to be able to take and hold ground, while the tank is by principle used as an offensive weapon the concept is to have a mobile bunker.

A medieval knight on the other hand was a purely offensive creature completely unable to support other types of arms, hold ground or be employed in defensive operations, just because both units are offensive doesnt mean they're the same idea, based on that we could say that celtic berserkers who ran at the enemy dressed stark bloody naked are the same concept as tanks since they were both offensive units.

The only thing knights and tanks have in common is Civilisation PC game series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattler
Here you are definitely factually wrong, crossbows *were* specifically designed as armor piercing weapons, and an improvement on the longbow. They would penetrate chain mail and plated armor, whereas the longbow would be held off about 50% of the cases and did his effect on the horses rather.

From RPG-forums:
From Wikipedia:

Rattler
At the time crossbows were first widely employed there was no plate armor and chain mail was thin as paper (late Roman Empire) whoever wrote wiki probably got the idea from Discovery or somewhere, by late medieval you had half plates, heavy haubergons and other armors to which a normal hand drawn crossbow could do little to nothing.

The reason why crossbow was so widely used is because it required no training whatsoever, if there ever was an idiot-proof weapon crossbow is it, draw the string, put arrow in and point towards the enemy.

Crossbows were not employed so widely because of armor improvements because the only serious threat to plate armor were windlass siege crossbows or heavy arbalests, hand drawn crossbows were only a thread at 30~ feet, crossbows were employed so widely because it took only a couple of hours to train your average Joe the peasant in their use so they're not analogous to development of tanks vs AT weapons.
February 10th, 2010  
imp
 
Wow you guys just love to argue semantics this is now getting so far off topic its silly we are now on mediaval weapons & yes main benefit was a weeks training & you were pretty proficient but like any weapon it developed & was very good at piercing armour. In the Romans case it was the for runner of the MG to using tactics similar to later musket men. Fire off your "magazine" & reload. Nasty weapon for the day.

On semantics I would not say the tanks role is to take & hold ground its more to support the guys that do this good old Mr flexible infantry without them its nothing more than a mobile gun platform waiting to die.
February 10th, 2010  
Panzercracker
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imp

On semantics I would not say the tanks role is to take & hold ground its more to support the guys that do this good old Mr flexible infantry without them its nothing more than a mobile gun platform waiting to die.
There's nothing semantic, the tanks are still breakthrough weapons and spearhead any assault, what you just said is basically parroting the early WW2 doctrines of the allies and soviets vs the german doctrine of using the tank in a way not much different to how everyone uses it today.

The tank is not a support platform, it has significant capacity in that area and can perform the role but its built with one primary purpose - assault.

Also a tank without supporting infantry is still 50~ tonnes of armor with a remote mg, cameras, smoke projectors and a big focking gun, carefull with killing it just like that.
February 10th, 2010  
imp
 
I agree with the take ground bit its the hold ground I was more disputing but upon rereading your post you then said "principle used as an offensive weapon" so yes me bad.
March 15th, 2010  
Czin
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabs
Il take 4 appaches over 16 tanks any day.
That means I have to use twelve less missile launchers to obliterate your attack force's main punch. Plus, your helicopters can only stay in the air for so long before you run out of ammo, pilot endurance, or fuel, or some combination of the three. Tanks can hold ground far better than any whirlybird ever could.....Unless the helicopter was a transformer....but that is another matter altogether.
 


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