Affordable armoured tanks
You can't be serious? Have you ever talked to an Apache gunner or Cobra gunner? It's not easy no, but it's something that takes time and training as far as learning to use the AH-64 Apache weapon systems. Same with the AH-1Z Cobra. However AV-8B, F/A-18E, and F-16C are all capable of firing the AGM-65 Maverick which has been in service since about the mid seventies if I am not mistaken. They have been stockpiled for a Eastern bloc armor threat as well as the AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. I'm brand new to this forum and have already seen that you might be just a bit of base with your "facts" which seem to be mere assumptions. Not to mention the various other munitions/weapons systems such as chain guns, gatling guns, cluster munitions, or bombs. And just so you know smart guy AGM-114 and AGM-65 are multi purpose they aren't meant solely for armor that would be a waste of money and very narrow for target options. And just so you know I didn't grow up on PC games I was born in West Germany I know my facts and I am no child. I know logistics very well as a matter of fact my good friend is in logistics and I am always asking questions and she is always welcome to helping me understand. Of course you'll run out of munitions, hence you pick battles where and when you can and try not to over extend your lines. I know munitions cost a lot I'm no fool to costs. I live in the US as of right now and well the munitions cost is something that's highly debatable in some circles. I know how easy it is to ground a gunship but there are cases where a gunship has taken hits and survived. It's not always a guarantee that a missile or AA gun hits it's target especially with countermeasures and very good SEAD. No one said they took them overnight. I think in the more recent invaision into Iraq can be a testament that an objective can be accomplished with near like lightning speed but logistics will for the foreseeable future be a variable to be accounted for. I assume you mean demolish Iraqi ground forces I don't think just the UK and US could have pulled off taking down the entire Iraqi Army with just gunships.
Now however going into a scenario if I had to build my own military from the ground up with an affordable tank which will give me the "bang for my buck" I would probably go with a T55 as they seem to be cheap and although not to reliable I'd be able to get a few shots out of each. This would solely rely on the fact though that the opposition is another third world country. Depending on where I am in the world and who my biggest threat is would decide what I would have. Sometimes the sole fear of having a more advanced tank works, but in some cases it doesn't. Again it would all depend on the opponent.
Last edited:
Panzercracker
Active member
Yet another random person (gotta stop insulting kids who grow up on pc games, they'll ban me).
Do you know the following aspects of logistics?
Production span.
Unit cost.
Storage cost.
In Desert Storm there was a grand total of 23 ATGMS fired per kill, not per tank, that number is bloated by their use against unintended targets of neccesity as in every war.
USA of course did not expand its stockpile of AT assets overall, it did however several times scratch the bottom as far as in-theatre operations, thats normal since ATGMs are one of the most used munitions.
Point is you will run out of juice, always.
In US operations that was not easily noticable due to massive amounts of actual tanks and airforce who took much weight off the shoulders of AT weapons, this is not World War 2, munitions cost a lot.
Essentially just as in desert storm ATGMs are expanded within the first days and it boils down to reserves of all kinds (munitions included) and thats when having 400 older tanks vs 100 more modern counts.
Also i'm sorry but you realise how little it takes to ground a gunship? Stuff that formed your opinion (youtube?) are combat situations where a ground target has been isolated, that means no AA, gunships are tricky to use and there's a reason why they didnt just nuke the Iraqi ground forces overnight.
None but i drove and shot from T-72M, Leo2A4 and 1A1, i've also learned how to operate a 2A6 and an extensive study of all american and european models.
Of course that was 2 years ago, now i'm a BMP jockey since restructurisation is a b*tch, happy bunny?
Last edited:
lolwhassup
Active member
Well seeing as the gloves are off, and the rudeness has started, I guess I will throw in more than my 2 cents?
First off, comprehend English fool. If you had read what I posted carefully, I explicitly said that if you wanted to get an upgraded model of the T-72 which you are talking about in your post, it would still cost a pretty penny. Nowhere in my post did I say that the Leo 2A4 or M1A2 Abrams costs less than an upgraded T-72. I was simply using a modern reference to compare the ineffectiveness of a non-upgraded T-72. Another thing you failed to read properly was the fact that I explicitly put the phrase "In this scenario", referring to mpere's scenario about a small country wanting to buy tanks on a low budget. I did not say that the small nation should buy M1A2's or Leo 2A4's. What I meant was to put emphasis on the fact that in this scenario not even T-72Bs are viable to a small nation with a small defense budget for MBTs. If you are able to comprehend the English behind what i just wrote, It is still a debateable subject that very much depends on the amount of money the nation we are hypothetically referring to is able to spend.
Another thing is you fail to realize that, ATGM's take a longer time to travel than a M829A3 round from an Abrams. The Abrams could fire a M829A3 at the T-72B and penetrate straight through it's armor in the first shot and take cover all before the ATGM even makes contact with the Abrams.
Last edited:
Panzercracker
Active member
Every tank costs a pretty penny, tanks are for a very long time now the most expensive bit of hardware in any land force of any military.
To clarify, an upgraded T-72 can take on a 2A4 or M1A2 and win while costing between 30% and 40% less, in practice that means that for every two tank regiments your enemy has you get three and that numerical advantage makes a huge difference in an enviroment where technological disparity is narrow as far as combat effectivness is concernd.
MBTs are not viable for a small nation with a small defence budget to begin with.
Which does not change the fact that russian tanks offer very satisfying performance for just a fraction of the price.
Which Abrams? Which tank will spot which first? Will they be frontally positioned? What about the smoke screen? Will they be assisted by recon if so by what kind, ATV troops? LAVs? UAVs? Unmounted infantry? None? Who has the high ground, what kind of terrain are we talking about?
I'm asking all these questions because we can discuss hardware and prices but combat scenarions are out of the question, you're not able to predict the conditions and war is not a face off ring neither will said tanks meet in perfect head on charge.
To give you an example, if guided by UAVs the T-72s can spank the enemy tank from beyond a hill or a ridge,same goes the other way so dont construct scenarios, its pointless.
lolwhassup
Active member
I will only say this once, don't put words in my mouth. I never said that tanks didn't cost a pretty penny. I never said the MBTs were viable to a small nation. (Of course there are exceptions such as Denmark or Switzerland.)
Now the point I was attempting make here was an equipment point not a combat scenario. I was simply trying to tell this, the M829A3 is a tank shell that can penetrate the T-72B on the first hit. That is a statement about equipment no? Now don't go around telling me i can't make a statement about equipment, when you said and I quote,
"Suffice to say T-72B can frontally gut M1A2 from 2000 meters using an ATGM.
As for upgraded M60A3 will not penetrate later versions of T-72s and T-64s frontally unless its using an ATGM, while a single shot (depending on the ammunition) from any of these and including later T-55 models will leave the M60 of any variant as a smoking wreck."
I admit, I did get too descriptive about how the Abrams would fire the round and what it would do, but my point was about equipment pure and simple. I am trying to say here is that a modern MBT like the M1A2 Abrams or Leopard 2A6 can use it's regular ammo to bust open T-72s like tin cans frontally, while the T-72 needs an ATGM, to do so.
Well I've had enough of arguing with someone who turns a formal debate into an insulting one so I'm done with posting on this topic.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
As the question was about affordable tanks for a small country, I aggreed on the old Soviet tanks on the basis of two different things.
A) The small country in question would only need tanks for self defence, and a large amount of properly deployed T-55's in defensive positions would pose such a threath to an attacking force that it would make an invasion too expensive, that is if the same enemy is denied the airsuperiority needed to take out these otherwise obsolete tanks by airstrikes.
SAM sites and AA artillery is still effective in a defensive position.
B) The small country in question would be left with such outdated armoured capability that attacking a neighbouring country would be an expensive way to commit suicide, unless they posess the effective capability to gain absolute airsuperiority in other ways than SAM sites and AA artillery.
Hence, a "garant mira" in my opinion.
The idea is not to wage war, but to keep peace.
A) The small country in question would only need tanks for self defence, and a large amount of properly deployed T-55's in defensive positions would pose such a threath to an attacking force that it would make an invasion too expensive, that is if the same enemy is denied the airsuperiority needed to take out these otherwise obsolete tanks by airstrikes.
SAM sites and AA artillery is still effective in a defensive position.
B) The small country in question would be left with such outdated armoured capability that attacking a neighbouring country would be an expensive way to commit suicide, unless they posess the effective capability to gain absolute airsuperiority in other ways than SAM sites and AA artillery.
Hence, a "garant mira" in my opinion.
The idea is not to wage war, but to keep peace.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Where have SAM Sites and AAA been effective even in defensive positions, I will give you Iraq twice, Libya and Yugoslavia as examples of where it has been almost completely ineffective after the first day and these were considered fairly extensive systems although outdated.
Quite honestly said "small country" would be far better off inviting the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or Americans (depending on alignment) to build a couple of bases and leaving defence to them.
Quite honestly said "small country" would be far better off inviting the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or Americans (depending on alignment) to build a couple of bases and leaving defence to them.
Panzercracker
Active member
Monty, you listed all the relevant conflicts, Serbia which downed and damaged quite a few fighters is another example.
Lets say i'm running a small state like Czech Republic or Hungary, i'd definitey go for T-64s, buying them from Russia for a bargain price and upgrading them to face off against Leo2A4s or M1A1s would still save me a good buck, not to mention russian vehicles are exceptionally cheap in maintance.
I'm not sure if i can post my units maint cost (i dont think so) but our PT-91s cost only 60% of what the other Bats Leo2A4s.
Lets say i'm running a small state like Czech Republic or Hungary, i'd definitey go for T-64s, buying them from Russia for a bargain price and upgrading them to face off against Leo2A4s or M1A1s would still save me a good buck, not to mention russian vehicles are exceptionally cheap in maintance.
I'm not sure if i can post my units maint cost (i dont think so) but our PT-91s cost only 60% of what the other Bats Leo2A4s.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Which of those countries won any of its conflicts against NATO or the US?
We clearly share different philosophies on how this should be done, I prefer the idea that smaller high quality armed forces are better than large low quality arm forces for small countries.
As far as buying T-64s off Russia go I would sooner look at picking up 2nd hand Leo 1 or 2's in smaller numbers and maintain them than be upgrading out dated technology.
Once again I will also ask why you would want an armoured force in either the Czech Republic or Hungary I would suggest both countries would be better off with helicopters and ATGM's as there is no way either country could build an armoured force capable of coming close to parity with its strongest neighbours, given the size and economies of both countries all they can really do is delay an attack until their various treaties kick in and support arrives and I just don't believe T-64s could provide that even in bulk.
I love armour really but the reality is that it can and in most sane countries it will not operate alone and without at least air parity, I am prepared to bet a sizable chuck of cash that had the Iraqi air force managed to defend its air space US tanks would still be parked at the border.
To me this would be like New Zealand buying armour, sure it looks nice at ANZAC day parades but if we are relying on them as a form of defence we have really screwed up.
Last edited:
84RFK
Active member
Modern warfare is just another war with some updated technology, and airsuperiority still hasn't won a single war.
Even though you may bomb the enemy into a gravel-pit, you still have to march in the infantry and roll in armour in order to occupy this pile of rubble.
And that can't be done if the enemy still have 50% of a large armoured capability intact, no matter how obsolete and outdated it may be.
Even though you may bomb the enemy into a gravel-pit, you still have to march in the infantry and roll in armour in order to occupy this pile of rubble.
And that can't be done if the enemy still have 50% of a large armoured capability intact, no matter how obsolete and outdated it may be.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
Reading this discussion, I'd prefer to have a small, high-quality armored force.
84RFK
Active member
As your neighbour in north are supporting my idea (quantity is also a quality) I have no problem understanding your point of wiew, but my thoughts are based on a defensive tactic, and not aggression.
In the North Korean case I suppose it's the other way around... :-?
Panzercracker
Active member
Amen. Also if you have a small force you will not be able to have any meaningfull reserves, one catastrophy and its over.
84RFK
Active member
Exactly, having the best and most up to date air force in the world will not help you when both the airfields you could afford to have is bombed into a gravel pit, and you have no place else to land...
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So you are already conceding air superiority?
I would suggest that North Korea flying everything from Mig 17s to a few Mig 29s and most of them Chinese knock offs would be hard pushed to gain air superiority over any country flying a half way modern air force and as such any armour it has will be little more than cannon fodder.
I tend to believe that if you secure air space then you have already gone a long way towards securing your borders.
The T-55 is the solution for a lot of countries. Especially since many of these countries have neighbors with older tanks anyway it makes sense to keep the tried and true. For example, a country like Mozambique should not be spending its money on fancy modern weaponry, it should be speding money on feeding its nearly starving population. That's why they sensibly stick with T-54's.
GHR
Active member
A T-55 is an inexpensive tank but it is still a tank and as such constitutes a threat to be defeated. To conclude that an ancient weapon system does not pose a threat to a modern system is an overestimation that can kill you. All it takes is a lucky shot from a T-55 and your high-tech tank is out of the game.
But there are a lot of factors you are forgetting to take into your consideration IMO. If you are a small country so is your defense budget and it's not enough just to buy a tank. One of the biggest problems with tanks is maintenance. Tanks require constant maintenance from their crew and it usually doesn't take much for a tank to break down. This means tanks need plenty of spare parts, recovery vehicles and time to conduct repairs and maintenance. In order to keep a tank in peak condition about eight hours a day must be spent on maintenance when the tank is very active. That is a lot of hours and it can increase according to climate and geography.
Consider the many aspects of maintenance. The tracks usually wear out after one thousand kilometers. Then you have to worry about the wheels and rollers. Replacing a track is a tough demanding job because they are made of metal and very heavy. The engine is another pain in the neck. Moving around all that metal puts a lot of stress on the engine. The last thing a tanker wants is for his engine to break down in the middle of a battle. The weapons also need attention. If they aren't cleaned they can jam when they are desperately needed. A tank that has its main gun become inoperable for some reason is nothing more than a heavily armored machine gun on treads. The electronics are a nightmare of their own. The more advanced a tank is the more electronics it has. Targeting and range computers, night vision optics, communication gear, laser range finders, ect. All that slamming around the countryside is pretty hard on the electronics which can be somewhat fragile. Military electronics are built tough but still they take a lot of abuse. Losing a radio antenna could mean losing communications and that is bad karma in a combat situation. Tanks are very logistics intensive. They need fuel, the crews need food and water, they need heavy ammo and they need spare parts and replacement parts. Some tanks don't carry more than fifty rounds. With each round weighing over fifty pounds, getting enough ammo for a platoon can be a daunting task.
In most militaries a tank platoon will have three to five tanks and if you consider how many people you need just to keep one tank operative, then it may well turn out to be very expensive for a small nation to buy an old tank, although it is cheap.
If I was a small nation, I'd spend my money on training as many infantrymen as possible and then let them be part of a Home Guard and let them have their arms in their homes. Time and time again it has been proven that a nation could be bombed to oblivion, but would not admit defeat until its citizens looked out to find foreign soldiers on their streets. Attacking a nation where perhaps the majority of the population is armed and are part of armed forces is something one should take seriously.
But there are a lot of factors you are forgetting to take into your consideration IMO. If you are a small country so is your defense budget and it's not enough just to buy a tank. One of the biggest problems with tanks is maintenance. Tanks require constant maintenance from their crew and it usually doesn't take much for a tank to break down. This means tanks need plenty of spare parts, recovery vehicles and time to conduct repairs and maintenance. In order to keep a tank in peak condition about eight hours a day must be spent on maintenance when the tank is very active. That is a lot of hours and it can increase according to climate and geography.
Consider the many aspects of maintenance. The tracks usually wear out after one thousand kilometers. Then you have to worry about the wheels and rollers. Replacing a track is a tough demanding job because they are made of metal and very heavy. The engine is another pain in the neck. Moving around all that metal puts a lot of stress on the engine. The last thing a tanker wants is for his engine to break down in the middle of a battle. The weapons also need attention. If they aren't cleaned they can jam when they are desperately needed. A tank that has its main gun become inoperable for some reason is nothing more than a heavily armored machine gun on treads. The electronics are a nightmare of their own. The more advanced a tank is the more electronics it has. Targeting and range computers, night vision optics, communication gear, laser range finders, ect. All that slamming around the countryside is pretty hard on the electronics which can be somewhat fragile. Military electronics are built tough but still they take a lot of abuse. Losing a radio antenna could mean losing communications and that is bad karma in a combat situation. Tanks are very logistics intensive. They need fuel, the crews need food and water, they need heavy ammo and they need spare parts and replacement parts. Some tanks don't carry more than fifty rounds. With each round weighing over fifty pounds, getting enough ammo for a platoon can be a daunting task.
In most militaries a tank platoon will have three to five tanks and if you consider how many people you need just to keep one tank operative, then it may well turn out to be very expensive for a small nation to buy an old tank, although it is cheap.
If I was a small nation, I'd spend my money on training as many infantrymen as possible and then let them be part of a Home Guard and let them have their arms in their homes. Time and time again it has been proven that a nation could be bombed to oblivion, but would not admit defeat until its citizens looked out to find foreign soldiers on their streets. Attacking a nation where perhaps the majority of the population is armed and are part of armed forces is something one should take seriously.
Tanks are designed on the three precepts of firepower, protection and mobility. Tying them down to fixed fortifications destroys the finely balanced calculations. The Germans in WWII took to digging tanks into the ground or even bricking them up in buildings. It was an acute sign of desperation. Tanks are offensive machines, once immobilized they just become sitting ducks with a big set of cross hairs painted on the side. Also the best way to kill a tank is to use another tank. Failing that infantry or aircraft are your second and third options.
Last edited:
Zipperhead
Active member
Okay, this is another thread I've been watching, so here goes.
The Leopard 1 is hopelessly out dated. It has a Riffled 105 Tank gun, it's armour is the same thickness all around, offering no higher protection in the frontal arc, it's power pack is crude and noisy. And that's why it's the perfect tank in Afghanistan. It doesn't need to take out enemy tanks at 3km. So the 105mm HESH is the perfect round in a counter insurgency. The highest threat is from IED so the even distribution of protection is an asset, and the power pack might be slow, but it's indistructable.
So anyone wondering what tank would be the best bang for the buck has really missed the question. What is the threat and effects I want to acheive. If your most likely threat is a well equiped foreign force than Anti Armour capability is foremost. If your worried about the local swim team rioting than maybe a PT76 would be a better bet.
The Leopard 1 is hopelessly out dated. It has a Riffled 105 Tank gun, it's armour is the same thickness all around, offering no higher protection in the frontal arc, it's power pack is crude and noisy. And that's why it's the perfect tank in Afghanistan. It doesn't need to take out enemy tanks at 3km. So the 105mm HESH is the perfect round in a counter insurgency. The highest threat is from IED so the even distribution of protection is an asset, and the power pack might be slow, but it's indistructable.
So anyone wondering what tank would be the best bang for the buck has really missed the question. What is the threat and effects I want to acheive. If your most likely threat is a well equiped foreign force than Anti Armour capability is foremost. If your worried about the local swim team rioting than maybe a PT76 would be a better bet.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
However, it should be noted that the T-55, which were used by Iraq during the war against the coalition, was utterly wiped out by the Abrams. Hence, the reason for the North Korean Pokpungho's creation (North Korean officials were shocked at the T-55s losses, and previous North Korean tanks were based upon the T-55)