Jump to content


Leopard 2 , most succesful modern NATO MBT ?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

mttspiii #41 Posted 21 August 2015 - 12:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32795 battles
  • 17,126
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostTrIpMo, on 21 August 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

 

Weebl1 +1 for you. You are replying to him and keep your head cool.

I could already see that Innocent_Civilian has no experience, or does not know what he is talking about in his first reply here in this thread. You are still willing to keep replying him, and you remain cool headed. :o

 

Innocent_Civilian is probably a civilian I guess?

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Kyokushin_TrIp #42 Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:10 PM

    Sent to in-game Coventry, forever!

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33028 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012

View Postmttspiii, on 21 August 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

 

Innocent_Civilian is probably a civilian I guess?

 

HAHAHAHA, you think so? I guess you are right :)

Wot EU Beta tester name: TrIpMo || WOT NA Player name: TrIpMo || WOT EU Player name: ThaTrip || WOT SEA Player name: KyokushinTrIp <-- active


Computer Specs: Corsair Obsidian 550D || Seasonic M12II 620W Bronze Evo Edition || Asus Maximus Hero VII Formula || Intel I7 4790K || Coolermaster Hyper 212X || Gigabyte GTX980 G1 Gaming 4Gb || Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250Gb || 3Tb Black Western Digital 7200rpm SATA || 16Gb RAM DDR3 G-Skill RipJawX 2400 / C11 || 27" 4k LCD Screen Overlord Tempest X270OC || Windows 10 64bits

(if I don't reply, that is because I got a permanent chat ban. Still waiting for my special decal)
 

 


terminator999 #43 Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:36 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24833 battles
  • 822
  • [EYRIE] EYRIE
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

 

 

 

View PostWeebl1, on 21 August 2015 - 10:22 AM, said:

My whole argument was against your assertation that tanks are effective in urban combat. They are not. Infantry is effective in urban combat, tanks can be effective as support for that infantry, in certain situations, and generally only in assymetric warfare.

Blasting buildings into rubble just provides more hard cover for infantry, it does not deny them cover.

 

+1. Tanks have never been great at Urban combat.

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 20 August 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

Really, not effective in urban environment? Then can you explain to me why the military ALWAYS uses armored columns in cities if possible? Even the police does the same.

 

As for molotov cocktails, they are only effective against open-top vehicles or if you manage to get near enough an engine vent or something. Otherwise, it's useless. Tanks are made of steel, it takes quite abit of heat to destroy it, petrol fire don't burn that hot. That tactics works only in films.

 

Think about it, if poorly trained 17 year olds with petrol bombs are so effective against tanks then more countries would be employing them in their anti-armor strategy, yet in reality, it is usually used as a last desperate resort.

 

Tanks don't go anywhere WITHOUT support, why do think armored divisions have infantry with them?

 

Tanks work in armoured columns because of infantry, armoured cars and APC that will shoot the 17 year old as soon as he pops his head up. On their own tanks are useless in cities.

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 20 August 2015 - 10:17 AM, said:

 

Tanks are still effective in urban combat. Air superiority is fine in open terrain, but it is still very hard to manuever aircraft when there are a lot of obstacles like buildings, etc.

 

Air superiority is overrated since the vaunted high tech jet planes venerated by the almighty superpowers are not really tested against effective anti-air capabilities of modern armies.

 

All that "shock and awe" hooplah was basically between one country with up-to-date aircraft and weaponry against some third world country armed with cold war relics.

 

 

 

I also don't see how this has anything to do with my quote. Perhaps you didn't read it?

And modern tanks work well against aircraft as almost all have anti-aircraft MGs. So no, tanks are not effective in Urban combat. Tanks are still good but as per my quote;

View Postterminator999, on 19 August 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

As tank battles nowadays are usually between two countries with little tactics or resources you can't really devise a tanks effectiveness by combat. However the Leopard 2 is widely used and revolutionary. Not "best" but effective and widely-used.

 

if you read it properly then are you suggesting that USSR and USA, both major powers, have had tank battles. No two MAJOR powers have fought since the cold war, which never escalated into real combat.

 


 

signature.png

 

 


Nekrosmas #44 Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:13 PM

    Corporal

  • Member
  • 12159 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    04-23-2013

Modern Tanks Discussion! Yes!

*Taking notes*

 

As for my opinion, the most successful NATO tank is..... Nothing.

None have enough Quality (Not to mention Quantity) to negate the "Quantity" difference with USSR. M1(A1/A2)s, Lepoard 1/2, AMXs, Leclerc, Challengers - Nope.

 

The only tank after 1960s that had Both Good enough "Quality" and "Quantity" is the T-72.

But the Russian will never create another of such design again. T-80 and T-90 is just Basically T-72s With some Fancy but un-practical Equipments.

Yet to see another classic design after it from any nation.


Edited by Alvin1020, 22 August 2015 - 02:14 PM.

React; Adopt; Study; Learn. Whining doesn't help anyone.


Innocent_Civilian #45 Posted 24 August 2015 - 01:21 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View PostWeebl1, on 20 August 2015 - 10:22 PM, said:

My whole argument was against your assertation that tanks are effective in urban combat. They are not. Infantry is effective in urban combat, tanks can be effective as support for that infantry, in certain situations, and generally only in assymetric warfare.

Blasting buildings into rubble just provides more hard cover for infantry, it does not deny them cover.

 

And they are effective in urban combat, as it is proven time and time again, which is the primary reason they are still being deployed in urban environments even in modern times.

 

Even your own argument supports this, why else would tanks be used to support infantry in urban areas if they are, as you say, inefficient in that type of terrain? Why waste valuable resource?

 

Sure, rubble can be used as cover, so what of it? It would not matter much when the infantry is too busy running from flying shells and debris to make use of it. After all, the quickest way to clear a room full of enemy infantry is to blow it up.



Innocent_Civilian #46 Posted 24 August 2015 - 01:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View Postterminator999, on 21 August 2015 - 10:36 PM, said:

 

 

 

 

+1. Tanks have never been great at Urban combat.

 

Tanks work in armoured columns because of infantry, armoured cars and APC that will shoot the 17 year old as soon as he pops his head up. On their own tanks are useless in cities.

 

I also don't see how this has anything to do with my quote. Perhaps you didn't read it?

And modern tanks work well against aircraft as almost all have anti-aircraft MGs. So no, tanks are not effective in Urban combat. Tanks are still good but as per my quote;

 

if you read it properly then are you suggesting that USSR and USA, both major powers, have had tank battles. No two MAJOR powers have fought since the cold war, which never escalated into real combat.

 

 

And that 50cal or something place on tanks is probably for decorations too right, it can't be possibly used for infantry or that tanks carry more anti-personnel ammo more than anti-tank shells is just a minor logistics glich?

 

Tanks can't possibly defend themselves against 17 year olds without the vaunted armored cars and APCs and their gun

 

And here I thought that tanks were designed to break through infantry lines.

 

APC were attached to armored columns to transport infantry because otherwise the tanks would leave them b

 

I did not suggest that those tank battles are in any way a fight between nations of equal strength

 

It is quite funny how many say that tanks are ineffective in places like cities and yet can't adequately explain why they are still being deployed in such areas, stubburness perhaps? Too much Stalingrad themed movies?

 

Also, sorry for not being able to use the multiquote system and not being able to address some point or even sometimes misunderstanding some. I am currently using a cellphone to access the forums and sometimes I am having trouble scrolling up and down, having small screens is really a hassle, maybe I should get a Tab or something.....:).


Edited by Innocent_Civilian, 24 August 2015 - 01:51 AM.


Retia #47 Posted 24 August 2015 - 05:26 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 22662 battles
  • 10,360
  • [DPS] DPS
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012

Holy potatah.

Cal made this thread over a year ago to troll people.

It never got anywhere back then, but now it sure is doing well at baiting.

 

Oh well, just shows again that NJG-1 poasting is forever best poasting.


 

 

Playing without Mods would be boring.

 

 


terminator999 #48 Posted 24 August 2015 - 12:35 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24833 battles
  • 822
  • [EYRIE] EYRIE
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 24 August 2015 - 05:21 AM, said:

 

And they are effective in urban combat, as it is proven time and time again, which is the primary reason they are still being deployed in urban environments even in modern times.

 

Even your own argument supports this, why else would tanks be used to support infantry in urban areas if they are, as you say, inefficient in that type of terrain? Why waste valuable resource?

 

Sure, rubble can be used as cover, so what of it? It would not matter much when the infantry is too busy running from flying shells and debris to make use of it. After all, the quickest way to clear a room full of enemy infantry is to blow it up.

 

If only you could read. Tanks on their own aren't (very) effective in urban combat. They do work but anyone can sticky-grenade there tracks the blast a helpless tank (gun depression, tanks can't shoot straight down).

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 24 August 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

 

[1] that 50cal or something place on tanks is probably for decorations too right, it can't be possibly used for infantry or that tanks carry more anti-personnel ammo more than anti-tank shells is just a minor logistics glich?

 

Tanks can't possibly defend themselves against 17 year olds without the vaunted armored cars and APCs and their gun

 

And here I thought that tanks were designed to break through infantry lines.

 

APC were attached to armored columns to transport infantry because otherwise the tanks would leave them b

 

I did not suggest that those tank battles are in any way a fight between nations of equal strength

 

It is quite funny how many say that tanks are ineffective in places like cities and yet can't adequately explain why they are still being deployed in such areas, stubburness perhaps? Too much Stalingrad themed movies?

 

Also, sorry for not being able to use the multiquote system and not being able to address some point or even sometimes misunderstanding some. I am currently using a cellphone to access the forums and sometimes I am having trouble scrolling up and down, having small screens is really a hassle, maybe I should get a Tab or something.....:).

 

1Yes because if a guys runs out from behinda building the tank can definitely traverse it's turret get the commander up and take aim before they enemy can take 5 steps. A soldier, meanwhile, would have tackled the 17-year-old and knifed him, or simply shot him as soon as he poked his head up.


 

That thing about not being fought between nations of equal strength:

1) It is often between two nations of similar strength, just that none of them are superpowers (e.g. USSR, USA, China, UK, Germany, France, etc.).

2) THEN WHY DID YOU QUOTE ME?!?


 

That part when you are being an [edited].

did you even take history in high school? Take can work in urban environments, heck the open plan of Kharkov made for 3 of the greatest tank battles in history (as you haven't brought this up. even though it would significantly improve your pathetic argument I'll just presume you have never heard of it). However Kharkov has wide streets ideal for tank fighting. Driving through Beijing meanwhile would render tanks practically useless.


 

Again, tanks weren't designed for urban combat. They can be highly effective in urban combat, but not alone.

Are you arguing out of ignorance or stubbornness?


 


 

signature.png

 

 


Innocent_Civilian #49 Posted 24 August 2015 - 01:09 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View Postterminator999, on 24 August 2015 - 04:35 AM, said:

 

If only you could read. Tanks on their own aren't (very) effective in urban combat. They do work but anyone can sticky-grenade there tracks the blast a helpless tank (gun depression, tanks can't shoot straight down).

 

1Yes because if a guys runs out from behinda building the tank can definitely traverse it's turret get the commander up and take aim before they enemy can take 5 steps. A soldier, meanwhile, would have tackled the 17-year-old and knifed him, or simply shot him as soon as he poked his head up.


 

That thing about not being fought between nations of equal strength:

1) It is often between two nations of similar strength, just that none of them are superpowers (e.g. USSR, USA, China, UK, Germany, France, etc.).

2) THEN WHY DID YOU QUOTE ME?!?


 

That part when you are being an [edited].

did you even take history in high school? Take can work in urban environments, heck the open plan of Kharkov made for 3 of the greatest tank battles in history (as you haven't brought this up. even though it would significantly improve your pathetic argument I'll just presume you have never heard of it). However Kharkov has wide streets ideal for tank fighting. Driving through Beijing meanwhile would render tanks practically useless.


 

Again, tanks weren't designed for urban combat. They can be highly effective in urban combat, but not alone.

Are you arguing out of ignorance or stubbornness?


 

 

Never said that tanks ard supposed to be sent unsupported, and if tanks can't shoot down, they do have that big engine to use and tracks to move. It is mobile after all.

 

The ability of tanks to reduce fortified buildings to rubble and direct fire makes it highly effective.

 

Again, those machine guns on the tank is not a decoration, if your gun can't traverse, then use those. Also, not all tanks have long barrels.

 

And countries that are more or less equal in strength don't go to war that often, and usually only when they seriously miscalculated the opposition's ability. Wars are expensive, it would be bad if you can't finish it quickly. A battle between nations of equal strength would result in a war of attrition.

 

Also, manueverabilty is required for tanks in open field is correct, in urban areas, they are mobile fortresses. You seem to be fixed on the idea that tanks need a lot movement to be effective.

 

Tanks are not designed for urban combat? Tanks are made to deal with all type of scenarios, they are designed to be versatile, so that if there tracks can get them there, they could be usefull.


Edited by Innocent_Civilian, 24 August 2015 - 01:19 PM.


Innocent_Civilian #50 Posted 24 August 2015 - 01:13 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View PostRetia, on 23 August 2015 - 09:26 PM, said:

Holy potatah.

Cal made this thread over a year ago to troll people.

It never got anywhere back then, but now it sure is doing well at baiting.

 

Oh well, just shows again that NJG-1 poasting is forever best poasting.

 

LoL. It breaks the monotony.

terminator999 #51 Posted 29 August 2015 - 04:04 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24833 battles
  • 822
  • [EYRIE] EYRIE
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 24 August 2015 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

Never said that tanks ard supposed to be sent unsupported, and if tanks can't shoot down, they do have that big engine to use and tracks to move. It is mobile after all.

 

The ability of tanks to reduce fortified buildings to rubble and direct fire makes it highly effective.

 

Again, those machine guns on the tank is not a decoration, if your gun can't traverse, then use those. Also, not all tanks have long barrels.

 

And countries that are more or less equal in strength don't go to war that often, and usually only when they seriously miscalculated the opposition's ability. Wars are expensive, it would be bad if you can't finish it quickly. A battle between nations of equal strength would result in a war of attrition.

 

Also, manueverabilty is required for tanks in open field is correct, in urban areas, they are mobile fortresses. You seem to be fixed on the idea that tanks need a lot movement to be effective.

 

Tanks are not designed for urban combat? Tanks are made to deal with all type of scenarios, they are designed to be versatile, so that if there tracks can get them there, they could be usefull.

 

Well why were you arguing if our whole point was unsupported tanks get annihilated in cities?

Reducing buildings to rubble gives infantry more cover.

MGs are usually either located on front of turret, on top or in hull. The only ones that you can be referring to are the ones on top, so ever thought that the commander would be killed as soon as he poked his head up. Have you ever heard of depression it means:

LEOPARD2A6-BIG-08.jpg

doesn't work.

countries of equal strength war all the time. The middle east is a prime example. However major powers/ developed countries haven't really fought since the Korean war. That was my point. If you want to reply on this please spend at leat 10 hours reading modern history, as history doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours.

My argument isn't "tanks need mobility to be effective," it's tanks ON THEIR OWN aren't effective in cities.

Tanks work in urban combat. However to be highly effective in urban combat they need infantry support.

 


 

signature.png

 

 


Superzero #52 Posted 29 August 2015 - 10:03 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta-Tester
  • 69423 battles
  • 195
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    06-01-2012
Just ask any soldier or tanker if they like to move to fight in an urban environment. The answer is no. Reason being strategically, it is a very strong defensive location. It is not as simple as just driving a tank division into the city and shoot down every building. The advantage of the defender would be in 1) prep position 2) high ground support 3) choke point in key junction 4) unknown ambush point 5) booby trap 6) Friend or foe identification. Trying to push into a city is always difficult and the attribution rate for the attacker is high.

Kyokushin_TrIp #53 Posted 29 August 2015 - 07:22 PM

    Sent to in-game Coventry, forever!

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33028 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012
nvm, fking forum keep bugging out

Edited by TrIpMo, 29 August 2015 - 07:24 PM.

Wot EU Beta tester name: TrIpMo || WOT NA Player name: TrIpMo || WOT EU Player name: ThaTrip || WOT SEA Player name: KyokushinTrIp <-- active


Computer Specs: Corsair Obsidian 550D || Seasonic M12II 620W Bronze Evo Edition || Asus Maximus Hero VII Formula || Intel I7 4790K || Coolermaster Hyper 212X || Gigabyte GTX980 G1 Gaming 4Gb || Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250Gb || 3Tb Black Western Digital 7200rpm SATA || 16Gb RAM DDR3 G-Skill RipJawX 2400 / C11 || 27" 4k LCD Screen Overlord Tempest X270OC || Windows 10 64bits

(if I don't reply, that is because I got a permanent chat ban. Still waiting for my special decal)
 

 


Innocent_Civilian #54 Posted 02 September 2015 - 03:15 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View Postterminator999, on 28 August 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

 

Well why were you arguing if our whole point was unsupported tanks get annihilated in cities?

Reducing buildings to rubble gives infantry more cover.

MGs are usually either located on front of turret, on top or in hull. The only ones that you can be referring to are the ones on top, so ever thought that the commander would be killed as soon as he poked his head up. Have you ever heard of depression it means:

LEOPARD2A6-BIG-08.jpg

doesn't work.

countries of equal strength war all the time. The middle east is a prime example. However major powers/ developed countries haven't really fought since the Korean war. That was my point. If you want to reply on this please spend at leat 10 hours reading modern history, as history doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours.

My argument isn't "tanks need mobility to be effective," it's tanks ON THEIR OWN aren't effective in cities.

Tanks work in urban combat. However to be highly effective in urban combat they need infantry support.

 

 

LoL, again, whoever said that unsupported tanks get annihilated in cities? Tanks get support because it is simply good tactics, it makes for better reaction to any situation.

 

Reducing buildings do indeed increase infantry cover, but then again, so what? There is also the option of blowing up those buildings while the enemy infantry are inside.

 

As for getting around the MGs, you have to really get close or going way around to escape its firelane, same with getting around the gun depression of tanks, or to plant those stickies and cocktails. That is of course only possible if you don't get noticed while doing so.

 

As for killing that MG gunner, well, it is possible, but that is a common risk in battle. It could also be easily be that the MG gunner could kill those infantry first. In short, it is a question of who is a better shot. Also, there is plenty of cover, since the tanks armor will be protecting most of the gunners body from enemy fire.

 

As for countries of equal strength going to war, it does not happen often at all, even in the middle-east.

 

And here I thought your argument was "tanks are ineffective in urban areas",so it got an bumped up with "on their own" in the end, huh.....



Kyokushin_TrIp #55 Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:40 PM

    Sent to in-game Coventry, forever!

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33028 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    04-13-2012

View PostInnocent_Civilian, on 02 September 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

 

LoL, again, whoever said that unsupported tanks get annihilated in cities? Tanks get support because it is simply good tactics, it makes for better reaction to any situation.

 

Reducing buildings do indeed increase infantry cover, but then again, so what? There is also the option of blowing up those buildings while the enemy infantry are inside.

 

As for getting around the MGs, you have to really get close or going way around to escape its firelane, same with getting around the gun depression of tanks, or to plant those stickies and cocktails. That is of course only possible if you don't get noticed while doing so.

 

As for killing that MG gunner, well, it is possible, but that is a common risk in battle. It could also be easily be that the MG gunner could kill those infantry first. In short, it is a question of who is a better shot. Also, there is plenty of cover, since the tanks armor will be protecting most of the gunners body from enemy fire.

 

As for countries of equal strength going to war, it does not happen often at all, even in the middle-east.

 

And here I thought your argument was "tanks are ineffective in urban areas",so it got an bumped up with "on their own" in the end, huh.....

 

You sure are a stubborn fellow.

OK I will post some stuff here. Where I point out the benefits of a tank in urban warfare, but also the consequences.

 

Tank-heavy forces could be at a severe disadvantage during urban combat, but a few tanks working with the infantry can be very effective, especially if they work well together at the small-unit level. Tank, infantry, and engineer task forces are normally formed to attack a fortified area. Individual tanks or pairs of tanks can work together with rifle squads or platoons. Tanks need infantry on the ground to provide security in urban areas and to designate targets.

The first and most fundamental lesson learned from recent operations in urban areas is the value of the fully integrated combined arms team. There is no denying the value of light infantry forces during urban combat. However, urban combat never should be considered a purely infantry task.

Fighting in urban areas is centered around prepared positions in houses and buildings. Such positions cover street approaches and are protected by mines, obstacles, and booby traps. Therefore, bridges, overpasses, and buildings must be inspected and cleared of mines before they are used.

Tanks need infantry support when the two elements are working together. Do not leave tanks alone because they are not prepared to provide local security during the operation. Tanks are extremely vulnerable to dismounted attack when operating on urban terrain. Tanks are most vulnerable and need local security when infantry are in the process of clearing buildings. Tanks must remain relatively stationary for prolonged periods allowing threat AT teams to maneuver to a position of advantage.

The infantry normally leads movement through urban areas. The tanks follow and provide close overwatch. If the infantry discovers an enemy position or encounters resistance, the tanks immediately respond with supporting fire to fix the enemy in place or suppress him and allow the infantry to develop the situation. After sufficient time to develop the situation or conduct short-range reconnaissance, the infantry squad leader directs the tank to move, if necessary, and identifies specific targets for the tank to engage.

Tanks can be used to carry ammunition, water, and other supplies to support the urban fight.
 

If fields of fire are restricted to streets, hull-down positions should be used to gain cover and fire directly down streets. From those positions, tanks are protected and can move to alternate positions rapidly. Buildings collapsing from enemy fires are a minimal hazard to the armored vehicle and crew.

At times, the tank platoon may be required to transport infantrymen on its tanks. This is done only when contact is not expected. If the tank platoon is moving as part of a larger force and is tasked to provide security for the move, the lead section or element should not carry infantry.

 

 

Let's go a little further in details:

 

Why Tanks are Effective in Urban Environments

 

The answer is to this question is very simple: heavy armor provides increased survivability. In the past doctrine has placed an emphasis on the use of infantry in urban environments, but during and after the 2003 war in Iraq, tanks took on an important role-a role that could not be filled effectively by a lightly armored mobile gun platform.

 

Brute Force

Soldiers have learned that maintaining continual situational awareness in urban warfare is very difficult. With buildings and obstacles in such close proximity enemy forces can appear almost instantly, leaving the attackers at a disadvantage. The tank compensates for this by being able resist small arms or heavier fire during ambushes while the crew can take the enemy under fire immediately without requiring cover. Once the insurgents have revealed their positions they become targets for the accompanying infantry and the tank itself.

Properly constructed obstacles and barricades can bring infantry to a halt in an urban environment. Infantry may be unable to breach barriers without exposing themselves to heavy enemy fire and in most street fights there is no flanking position. With powerful engines (and in some cases dozer blades) tanks can demolish barricades or destroy obstacles with direct fire from the main gun to lead the advance. While performing in this role, the tank can also use machines guns to attack the enemy and provide cover for infantry. Tanks are fire resistant and in most cases burning obstacles may also be breached without undue risk to the vehicle or crew.

The tank has an inherent psychological advantage of creating fear among the enemy. During World War Two, the appearance or mention of Tiger tanks could panic Allied troops and tank commanders. This effect is amplified in an urban setting where the sheer size and enormous noise generated by a tank can be overwhelming. Some of the literature on Iraq states that insurgents had a disproportionate fear of being engaged by the main gun despite the fact most were killed by onboard machine guns. This phenomenon also works the in the opposite fashion for friendly troops by boosting morale. The arrival of a 60-ton armored behemoth that is impervious to enemy fire and sports a 105 mm cannon can instill a great deal of confidence in friendly troops.

 

Fire Power

The tank brings incredibly accurate fire power to the battlefield. In urban battles, tanks provide the “precision fire” that aircraft cannot match. Most post-World War Two tanks are armed with a stabilized main gun that ranges in size between 105mm to 120 mm. Tanks can usually fire a selection of specialized shells for attacking other tanks, destroying fortifications or even engaging enemy helicopters. In urban settings, tanks generally use high explosive shells to attack targets. These rounds can easily defeat most personnel concentrations, bunkers, technicals or enemy light armor that may otherwise pin down infantry. During battles in Iraq, there are records of Abrams tanks simply driving up to a bunker, while under heavy small arms or RPG fire, and destroying it with a round with from the main gun. This approach is very basic and allows the tank to capitalize on the marriage of superb armor and enormous fire power.

Aside from the main gun, tanks also bring a number of different caliber machine guns to a battle. The Abrams tanks used in Iraq carried a coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun that fired thousands of rounds in urban engagements and accounted for the greatest number of killed or wound insurgents. Many tankers reported changing out coaxial machine guns on a regular basis due to such heavy use. In some instances, tank commanders and loaders used .50 caliber or 7.62 mm machine guns mounted by their hatches on top of the tank turret. In built up areas a number of tank commanders preferred to fight in the hatch “open” position so they could maintain better situational awareness add their firepower to the main gun and coaxial weapons. In Iraq, as in previous conflicts, some tanks carried infantry on the rear deck during urban operations. These troops provided accurate small arms fire and close-in protection for the tank. This relationship was totally symbiotic as tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan not only provided significant fire power for infantry operations, but were used as bullet shields to recover personnel trapped in insurgent ambushes or wounded soldiers.

 

Conventional doctrine has historically focused on using infantry in built-up areas as tanks face many disadvantages while operating in urban areas. Visibility is one of the biggest problems encountered by tank crews. If a tank is fighting with the hatch in the “closed” position visibility is limited to the viewports and/or displays screens. This gives insurgents a great deal of cover in getting close to the tank to use an explosive device or disable critical equipment. This problem is usually addressed by assigning supporting infantry to protect the tank. In some instances, tanks crews can take advantage of their heavy armor and provide mutual support by using coaxial machine gun fire to “sweep” enemy troops off one another.

 

Restrictive Environment

Small and crowded city streets can be a challenge for a regular vehicle let alone a tank. While a tank can crush or destroy many obstacles, taking such action may not be in the best interest of the mission. Tank commanders and drivers need to be aware of potential entanglements, such as telephone poles or light standards that can stop a turret from rotating or electrical wires that may adversely affect the crew or onboard systems. Close-in fighting also puts the tank at a disadvantage as it can only elevate or depress weapons to a certain extent. Trying to attack rooftop targets or prone troops at street level target may be impossible. In these kinds of situations situational awareness, good planning, and accompanying infantry are critical to the success of the mission.

Big Weapons

One the lessons learned by the military in Iraq was that the use of main gun Sabot (amour piercing) ammunition or .50 caliber machine gun rounds world penetrate many buildings and cause inadvertent civilian casualties or collateral damage. During fighting in Sadr City (Iraq), US tankers observed that HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds from the 105mm main gun exploded at the site of impact, then dissipated. This discovery led to increased use of the main gun and light caliber machine guns during close in fighting.

 

Enemy Armor

In urban warfare the advantage of the first shot usually goes to the defender. This advantage can be used by the enemy to negate some of the differences between modern and older armor. By placing tanks in strategic ambush locations, older armor may be able take advantage of degraded situational awareness to fire the first shot. In short, the urban environment works to provide older and/or lower quality armor with a chance to maximize the use of their older systems against superior weapons and better trained crews

 

Logistics

Tanks require a great deal of logistical support in order to be effective. Fuel, spare parts, ammunition, and regular maintenance are all critical to keeping a tank combat ready. Tanks absorb a great deal of enemy fire in close quarters fighting and the resulting maintenance needs are very high. Due to these very basic, yet extensive requirements, fielding a force of tanks is not an option for many nations.

 


Wot EU Beta tester name: TrIpMo || WOT NA Player name: TrIpMo || WOT EU Player name: ThaTrip || WOT SEA Player name: KyokushinTrIp <-- active


Computer Specs: Corsair Obsidian 550D || Seasonic M12II 620W Bronze Evo Edition || Asus Maximus Hero VII Formula || Intel I7 4790K || Coolermaster Hyper 212X || Gigabyte GTX980 G1 Gaming 4Gb || Samsung SSD 840 EVO 250Gb || 3Tb Black Western Digital 7200rpm SATA || 16Gb RAM DDR3 G-Skill RipJawX 2400 / C11 || 27" 4k LCD Screen Overlord Tempest X270OC || Windows 10 64bits

(if I don't reply, that is because I got a permanent chat ban. Still waiting for my special decal)
 

 


terminator999 #56 Posted 03 September 2015 - 12:56 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Member
  • 24833 battles
  • 822
  • [EYRIE] EYRIE
  • Member since:
    10-09-2014

View PostTrIpMo, on 03 September 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

 

You sure are a stubborn fellow.

OK I will post some stuff here. Where I point out the benefits of a tank in urban warfare, but also the consequences.

 

Tank-heavy forces could be at a severe disadvantage during urban combat, but a few tanks working with the infantry can be very effective, especially if they work well together at the small-unit level. Tank, infantry, and engineer task forces are normally formed to attack a fortified area. Individual tanks or pairs of tanks can work together with rifle squads or platoons. Tanks need infantry on the ground to provide security in urban areas and to designate targets.

The first and most fundamental lesson learned from recent operations in urban areas is the value of the fully integrated combined arms team. There is no denying the value of light infantry forces during urban combat. However, urban combat never should be considered a purely infantry task.

Fighting in urban areas is centered around prepared positions in houses and buildings. Such positions cover street approaches and are protected by mines, obstacles, and booby traps. Therefore, bridges, overpasses, and buildings must be inspected and cleared of mines before they are used.

Tanks need infantry support when the two elements are working together. Do not leave tanks alone because they are not prepared to provide local security during the operation. Tanks are extremely vulnerable to dismounted attack when operating on urban terrain. Tanks are most vulnerable and need local security when infantry are in the process of clearing buildings. Tanks must remain relatively stationary for prolonged periods allowing threat AT teams to maneuver to a position of advantage.

The infantry normally leads movement through urban areas. The tanks follow and provide close overwatch. If the infantry discovers an enemy position or encounters resistance, the tanks immediately respond with supporting fire to fix the enemy in place or suppress him and allow the infantry to develop the situation. After sufficient time to develop the situation or conduct short-range reconnaissance, the infantry squad leader directs the tank to move, if necessary, and identifies specific targets for the tank to engage.

Tanks can be used to carry ammunition, water, and other supplies to support the urban fight.
 

If fields of fire are restricted to streets, hull-down positions should be used to gain cover and fire directly down streets. From those positions, tanks are protected and can move to alternate positions rapidly. Buildings collapsing from enemy fires are a minimal hazard to the armored vehicle and crew.

At times, the tank platoon may be required to transport infantrymen on its tanks. This is done only when contact is not expected. If the tank platoon is moving as part of a larger force and is tasked to provide security for the move, the lead section or element should not carry infantry.

 

 

Let's go a little further in details:

 

Why Tanks are Effective in Urban Environments

 

The answer is to this question is very simple: heavy armor provides increased survivability. In the past doctrine has placed an emphasis on the use of infantry in urban environments, but during and after the 2003 war in Iraq, tanks took on an important role-a role that could not be filled effectively by a lightly armored mobile gun platform.

 

Brute Force

Soldiers have learned that maintaining continual situational awareness in urban warfare is very difficult. With buildings and obstacles in such close proximity enemy forces can appear almost instantly, leaving the attackers at a disadvantage. The tank compensates for this by being able resist small arms or heavier fire during ambushes while the crew can take the enemy under fire immediately without requiring cover. Once the insurgents have revealed their positions they become targets for the accompanying infantry and the tank itself.

Properly constructed obstacles and barricades can bring infantry to a halt in an urban environment. Infantry may be unable to breach barriers without exposing themselves to heavy enemy fire and in most street fights there is no flanking position. With powerful engines (and in some cases dozer blades) tanks can demolish barricades or destroy obstacles with direct fire from the main gun to lead the advance. While performing in this role, the tank can also use machines guns to attack the enemy and provide cover for infantry. Tanks are fire resistant and in most cases burning obstacles may also be breached without undue risk to the vehicle or crew.

The tank has an inherent psychological advantage of creating fear among the enemy. During World War Two, the appearance or mention of Tiger tanks could panic Allied troops and tank commanders. This effect is amplified in an urban setting where the sheer size and enormous noise generated by a tank can be overwhelming. Some of the literature on Iraq states that insurgents had a disproportionate fear of being engaged by the main gun despite the fact most were killed by onboard machine guns. This phenomenon also works the in the opposite fashion for friendly troops by boosting morale. The arrival of a 60-ton armored behemoth that is impervious to enemy fire and sports a 105 mm cannon can instill a great deal of confidence in friendly troops.

 

Fire Power

The tank brings incredibly accurate fire power to the battlefield. In urban battles, tanks provide the “precision fire” that aircraft cannot match. Most post-World War Two tanks are armed with a stabilized main gun that ranges in size between 105mm to 120 mm. Tanks can usually fire a selection of specialized shells for attacking other tanks, destroying fortifications or even engaging enemy helicopters. In urban settings, tanks generally use high explosive shells to attack targets. These rounds can easily defeat most personnel concentrations, bunkers, technicals or enemy light armor that may otherwise pin down infantry. During battles in Iraq, there are records of Abrams tanks simply driving up to a bunker, while under heavy small arms or RPG fire, and destroying it with a round with from the main gun. This approach is very basic and allows the tank to capitalize on the marriage of superb armor and enormous fire power.

Aside from the main gun, tanks also bring a number of different caliber machine guns to a battle. The Abrams tanks used in Iraq carried a coaxial 7.62 mm machinegun that fired thousands of rounds in urban engagements and accounted for the greatest number of killed or wound insurgents. Many tankers reported changing out coaxial machine guns on a regular basis due to such heavy use. In some instances, tank commanders and loaders used .50 caliber or 7.62 mm machine guns mounted by their hatches on top of the tank turret. In built up areas a number of tank commanders preferred to fight in the hatch “open” position so they could maintain better situational awareness add their firepower to the main gun and coaxial weapons. In Iraq, as in previous conflicts, some tanks carried infantry on the rear deck during urban operations. These troops provided accurate small arms fire and close-in protection for the tank. This relationship was totally symbiotic as tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan not only provided significant fire power for infantry operations, but were used as bullet shields to recover personnel trapped in insurgent ambushes or wounded soldiers.

 

Conventional doctrine has historically focused on using infantry in built-up areas as tanks face many disadvantages while operating in urban areas. Visibility is one of the biggest problems encountered by tank crews. If a tank is fighting with the hatch in the “closed” position visibility is limited to the viewports and/or displays screens. This gives insurgents a great deal of cover in getting close to the tank to use an explosive device or disable critical equipment. This problem is usually addressed by assigning supporting infantry to protect the tank. In some instances, tanks crews can take advantage of their heavy armor and provide mutual support by using coaxial machine gun fire to “sweep” enemy troops off one another.

 

Restrictive Environment

Small and crowded city streets can be a challenge for a regular vehicle let alone a tank. While a tank can crush or destroy many obstacles, taking such action may not be in the best interest of the mission. Tank commanders and drivers need to be aware of potential entanglements, such as telephone poles or light standards that can stop a turret from rotating or electrical wires that may adversely affect the crew or onboard systems. Close-in fighting also puts the tank at a disadvantage as it can only elevate or depress weapons to a certain extent. Trying to attack rooftop targets or prone troops at street level target may be impossible. In these kinds of situations situational awareness, good planning, and accompanying infantry are critical to the success of the mission.

Big Weapons

One the lessons learned by the military in Iraq was that the use of main gun Sabot (amour piercing) ammunition or .50 caliber machine gun rounds world penetrate many buildings and cause inadvertent civilian casualties or collateral damage. During fighting in Sadr City (Iraq), US tankers observed that HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds from the 105mm main gun exploded at the site of impact, then dissipated. This discovery led to increased use of the main gun and light caliber machine guns during close in fighting.

 

Enemy Armor

In urban warfare the advantage of the first shot usually goes to the defender. This advantage can be used by the enemy to negate some of the differences between modern and older armor. By placing tanks in strategic ambush locations, older armor may be able take advantage of degraded situational awareness to fire the first shot. In short, the urban environment works to provide older and/or lower quality armor with a chance to maximize the use of their older systems against superior weapons and better trained crews

 

Logistics

Tanks require a great deal of logistical support in order to be effective. Fuel, spare parts, ammunition, and regular maintenance are all critical to keeping a tank combat ready. Tanks absorb a great deal of enemy fire in close quarters fighting and the resulting maintenance needs are very high. Due to these very basic, yet extensive requirements, fielding a force of tanks is not an option for many nations.

 

 

+1. This is the truth innocent civilian. You can argue with this if you want but to do so would be to suggest that your ideas are better then the world top tacticians.

 

signature.png

 

 


Innocent_Civilian #57 Posted 04 September 2015 - 08:46 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 28336 battles
  • 118
  • [_COC_] _COC_
  • Member since:
    12-18-2012

View Postterminator999, on 03 September 2015 - 04:56 AM, said:

 

+1. This is the truth innocent civilian. You can argue with this if you want but to do so would be to suggest that your ideas are better then the world top tacticians.

 

Oh, I totally agree with him, mate. LoL. Pretty much the same points, just better worded.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users